Final 2007 Pasquotank Plan

Pasquotank River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan

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

PASQUOTANK 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 Pasquotank River basin. This plan is the third five-year update to the
Pasquotank 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..................................................................................................................................17
What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?.....................................................................17
Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning.....................................................................17
Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning.................................................................18
How You Can Get Involved ..............................................................................................18
Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations.........................................................18
Reference Materials...........................................................................................................20
How to Read the Basinwide Plan.......................................................................................20
Chapter 1 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-50......................................................................23
Including: Pasquotank River and Tributaries.........................................................................23
1.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................23
1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..........................................................................27
1.3 Status of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters....................................................28
1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................28
1.4.1 Newland Drainage Canal [AU# 30-3-1.5]....................................................28
1.4.2 Sawyers Creek [AU# 30-3-6].......................................................................29
1.4.3 Areneuse Creek [AU# 30-3-13-(1)]..............................................................29
1.4.4 Pasquotank River [AU# 30-3-(3) and AU# 30-3-(12)].................................30
1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-50....................................31
Chapter 2 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51......................................................................33
Including: Alligator River and portions of the Albemarle, Croatan and Roanoke Sounds 33
2.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................33
2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..........................................................................40
2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............41
2.3.1 West Shore Roanoke Sound Growing Area H-1..........................................42
Broad Creek [AU# 30-21-7a]...................................................................................43
Johns Creek [AU# 30-21-5]......................................................................................43
Pond Island [AU# 30-21-4a].....................................................................................43
Roanoke Sound [AU# 30-21b, 30-21c and 30-21d].................................................43
Rockhall Creek [AU# 30-21-6] ................................................................................43
Sand Beach Creek [AU# 30-21-5-1].........................................................................43
2.3.2 Croatan Sound Growing Area H-2 ...............................................................44
Baum Creek [AU# 30-20-5].....................................................................................44
Callaghan Creek [AU# 30-20-4]...............................................................................44
iv Table of Contents
Croatan Sound [AU# 30-20-(2)b, 30-20-(2)c, 30-20-(2)d, 30-20-(2)e and 30-20-
(2)f]...............................................................................................................45
Cut Through [AU# 30-20-8b]...................................................................................45
Oyster Creek [AU# 30-20-6]....................................................................................45
Spencer Creek [AU# 30-20-3]..................................................................................45
2.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................46
2.4.1 Shallowbag Bay [AU#30-21-3]....................................................................46
2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-51....................................46
Chapter 3 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-52......................................................................49
Including: Perquimans River, Burnt Mill Creek, Little River and Tributaries...................49
3.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................49
3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..........................................................................53
3.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............54
3.3.1 Little River [AU# 30-5-(1)a, 30-5-(1)b and 30-5-(2)]..................................54
3.3.2 Perquimans River [AU# 30-6-(3)]................................................................55
3.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................56
3.4.1 Perquimans River [AU# 30-6-(1)a and AU# 30-6-(1)b]..............................56
3.4.2 Burnt Mill Creek [AU# 30-8-1]....................................................................57
3.4.3 Bethel Creek [AU# 30-8-3] ..........................................................................57
3.4.4 Mill Creek [AU# 30-6-5-(2)]........................................................................57
3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-52....................................57
3.5.1 Wastewater Non-Discharge Runoff..............................................................58
3.5.2 Dioxin Contamination Fish Consumption Advisory....................................58
Chapter 4 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-53......................................................................59
Including: Scuppernong River, Kendrick Creek and Phelps Lake .......................................59
4.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................59
4.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..........................................................................63
4.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............64
4.3.1 Kendrick Creek [AU# 30-9-(1) and 30-9-(2)]..............................................64
4.3.2 Main Canal [AU# 30-9-4].............................................................................65
4.3.3 Scuppernong River [AU# 30-14-4-(1)] ........................................................65
4.3.4 Phelps Lake [AU# 30-14-4-6-1]...................................................................67
4.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................67
4.4.1 Bull Bay [AU# 30-14] ..................................................................................67
4.4.2 Riders Creek (First Creek) [AU# 30-14-4-10]..............................................68
4.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-53....................................68
4.5.1 Mercury Contamination – Fish Tissue Assessment......................................68
4.5.2 Dioxin Contamination- Fish Consumption Advisory...................................68
Chapter 5 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-54......................................................................69

Table of Contents v
Including: Currituck Sound, Coinjock Bay, Dowdys Bay, Sanders Bay and the North
River..................................................................................................................................69
5.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................69
5.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..........................................................................73
5.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............74
5.3.1 Currituck Sound [AU# 30-1b and 30-1c].....................................................74
5.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts.................................74
5.4.1 Unnamed Tributary to Cowells Creek [AU# 30-1-2-2-5-1-1]......................74
5.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-54....................................75
Chapter 6 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55......................................................................77
Including: Northeastern Pamlico Sound ..................................................................................77
6.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................77
6.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..........................................................................86
6.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters...............87
6.3.1 Stumpy Point Growing Area H-3 .................................................................88
Stumpy Point Bay [AU# 30-22-8a, 30-22-8b and 30-22-8c] ...................................88
6.3.2 Hatteras Growing Area H-4..........................................................................89
Austin Creek (Clubhouse Creek) [AU# 30-22-31]...................................................89
Brooks Creek [AU# 30-22-28].................................................................................89
Duck Ponds and Isaac Pond [AU# 30-22-30-1-1]....................................................90
Joe Saur Creek [AU# 30-22-29]...............................................................................90
Portions of the Pamlico Sound [AU# 30-22b, 30-22c, 30-22d and 30-22e].............90
Sandy Bay [AU# 30-22-30a]....................................................................................90
The Slash [AU# 30-22-30-1]....................................................................................90
6.3.3 Outer Banks Growing Area H-5...................................................................90
Askins Creek [AU# 30-22-24]..................................................................................91
Beach Slue [AU# 30-22-9].......................................................................................91
Blackmar Gut [AU# 30-22-13].................................................................................91
Cape Creek [AU# 30-22-27].....................................................................................91
Eagle Nest Bay [AU# 30-22-2].................................................................................91
Mill Creek [AU# 30-22-22]......................................................................................92
Portions of the Pamlico Sound [AU# 30-22f, 30-22g and 30-22h]..........................92
Peters Ditch [AU# 30-22-23]....................................................................................92
Chapter 7 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56......................................................................93
Including: Roanoke Sound and small portion of Albemarle and Currituck Sound ............93
7.1 Subbasin Overview...................................................................................................93
7.2 Use Support Assessment Summary........................................................................100
7.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.............101
7.3.1 Eastern Shore of Roanoke Sound Growing Area H-1................................102
Pond Island [AU# 30-21-4b] ..................................................................................102
vi Table of Contents
Roanoke Sound (Jockey’s Ridge Soundside) [AU# 30-21e2]................................102
Roanoke Sound [AU# 30-21g]...............................................................................102
Roanoke Sound [AU# 30-21h, 30-21i and 30-21j]................................................103
7.3.2 Eastern Shore of Roanoke Sound Growing Area I-2..................................103
Roanoke Sound (Buzzard Bay) [AU# 30-21f]........................................................104
7.3.3 Previously or Currently Impaired Freshwater and Non-Shellfish Harvesting
Waters.........................................................................................................104
Albemarle Sound [AU# 30f2].................................................................................104
Atlantic Ocean [AU# 99-(7)b]................................................................................104
Colington Creek [AU# 30-19-1b]...........................................................................104
7.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...............................104
7.4.1 Atlantic Ocean [AU# 99-(7)c]....................................................................104
7.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-56..................................105
Chapter 8 North Carolina Water Quality Classifications and Standards............................107
8.1 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards .................................107
8.1.1 Statewide Classifications............................................................................107
8.1.2 Statewide Water Quality Standards............................................................107
Chapter 9 Water Quality Stressors and Sources of Impairment in the Pasquotank River
Basin................................................................................................................................111
9.1 Stressor Identification.............................................................................................111
9.1.1 Overview of Stressors Identified in the Pasquotank River Basin...............111
9.1.2 Dioxin- Stressor..........................................................................................112
9.1.3 Copper- Stressor..........................................................................................112
9.2 Source Identification...............................................................................................112
Chapter 10 Stormwater and Wastewater Management for Improved Water Quality.......115
10.1 Introduction to Stormwater Runoff.........................................................................115
10.2 Stormwater Programs..............................................................................................115
10.3 Wastewater Management Programs .......................................................................116
10.3.1 NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Summary.......................................116
10.3.2 NPDES Wastewater Non-Discharge Permit Summary ..............................117
10.4 On-Site Waste Management...................................................................................121
Chapter 11 Changes in Our Coastal Communities ................................................................123
11.1 Our Changing Waterfronts and Loss of Public Access ..........................................123
11.2 Population Growth and Development.....................................................................124
11.3 Changes in Land Cover...........................................................................................125
11.4 Managing Growth, Development and Stormwater Runoff.....................................126
11.4.1 Assessment of Current Conditions.............................................................126
11.4.2 Assessment of Future Conditions...............................................................128

Table of Contents vii
Chapter 12 Water Quality Management Strategies...............................................................129
12.1 The Role of State Government ...............................................................................129
12.2 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan..............................................................................130
12.3 Oyster Action Plan..................................................................................................133
12.4 NC Coastal Nonpoint Source Program...................................................................134
12.5 Community Conservation Assistance Program......................................................138
12.6 The Role of Local Government in Land Use Planning...........................................139
12.6.1 Land Use Plans ...........................................................................................139
12.6.2 Land Use Plans for Communities in the Pasquotank River Basin..............140
12.7 Management Recommendations for Local Governments.......................................143
12.8 Planning for Sea Level Changes.............................................................................145
12.9 Using Land Use Planning as a Tool to Reduce Impacts of Future Development...145
12.10 The Importance of Local Initiatives............................................................146
12.10.1 Federal Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program...................................147
12.10.2 Pasquotank River Watershed Project......................................................148
12.10.3 Clean Water Management Trust Fund....................................................148
12.10.4 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)................151
12.10.5 Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program ...............................151
12.10.6 Oyster Shell Recycling ..........................................................................152
12.10.7 Clean Marina Program............................................................................152
12.10.8 Currituck Sound Restoration Feasibility Study......................................153
12.10.9 Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP)......................154
12.10.10 Albemarle-Pamlico Regional Water Quality Study................................155
Chapter 13 Agriculture and Water Quality............................................................................157
13.1 Animal Operations..................................................................................................157
13.2 Agricultural Best Management Practices and Funding Opportunities ...................159
13.2.1 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program..........................................................159
13.2.2 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP)....161
13.3 SWCD Water Quality Strategy Plan.......................................................................161
Chapter 14 Natural Resources in the Pasquotank River Basin.............................................163
14.1 River Basin Hydrologic Units.................................................................................163
14.2 Water Resources and Water Supply Planning........................................................163
14.3 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought...............................................................163
14.4 Source Water Assessment of Public Water Supplies..............................................164
14.4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................164
14.4.2 Delineation of Source Water Assessment Areas ........................................165
14.4.3 Susceptibility Determination – North Carolina’s Overall Approach..........165
14.4.4 Source Water Protection.............................................................................166
14.4.5 Public Water Supply Susceptibility in the Pasquotank River Basin...........166
viii Table of Contents
14.5 Forestry..................................................................................................................167
14.5.1 Forest Management......................................................................................167
14.5.2 Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (FPGs)...................168
14.5.3 Forestry Best Management Practices..........................................................168
14.5.4 Bridgemats..................................................................................................169
14.5.5 Forest Products Industry.............................................................................169
14.6 Public Lands............................................................................................................169
14.7 Ecological Significance of the Pasquotank River Basin.........................................169
14.7.1 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Pasquotank River Basin ...........170
14.7.2 Wetland Communities in the Pasquotank River Basin...............................173
14.7.3 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Species.............................................173
14.8 Fisheries..................................................................................................................175
14.8.1 River Herring Fisheries Management Plan..................................................175
14.8.2 Fish Kill Summary.......................................................................................175
14.9 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation..............................................................................175
Chapter 15 North Carolina’s Impaired Waters List.............................................................177
15.1 Introduction to North Carolina’s Impaired Waters List..........................................177
15.2 Introduction to TMDLs...........................................................................................177
15.3 Contents of the Integrated Report...........................................................................177
15.4 How North Carolina Proposes Delisting Waters....................................................179
15.5 Scheduling TMDLs.................................................................................................180
15.6 Revising TMDLs ....................................................................................................180
References...................................................................................................................................183

Appendices ix
APPENDICES

I DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Pasquotank River Basin

II Use Support Methodology and Use Support Ratings

III NPDES Discharge, Non-Discharge and Individual Stormwater Permits

IV Pasquotank River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts

V Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

x List of Figures
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure i General Map of the Entire Pasquotank River basin.......................................................2
Figure ii General Map of the Pasquotank River basin in North Carolina ....................................3
Figure iii Stressors Identified in Impaired Freshwater Miles for Aquatic Life...........................10
Figure iv Sources Identified in Impaired Freshwater Miles for Aquatic Life.............................11
Figure 1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2005 to 2009).............................................................17
Figure 2 Division of Water Quality Regional Offices ...............................................................21
Figure 3 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-50..........................................................................24
Figure 4 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51..........................................................................34
Figure 5 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-52..........................................................................50
Figure 6 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-53..........................................................................60
Figure 7 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-54..........................................................................70
Figure 8 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55..........................................................................78
Figure 9 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56..........................................................................94
Figure 10 HWQs, and ORWs in the Pasquotank Basin.............................................................110
Figure 11 Freshwater Stressors..................................................................................................112
Figure 12 Stressors Sources .......................................................................................................113
Figure 13 Animal Operations.....................................................................................................158

List of Tables xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table i Subbasin 03-01-50 DWQ Classifications by Acres and Miles......................................4
Table ii Subbasin 03-01-51 DWQ Classifications by Acres and Miles......................................4
Table iii Subbasin 03-01-52 DWQ Classifications by Acres and Miles......................................5
Table iv Subbasin 03-01-53 DWQ Classifications by Acres and Miles......................................5
Table v Subbasin 03-01-54 DWQ Classifications by Acres and Miles......................................6
Table vi Subbasin 03-01-55 DWQ Classifications by Acres and Miles......................................6
Table vii Subbasin 03-01-56 DWQ Classifications by Acres and Miles......................................6
Table viii Aquatic Life Use Support Summary..............................................................................8
Table ix Recreation Use Support Summary.................................................................................8
Table x Shellfish Harvest Use Support Summary ......................................................................9
Table xi Comparison of Shellfish Harvesting Acres Impaired in the Pasquotank River
Basin between the 2002 and 2007 Basin Plan...............................................................9
Table 1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2004 to 2011).............................................................19
Table 2 Five-Year Planning Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan........19
Table 3 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-01-50.......................................................................................................25
Table 4 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-50 .......................27
Table 5 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-01-51.......................................................................................................35
Table 6 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-51 .......................41
Table 7 Summary of DEH Growing Areas H-1, H-2 and I-2 Classifications in Subbasin
03-01-51.......................................................................................................................41
Table 8 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-01-52.......................................................................................................51
Table 9 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-52 .......................54
Table 10 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-01-53.......................................................................................................61
Table 11 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-53 .......................64
Table 12 Fish Tissue Results for Mercury Contamination in Subbasin 03-01-53......................68
Table 13 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-01-54.......................................................................................................71
Table 14 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-54 .......................73
Table 15 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-01-55.......................................................................................................79
Table 16 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-55 .......................87
Table 17 Summary of DEH Growing Areas H-3, H-4, H-5, H-6 Classifications in Subbasin
03-01-55.......................................................................................................................87
Table 18 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-01-56.......................................................................................................95
Table 19 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-56 .....................101
Table 20 Summary of DEH Growing Areas H-1, I-2 Classifications in Subbasin 03-01-56...101
Table 21 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications ........................................108
Table 22 Stormwater Outfalls (2005-06)..................................................................................116
Table 23 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Pasquotank River
Basin (August 2006)..................................................................................................117
xii Table of Contents
Table 24 Summary of NPDES Non-Discharge Permits for the Pasquotank River Basin
(August 2006)............................................................................................................119
Table 25 County Population and Growth Estimates.................................................................124
Table 26 Municipal Population and Growth Trends.................................................................125
Table 27 Land Cover in the Pasquotank River Basin: 1982 vs. 1997 ......................................126
Table 28 Local Planning Jurisdictions......................................................................................140
Table 29 Section 319 Grant Funded Projects in the Pasquotank River Basin..........................147
Table 30 Clean Water Management Trust Fund Projects in the Pasquotank River Basin........149
Table 31 Permitted Animal Operations. ...................................................................................157
Table 32 Summary of NCACSP Projects in the Pasquotank River Basin (2000-2005)...........160
Table 33 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Pasquotank River Basin..........................................163
Table 34 SWAP Results for Surface Water Source in the Pasquotank River Basin ................167
Table 35 List of Rare Aquatic Species in Pasquotank River Basin..........................................174

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. The NC Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) prepares basinwide water quality plans 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 DWQ,
implementation and protection of water quality involves 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 Pasquotank River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
updated on a five-year cycle. The first basinwide plan for the Pasquotank 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 Pasquotank
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. Refer to the
Introduction for additional information on the Basinwide Planning Program.

Pasquotank River Basin Overview

The Pasquotank River basin encompasses 3,635 square miles of low-lying lands and vast open
waters, including Albemarle Sound, in the state’s northeast outer coastal plain (Figure ii). The
basin includes all or portions of Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hyde, Pasquotank,
Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington counties. The basin also contains numerous small
watersheds that drain into Albemarle, Currituck, Croatan, Roanoke and Pamlico Sounds. A small
portion (~577 acres) of the Pasquotank River basin is located in Virginia. The Pasquotank River
basin is part of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine system, the second largest estuarine system in
the United States.
CURRITUCKCAMDEM
PASQUOTANK
GATES
PERQUIMANS
CHOWAN
WASHINGTON
TYRRELL
DARE
Elizabeth
CityWinfall
Hertford
ManteoColumbiaRoper
Creswell
03-01-5403-01-50
03-01-52
03-01-53 03-01-51
03-01-56
03-01-55
A l be m a r le S ou n d
P
am
lico
Sound
C
u
r
r
it
u
c
k

S
o
u
n
d
P
a
s
q
u
ota
nk
R
iv
er
N
o
rt
h

R
i
v
e
rLittle Riv
er
Perquimans River
HYDE
N o rth Landi
n
g

R
iverLake
Drummond
Alliga
t
or
River
Figure i General Map of the Entire Pasquotank
River Basin in North Carolina and Virginia
0 9 18 27 364.5
Miles
®
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 8, 2007
Southern Shores
Kitty Hawk
Kill Devil Hills
Nags Head
VIRGINIA
NORTH CAROLINA
Legend
Subbasin Boundary
Municipality
Primary Roads
County Boundary
Hydrography
CURRITUCK
CAMDEM
PASQUOTANK
GATES
PERQUIMANS
CHOWAN
WASHINGTON
TYRRELL
DARE
Elizabeth City
Winfall
Hertford
Manteo
Columbia
Roper
Creswell
03-01-5403-01-50
03-01-52
03-01-53
03-01-51
03-01-56
03-01-55
Alb e m ar le So un d
P
am
l
ic
o S
ou
nd
C
u
r
r
it
u
c
k

S
o
u
n
d
P
a
s
q
u
ota
n
k
Riv
er
N
o
r
t
h

R
iv
e
rLittle Riv
er
Perquimans River
HYDE
Alliga
t
or
River
Figure ii General Map of the Pasquotank River Basin in North Carolina
0 6 12 18 243
Miles
®
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
January 8, 2007
Southern Shores
Kitty Hawk
Kill Devil Hills
Nags Head
Legend
Subbasin Boundary
Municipality
Primary Roads
County Boundary
Hydrology
4 Executive Summary
Information presented in this basinwide water quality plan is based on information collected
from September 2000 to March 2007 to describe water quality conditions and issues in each of
the five 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 (Chapters 1 – 7). Each subbasin has its own
unique characteristics and water quality concerns. Each subbasin has a mix of freshwater and
saltwater, high quality (Class HQW) and outstanding resource waters (Class ORW), recreational
(Class B) and shellfish harvesting (Class SA) uses. Below is a brief description of each subbasin
and their water classifications.

Subbasin 03-01-50

This subbasin contains the headwaters of the
Pasquotank River and its headwaters from the Great
Dismal Swamp. Most streams are of low relief and
swampy and channelized ditches are common. 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, 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. The population of the
subbasin is expected to continue to increase over the
next twenty years.

Surface water classifications and the amount of acreage or miles in subbasin 03-01-50 are listed
in Table i. No previously or newly impaired waters were identified in this subbasin. Chapter 1
presents specific water quality information for each monitored waterbody in this subbasin.

Subbasin 03-01-51
This subbasin contains the Alligator River
and several tributaries including Callaghan
and Broad Creeks. Most streams are of low
relief and often swampy. Channelized
ditches are common. Most waters in this
subbasin are brackish estuarine, including
Albemarle, Croatan and Roanoke Sounds,
and the Alligator River to the Intracoastal
Waterway (ICWW). Portions of Dare,
Hyde and Tyrrell Counties can be found in
this subbasin with the highest concentration
of urbanized areas located on Roanoke
Island in the Towns of Manteo and
Wanchese. Rapid population growth is
occurring in Dare County and along coastal
areas.
Table i Subbasin 03-01-50 DWQ
Classifications by Acres and Miles
DWQ
Classification
Freshwater
Miles
Saltwater
Acres
Saltwater
Miles
C 6.9
C; Sw 1,057.2
SB 38,617.2
SC 12,941.7 2.2
WS-IV;Sw 13.7
WS-IV; Sw, CA 0.7
WS-V;Sw 15.9
C/SC= Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary
recreation, SB= Primary recreation and Class C uses,
Sw = Swamp Waters: Recognizes waters that will naturally
be more acidic and have lower levels of dissolved oxygen,
WS = Water Supply watershed. There are five WS classes
ranging from WS-I through WS-V.
Table ii Subbasin 03-01-51 DWQ Classifications by
Acres and Miles
DWQ
Classification
Freshwater
Acres
Freshwater
Miles
Saltwater
Acres
Saltwater
Miles
C;Sw 4,980.6 12.3
C;Sw,ORW 484.9
SA;HQW 54,628.7
SB 107,485.9
SC 4,988.3 1.1
SC;HQW 32.9
SC;Sw 23,364.1 8.8
SC;Sw,ORW 43,154.4
C/SC= Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation, SB=
Primary recreation and Class C uses, SA= Shellfish waters, HQW= High
Quality Waters, ORW= Outstanding Resource Waters,
Sw = Swamp Waters: Recognizes waters that will naturally be more
acidic and have lower levels of dissolved oxygen, WS = Water Supply
watershed. There are five WS classes ranging from WS-I through WS-V.

Executive Summary 5

Surface water classifications and the amount of acreage or miles in subbasin 03-01-51 are listed
in Table ii. Water quality Impairments in this subbasin are in the shellfish harvesting category
(2,081.5 ac). Chapter 2 presents specific water quality information for each monitored
waterbody in this subbasin.

Subbasin 03-01-52
This subbasin consists of the northwestern edge of Albemarle Sound and the rivers that empty to
it. The largest of these rivers are the Little River and the Perquimans River. Most streams are
low gradient with substrates of silt and sand. Portions of Perquimans, Pasquotank, Chowan and
Gates Counties can be found in this subbasin with the highest concentration of urbanized areas
around the Town of Hertford. Although the Town of Hertford experienced a net decline in
population based on the 2000 census data, trends for the subbasin show expected growth in all
four counties over the next 20 years.

Surface water classifications and the amount of acreage or
miles in subbasin 03-01-52 are listed in Table iii. The
Little River and the Perquimans River both have
segments that are Impaired in the aquatic life category,
the Albemarle Sound is Impaired for fish consumption
because of a dioxin advisory and all monitored waters are
Supporting for recreation. Chapter 3 presents specific
water quality information for each monitored waterbody
in the subbasin.

Subbasin 03-01-53
This subbasin contains the Scuppernong River, Deep Creek, Kendrick Creek and several
tributaries, many of which are channelized. Most streams are of low relief and often swampy.
Western Tyrrell County and most of Washington County are found in this subbasin with the
highest concentration of urbanized areas around the small towns of Columbia, Creswell and
Roper.

Surface water classifications and the amount
of acreage or miles in subbasin 03-01-53 are
listed in Table iv. Kendrick Creek and Main
Canal both are Impaired in the aquatic life
category, the Albemarle Sound is Impaired
for fish consumption because of a dioxin
advisory and all monitored waters are
Supporting for recreation. Chapter 4
presents specific water quality information
for each monitored waterbody in the
subbasin.

Table iii Subbasin 03-01-52 DWQ
Classifications by Acres and Miles
DWQ
Classification
Freshwater
Miles
Saltwater
Acres
C; Sw 88.8
SB 83,576.9
SC 9,087.6
C/SC= Aquatic life propagation/protection and
secondary recreation, SB= Primary recreation
and Class C uses, Sw = Swamp Waters:
Recognizes waters that will naturally be more
acidic and have lower levels of dissolved oxygen.
Table iv Subbasin 03-01-53 DWQ Classifications
by Acres and Miles
DWQ
Classification
Freshwater
Acres
Freshwater
Miles
Saltwater
Acres
B;Sw,ORW 15,938.3
C;Sw 113.2
SB 64,313.6
SC 1,813.9
C/SC= Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary
recreation, B/SB= Primary recreation and Class C uses, ORW=
Outstanding Resource Waters, Sw = Swamp Waters: Recognizes
waters that will naturally be more acidic and have lower levels of
dissolved oxygen.
6 Executive Summary
Subbasin 03-01-54
This subbasin contains portions of the Currituck
Sound and several tributaries, many of which are
channelized. Except for the barrier islands, most
streams are of low relief and often swampy.
A portion of this subbasin is located on the Outer
Banks where there is the potential for high population
growth and development. Most of Currituck County
and the eastern portion of Camden County can be
found in this subbasin, both counties have an
estimated population growth of over 45 percent by
2020.

Surface water classifications and the amount of
acreage or miles in subbasin 03-01-54 are listed in Table v. Portions of the Currituck Sound are
Impaired for recreation in this subbasin. Chapter 5 presents specific water quality information for
each monitored waterbody in the subbasin.

Subbasin 03-01-55
This subbasin consists of Pamlico Sound from Oregon
Inlet to Hatteras Inlet and the Outer Banks in Dare
County. Subbasin 03-01-55 contains Black Lake and
Stumpy Point Bay on the mainland and the Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge and Cape Hatteras National
Seashore on the Outer Banks. Streams on the mainland
are few and low gradient with channelized ditches
being common and all are either estuarine or oceanic.
Dare County experiences a high seasonal population
fluctuation with tourists visiting the Outer Banks. Dare
County is estimated at having a population increase of
35 percent by 2020.

Surface water classifications and the amount of acreage or miles in subbasin 03-01-55 are listed
in Table vi. There are 2,605 acres Impaired for shellfish harvesting in this basin. Chapter 6
presents specific water quality information for each monitored waterbody in the subbasin.

Subbasin 03-01-56
This subbasin includes the Outer Banks
from the northern portion of Dare County
south to Oregon Inlet. It also includes
portions of Currituck Sound, Albemarle
Sound and Roanoke Sound. Portions of
Currituck and Dare Counties are in this
subbasin. The Outer Banks have
experienced rapid population growth and
development with the Towns of Kill Devil
Hills and Nags Head experiencing growth
estimated at an increase of 39 and 47
percent by 2020, respectively.
Table v Subbasin 03-01-54 DWQ
Classifications by Acres and Miles
DWQ
Classification
Freshwater
Miles
Saltwater
Acres
B;Sw 25.1
C;Sw 1,003.0
SB 10,412.2
SC 113,572.6
C/SC= Aquatic life propagation/protection and
secondary recreation, B/SB= Primary recreation
and Class C uses, ORW= Outstanding Resource
Waters, Sw = Swamp Waters: Recognizes waters
that will naturally be more acidic and have lower
levels of dissolved oxygen.
Table vi Subbasin 03-01-55 DWQ
Classifications by Acres and Miles
DWQ
Classification
Freshwater
Miles
Saltwater
Acres
C;Sw 117.6
SA; HQW 319,557.8
SC 22.2
C/SC = Aquatic life propagation/protection and
secondary recreation, SA = Shellfish Waters, HQW
= High Quality Waters, Sw = Swamp Waters:
Recognizes waters that will naturally be more
acidic and have lower levels of dissolved oxygen.
Table vii Subbasin 03-01-56 DWQ Classifications
by Acres and Miles
DWQ
Classification
Freshwater
Miles
Saltwater
Acres Coast Miles
SA;HQW 21,049.4
SB 7,713.6 111.1
SC 8.4
WS-III; CA 23.8
SC= Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation,
SB= Primary recreation and Class C uses, SA= Shellfish waters
HQW= High Quality Waters, WS = Water Supply watershed. There
are five WS classes ranging from WS-I through WS-V.

Executive Summary 7
Surface water classifications and the amount of acreage or miles in subbasin 03-01-56 are listed
in Table vii. Colington Creek, portions of the Atlantic coastline and portions of the Roanoke and
Albemarle Sounds are Impaired for recreation in this subbasin. Over 1,700 acres of shellfish
harvesting waters are Impaired. Chapter 7 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 or SC for saltwater) 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.

DWQ use support methods were developed to assess ecosystem health and human health risk
through the development of use support ratings for five categories: water supply, fish
consumption, aquatic life, recreation, and shellfish harvesting. 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
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/ ).

Use support methodology has changed significantly since the 2002 revision of the Pasquotank
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.

Many waterbodies in this basin are classified as swamp waters or receive swamp drainage. Some
creeks and rivers flushing rates are influenced by tides and wind. 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. There are three waterbody segments that
were not rated because DWQ criteria for Coastal B waters have not been finalized. DWQ has
developed draft biological criteria that may be used in the future to assign bioclassifications to
Coastal B streams. However, validation of these criteria will require collecting data for several
years from Coastal B stream reference sites. The criteria will remain in draft form until DWQ is
better able to evaluate such things as: year-to-year variation at reference sites, effects of flow
interruption, and variation among reference sites and habitat evaluation.

8 Executive Summary
Pasquotank River Basin Use Support Summary

Water Supply
There are 54.1 stream miles currently classified for water supply in the Pasquotank River basin.
All are considered Supporting on an evaluated basis, based on information provided by the
regional water treatment plant consultant. Local water treatment plant operators monitored all
during the past five years.

Fish Consumption
The fish consumption use support category is applied to all waters in the state. Fish consumption
use support ratings are based on fish consumption advice issued by the NC Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS). Currently, there is a statewide advice limiting consumption of
several fish species due to high mercury concentrations. Specifically, high mercury levels have
been found in catfish, warmouth, blackfish (bowfin), and jack fish (chain pickerel) caught south
and east of Interstate 85. Because of this advisory, all waters are considered Impaired for the
fish consumption use on an evaluated basis. An advisory is also posted for western portion of
the Albemarle Sound due to elevated levels of dioxin. The dioxin advisory recommends that
women of childbearing age and children should not eat catfish and carp and others should limit
their consumption.

Aquatic Life
The aquatic life use support category is applied to all waters in North Carolina. A basinwide
summary of current aquatic life use support ratings is presented in Table viii.

Table viii Aquatic Life Use Support Summary
Aquatic Life
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater
Acres
Freshwater
Miles
Saltwater
Acres
Saltwater
Miles
Coast
Miles
Supporting ---- 53.1 272,273.8 8.8 ----
Impaired ---- 12.3 772.7 ---- ----
Not Rated 15,938.3 49.8 328,006.9 14.7 0.5
No Data 4,980.6 2,847.8 314,357.7 3.3 110.6
Total 20,918.9 2,963.0 915,411.1 26.8 111.1

Recreation
DWQ and the Division of Environmental Health (DEH) monitor waters for primary recreation
(Class B). A basinwide summary of current recreation use support ratings is presented in Table
ix.

Table ix Recreation Use Support Summary
Primary Recreation
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater
Acres
Freshwater
Miles
Saltwater
Acres
Saltwater
Miles
Coast
Miles
Supporting ---- 45.3 721,530.1 8.8 110.6
Impaired ---- ---- 5.1 ---- 0.5
Not Rated ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No Data 20,918.9 2,917.8 194,806.2 3.3 ----
Total 20,918.9 2,963.0 916,341.4 12.1 111.1

Executive Summary 9
Shellfish Harvesting
There are 395,236 estuarine acres classified
for shellfish harvesting (Class SA) in the
Pasquotank River basin. The DEH
Shellfish Sanitation Section growing area
classification is used to determine use
support ratings in the shellfish harvesting
category. A basinwide summary of current
shellfish harvest use support ratings is presented in Table x.

Since shellfish harvesting is the primary designated use assessed in the Pasquotank River basin, a
comparison between the use support assessments conducted for the 2002 basin plan and this plan
are provided in Table xi. It is important to note that there are considerable increases in shellfish
harvesting acreage considered impaired in this 2007 basin plan over the 2002 basin plan. Not all
of this acreage should be considered to be a degradation in water quality because there are
several reasons for the changes in acreage, as follows:
1. The 2002 basin plan used an interim frequency of closures based method for assessment
(Refer to the 2002 basin plan, Section A, Chapter 4 for more information) until DEH
could fully develop a database of closures;
2. DEH Shellfish Sanitation Section developed the database and GIS expertise to assess
shellfish harvesting closures more accurately in terms of days of closure, closure lines
and acreage associated with these lines;
3. DEH is required to reclassify some
portions of growing areas to conditional
or prohibited due to land use changes
(presence of marinas or stormwater
outfalls, etc.) rather than on actual data;
4. GIS technology has improved and
changes in acreage can partially be
attributed to technology improvements
that allow more accurate mapping.

Water Quality Standards and Classifications

Chapter 8 discusses water quality standards and classifications and includes maps showing the
designated High Quality Waters (HQW) and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). There are
395,269 acres of HQW, and 485 miles, 15,938 freshwater acres and 43,154 saltwater acres of
ORW in the basin.

Much of the coastal growth in the Pasquotank River basin involves construction and/or
development along areas of HQWs and ORWs. Management strategies are associated with these
supplemental classifications and are intended to prevent degradation of water quality below
present levels from point and nonpoint sources of pollution.

Water Quality Stressors

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 Pasquotank River basin, new
Table x Shellfish Harvest Use Support Summary
Shellfish Waters Use
Support Ratings Saltwater Acres
Supporting 388,762.7
Impaired 6,473.2
Total 395,236.0
Table xi Comparison of Shellfish Harvesting
Acres Impaired in the Pasquotank River Basin
between the 2002 and 2007 Basin Plan
2002 2007
Subbasin Acres
Impaired
Acres
Impaired
03-01-51 1,959.3 2,081.5
03-01-55 1,361.1 2,604.8
03-01-56 1,712.9 1,786.9
Total 5,033.3 6,473.2
10 Executive Summary
development/construction, impervious surfaces, stormwater outfalls, and inadequate human and
animal waste management were all identified as possible sources. 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 Pasquotank River
basin.

Stressors to recreational use of a waterbody include pathogenic indicators such as fecal coliform
bacteria, escheria coli (E. coli), and enterrococci. In the Pasquotank River basin, there are 5.1
acres and 0.5 coast miles where the enterrococcus bacteria standard was exceeded, causing these
waters to be rated as Impaired for recreation. Waters are Impaired for recreation when
swimming advisories are posted for more than 61 days during the five-year assessment period.
Waters with beach monitoring sites with advisories posted less than 61 days are Supporting.
Between 2003-2006, DEH Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Program in the Pasquotank
River Basin reported 1,259 postings of beach closure days.

Fecal coliform bacteria is the primary stressor for shellfishing waters accounting for the majority
of Impaired waters in this basin. Within the shellfish harvesting areas of the Pasquotank River
basin, there are 6,473 acres are Impaired and prohibited waters and an additional 388,763 acres
are approved and Supporting for shellfish harvesting uses.

Water quality stressors are identified when impacts have been noted to biological (benthic and
fish) communities or water quality standards have been violated. In the fish consumption
category, mercury and dioxin are the noted stressors. Whenever possible, water quality stressors
are identified for Impaired waters as well as waters with notable impacts. Figures iii - iv show
identified stressors and/or sources freshwater miles; see Chapter 9 for more information.

Figure iii Stressors Identified in Impaired Freshwater Miles for Aquatic Life
All Freshwater Stressors
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Chlorophyll a Habitat
Degradation
Lack of
organic
material
Low Dissolved
Oxygen
Low pH Nutrient
Impact
Mi
l
e
s

Executive Summary 11
Figure iv Sources Identified in Impaired Freshwater Miles for Aquatic Life
Freshwater Sources
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Agriculture Failing Septic
System
MS4 NPDES Unknow n WWTP NPDES
Mil
e
s

Impacts from Stormwater Runoff

Stormwater runoff is rainfall or snowmelt that runs off the ground or impervious surfaces (i.e.,
buildings, roads, parking lots, etc.) instead of absorbing into the soil. In some cases, stormwater
runoff 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. 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 areas of the Pasquotank 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 and curb and gutter systems into nearby
waterbodies.

Coastal communities in the Pasquotank River basin are experiencing significant and rapid
population growth. Chapter 11 presents figures for population projections that estimate Camden,
Currituck and Dare counties to have over a 35 percent increase in population, between 2000 and
2020. These estimates do not take into account the significant population influxes during the
tourist season.

There are several different stormwater programs administered by DWQ that will apply to the
coastal communities within the Pasquotank River Basin. In 2009 the communities in the
Pasquotank River basin will be assessed by DWQ to determine if they meet the criteria for
inclusion in the Phase II stormwater program or these communities may be assessed sooner due
to the direction of the EMC. The EMC was given authority by rule to delineate regulated
coverage in accordance with the schedule for review and revision of basinwide water quality
management plans.
12 Executive Summary
DWQ recommends that other local governments in the basin develop stormwater management
programs voluntarily to begin the process of restoring and improving water quality in the region.
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.

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
accomplish this goal by controlling the source(s) of pollution. Chapter 10 contains more
information on federal and state stormwater programs.

Wastewater Management

In the Pasquotank River basin, wastewater is treated by discharge, non-discharge and on-site
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. Currently, there are
34 permitted wastewater dischargers in the Pasquotank 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. Although non-discharge systems should
not present high potentials for surface water impacts, some systems within the Pasquotank River
basin have problems that may result in impaired surface water quality. In the Pasquotank River
basin, 20 non-discharge permits have been issued.

Within the Pasquotank River 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 Pasquotank 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 10
provides more information on wastewater permitting regulations.

Executive Summary 13
Population Growth and Changes in Land Use

There are ten counties and 11 municipalities located in whole or in part in the basin. Based on
the 2000 Census, the overall population of the Pasquotank basin is 118,786. The most populated
areas are located on the Outer Banks and along waterways. The coastal communities in the
Pasquotank River basin are changing. Traditional uses of waterfront property are shifting to
accommodate increase in permanent residents, seasonal rental properties, and development.
Development has also moved inland along tidal creeks and rivers. However, many of the water
dependent resources that people seek out from the NC coastal communities are diminishing.
Public waterfront access is limited and high fecal coliform levels prevent shellfish harvesting and
beach recreation. The rural areas have also begun to shift from agriculture fields to housing
developments.

Statistics provided by the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service indicates that between 1982 and 1997 (the most recent update available) there was a
31,800ac. increase in the amount of developed land, a 56,100ac. decrease in cultivated cropland,
and a 177,000ac. decrease in forestland. Chapter 11 presents information regarding population,
growth and development in the Pasquotank River Basin.

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 coastal activities and policies including stormwater management, development permits,
erosion control programs, agriculture and land preservation, shellfish protection and recreation
monitoring. Additional state programs and many interagency and group partnerships work
together to protect the resources found in coastal waters and communities. Chapter 12 presents
more information regarding these programs and strategies to manage coastal waters.
• Army Corps of Engineers and the State of North Carolina are partnering to conduct a
Feasibility Study on the Currituck Sound to identify ways to improve water quality and
restore the Sound.
• Coastal Habitat Protection Plan is a plan to manage and restore aquatic habitats critical to
North Carolina's commercial and recreational fisheries resources.
• Oyster Action Plan was developed to restore and protect North Carolina’s native oyster
populations.
• Coastal Nonpoint Source Program was developed to coordinate the state’s efforts on
managing nonpoint source pollution from agriculture, forestry, urban areas, marinas and
recreational boating, and hydrologic modification.
• Community Conservation Assistance Program managed by Soil and Water Conservation
Districts was developed to focus its efforts on stormwater retrofits to existing land uses
that are non-agricultural.
• Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (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.
• Albemarle Resource Conservation and Development Council is leading a 10 county
regional study to identify regional water quality, water management, and recreational
concerns resulting from land-use changes associated with unprecedented development in
these counties.
14 Executive Summary
• Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grant program has allocated over $660,000 for projects.
• Clean Water Trust Fund has allocated over $34,000,000 for projects in the Pasquotank
basin.

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. 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. In the Pasquotank River basin, two counties
and three communities have completed their land use plans and nine others are in the process.
Chapter 12 presents specific information regarding land use plans in communities of the
Pasquotank 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 currently 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 12.

Agriculture and Water Quality

There are 74 animal operations in the Pasquotank 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 Pasquotank 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. The Soil and Water
Conservation Districts are working on establishing Special Use Water Management Districts to
help identify and manage stormwater issues and drainage. During this five-year assessment
period, the North Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program (NCACSP) funded BMPs totaling
more than $1,280,000. Chapter 13 provides information related to agricultural activities in the
Pasquotank River basin and also identifies funding opportunities for BMPs.

Natural Resources

The land comprising the Pasquotank River basin is dominated by open water. Most of the water
for human consumption in the basin comes from surface water and groundwater sources, but the
vast majority comes from groundwater sources. Forty-one percent of the land use in the basin is
water with another 38 percent characterized as forest/wetlands. Approximately 44 percent of
forestland in the Pasquotank basin is privately owned, 10 percent is owned by forest industry and
the remaining 46 percent is publicly owned. At least 22,362 acres of land were planted or

Executive Summary 15
regenerated with forest trees across the basin from September 1, 2000 through August 31, 2005.
During this assessment period, Division of Forest Resources provided 467 written or verbal BMP
recommendations on tracts totaling 18,910 acres in the Pasquotank River Basin. Important
natural resources in the basin include wetlands, marshes, pocosins, anadromous fish spawning
areas, National Seashore and National Wildlife Refuges. There are five federally listed
threatened and endangered aquatic species in the basin. Natural resource agencies advocate the
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. For more information about the natural resources found in the Pasquotank River
basin see Chapter 14.

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 Pasquotank 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.

Addressing water quality impairment in waters that are on the state’s 303(d) list are 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 Pasquotank
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 15.

Challenges and Recommendations for Achieving Water Quality Improvements

Point source impacts on surface waters can be measured and addressed through the basinwide
planning process and do not represent the greatest threat to water quality in the basin. A major
water quality problem in the basin is fecal coliform bacteria contamination (affecting shellfish
harvesting). Fecal coliform bacteria contamination is primarily attributed to nonpoint source
pollution associated with runoff from urban areas and agricultural lands. The task of quantifying
nonpoint sources of pollution and developing management strategies for these impaired waters is
very resource intensive. Federal and state stormwater regulations and initiatives are in place to
help reduce and prevent stormwater runoff in developing
coastal communities.

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

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.
16 Executive Summary
• 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 Pasquotank River Basin

Maintenance and continual improvements in water quality are dependent on proactive planning.
The following recommendations are compiled from natural resource agencies and stakeholders
working and/or living within the Pasquotank 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.

Introduction 17
Introduction

What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?

Basinwide water quality planning is a 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 (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.
18 Introduction
• Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity.
• 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
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/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 19
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 1/2008 3/2008 1/2008
Broad Summer 2005 1/2008 3/2008 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

20 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 Basinwide 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. Visit the website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/ to download this document.
• Pasquotank River Basinwide Assessment Report (March 2006). This technical report
presents physical, chemical, and biological data collected in the Pasquotank River basin.
This report can be found on the DWQ Environmental Sciences Section (ESS) website at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/.
• Pasquotank River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (September 1997; July
2002). These first basinwide plans for the Pasquotank 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 -7: 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 8 – 15
Presents information on various topics of interest to the protection and restoration of
water quality in the basin, including:
• Surface water classifications
• Water quality stressors
• Stormwater and wastewater management
• Population and land cover changes
• Water quality management strategies
• Agricultural, forestry and natural resources
• 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]
22 Introduction

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

Chapter 2 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51 33
Chapter 2
Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51
Including: Alligator River and portions of the Albemarle, Croatan and Roanoke Sounds

2.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin contains the Alligator River and several
tributaries. Most streams are of low relief and often
swampy. Channelized ditches are common. Most waters
in this subbasin are brackish estuarine, including
Albemarle, Croatan and Roanoke Sounds, and the Alligator
River to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW). Ecologically,
the subbasin contains characteristics of the Chesapeake-
Pamlico lowlands and tidal marshes, as well as nonriverine
swamps and peatlands. Land cover generally consists of
evergreen forests, mixed forests, forested wetlands and
marshes.

The Alligator River upstream of US 64 and all of its natural
tributaries (not canals, Alligator Lake or ICWW) are
classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). Based
on their designations by the Marine Fisheries Commission
as primary nursery areas, two tributaries (upper Scarboro
Creek and Doughs Creek) to Shallowbag Bay are classified
as High Quality Waters (HQW).

This subbasin contains a mixture of public lands and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas including Roper Island,
Durant Island, Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Reserve,
the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and the Preyer
Reserve. Portions of Dare, Hyde and Tyrrell Counties can
be found in this subbasin with the highest concentration of
urbanized areas located on Roanoke Island in the Towns of
Manteo and Wanchese. Rapid population growth is
occurring in Dare County and along coastal areas.
Additional information regarding population and land use
changes throughout the entire basin can be found in
Chapter 11.

There is one major and five minor National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
discharges in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 1.5 MGD. The major NPDES facility
is the Manteo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) with a permitted flow of 1.0 MGD. The
Manteo WWTP discharges to Shallowbag Bay [AU# 30-21-3] on Roanoke Island and significant
noncompliance issues were identified during the last two years of the assessment period. There
are two stormwater discharge permits in this subbasin. For the listing of NPDES permit holders,
refer to Appendix III.

Subbasin 03-01-51 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 978 mi2
Land area: 568 mi2
Water area: 410 mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 53%
Surface Water: 39%
Cultivated Crop: 8%
Urban: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: <1%

Counties
Dare, Hyde and Tyrrell

Municipalities
Manteo

Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Aquatic Life:
Total: 8.8 mi/106,724.7 ac
Supporting: 8.8 mi/106,724.7 ac

Recreation:
Total: 8.8 mi/132,564.3 ac
Supporting: 8.8 mi/132,564.3 ac

Shellfish Harvesting:
Total: 54,628.7 ac
Supporting: 52,547.2 ac
Impaired: 2,081.5 ac
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r ¾r ¾r¾r ¾r
¾r
¾r¡~
¡~
¡~
#*
#*
#*#*
XY
TYRRELL
DARE
HYDE
Manteo
US 64
US 264
N
C
9
4
Albemarle Sound
Roanoke S
o
u
n
d
Cro
ata
n

S
o
u
n
d
P a m li c o S o u n d
Alligator River
E a s t La k e
East Dismal Swamp
NW F
o
r
k
Allig
a
tor
R
iv
e
r
New
River
S W F o rk Alligator Ri v er
Alligator River
W h ip ping Cre
e
k
South
Lake
Milltail
Cre
ek
The
Frying Pan
S
e
c
o
nd Creek
Little Alligator R i v e r
S
w
a
n

C
reek
MA5
MA3
MA12
Figure 4 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51
®
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/
Shellfish Harvesting 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 03-01-51SubbasinTable 5
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
ALBEMARLE SOUND
30b
Portion of Albemarle Sound in subbasin 03-01-51. 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
106,724.7 S AcresSB S SMA3 NCE
MA5 NCE
MA3 NCE
MA5 NCE
Dioxin Industrial Site
Baum Creek
30-20-5
From source to Croatan Sound
10.9 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Broad Creek
30-21-7a
DEH closed area at head of creek
126.0 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina
30-21-7b
Approved area at mouth of creek
392.2 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-1
Callaghan Creek
30-20-4
From source to Croatan Sound
24.8 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Cedar Bush Bay
30-20-7
Entire Bay
207.8 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-2
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-51SubbasinTable 5
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Croatan Sound
30-20-(2)a
From Northwest Point on Roanoke Island following a line
west to Reeds Point on the Dare County mainland to a line
running from a point of land just below Long Wretch Creek
on Dare County mainland to the Southern tip of Smith
Island south of Roanoke Island
24,496.4 S AcresSA;HQW ND S S APP
I-2
N68 NCE
N69 NCE
30-20-(2)b
The waters of Croatan Sound enclosed in a line beginning at
a point near north shore of Spencer Creek at 35 degrees 51'
45" N- 75 degrees 44' 53" W; and thence 250 yeards in an
easterly direction to a point at 35 degrees 51' 45" n- 75
degrees 44' 43" west
169.3 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-20-(2)c
The waters of Croatan Sound which include all waters
within a line beginning at a point on the shore at 35 degrees
53' 56" N- 75 degrees 41' 36" W, thence WSW 800 yards to
a point in the sound at 35 degrees 53' 38" N- 75 degrees 41'
53 W, thence 1975 yard
340.9 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-20-(2)d
The waters of Croatan Sound which include all waters on
the North shore of Baum Creek to a straight line to Fl.
Beacon number 2 at 35 degrees 50' 27" n-75 degrees 40' 06"
W, thence in a straight line tto a point on an island at 35
degrees 50' 05" N- 75 de
156.3 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-20-(2)e
The waters of Croatan sound which include all waters below
Oyster Creek southeast to Cut Through. DEH closed area
Croatan Sound 5-e
92.2 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-20-(2)f
DEH Closure Area at Mann's Harbor
22.1 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Cut Through
30-20-8a
From DEH closure line to Croatan Sound
128.6 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-2
30-20-8b
From Roanoke Sound to DEH closure line
178.5 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-51SubbasinTable 5
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Doughs Creek
30-21-3-2
From source to Shallowbag Bay
21.2 S AcresSC;HQW ND S N86 NCE
Hog I Creek
30-20-9
Entire Creek
15.4 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-2
Intracoastal Waterway (Pungo River-Alligator River Canal)
30-16-12
From Currituck-Fairfield Township line to Alligator River
8.8 S MilesSC;Sw S SMA12 NCE Turbidity 9.6 MA12 NCE Turbidity Unknown
Johns Creek
30-21-5
From source to Roanoke Sound
10.7 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Long Wretch Creek
30-20-10
From source to Croatan Sound
1.7 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-2
Mill Landing Creek (Mill Creek)
30-21-8
From source to Roanoke Sound
29.8 S AcresSC ND S N67 NCE
Oyster Creek
30-21-9
Entire Creek
84.2 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-2
Oyster Creek (Croatan Sound)
30-20-6
From source to Croatan Sound
62.8 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Pamlico Sound
30-22j
Portion of Pamlico Sound (from Croatan and Roanoke
Sounds to a line running from Sandy Point south of Stumpy
Point Bay to the northeast tip of Ocracoke Island) in
subbasin 03-01-51.
18,083.5 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-6
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-51SubbasinTable 5
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Pond Island
30-21-4a
The waters surrounding the Island within 1,000 feet from
shore within subbasin 03-01-51
165.1 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES
Roanoke Sound
30-21a
Those waters in subbasin 03-01-51in the western portion of
Roanoke Sound, from a line running from Northwest Point
on Roanoke Island northward to Rhodoms Point on
Colington Island, thence a line running eastward through
Wright Memorial Monument, to a line
9,134.1 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
I-2
30-21b
DEH closed area on east side of Roanoke Island extending
from mouth of Shallowbag Bay to Johns Creek along the
shoreline
130.2 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES
30-21c
DEH closed area west of Pond Island in subbasin 03-01-51
109.2 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-21d
DEH closed area adjacent to Mill Landing on east side of
Roanoke Island
351.4 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Rockhall Creek
30-21-6
Entire Creek
5.7 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Sand Beach Creek
30-21-5-1
From source to Johns Creek
38.7 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES
Shallowbag Bay
30-21-3
Entire Bay
534.1 S AcresSC NR S N70 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES
Ammonia WWTP NPDES
Low Dissolved Oxygen WWTP NPDES
Smith Creek
30-20-11
Entire Creek
3.3 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-2
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-51SubbasinTable 5
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Spencer Creek
30-20-3
From source to Croatan Sound
86.8 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
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 8.8 S Milesm
S 106,724.7 S Acresm
NR 534.1 S Acrese
ND 1.1 S Miles
ND 125,497.0 S Acres
ND 497.2 FW Miles
ND 4,980.6 FW Acres
Recreation Rating Summary
8.8 S MilesSm
131,806.2 S AcresSm
1.1 S MilesND
100,949.7 S AcresND
497.2 FW MilesND
4,980.6 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
106,724.7 S AcresIm
9.9 S MilesIe
126,031.2 S AcresIe
497.2 FW MilesIe
4,980.6 FW AcresIe
Shellfish Harvesting Rating Summary
52,547.2 S AcresSm
2,081.5 S AcresIm
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51
40 Chapter 2 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51
A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 4. Table 5 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
lengths, streams monitored, 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.

No benthic samples were collected during this assessment period (2000 – 2005); however, data
was collected from three ambient monitoring stations (MA3, MA5 and MA12). No water quality
standards were exceeded.

Many of the waters in subbasin 03-01-51 are classified for shellfish harvesting (Class SA).
Many also have the supplemental classification of High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW). Several management strategies are in place to protect these waters.

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. Table 6 provides a summary of use support for waters in subbasin 03-01-51.

In subbasin 03-01-51, use support was assigned for aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption and
shellfish harvesting categories. Waters are Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated, and 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). There are no water supply
watersheds designated in this subbasin.

Criteria for making use support determinations for the shellfish harvesting category were based
on Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Sanitary Surveys (SS) growing area classifications.
The problem parameter for all shellfish waters is the potential for fecal coliform water quality
standard exceedances. Differences in acreage estimates between basin cycles are not just related
to changes in water quality; they are also due to changes in acreage are related to more refined
methods of estimating acreages, changes in growing area classifications, extension of closure
areas as a result of additional boat slips, and changes in use support methodology.

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.

Chapter 2 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51 41
Table 6 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-51
Use Support
Rating Aquatic Life Recreation Shellfish Harvesting
Freshwater Saltwater Freshwater Saltwater Freshwater Saltwater
Monitored Waters
Supporting 0 8.8 mi
106,724.7 ac 0 8.8 mi
131,806.2 ac 0 52,547.2 ac
Impaired* 0 0 0 0 0 2,081.5 ac (3.8%)
Total 0 8.8 mi
106,724.7 ac 0 8.8 mi
131,806.2 ac 0
54,628.7 ac
Unmonitored Waters
Not Rated 0 534.1 ac 0 0 0 0
No Data 497.2 mi
4,980.6 ac
1.1 mi
125,497 ac
497.2 mi
4,980.6 ac
1.1 mi
100,949.7 ac 0 0
Total 497.2 mi
4,980.6 ac
1.1 mi
126,031.1 ac
497.2 mi
4,980.6 ac
1.1 mi
100,949.7 ac 0 0
Totals
All Waters 497.2 mi
4,980.6 ac
9.9 mi
232,756 ac
497.2 mi
4,980.6 ac
9.9 mi
232,756 ac 0 54,628.7 ac
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored miles/acres only.

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 assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Chapter 15.

For more information about use support determinations for the Impaired Class SA waters
presented in Table 7 below, 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. Refer to Figure 4 for a
map of subbasin 03-01-51.

Table 7 Summary of DEH Growing Areas H-1, H-2 and I-2 Classifications in Subbasin
03-01-51
Class SA Waters Assessment Unit # Growing Area
Classification DEH Growing Area
Broad Creek 30-21-7a
30-21-7b
PRO
APP H-1
Johns Creek 30-21-5 PRO H-1
Pond Island 30-21-4a PRO H-1
Roanoke Sound
30-21a
30-21b
30-21c
30-21d
APP
PRO
PRO
PRO
H-1, I-2
Rockhall Creek 30-21-6 PRO H-1
42 Chapter 2 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51
Sand Beach Creek 30-21-5-1 PRO H-1
Baum Creek 30-20-5 PRO H-2
Callaghan Creek 30-20-4 PRO H-2
Croatan Sound
30-20-(2)a
30-20-(2)b
30-20-(2)c
30-20-(2)d
30-20-(2)e
30-20-(2)f
APP
PRO
PRO
PRO
PRO
PRO
H-2, I-2
Cut Through 30-20-8a
30-20-8b
APP
PRO H-2
Oyster Creek (Croatan Sound) 30-20-6 PRO H-2
Spencer Creek 30-20-3 PRO H-2
PRO=Prohibited, CAC=Conditionally Approved Closed, CAO=Conditionally Approved Open

2.3.1 West Shore Roanoke Sound Growing Area H-1

The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with these
waters are located within Growing Area H-1. If the
entire Class SA water is located within more than one
growing area it is noted in Table 7 or refer to the
basinwide Growing Area map in the Executive
Summary.

According to the Sanitary Survey of Roanoke
Sound, Area H-1 (DEH Shellfish Sanitation &
Recreational Water Quality Section, October 2002
and August 2006), little change in bacteriological
water quality has occurred since the last review in
2002; however, some water quality improvements
have resulted in opening of shellfish waters. Area H-
1 includes waters of the Roanoke Sound, Shallowbag
Bay, Broad Creek, and Mill Creek. Roanoke Sound
is bordered on the east by the Outer Banks and on the
west by Roanoke Island. H-1 is located in Dare County, which is undergoing rapid population
growth with large influxes in seasonal populations. Manteo population is estimated at
approximately 1,100 permanent residents and with a seasonal peak population of approximately
3,500 people (CAMA LUP-Town of Manteo, 2007). However, much of the survey area in area
H-1 is uninhabited marshland. Wildlife and waterfowl are abundant in the marshland areas of
this growing area.

Notable activities on Roanoke Island include new housing developments and the construction of
wetlands. This area has had significant flooding with heavy rainfall events affecting low-lying
areas and flooding septic systems. The growing Pirate’s Cove subdivision also hosts the largest
marina in the area with 181 boat slips. The survey reports all violations noted from previous
surveys have been corrected. The Manteo Municipal WWTP is the only WWTP in H-1 that
discharges to the sound. The discharge location is approximately 3,400 feet offshore in
Shallowbag Bay. The WWTP has a history of exceeding its permit limits for fecal coliform,
petroleum, and ammonia levels in its effluent.

Chapter 2 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51 43
As a result of the DEH 2006 survey report, approximately 45 acres around Manteo have been
reclassified from Prohibited to Approved for shellfish harvesting and an additional 240 acres are
classified as Approved in the Wanchese area. However, approximately 34 acres are Prohibited
east of Wanchese Harbor due to development and observed pollution in runoff waters.

Broad Creek [AU# 30-21-7a]

Broad Creek (126 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Broad Creek is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacteria levels. Broad
Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

The marina along Broad Creek is limited to 29 boats with no boats over 24’ in length. Runoff
from boat maintenance and from the parking lot of the marina drains to Broad Creek and
eventually to waters east of Wanchese Harbor. Constructed wetlands have recently been
completed in the mouth of Broad Creek and were observed to be hosting an abundant waterfowl
population with associated accumulated fecal matter. Further downstream (AU# 30-21-7b), 392
acres are classified as approved and supporting shellfish harvesting

Johns Creek [AU# 30-21-5]

Johns Creek (10.7 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Johns Creek is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Johns
Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Pond Island [AU# 30-21-4a]

Pond Island (165.1 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Pond Island is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Pond
Island will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Roanoke Sound [AU# 30-21b, 30-21c and 30-21d]

Portions of the Roanoke Sound (590.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Roanoke
Sound is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform
bacterial levels. Roanoke Sound will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters. An
additional 9,134.1 acres are classified as approved and supporting shellfish harvesting in area I-2.

Rockhall Creek [AU# 30-21-6]

Rockhall Creek (5.7 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Rockhall Creek is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Rockhall Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Sand Beach Creek [AU# 30-21-5-1]

Sand Beach Creek (38.7 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Sand Beach Creek is
classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial
levels. Sand Beach Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

44 Chapter 2 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51
2.3.2 Croatan Sound Growing Area H-2

The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with these
waters are located within Growing Area H-2. If the
entire Class SA water is located within more than one
growing area it is noted in Table 7 or refer to the
basinwide Growing Area map in the Executive
Summary.

According to the Sanitary Survey of Croatan Sound,
Area H-2 (DEH Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational
Water Quality Section, December 2005), water
quality remains good. The largest water quality
issues are along the backside of Roanoke Island, near
Manteo and Wanchese with high bacteria counts.
Oyster production is limited to areas surrounding
Wanchese and no clams are produced there. Area H-
2 is bordered by Roanoke Island in the east and the
mainland village of Manns Harbor to the west. The
permanent population is estimated at approximately 2,000 people, but drastically increases
during the summer months.

Development is scattered throughout much of the area. In North Manteo, 100+ lots have been
created, Sunnyside Subdivision in Manteo has extended to make room for an additional 30 units
and several new residential units have been built in Skyco. With the exception of the houses
connected to the Manteo WWTP, all the residences utilize onsite septic systems and seven
violations were noted during the sanitary survey. Of these violations, one house had a crushed
septic system with drainage to the sound and pipes from four mobile homes were disconnected
and were found to be discharging directly onto the ground within 20 feet of the marsh.

Other possible water quality pollution sources include landfills, wildlife, and increased
impervious surface runoff. Dredge material from Shallowbag Bay in area H-1 was deposited in a
30-acre site in area H-2. Several drainage ditches connect possible runoff from Dare County’s
demolition landfill to the sound. An illegal dumpsite was discovered in Manteo consisting of
boats, appliances and other trash. Possible chemical pollutants may come from the NCDOT
Marine Maintenance Facility located on Spencer Creek.

Baum Creek [AU# 30-20-5]

Baum Creek (10.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Baum Creek is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Baum
Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Callaghan Creek [AU# 30-20-4]

2002 Status
To evaluate the impact of a fire treatment berm at a Dare County landfill in 1998, DWQ
monitored chemicals (metals), toxicity and benthic macroinvertebrates. One station failed

Chapter 2 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51 45
toxicity tests and metals were extremely high (i.e., silver, selenium, copper, zone, arsenic,
aluminum, lead, manganese and iron). Biologists noted some impacts to the benthic
communities nearest the landfill. DWQ recommended that a follow-up study be conducted on
Callaghan Creek. It was also recommended that DWQ regional office staff work with landfill
managers to generate appropriate disposal options.

Current Status
Callaghan Creek (24.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Callaghan Creek is classified
by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Callaghan Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

DWQ sampled unnamed tributaries to Callaghan Creek and Billys Creek in October 2000 to
assess the long-term impacts from the 1998 landfill fire. The sample sites were all channelized
drainage ditches without bends or pools. Use of a non-standard sampling methodology
precluded assignment of bioclassifications to these sites; however, this method collected enough
taxa to make between site comparisons of the invertebrate communities. All sites had dissolved
oxygen levels below 4.0 mg/l and no flow conditions existed. Substrate consisted of detritus-
mud mixture. Macroinvertebrate communities at all sites in this study were very pollution
tolerant. The sample site near the landfill showed a biotic community still impacted from the
landfill fire; however, several taxa rarely found in DWQ collections were also found during the
study (DWQ ESS, December 2000).

Croatan Sound [AU# 30-20-(2)b, 30-20-(2)c, 30-20-(2)d, 30-20-(2)e and 30-20-(2)f]

Croatan Sound (580.3 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Croatan Sound is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Croatan Sound will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Cut Through [AU# 30-20-8b]

Cut Through (178.5 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Cut Through is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Cut
Through will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters. An additional 128.6 acres are
classified as approved and supporting shellfish harvesting in area H-2.

Oyster Creek [AU# 30-20-6]

Oyster Creek (62.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Oyster Creek is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Oyster Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Spencer Creek [AU# 30-20-3]

Spencer Creek (86.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Spencer Creek is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Spencer Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

46 Chapter 2 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51
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 Shallowbag Bay [AU#30-21-3]

Shallowbag Bay (534.1 acres) is Not Rated on an evaluated basis in the aquatic life category due
to significant noncompliance issues with biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and ammonia
permit limits at the Manteo WWTP (Permit NC0079057). Manteo’s WWTP is permitted to
discharge 0.6 MGD and it has a phased NPDES permit under which it can expand to 1 MGD by
obtaining an Authorization to Construct from DWQ. Many of the effluent violations with
Manteo WWTP were results of mechanical malfunctions. In 2005 and 2006, there were two
Notice of Violations issued against MWWTP and 9 Permit Enforcement penalties issued against
the plant. In 2005, the Town of Manteo received a grant from the North Carolina Clean Water
Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) to develop a feasibility study of nutrient removal options for
wastewater discharged to Shallowbag Bay. The 2007 Manteo Land Use Plan states water quality
conditions in Shallowbag Bay are concerns and recommends actions to improve their WWTP
and reduce pollutants from stormwater runoff and marinas to improve water quality. BMPS are
needed to reduce runoff from highly impervious areas of historic downtown Manteo to reduce
stormwater runoff into Shallowbag Bay (CAMA LUP- Town of Manteo, 2007). The Town of
Manteo prepared a stormwater management plan in 2000 with intentions to augment its zoning
ordinance with stormwater management requirements. The 2005 Zoning Ordinance requires the
runoff generated by new development to not exceed the predevelopment site volume for the first
1.5” and it shall be retained on the site. Residential and historic sites are exempt from this
ordinance.

Shallowbag Bay is also monitored by the Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Recreational
Monitoring Program (RECMON). Based on DEH monitoring data, the bay is Supporting in the
recreation category.

2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-51

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.

The increase in impervious surfaces throughout the basin contributes to the growing water
quality issues associated with stormwater runoff. An increase in the numbers of slips at marinas
is a concern to water quality because of the limited number of marina facilities with pump out

Chapter 2 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51 47
capabilities. Establishing marinas that meet Clean Marina standards is essential to protect public
health and water quality.

According to the Sanitary Survey of Albemarle and Currituck Sounds, Areas I-1, I-3 through
I-16 (DEH Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section, December 2005), there
has been little change in water quality since the last survey. The only shellfish found in this area
is Rangia clams. 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 swampwaters following heavy rains.

Area I-4 consists mainly of forest and swamps surrounding the Alligator River. Logging is the
main industry in this region. There are some farming operations on the western side of the river.
The eastern side of the river is part of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.

According to the Sanitary Survey of Eastern Albemarle Sound, Area I-2 (DEH Shellfish
Sanitation Unit, June 2005), water quality has improved with a few exceptions. The only
shellfish present in this area is Rangia clams. The estimated population of this area is 11,000
people, which is a 50 percent increase since the last survey. With the influx of tourists the
population more than triples. There are 15 subdivisions, many of which are located along closed
waters.
48 Chapter 2 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51

Chapter 3 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-52 49
Chapter 3
Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-52
Including: Perquimans River, Burnt Mill Creek, Little River and Tributaries

3.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin consists of the northwestern edge of
Albemarle Sound and the rivers that empty to it. The
largest of these rivers are the Little River and the
Perquimans River. The Perquimans River originates in the
Great Dismal Swamp and flows south before emptying into
Albemarle Sound. Most streams are low gradient with
substrates of silt and sand. Ecologically, the subbasin
contains characteristics of Chesapeake-Pamlico lowlands
and tidal marshes. Land cover generally consists of
cultivated crops, evergreen forests, mixed forests, forested
wetlands and marshes. A small portion of the land area
near the mouths of the Yeopim, Perquimans and Little
Rivers are designated Significant Natural Heritage Areas.

Portions of Perquimans, Pasquotank, Chowan and Gates
Counties can be found in this subbasin with the highest
concentration of urbanized areas around the Town of
Hertford. Although the Town of Hertford experienced a net
decline in population based on the 2000 census data, trends
for the subbasin show expected growth in all four counties
over the next 20 years. Additional information regarding
population and land use changes throughout the entire basin
can be found in Chapter 11.

There are four minor National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) discharges in this subbasin
with a total permitted flow of 0.7 MGD. Three of these
facilities are water treatment plants (WTP), two of which
are required to monitor whole effluent toxicity (WET).
Both facilities are failing to meet their 90 percent acute
toxicity target for effluent concentration. Both facilities discharge filter backwash, or reverse
osmosis reject water. The Winfall WTP is also experiencing significant noncompliance issues
with total suspended solids (TSS) and settleable solids. There are three non-discharge permits
and six stormwater discharge permits for 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 8 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
lengths, streams monitored, 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 03-01-52 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 541 mi2
Land area: 399 mi2
Water area: 142 mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 32%
Cultivated Crop: 39%
Surface Water: 28%
Urban: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 1%

Counties
Perquimans, Pasquotank, Chowan
and Gates

Municipalities
Hertford and Winfall

Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Aquatic Life:
Total: 40.0 mi/74,429.3 ac
Supporting: 25 mi/73,736.7 ac
Impaired: 7.9 mi/692.6 ac

Recreation:
Total: 7.9 mi/74,429.3 ac
Supporting: 7.9 mi/74,429.3 ac
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r¾r
¡~
¡~¡~¡~
¡~
!(à
!(à
!(à!(à
¡~
#*
#*
#*
#*
%L
#I
%L
%L
GATES
PASQUOTANK
PERQUIMANS
CHOWAN
Winfall
Hertford
U S 17
NC 32
Perqui
m
a
n
s River
Littl
e

River
Big Flatty Creek
Yeopim River
A l b e m a r l e S o u n d
Go od
w
in Mil
l
C r e e k
Bethel Creek
Su
t
t
o
n Cree k
Burnt Mill Cree k
MB8 MB7
MB6
MA8
MA6
MA2
MB12
Figure 5 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-52
®
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 03-01-52SubbasinTable 8
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
ALBEMARLE SOUND
30c
Portion of Albemarle Sound in subbasin 03-01-52. 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
73,736.7 S AcresSB S SMA8 NCE MA8 NCE
N54 NCE
Dioxin Industrial Site
Burnt Mill Creek
30-8-1
From source to Yeopim River
5.2 FW MilesC;Sw S ND
MB6 M 2005
Habitat Degradation Unknown
Little River
30-5-(1)a
From source to SR 1225
2.8 FW MilesC;Sw S ND
MB7 M 2005
30-5-(1)b
From SR 1225 to Halls Creek
7.9 FW MilesC;Sw I SMA2 CE Chlor a 10.9 MA2 NCE Chlorophyll a Unknown
Perquimans River
30-6-(1)a
From source to Bagley Swamp
17.0 FW MilesC;Sw S ND
MB8 M 2005
Habitat Degradation Unknown
30-6-(1)b
From Bagley Swamp to Norfolk-Southern Railroad Bridge
7.1 FW MilesC;Sw NR+ND
MB12 F 2005
Habitat Degradation Unknown
30-6-(3)
From Norfolk-Southern Railroad Bridge to a line across the
692.6 S AcresSC I SMA6 CE Low DO 12.3
MA6 CE Low pH 45.6
MA6 NCE Chlor a 8.7
MA6 NCE Chlorophyll a Unknown
Low pH Unknown
Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-52
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-52SubbasinTable 8
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 73,736.7 S Acresm
I 692.6 S Acresm
S 25.0 FW Milesm
NR+ 7.1 FW Milesm
I 7.9 FW Milesm
NR 14.7 S Acrese
NR 8.0 FW Milese
ND 18,220.6 S Acres
ND 40.9 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
74,429.3 S AcresSm
7.9 FW MilesSm
18,235.3 S AcresND
80.9 FW MilesND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
73,736.7 S AcresIm
18,927.8 S AcresIe
88.8 FW MilesIe
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-52

Chapter 3 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-52 53
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. Long-term trends in water quality cannot be assessed with the
limited macroinvertebrate data; however, there is one exception. This exception can be found in
the Little River where a more diverse benthic community was identified in 2005 than in 2000.

Data were also collected from three ambient monitoring stations (MA2, MA6 and MA8).
Ambient monitoring on the Perquimans River (MA6) showed frequent pH measurements below
the water quality standard. Perquimans River drains swamps in much of the watershed including
a portion of the Great Dismal Swamp. Swamps are naturally low in pH and low pH levels are
not unexpected. 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 8 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. Table 9 provides a summary of use support for waters in subbasin 03-01-52.

In subbasin 03-01-52, 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. 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).

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.
Appendix V provides definitions of the terms used throughout this basin plan.
54 Chapter 3 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-52
Table 9 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-52
Use Support
Rating Aquatic Life Recreation
Freshwater Saltwater Freshwater Saltwater
Monitored
Supporting 25.0 mi 73,736.7 ac 7.9 mi 74,429.3 ac
Impaired* 7.9 mi (19.8%) 692.6 ac (0.9%) 0 0
Not Rated 7.1 mi 0 0 0
Total 40.0 mi 74,429.3 ac 7.9 mi 74,429.3 ac
Unmonitored
Not Rated 8.0 mi 14.7 ac 0 0
No Data 40.9 mi 18,220.6 ac 80.9 mi 18,235.3 ac
Total 48.9 mi 18,235.3 ac 80.9 mi 18,235.3 ac
Totals
All Waters 88.9 mi 92,664.6 ac 88.8 mi 92,664.6 ac
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored miles/acres only.

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 15.

3.3.1 Little River [AU# 30-5-(1)a, 30-5-(1)b and 30-5-(2)]

2002 Status
Upper Little River [AU# 30-5-(1)], from source to Halls Creek (11.8 mi.), was first listed on the
1998 303(d) list of Impaired waters for a water quality standards violation (low DO). Potential
sources were identified as nonirrigated crop production, onsite wastewater systems, off-farm
animal holding and/or management areas and land development. Lower Little River [AU# 30-5-
(2)], from Halls Creek to the Albemarle Sound (6,263.9 acres), was then added to the 2000
303(d) list of Impaired waters for a water quality standards violation (low DO). Agriculture and
onsite wastewater systems were identified as potential sources. In both segments, swamp
conditions combined with agricultural runoff were thought to be contributing to the low DO
levels. DWQ recommended additional sampling in order to evaluate natural and anthropogenic
impacts on DO levels in the Little River. Growth management was also recommended to protect
water quality from future development activities.

Current Status [AU# 30-5-(1)a]
Little River, from source to SR 1225 (2.8 miles), is Supporting in the aquatic life category due to
a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site MB7. Previous sampling in 2000 also
resulted in a Moderate swamp bioclassification. Substrate was composed entirely of detritus and
there was no evidence of channel modification. Snags, undercut banks, root mats and leaf packs

Chapter 3 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-52 55
were present but rare. The riparian zone on the right streambank was wide and intact, but on the
left, there was evidence of timber harvesting. There was also evidence of recent de-snagging. No
active NPDES discharges are located upstream of site MB7.

Current Status [AU# 30-5-(1)b]
Little River, from SR 1225 to Halls Creek (7.9 miles), is Impaired in the aquatic life category
due to a water quality standards violation at ambient monitoring station MA2. Site MA2 was
sampled 46 times for chlorophyll a over the course of the five-year assessment period. Nearly
11 percent of the samples were above the water quality standard for chlorophyll a indicating
nutrient enrichment at this segment of the river.

Current Status [AU# 30-5-(2)]
Little River, from Halls Creek to the Albemarle Sound (6,263.9 acres), was not sampled during
this assessment period.

2007 Recommendations
DWQ recommends that the upper 2.8 miles of the Little River be removed from the 2008 303(d)
list of Impaired waters as a result of the recent benthic bioclassification. Little River [AU# 30-5-
(1)b], from SR 1225 (one mile downstream of SR 1221) to Halls Creek, however, will be listed
on the 2008 303(d) list for a water quality standards violations. Lower Little River [AU# 30-5-
(2)], should remain on the 2008 303(d) list of Impaired waters of chlorophyll a for further
assessment of DO and swamp drainage affects.

Land use activities have significantly changed in the Little River watershed with residential and
commercial development expanding. As developments occur along channels and ditches to the
Little River, riparian buffers are recommended to aid in the filtering of stormwater runoff,
promote infiltration and protect water quality. Road construction activity on the NC-17 bypass
may have contributed to increased sediment loads in the Little River during the data collection
period.

3.3.2 Perquimans River [AU# 30-6-(3)]

Perquimans River, from the Norfolk-Southern Railroad Bridge to a line across the river from
Barrow Point to Ferry Point (692.6 saltwater acres), is Impaired in the aquatic life category due
to water quality standards violations at ambient monitoring station MA6. Site MA6 was sampled
57 times for dissolved oxygen and pH over the course of the five-year assessment period. Over
12 percent of the samples were below the water quality standard for dissolved oxygen. Nearly
46 percent were below the water quality standard of for pH. Chlorophyll a was also elevated
with 8.7 percent of the 46 samples collected above the water quality standard.

2007 Recommendations
Excess nutrients continue to be a water quality issue at the mouth of the Perquimans River,
resulting in algal blooms and subsequent fish kills. This reach of the Perquimans River also
receives drainage from swamp waters, which can contribute to low pH and low DO conditions.
However, overall water quality conditions reflect that land use activities are influencing water
quality. Continued growth and development in this watershed also contributes towards water
quality impairments.
56 Chapter 3 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-52
The Town of Hertford WWTP discharges to Mill Creek located downstream of ambient
monitoring site MA6. The WWTP continues to have inflow and infiltration problems and the
Special Order of Consent (SOC) has been extended until 2008, as planning for expansion
continues. The facility has a water reuse permit (WQ0021289) and received a High Unit Cost
Grant from DWQ Construction Grants & Loans to install a 325,000 gallon reuse above ground
storage tank, dual 1,000 gallon per minute irrigation pumps with flow meters, and a turbidity
meter. The water will irrigate 78.1 acres that has been divided into nine zones. DWQ staff will
continue to work with the Hertford WWTP, providing technical assistance and ensuring that
permit limits are met. Upstream segments of the river are Supporting and Not Rated (See 3.4.1
below).

3.4 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.

3.4.1 Perquimans River [AU# 30-6-(1)a and AU# 30-6-(1)b]

Current Status [AU# 30-6-(1)a]
Perquimans River, from source to Bagley Swamp (17.0 miles), is Supporting in the aquatic life
category due to a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site MB8. Substrate was a mix of
silt and organic matter; sticks, snags, logs and root mats were common; and there was some
evidence of channelization and recent de-snagging activities. The riparian zone was wide and
intact on both sides of the stream. No active NPDES discharges are located upstream of site
MB7.

Current Status [AU# 30-6-(1)b]
Perquimans River, from Bagley Swamp to the Norfolk-Southern Railroad Bridge (7.1 miles), is
Not Rated+ in the aquatic life category. Site MB12 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 MB12 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
Perquimans River is Not Rated+. (BAU, March 2006).

Site MB12 is located approximately three miles above the Town of Hertford and there are no
active NPDES dischargers upstream of this site. The stream is a large deep river, approximately
100 meters wide. Substrate was a mix of silt and detritus; the water was dark and tannic; and
snags and logs were abundant. Sticks, undercut banks and aquatic macrophytes were common.
The riparian zone on both sides was intact and moderately wide. Several macroinvertebrate taxa

Chapter 3 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-52 57
were present in both 2000 and 2005 samples that are indicators of low dissolved oxygen levels in
the water. Local residents report this reach is a popular recreational fishing site.

2007 Recommendations
Along portions of the Perquimans River, water quality improvements may be obtained by
planting critical areas, establishing stormwater wetlands, and encouraging the maintenance of
riparian buffers.

3.4.2 Burnt Mill Creek [AU# 30-8-1]

Burnt Mill Creek, from source to the Yeopim River (5.2 miles), is Supporting in the aquatic life
category due to a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site MB6. Prior to 2005, the site
was sampled twice. In 1995, the site was Not Rated and in 2000, the site was Moderate based on
swamp criteria. Substrate was a mix of silt, sand and detritus; sticks, snags, logs and root mats
were present but rare; and leaf packs and aquatic macrophytes were absent. Undercut banks
were common and the riparian zones on both banks had frequent breaks, but were moderately
wide. No active NPDES discharges are located upstream of site MB6.

3.4.3 Bethel Creek [AU# 30-8-3]

Bethel Creek, from source to the Yeopim River (8.0 miles), is Not Rated on an evaluated basis in
the aquatic life category due to significant noncompliance issues with permit limits at the Bethel
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) (Permit NC0068861). By permit, the Bethel WTP is required to
monitor whole effluent toxicity (WET) and is failing to meet its 90 percent acute toxicity target
for effluent concentration. The facility discharges filter backwash or reverse osmosis (RO) reject
water into Bethel Creek. The Bethel WTP is expanding, with the discharge being relocated to
Albemarle Sound. The town has been advised to seek state funds to assist with renovation of the
WTP.

3.4.4 Mill Creek [AU# 30-6-5-(2)]

Mill Creek, from the Perquimans County SR 1214 near Winfall to the Perquimans River (14.7
saltwater acres), is Not Rated on an evaluated basis in the aquatic life category due to significant
noncompliance issues with permit limits at the Town of Winfall Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
(Permit NC0081850). By permit, the Winfall WTP is required to monitor whole effluent toxicity
(WET) and is failing to meet its 90 percent acute toxicity target for effluent concentration. The
facility discharges filter backwash or reverse osmosis (RO) reject water into Mill Creek. During
the last two years of the assessment period, the facility also experienced significant
noncompliance issues with total suspended solids (TSS) and settleable solids.

The Town of Winfall’s WTP recently was expanded and upgraded, and TSS are likely to meet
compliance, but toxicity violations may remain an issue.

3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-52

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.
58 Chapter 3 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-52
According to the Sanitary Survey of Albemarle and Currituck Sounds, Areas I-1, I-3 through
I-16 (DEH Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section, December 2005), there
has been little change in water quality since the last survey. The only shellfish found in this area
is Rangia clams. 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 swampwaters following heavy rains.

Growing area I-6 consists of the Little River and Big Flatty Creek. The area is almost entirely
rural and is comprised mainly of wooded areas and farmland. However, two new subdivisions
are being developed along the Little River and an additional four subdivisions are being
developed in the area. There was one chicken farm, two hog farm operations and approximately
150 goats observed during the survey.

Area I-7 consists of the entire watershed of the Perquimans River. The majority of the
population lives in the Town of Hertford, which has an estimated population of 2,000. Hertford
WTTP discharges to the Perquimans River (See 3.3.2 above). Much of the land in area I-7 is
used for agriculture.

A 65.5-acre sewage disposal field treats waste from a subdivision located in land draining to area
I-8, but is not adjacent to any water. Area I-8 includes the watersheds of Yeopim River and
Yeopim Creek. Most of this area is rural and is either forested or farmed. There is one major
subdivision whose sewage is spray field applied on land in area I-8. Three other subdivisions are
occupied with seasonal residents.

3.5.1 Wastewater Non-Discharge Runoff

The Albemarle Plantation (WQ0001817) is a non-discharge facility using surface irrigation to
dispose of its wastewater effluent. The disposal field for Albemarle Plantation, like several sites
in northeastern NC, has limited hydraulic capacity due to poor soils. Therefore, proper operation
of the site is critical to prevent ponding and run-off, while at the same time maintaining adequate
freeboard. The Albemarle Plantation is in the Yeopin Creek watershed, which is currently not
monitored by DWQ.

3.5.2 Dioxin Contamination Fish Consumption Advisory

In 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued dioxin advisory 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). For more information
on this advisory, please visit the DHHS website http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/.

Chapter 4 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-53 59
Chapter 4
Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-53
Including: Scuppernong River, Kendrick Creek and Phelps Lake

4.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin contains the Scuppernong River, Deep
Creek, Kendrick Creek and several tributaries, many of
which are channelized. Most streams are of low relief and
often swampy. Ecologically, the subbasin contains
characteristics of the Chesapeake-Pamlico lowlands and
tidal marshes, as well as nonriverine swamps and peatlands.
Land cover generally consists of evergreen forests, mixed
forests, forested wetlands and marshes, and cultivated crop.
This subbasin contains a diversity of public lands and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas, including Lake Phelps
State Park, Bull Neck Swamp, East Dismal and the
Scuppernong River Swamp Forest.

Western Tyrrell County and most of Washington County
can be found in this subbasin with the highest concentration
of urbanized areas around the small towns of Columbia,
Creswell and Roper. All of these towns have experienced a
net decrease in population since 1990 and Washington
County’s population is expected to decrease by 9.5 percent
by 2020. Additional information regarding population and
land use changes throughout the entire basin can be found
in Chapter 11.

There are eleven minor National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) discharges in this subbasin
with a total permitted flow of 0.75 MGD. Four of these
facilities are water treatment plants (WTP) that are required
by permit to monitor whole effluent toxicity (WET). No
WET violations were reported for the Columbia WTP or
the Creswell WTP. WET results submitted by the Tyrrell
County WTP and the Tyrrell County Bull Bay WTP, however, indicate that both facilities are
consistently failing to meet their 90 percent acute toxicity target effluent concentration. More
information about both of these facilities can be found in Section 4.4.2 and Section 4.4.1,
respectively. A total of five NPDES facilities are permitted to discharge to the Scuppernong
River; of which, Creswell Wastewater Treatment Plant has had significant noncompliance issues
with biochemical oxygen demand. There are two surface irrigation non-discharge permits and
three stormwater discharge permits for 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 6. Table 10 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
Subbasin 03-01-53 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 475 mi2
Land area: 336 mi2
Water area: 139 mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 41%
Cultivated Crop: 30%
Surface Water: 28%
Urban: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: <1%

Counties
Tyrrell and Washington

Municipalities
Columbia, Creswell and Roper

Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Aquatic Life:
Total: 18.0 mi/78,492.6 ac
Supporting: 62,474.2 ac
Impaired: 4.4 mi/80.1 ac
Not Rated: 13.6 mi/15,938.3 ac

Recreation:
Total: 13.6 mi/62,554.2 ac
Supporting: 13.6 mi/62,554.2 ac
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¡~¡~¡~¡~
¡~
¡~
¡~
¡~
!(à
!(à
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
%L
#I
WASHINGTON
TYRRELL
Roper
Creswell
Columbia
US 64
N
C
3
2
N
C

9
4
Canal A
Canal B
K
e
n
d
r
i
c
k

Creek
Bonarva Canal
Moccasin Canal
A l be m ar l e S o un d
Phelps Lake
Deep C r e e k
Skinners Canal
S c upp e rnong River
MB9
MA9
MA7
MB10
MA13
MA11
MA10
Figure 6 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-53
®
0369121.5
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 03-01-53SubbasinTable 10
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
ALBEMARLE SOUND
30d
Portion of Albemarle Sound in subbasin 03-01-53. 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
62,474.2 S AcresSB S SMA7 NCE Low pH 8.2
MA9 NCE
MA7 NCE
MA9 NCE
N61 NCE
N63 NCE
N65 NCE
Dioxin Industrial Site
Low pH Unknown
Canal B
30-9-4-1
From source to Main Canal
7.4 FW MilesC;Sw ND ND
Kendrick Creek (Mackeys Creek)
30-9-(2)
From U.S. Hwy. 64 at Roper to Albemarle Sound
80.1 S AcresSC I SMA10 CE Low DO 43.9
MA10 CE Low pH 63.2
MA10 NCE Turbidity 8.6
MA10 CE Nickel 45
MA10 NCE Nutrient Impacts Agriculture
Nickel Unknown
Turbidity Unknown
Low pH Unknown
Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown
Main Canal
30-9-4
From source to Kendrick Creek
4.4 FW MilesC;Sw I ND
MB9 SS 2005
Habitat Degradation Agriculture
Phelps Lake
30-14-4-6-1
Entire Lake
15,938.3 FW AcresB;Sw,ORW NR NDML2 ID
ML3 ID
ML1 ID
Scuppernong River
30-14-4-(1)
From source to mouth of Riders Creek (First Creek)
13.6 FW MilesC;Sw NR+SMA11 NCE
MB10 P 2005
MA11 NCE Low pH WWTP NPDES
Low Dissolved Oxygen WWTP NPDES
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-53
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-53SubbasinTable 10
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 62,474.2 S Acresm
I80.1S Acresm
NR+ 13.6 FW Milesm
I 4.4 FW Milesm
NR 15,938.3 FW Acresm
NR 1,839.4 S Acrese
NR 3.6 FW Milese
ND 1,733.8 S Acres
ND 91.5 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
62,554.2 S AcresSm
13.6 FW MilesSm
3,573.2 S AcresND
99.6 FW MilesND
15,938.3 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
62,474.2 S AcresIm
3,653.3 S AcresIe
113.2 FW MilesIe
15,938.3 FW AcresIe
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-53

Chapter 4 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-53 63
lengths, streams monitored, 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.

Two sites were sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates in 2005. Swamp and draft Coastal B
criteria were used to evaluate the benthic communities resulting in Impaired and Not Rated
stream segments. Data were also collected from four ambient monitoring stations (MA7, MA9,
MA10 and MA11). Ambient monitoring on Kendrick Creek (MA10) showed frequent pH and
dissolved oxygen levels below water quality standards. Frequent elevated levels of nickel were
also recorded. Kendrick Creek drains several swamps in the area. Swamps are naturally low in
pH, and therefore, low pH levels are not unexpected. More benthic data is needed to determine
any significant water quality changes.

In this subbasin, one lake (Phelps Lake) was also sampled. Phelps Lake is the second largest
natural lake in North Carolina. The lake was sampled a total of 12 times between October 2001
and September 2005 at three sampling locations. More information on Phelps Lake can be found
in Section 4.3.4. 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 throughout the subbasin.

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. Table 11 provides a summary of use support for waters in subbasin 03-01-53.

In subbasin 03-01-53, 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. 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).

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.

64 Chapter 4 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-53
Table 11 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-53
Use Support
Rating Aquatic Life Recreation
Freshwater Saltwater Freshwater Saltwater
Monitored
Supporting 0 62,474.2 ac 13.6 mi 62,554.2 ac
Impaired* 4.4 mi (24.4%) 80.1 ac (0.1%) 0 0
Not Rated 13.6 mi
15,938.3 ac 0 0 0
Total 18.0 mi
15,938.3 ac 62,554.2 ac 13.6 mi 62,554.2 ac
Unmonitored
Not Rated 3.6 mi 1,839.4 ac 0 0
No Data 91.5 mi 1,733.8 ac 99.6 mi
15,938.3 ac 3,573.2 ac
Total 95.1 mi 3,573.2 ac 99.6 mi
15,938.3 ac 3,573.2 ac
Totals
All Waters 113.1 mi
15,938.3 ac 66,127.4 ac 113.1 mi
15,938.3 ac 66,127.4 ac
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored miles/acres only.

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 15.

4.3.1 Kendrick Creek [AU# 30-9-(1) and 30-9-(2)]

2002 Status
Kendrick Creek, from source to U.S. Hwy 64 in Roper, was first listed on the 1998 303(d) list of
Impaired waters based on a 1998 historic listing for water quality standards violations for
dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH. Potential sources were identified as nonirrigated crop
production, off-farm animal holding and/or management areas and municipal point sources.
Benthic sampling in 2000 resulted in a Not Rated bioclassification. Biologists also determined
that the low pH and low DO levels in Kendrick Creek are likely due to natural conditions.

Current Status
Kendrick Creek, from U.S. Hwy 64 in Roper to the Albemarle Sound (80.1 saltwater acres), is
Impaired in the aquatic life category due to standards violations at ambient monitoring station
MA10. Site MA10 was sampled 57 times for dissolved oxygen and pH over the course of the
five-year assessment period. Nearly 44 percent of the samples were below the water quality
standard of 5.0 mg/l for DO and 63 percent were below the water quality standard of 6.8 s.u. for
pH. Metals were sampled a total of 20 times over the course of the five year period. Nickel

Chapter 4 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-53 65
exceeded the water quality standard of 8.3 μg/l in 45 percent of the samples collected. Turbidity
was also elevated in 8.6 percent of the samples and is likely associated with road construction
activities along US 64.

Fish tissue samples were also collected from Kendrick Creek in order to evaluate mercury levels
in the Pasquotank River basin. Results are included in Section 4.5.1.

2007 Recommendations
Kendrick Creek continues to be impacted from agricultural activity, primarily corn, bean and
cotton crop production. Duckweed growth has become a noticeable problem in waterways. The
expansion of US Hwy 64 during the 5-year data assessment period and/or the presence of an auto
salvage yard could be contributing metals to the creek. Kendrick Creek will remain on the 2008
303(d) list. DWQ will further assess if low DO and pH are natural conditions. DWQ will work
with local resource agencies to address agricultural impacts and further assess sources of metals.

4.3.2 Main Canal [AU# 30-9-4]

2002 Status
Main Canal was first listed on the 1998 303(d) list of Impaired waters for biological integrity.
Potential sources were identified as off-farm animal holding and/or management areas, intensive
animal feeding operations and nonirrigated crop production.

Current Status
Main Canal, from source to Kendrick Creek (4.4 miles), is Impaired in the aquatic life category
due to a Severe swamp benthic bioclassification at site MB9. Substrate was composed entirely of
silt and muck, consequently, making sampling very difficult. Sticks and aquatic macrophytes
were present, but rare and provided the only habitat for macroinvertebrate colonization at the
site. Water flow was slow, pools and riffles were absent. Erosion was observed on both
streambanks with the left streambank riparian zone consisting of trees and the right streambank
consisting of mostly grass. These minimal riparian vegetated areas make the streambanks
susceptible to failure during high flow events. No permitted NPDES facilities are located above
site MB9.

2007 Recommendations
Main Canal [AU# 30-9-4] will remain on the 2008 303(d) list. DWQ will work with local
resource agencies to address agricultural impacts.

4.3.3 Scuppernong River [AU# 30-14-4-(1)]

Growing Area I-3 consists of all waters within the Scuppernong River watershed. According to
the Sanitary Survey of Albemarle and Currituck Sounds, Areas I-1, I-3 through I-16 (DEH
Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section, December 2005), there has been little
change in water quality since the last survey. The only shellfish found in this area is Rangia
clams and 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 swampwaters following heavy rains. The area is mainly rural with the
exception of Columbia, which has 825 residents, although several new subdivisions were
recently established. Columbia treats its waste with an oxidation ditch treatment system. A
motel and restaurant rely on a package plant for sewage disposal with treated effluent discharged
66 Chapter 4 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-53
into the Scuppernong River. Hog farming was an important industry in this area; ten hog farms
and associated lagoons are located in this area, but most are currently not operational. Much of
the area is covered with row crop farms including corn, potatoes and cotton.

2002 Status
The upper portion of the Scuppernong River was first listed on the 1998 303(d) list of Impaired
waters for water quality standards violations for dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH. Potential
sources were identified as nonirrigated crop production, off-farm animal holding and/or
management areas, municipal point sources, and specialty crop production. Benthic sampling in
2000 resulted in a Not Rated bioclassification. Biologists also determined that the low pH and
low DO levels in the Scuppernong River are likely due to natural conditions.

Current Status
The upper portion of the Scuppernong River, from source to Riders Creek (First Creek) (13.6
miles), is Not Rated+ in the aquatic life category. The Scuppernong River was sampled using
draft criteria for Coastal B rivers and is 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 MB10 received a Poor
bioclassification using 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 Scuppernong River is Not Rated (BAU, March 2006). Samples taken in 2005,
however, indicated a more pollution intolerant benthic community.

Data was also collected from one ambient monitoring station at site MA11. Site MA11
coincides with site MB10. No water quality standards were exceeded during this assessment
period, and monthly measurements showed salinity concentrations to be less that 0.10 parts per
thousand (ppt) for 2004 and early 2005. During drought conditions, however, the water often
becomes brackish. The highest salinity concentration since 2000 was recorded in August 2002
with a measurement of 5.1 ppt. This concentration is higher than most freshwater invertebrates
can survive. Three of the abundant taxa collected at the site were indicative of low DO.
Ambient monitoring data for the past five years show DO levels typically fall below 1.0 mg/l
each summer, limiting the benthic macroinvertebrate community at this site.

Hydrologically, the sampling site is located in a deep-water run with very little sinuosity.
Duckweed and alligator weed were abundant. The riparian zones on both sides of the river were
wide and intact, but undercut banks were abundant. Sticks, snags, logs, root mats and aquatic
macrophytes (i.e., alligator weed) were also abundant.

A total of five NPDES facilities are permitted to discharge to the Scuppernong River. Two of
these facilities are located approximately two miles upstream of the sampling site. The Creswell
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) (Permit NC0027600) is required by permit to perform whole
effluent toxicity (WET) testing. No WET violations were reported during the last two years of
the assessment period. The Creswell Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) (Permit
NC0048861), however, reported significant noncompliance issues with biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), which can lead to lower than normal DO levels in the receiving stream.
Significant noncompliance issues with pH were also identified. During the most recent
inspection (January 2007), the facility received Civil Penalty assessments for BOD violations in
February and March 2006 and a Notice of Violation (NOV) for BOD violations in April 2006.

Chapter 4 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-53 67
In 2002, a Clean Water Management Trust Fund grant was awarded to Tyrrell Water and Sewer
District for construction of a regional low-pressure sewer system to eliminate 191 septic systems
and straight pipes.

Fish tissue samples were collected from the Scuppernong River in order to evaluate mercury
levels in the Pasquotank River basin. Results are included in Section 4.5.1.

2007 Recommendations
The Scuppernong River [AU# 30-14-4-(1)] will remain on the 2008 303(d) list to further assess
natural conditions for low DO and pH. The Scuppernong River will be rated when Coastal B
benthic criteria are finalized. DWQ will continue to work with local resource agencies to
monitor water quality and work with the Town of Creswell to ensure that the WWTP is in
compliance during the next review period.

4.3.4 Phelps Lake [AU# 30-14-4-6-1]

Phelps Lake is the second largest natural lake in North Carolina and is located within a vast
peninsula between the Albemarle Sound to the north and the Pamlico River to the south. The
peninsula contains numerous low-lying swampy areas underlain by thick organic muck and
relatively well-drained areas with fertile mineral and organic soils. Much of the area has been
cleared of vegetation, drained and put into large-scale agricultural use. Phelps Lake was
reclassified from C Sw to B Sw ORW in August 2000.

Phelps Lake (15,938.3 freshwater acres) is Not Rated in the aquatic life category because sample
size criteria (10 sample minimum) were not met. The lake was sampled four times from May
2005 to August 2005 at sites ML1, ML2 and ML3. Physical water quality values for chlorophyll
a, pH, DO and temperature were similar to those collected in previous assessments. Nutrient
concentrations, which were generally low to moderate, were also similar to previous
assessments.

Phelps Lake was also sampled as part of the North Carolina Mercury Study Extension between
2004-2006. Samples were collected on a quarterly basis. No samples exceeded the state
mercury standard. Fish tissue samples were also collected from Phelps Lake in order to evaluate
mercury levels in the Pasquotank River basin. Results are included in Section 4.5.1.

4.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts

The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. Attention and resources should be
focused on these issues to prevent water quality degradation. 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 Bull Bay [AU# 30-14]

Bull Bay (1,839.4 saltwater acres) is Not Rated on an evaluated basis in the aquatic life category
due to WET failures associated with the Tyrrell County (Bull Bay) Reverse Osmosis (RO) Water
Treatment Plant (Permit NC0086924). Between October 2003 and December 2005, the facility
failed to meet its 90 percent acute toxicity target effluent concentrations on three occasions. No
other violations have been reported at this facility. DWQ will continue to work with Tyrrell
County to assure permit limits are met.
68 Chapter 4 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-53
4.4.2 Riders Creek (First Creek) [AU# 30-14-4-10]

Riders Creek (First Creek), from source to the Scuppernong River (3.6 freshwater miles) is Not
Rated on an evaluated basis in the aquatic life category due to WET failures associated with the
Tyrrell County Ionic Exchange Water Treatment Plant (Permit NC0087092). Between July 2004
and December 2005, the facility failed to meet its 90 percent acute toxicity target effluent
concentrations on five occasions. No other violations have been reported at this facility.

This WTP should be replaced with a new Reverse Osmosis WTP with discharge to the
Albemarle Sound. Removing the WTP discharge to Riders Creek should reduce toxicity
exceedances in the river.

4.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-53

4.5.1 Mercury Contamination – Fish Tissue Assessment

Between 2003 and 2004, 89 fish tissue samples were collected from three stations in the
Pasquotank River basin to determine the level of mercury contamination. The samples included
largemouth bass, yellow perch, sunfish and catfish. Results from the period show 48 of the 89
samples collected contained mercury concentrations exceeding the state criteria of 0.4 ppm.
Table 12 provides a list of the sampling locations, number of samples collected and mercury
results for the Pasquotank River basin.

Currently, there are no site-specific consumption advisories for mercury-contaminated fish in the
Pasquotank River basin. However, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
issued statewide advice for the consumption of bowfin, catfish, warmouth and chain pickerel
south and east of I-85 and statewide for largemouth bass.

Table 12 Fish Tissue Results for Mercury Contamination in Subbasin 03-01-53

Stream Name (Location) Years
Sampled Species Number of
Samples
Samples Exceeding
Mercury Standard
Kendrick Creek 2003 Bass, Sunfish, Catfish,
Pickerel, Yellow Perch 23 7
Lake Phelps 2003 &
2004
Bass, Sunfish, Catfish,
Yellow Perch 59 39
Scuppernong River 2004 Bass, Sunfish 7 2

4.5.2 Dioxin Contamination- Fish Consumption Advisory

In 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued dioxin advisory 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). For more information
on this advisory, please visit DHHS website http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/.

Chapter 5 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-54 69
Chapter 5
Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-54
Including: Currituck Sound, Coinjock Bay, Dowdys Bay, Sanders Bay and the North River

5.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin contains portions of the Currituck Sound and
several tributaries, many of which are channelized. Except
for the barrier islands, most streams are of low relief and
often swampy. Substrate is composed of silt and sand, and
channelized ditches are common. Ecologically, the
subbasin contains characteristics of the Chesapeake-
Pamlico lowlands and tidal marshes, as well as nonriverine
swamps and peatlands, the Virginian Barrier Islands and
coastal marshes. Land cover generally consists of evergreen
forests, mixed forests, forested wetlands, marshes and
cultivated cropland. Land cover in the barrier islands
includes marshes, forested wetlands and evergreen forests.
This subbasin contains multiple public lands and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas including several
National Wildlife Refuges, the Currituck Banks National
Estuarine Research Reserve, Northwest River Marsh Game
Land, North River Game Land and portions of the Great
Marsh.
A portion of this subbasin is located on the Outer Banks
where there is the potential for high population growth and
development. Most of Currituck County and the eastern
portion of Camden County can be found in this subbasin.
Both counties have a projected population growth of over
45 percent by 2020. Additional information regarding
population and land use changes throughout the entire basin
can be found in Chapter 11.

There are two minor National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities in this
subbasin with a total permitted flow of 0.6 MGD. Both facilities are water treatment plants
(WTP), one of which is required to monitor whole effluent toxicity (WET). Southern Outer
Banks Water System WTP is a reverse osmosis (RO) facility that discharges filtered backwash or
reject water into saline waters. No acute effluent toxicity violations were reported during the last
two years of the assessment period. There are six non-discharge permits and two stormwater
discharge permits for 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 7. Table 13 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
lengths, streams monitored, 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 03-01-54 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 503 mi2
Land area: 304 mi2
Water area: 199 mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 39%
Surface Water: 39%
Cultivated Crop: 20%
Urban: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: <1%

Counties
Currituck and Camden

Municipalities
None

Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Aquatic Life:
Total: 1.6 mi
Supporting: 1.6 mi

Recreation:
Total: 75,988.1 ac
Supporting: 75,987.7 ac
Impaired: 0.4 ac
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
!(à
#*
#*
%L
%L
#I
%L
%L
%L
CURRITUCK
CAMDEN
NC 168
US 158
N
o
rt
h

R
iv
e
r
Northwest River N
o
r
t
h

L
a
n
d
i
n
g

R
i
v
e
r
K
n
o
t
t
s

I
s
l
a
n
d

B
a
y
C
u
r
r
it
u
n
k

S
o
u
n
d
Coinjock
Bay
MB11
Figure 7 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-54
®
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 03-01-54SubbasinTable 15
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Coinjock Bay
30-1-6
Entire Bay
4,670.6 S AcresSC ND S N47 NCE
Cowells Creek
30-1-2-2-5-1-1
From source to Tull Creek
1.6 FW MilesC;Sw S ND
MB11 M 2005
Currituck Sound
30-1a
From source to Wright Memorial Bridge at Albemarle Sound
69,301.2 S AcresSC ND S N46 NCE
N5B NCE
N5C NCE
N6A NCE
N82A NCE
N6 NCE
N82 NCE
30-1b
Currituck Sound off Ocean Bay Blvd.
0.3 S AcresSC ND I N5 CE Enterrococcus Unknown
30-1c
Southern Shores Private Soundside Access
0.1 S AcresSC ND I N89 CE Enterrococcus Unknown
Dowdys Bay (Poplar Branch Bay)
30-1-15
Entire Bay
1,532.3 S AcresSC ND S N44A NCE
Sanders Bay
30-1-11
Entire Bay
483.5 S AcresSC ND S N84A NCE
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-54
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-54SubbasinTable 15
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 1.6 FW Milesm
ND 123,984.8 S Acres
ND 1,026.4 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
75,987.7 S AcresSm
0.4 S AcresIm
47,996.7 S AcresND
1,028.1 FW MilesND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
123,984.8 S AcresIe
1,028.1 FW MilesIe
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-54

Chapter 5 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-54 73
One site was sampled for the first time for benthic macroinvertebrates in 2005. Two other creeks
were investigated as potential sampling sites; however, both were too deep for freshwater
sampling methodologies. There are several recreational monitoring stations (RECMON) located
throughout the subbasin, but there are no ambient monitoring stations within this subbasin. The
NC Division of Environmental Health (DEH) evaluates these 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 13 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.

5.2 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 14 provides a summary of use support for waters in subbasin 03-01-54.

In subbasin 03-01-54, 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. 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).

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.

Table 14 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-54
Use Support Rating Aquatic Life Recreation
Freshwater Saltwater Freshwater Saltwater
Monitored
Supporting 1.6 mi 0 0 75,987.7 ac
Impaired* 0 0 0 0.4 ac
Total 1.6 mi 0 0 75,988.1 ac
Unmonitored
No Data 1,026.4 mi 123,984.8 ac 1,028.1 mi 47,996.7 ac
Total 1,026.4 mi 123,984.8 ac 1,028.1 mi 47,996.7 ac
Totals
All Waters 1,028.0 mi 123,984.8 ac 1,028.1 mi 123,984.8 ac
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored miles/acres only.
74 Chapter 5 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-54
5.3 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.
Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is presented in Chapter 15.

5.3.1 Currituck Sound [AU# 30-1b and 30-1c]

Currituck Sound (Ocean Bay Blvd.) (0.3 acres) at site N5 is Impaired in the recreation category
because recreational monitoring (RECMON) bacteriological standards for safe bodily contact
were exceeded. However, this sampling site has been relocated to more accurately reflect where
primary recreation occurs and is now 750 yards off of Ocean Bay Blvd. The site is currently
(July 2007) open for recreation.

Southern Shores Private Soundside Access Site N89 (AU# 30-1c) (0.1 acres) is Impaired in the
recreation category based on recreational monitoring (RECMON) exceedances. This site is near
the mouth of Jean Guite Creek. The site is known to have stagnant freshwater because of poor
flushing and little tidal influences. Abundant wildlife populations are also found in this area and
may be contributing to water quality conditions.

5.4 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.

5.4.1 Unnamed Tributary to Cowells Creek [AU# 30-1-2-2-5-1-1]

Because Cowells Creek was not suitable for basinwide sampling, an unnamed tributary was
sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates. The unnamed tributary is Supporting in the aquatic life
category due to a Moderate swamp benthic bioclassification at site MB11. The tributary was
sampled for the first time in 2005 and will be added to the list of basinwide sites for the
Pasquotank River basin. To date, it is the only accessible freshwater site found in the subbasin.

The substrate consisted of sand with a layer of detritus. Sticks, snags and logs were present
along with root mats. Leaf packs were present, but rare. There was little evidence of stream
modification; however, streambanks were undercut even though the riparian areas on both sides

Chapter 5 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-54 75
of the stream were wide and intact. Two of the abundant taxa collected are indicators of organic
enrichment and/or low DO. No permitted NPDES facilities are located above site MB11.

2007 Recommendations
Cowells and Tulls Creek receive drainage from 12,000 acres of cropland. Erosion and
sedimentation control continue to be a priority need in this drainage. Agricultural BMPs, such as
grassed swales, conservation tillage and cover crops are encouraged. DWQ will work with local
resource agencies to promote installation of BMPs in the watershed.

5.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-54

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.

Subbasin 03-01-54 is experiencing rapid growth, where approximately 500 acres of farmland is
being converted to residential development per year. This change in land use also changes the
source of water quality stressors from primarily agriculture to increased impervious surface
runoff and associated pollutants, ineffective sewage systems, and lawn runoff. Local
government and agencies are encouraged to proactively plan, provide public education programs
and implement conservation strategies to prevent water quality degradation.

According to the Sanitary Survey of Albemarle and Currituck Sounds, Areas I-1, I-3 through
I-16 (DEH Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section, December 2005), there
has been little change in water quality since the last survey. The only shellfish found in this area
are Rangia clams and no commercial shellfish harvesting occurs. 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. Heavy development has occurred in
the outer banks portion of growing area I-16 within Currituck Sound, while a significant amount
of agriculture (e. g., turf grass farms, fruit orchards, horse farms, row crops and logging) occurs
on the mainland portion.

Area I-1 consists of the North River shoreline, as well as a small portion of the Albemarle
Sound. This area is predominantly rural, with scattered residential housing. Land use was
historically agriculture and is being replaced with commercial and residential development.
Remaining agriculture includes one hog farm near the head of the North River, turf grass farms,
fruit orchards, row crops, and small horse farms. Four golf courses are located in area I-1. There
are also four sewage application sites, all treated with lime.
76 Chapter 5 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-54

Chapter 6 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55 77
Chapter 6
Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55
Including: Northeastern Pamlico Sound

6.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin consists of Pamlico Sound from Oregon Inlet
to Hatteras Inlet and the Outer Banks in Dare County.
Subbasin 03-01-55 contains Black Lake and Stumpy Point
Bay on the mainland and the Pea Island National Wildlife
Refuge and Cape Hatteras National Seashore on the Outer
Banks. Ecologically, the subbasin consists primarily of
Carolinian Barrier Islands and coastal marshes with
portions of the mainland consisting of nonriverine swamps
and peatlands. Streams on the mainland are few and low
gradient with channelized ditches being common and all are
either estuarine or oceanic. Land cover generally consists
of surface water and forested wetlands.

Dare County, located in this subbasin, experiences a high
seasonal population fluctuation with tourists visiting the
Outer Banks. Dare County projected to experience a
population increase of 35 percent by 2020. Additional
information regarding population and land use changes
throughout the entire basin can be found in Chapter 11.

There are three minor National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities in this
subbasin with a total permitted flow of 2.1 MGD. All three
facilities are reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment plants
(WTP) that discharge filtered backwash or reject water into
saline waters. All three are required to monitor whole
effluent toxicity (WET). The permit for the Cape Hatteras
RO WTP specifies chronic toxicity monitoring. WET
results submitted by the facility indicate that it failed to
meet its chronic toxicity target on one occasion between
January 2000 and December 2005. The permits for the
Stumpy Point RO WTP and the Rodanthe/Waves/Salvo RO
WTP specify acute toxicity monitoring. No acute effluent
toxicity violations were reported at the Stumpy Point RO
WTP; however, results from the Rodanthe/Waves/Salvo RO WTP show that the facility failed to
meet its 90 percent acute toxicity target effluent concentration on four occasions between
January 2000 and December 2005. There is one non-discharge permit and no stormwater
discharge permits for this subbasin. For the listing of NPDES permit holders, refer to Appendix
III.

Subbasin 03-01-55 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 574 mi2
Land area: 96 mi2
Water area: 478 mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Surface Water:89%Forest/Wetland:
11%

Urban: <1%
Cultivated Crop: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: <1%

Counties
Dare

Communities
Stumpy Point, Rodanthe, Avon,
Waves

Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Aquatic Life:
Total: 0

Recreation:
Total: 315,259.3 ac
Supporting: 315,259.3 ac

Shellfish Harvesting:
Total: 319,557.8 ac
Supporting: 316,953.0 ac
Impaired: 2,604.8 ac
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r ¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
%L
DARE
DARE
US 264
NC 1 2
Pamlico Sound
Figure 8 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55
®
0369121.5
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/
Shellfish Harvesting 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 03-01-55SubbasinTable 18
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Askins Creek
30-22-24
From source to Pamlico Sound
4.9 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-5
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Austin Creek (Clubhouse Creek)
30-22-31
From source to Pamlico Sound
7.9 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-4
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Beach Slue
30-22-9
Entire area of Beach Slue
76.9 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Blackmar Gut
30-22-13
From source to Pamlico Sound
4.6 S AcresSA;HQW NR ND I PRO
H-5
Toxic Impacts WWTP NPDES
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Boat Creek
30-22-25
From source to Pamlico Sound
1.9 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Brooks Creek
30-22-28
From source to Pamlico Sound
24.8 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-4
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Cape Creek
30-22-27
From source to Pamlico Sound
15.8 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-5
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Clarks Bay
30-22-16
Entire Bay
19.8 S AcresSA;HQW ND S S APP
H-5
N29 NCE
Duck Ponds and Isaac Pond
30-22-30-1-1
Entire ponds and connecting streams to The Slash
10.3 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-4
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Eagle Nest Bay
30-22-2
Entire Bay
55.5 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-55SubbasinTable 18
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Goat Island Bay
30-22-3
Entire Bay
40.8 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Goose Creek
30-22-32
From source to Pamlico Sound
1.7 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-4
Gull Island Bay
30-22-18
Entire Bay
16.5 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Hatteras Inlet
30-22-33
Entire Inlet
143.1 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-4
Joe Saur Creek
30-22-29
From source to Pamlico Sound
17.9 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-4
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Long Point Creek
30-22-26
From source to Pamlico Sound
6.3 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Midgett Cove
30-22-15
From source to Pamlico Sound
36.4 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Mill Creek
30-22-22
From source to Pamlico Sound
16.2 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-5
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
No Ache Bay
30-22-17
Entire Bay
38.1 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
North Drain
30-22-14
From source to Pamlico Sound
2.0 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-55SubbasinTable 18
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Oregon Inlet
30-22-1
Entire Inlet
571.2 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-6
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-55SubbasinTable 18
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Pamlico Sound
30-22a
Portion of Pamlico Sound (from Croatan and Roanoke
Sounds to a line running from Sandy Point south of Stumpy
Point Bay to the northeast tip of Ocracoke Island) in
subbasin 03-01-55 except DEH closure areas 30-22b
through 30-22j.
315,239.5 S AcresSA;HQW NR S S APP
H-6
N26A NCE
N26C NCE
N28 NCE
N28A NCE
N29A NCE
N31 NCE
N33 NCE
N33A NCE
N38 NCE
N39 NCE
Low Dissolved Oxygen WWTP NPDES
30-22b
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area of a boundary begnning at a point on land west of the
Hatteras Ferry Landing at 35 degrees 12' 30" N- 75 degrees
42' 24" W, thence to a point in the ferry channel at 35
degrees 12' 37" N-75 deg
28.5 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-4
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-22c
The waters of the Pamlico Sound which include the DEH
closed area with mouth 1.17 miles southwest of Durant
Point.
15.2 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-4
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-22d
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area with mouth 321 meters east of east mouth of Austin
Creek
3.6 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-4
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-22e
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area: all creeks, canals, and tributaries along Hatteras
Island between Brooks Point to west mouth of Joe Saur
Creek.
18.7 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-4
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-55SubbasinTable 18
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
30-22f
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area: All waters south of a line bginning at a point on the
shore north of Buxton at 35 degrees 16' 44" N- 75 degrees
31' 05" W, thence in awesterly direction through Bald Point
to a point on the B
187.8 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-5
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-22g
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area at the mouth of Askins Creek
1.3 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-5
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-22h
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area at the mouth of Mill Creek. This includes all waters
south of a line from Big Island to the Outer Banks and all
waters east of line from Big Island to Gibbs Point.
29.2 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-5
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Pauls Ditch
30-22-12
From source to Pamlico Sound
6.9 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Pea Island Bay
30-22-6
Entire Bay
18.3 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Pea Island Creek
30-22-5
Entire Creek
4.6 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Peters Ditch
30-22-23
From source to Pamlico Sound
2.7 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-5
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Phipps Cove
30-22-19
From source to Pamlico Sound
5.8 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Round Hammock Bay
30-22-11
Entire Bay
276.4 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-55SubbasinTable 18
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Sandy Bay
30-22-30a
DEH Closure Area
37.6 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-4
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-22-30b
Entire Bay excluding DEH closure Area
123.7 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-4
Spencer Creek
30-22-21
From source to Pamlico Sound
4.4 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Stumpy Point Bay
30-22-8a
Entire Bay except DEH area closures
1,688.5 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-3
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-22-8b
All those waters bounded by a line beginning at a point 35
degrees 41' 55" N-75 degrees 46' 09" W, thence in a
southeasterly direction to a point 400 yards offshore at 35
degrees 41' 46" N- 75 degrees 45' 54" W, thence in a
southwesterly direction in a st
198.2 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-3
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-22-8c
All those waters within an area bounded by a line beginning
at a point on the east shore at 35 degrees 41' 44" N- 75
degrees 44' 18" W, thence to a point in the bay at 35 degrees
41' 28" N- 75 degrees 44' 45" W, thence to a point in the bay
at 35 degrees
260.3 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-3
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Terrapin Creek
30-22-7-1
From source to Terrapin Creek Bay
2.8 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Terrapin Creek Bay
30-22-7
Entire Bay
163.7 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
The Drain
30-22-20
From source to Pamlico Sound
1.4 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-55SubbasinTable 18
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
The Slash
30-22-30-1
From source to Sandy Bay
30.9 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-4
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The Trench
30-22-4
From source to Pamlico Sound
51.5 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
Wreck Creek
30-22-10
Entire Creek
43.5 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-5
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
NR 315,244.1 S Acrese
ND 4,335.9 S Acres
ND 117.6 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
315,259.3 S AcresSm
4,320.6 S AcresND
117.6 FW MilesND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
319,580.0 S AcresIe
117.6 FW MilesIe
Shellfish Harvesting Rating Summary
316,953.0 S AcresSm
2,604.8 S AcresIm
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55
86 Chapter 6 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55
Flooding continues to be a concern along the Outer Banks. Groundwater levels are high,
limiting the lands ability to infiltrate rainwater. Also, the increase in impervious surfaces
contributes to higher stormwater runoff and flooding events.

A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 8. Table 15 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
lengths, streams monitored, 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.

Neither benthic samples nor ambient stations are located in this subbasin; however, there are
several recreational monitoring stations (RECMON) located throughout the subbasin. These
stations are evaluated by the NC Division of Environmental Health (DEH). Long-term trends in
water quality cannot be assessed in this subbasin. 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.

Many of the waters in subbasin 03-01-55 are classified for shellfish harvesting (Class SA).
Many are also classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW). Several management strategies are in place to protect these waters.

Waters in the following sections and in Table 15 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.

6.2 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 16 provides a summary of use support for waters in subbasin 03-01-55.

In subbasin 03-01-55, use support was assigned for aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption and
shellfish harvesting categories. Waters are Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated, and 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). There are no water supply
watersheds designated in this subbasin.

Criteria for making use support determinations for the shellfish harvesting category were based
on Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Sanitary Surveys (SS) growing area classifications.
The problem parameter for all shellfish waters is the potential for fecal coliform standards
exceedances. Differences in acreage estimates between basin cycles are not just related to
changes in water quality. Changes in acreage are related to more refined methods of estimating
acreages, changes in growing area classifications, extension of closure areas as a result of
additional boat slips, and to changes in use support methodology.

Chapter 6 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55 87
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.

Table 16 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-55

Use Support
Rating Aquatic Life Recreation Shellfish Harvesting
Freshwater Saltwater Freshwater Saltwater Freshwater Saltwater
Monitored Waters
Supporting 0 0 0 315,259.3 ac 0 316,953.0 ac
Impaired* 0 0 0 0 0 2,604.8 ac (0.8%)
Total 0 0 0 315,259.3 ac 0 319,557.8 ac
Unmonitored Waters
Not Rated 0 315,244.1 ac 0 0 0 0
No Data 117.6 mi 4,335.9 ac 117.6 mi 4,320.6 ac 0 0
Total 117.6 mi 319,580 ac 117.6 mi 4,320.6 ac 0 0
Totals
All Waters 117.6 mi 319,580 ac 117.6 mi 319,579.9 ac 0 319,557.8 ac
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored miles/acres only.

6.3 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 assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Chapter 15.

For more information about use support determinations for the Impaired Class SA waters
presented in Table 17 below, 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. Refer to Figure 8 for a
map of subbasin 03-01-55.

Table 17 Summary of DEH Growing Areas H-3, H-4, H-5, H-6 Classifications in Subbasin
03-01-55
Class SA Waters Assessment Unit # Growing Area
Classification DEH Growing Area
Stumpy Point Bay
30-22-8a
30-22-8b
30-22-8c
PRO
PRO
PRO
H-3
Austin Creek 30-22-31 PRO H-4
Brooks Creek 30-22-28 PRO H-4
Duck Ponds and Isaac Pond 30-22-30-1-1 PRO H-4
Joe Saur Creek 30-22-29 PRO H-4
88 Chapter 6 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55
Pamlico Sound
30-22a1
30-22a2
30-22b
30-22c
30-22d
30-22e
30-22f
30-22g
30-22h
APP
PRO
PRO
PRO
PRO
PRO
PRO
PRO
PRO
H-4, H-5, H-6
Sandy Bay 30-22-30a
30-22-30b
PRO
APP H-4
The Slash 30-22-30-1 PRO H-4
Askins Creek 30-22-24 PRO H-5
Blackmar Gut 30-22-13 PRO H-5
Cape Creek 30-22-27 PRO H-5
Mill Creek 30-22-22 PRO H-5
PRO=Prohibited, CAC=Conditionally Approved Closed, CAO=Conditionally Approved Open

6.3.1 Stumpy Point Growing Area H-3

The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with these
waters are located within Growing Area H-3. If the
entire Class SA water is located within more than one
growing area it is noted in Table 17 or refer to the
basinwide Growing Area map in the Executive
Summary.

According to the Sanitary Survey of Stumpy Point,
Area H-3 (DEH Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational
Water Quality Section, May 2006), oyster production
is considered fair and there is no clam production.
The entire area consists of marsh and forest of the
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge with the
exception of the community of Stumpy Point. The
area has a total population of 230 people with little
seasonal variation. The population is not expected to
grow unless a WWTP is constructed to facilitate
further development. There are two seafood businesses in area H-3.

Stumpy Point Bay [AU# 30-22-8a, 30-22-8b and 30-22-8c]

Stumpy Point Bay (2,147.0 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Stumpy Point Bay is
classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-3 due to potential fecal coliform bacteria
levels. Stumpy Point Bay [AU# 30-22-8a, AU# 30-22-8b and 30-22-8c] will be added to the
state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

The Stumpy Point area does not have any central wastewater collection or treatment facilities.
Unsuitable soils in this area leave homeowners with limited on-site wastewater treatment
options. Currently, 63 of the 110 known septic systems are known to have straight pipe
discharges that drain to a canal empting directly into Stumpy Point Bay, or have failed. A new
WWTP to serve the residents of Stumpy Point has been proposed. A Septic Tank Effluent Pump

Chapter 6 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55 89
system would collect the wastewater in Stumpy Point and deliver it to a membrane bioreactor
wastewater treatment plant to provide advanced tertiary biological treatment and accomplish
disinfection by an ultraviolet light system. This system would discharge into Bayview Drive
Canal.

6.3.2 Hatteras Growing Area H-4
The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with
these waters are located within Growing Area
H-4. If the entire Class SA water is located
within more than one growing area it is noted
in Table 17 or refer to the basinwide Growing
Area map in the Executive Summary.

According to the Sanitary Survey of Hatteras
Area, Area H-4 (DEH Shellfish Sanitation &
Recreational Water Quality Section, May
2002, March 2007), an overall decline in
water quality has occurred. As a result of the
2007 survey an additional 4.5 acres will be
reclassified from approved to prohibited for
shellfish harvesting. The area covers 5,800 acres, of which 229.5 acres are closed for shellfish
harvesting. Oyster production is considered poor and clam production is poor. Samples taken
near an area referred to as Little Ditch, showed extremely high bacteria counts, but no major
pollution sources were noted. Area H-4 is located along the Outer Banks at the western end of
Hatteras Island where tourism is the main industry. Hatteras Village has an approximate
population of 1,700 with an increase to 6,000 during peak tourist months; the Town of Frisco has
approximately 700 permanent residents, increasing to 5,000. There is no WWTP within this area
and all residences and businesses utilize conventional septic systems. Many of the septic
systems are old and are installed in fill or coarse sand, allowing possible discharge to adjacent
water via groundwater. Hatteras Landing uses a low-pressure pipe system for waste disposal.
Additional multifamily residences are being built on fill in this area.

Austin Creek (Clubhouse Creek) [AU# 30-22-31]

Austin Creek (7.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Austin Creek is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Austin
Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Brooks Creek [AU# 30-22-28]

Brooks Creek (24.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Brooks Creek is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Brooks Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

90 Chapter 6 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55
Duck Ponds and Isaac Pond [AU# 30-22-30-1-1]

Duck Ponds and Isaac Pond (10.3 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Duck Ponds and
Isaac Pond are classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal
coliform bacterial levels. Duck Ponds and Isaac Pond will be added to the state’s 303(d) list of
Impaired waters.

Joe Saur Creek [AU# 30-22-29]

Joe Saur Creek (17.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Joe Saur Creek is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Joe
Saur Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Portions of the Pamlico Sound [AU# 30-22b, 30-22c, 30-22d and 30-22e]

Portions of the Pamlico Sound (66.0 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. The Pamlico
Sound is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal coliform
bacterial levels. The Pamlico Sound will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Sandy Bay [AU# 30-22-30a]

Sandy Bay (37.6 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Sandy Bay is classified by DEH SS
as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Sandy Bay
will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

The Slash [AU# 30-22-30-1]

The Slash (30.9 acres) is a tributary to Sandy Bay and Impaired for shellfish harvesting. The
Slash is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal coliform
bacterial levels. The Slash will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

6.3.3 Outer Banks Growing Area H-5

The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with these
waters are located within Growing Area H-5. If the
entire Class SA water is located within more than one
growing area it is noted in Table 17 or refer to the
basinwide Growing Area map in the Executive
Summary.

According to the Sanitary Survey of Outer Banks,
Area H-5 (DEH Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational
Water Quality Section, October 2002, September
2006), water quality has declined in some areas. As a
result of the 2006 survey approximately 15 acres will
be closed to shellfish harvesting in Askins Creek and
an additional 10 acres has been reclassified as
prohibited near Salvo Marina. However, 120 acres in

Chapter 6 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55 91
the Cape Creak Area has been opened for shellfish harvesting Area H-5 includes 66,800 acres
and oyster and clam production is considered fair. The survey area is characterized by three
small-populated areas separated by miles of uninhabited dunes and marshes. The permanent
population is estimated at 2,400 while seasonal tourism increases population to 40,000. Several
hurricanes impacted this area during this last Sanitary Survey resulting in debris from destroyed
houses, fuel tanks and vehicles being washed into the waterways. Most of the area is within
Cape Hatteras National Seashore and will never be developed.

Askins Creek [AU# 30-22-24]

Askins Creek (4.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Askins Creek is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Askins
Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Beach Slue [AU# 30-22-9]

Beach Slue is listed on the 2004 303(d) list of Impaired waters for shellfish harvesting. Beach
Slue (76.9 acres) is currently Supporting for shellfish harvesting. Beach Slue is now classified
by DEH SS as approved for harvesting, therefore DWQ will recommend that Beach Slue be
removed from the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Blackmar Gut [AU# 30-22-13]

Blackmar Gut (4.6 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Blackmar Gut is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Blackmar Gut will be added to the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Blackmar Gut is Not Rated on an evaluated basis in the aquatic life category due to WET failures
associated with the Rodanthe/Waves/Salvo Reverse Osmosis (RO) Water Treatment Plant
(WTP) (Permit NC0083909). Between January 2000 and December 2005, the facility failed to
meet its 90 percent acute toxicity target effluent concentrations on four occasions.

Cape Creek [AU# 30-22-27]

Cape Creek (15.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Cape Creek is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Cape Creek
will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Eagle Nest Bay [AU# 30-22-2]

Eagle Nest Bay was listed on the 2004 303(d) list of Impaired waters for shellfish harvesting.
Eagle Nest Bay (55.5 acres) is currently Supporting for shellfish harvesting. Eagle Nest Bay is
now classified by DEH SS as approved for harvesting, therefore DWQ will recommend that
Eagle Nest Bay be removed from the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

92 Chapter 6 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55
Mill Creek [AU# 30-22-22]

Mill Creek (16.2 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Mill Creek is classified by DEH SS
as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Mill Creek
will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Portions of the Pamlico Sound [AU# 30-22f, 30-22g and 30-22h]

Portions of the Pamlico Sound (218.3 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting. The Pamlico
Sound is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform
bacterial levels. The Pamlico Sound will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Peters Ditch [AU# 30-22-23]

Peters Ditch (2.7 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Peters Ditch is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Peters
Ditch will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Chapter 7 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56 93
Chapter 7
Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56
Including: Roanoke Sound and small portion of Albemarle and Currituck Sound

7.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin includes the Outer Banks from the northern
portion of Dare County south to Oregon Inlet. It also
includes portions of Currituck Sound, Albemarle Sound
and Roanoke Sound. Ecologically, it is within the
Carolinian Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes ecoregions.
Land cover generally consists of beaches, marshes, forested
wetlands and evergreen forests with scattered urbanized
areas, wildlife habitat and recreational areas. Several
public lands and significant natural heritage areas can be
found in this subbasin, including Jockey’s Ridge State
Park, Nags Head Woods Preserve, Run Hill State Natural
Area, Wright Brothers National Memorial and Kitty Hawk
Woods Coastal Reserve.

Portions of Currituck and Dare Counties are in this
subbasin. The Outer Banks have experienced rapid
population growth and development with the Towns of Kill
Devil Hills and Nags Head experiencing growth estimated
at an increase of 39 and 47 percent by 2020, respectively.
Refer to Chapter 11 for more information about population
growth and trends.

Water quality in areas with growing populations would
benefit from individual or community implementation of
backyard wetlands, rain gardens, bioretention areas,
conversion of impervious surfaces, use of cisterns,
streambank protection and restoration.

The Kill Devil Hills Reverse Osmosis (RO) Water
Treatment Plant (WTP) holds the only National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) minor permit in
the subbasin with a permitted discharge of 0.03 MGD. The permit specifies that the facility
monitor whole effluent toxicity (WET). During the last two years of the assessment period,
WET tests show that the facility has failed to meet its 90 percent acute toxicity target effluent
concentration on three occasions for both outfalls (outfall 001 and outfall 002). More
information can be found in Section 7.4.1. There are six non-discharge permits and two
stormwater discharge permits 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 9. Table 18 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
Subbasin 03-01-56 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 109 mi2
Land area: 37 mi2
Water area: 72 mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Surface Water: 70%
Forest/Wetland: 22%
Urban: 7%
Cultivated Crop: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 2%

Counties
Dare

Municipalities
Kill Devil Hills, Nags Head,
Kitty Hawk, Southern Shores

Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Recreation:
Total: 134.9 mi/22,216.2 ac
Supporting: 134.5 mi/22,211.5 ac
Impaired: 0.5 mi/4.7 ac

Shellfish Harvesting:
Total: 21,045.2 ac
Supporting: 19,258.3 ac
Impaired: 1,786.9 ac
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
January 8, 2007
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r¾r
¾r¾r
¾r
¾r¾r¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r
¾r¾r
¾r
¾r¾r
#*#*
%L
#I
%L%L
#I
%L
DARE
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

S
h
o
r
e
s
K
i
t
t
y

H
a
w
k
K
ill
D
e
v
il
H
ill
s
N
a
g
s

H
e
a
d
U S 1 5 8
C
u
r
r
i
t
u
n
k

S
o
u
n
d
Alb
e
m
a
rle
S
o
u
n
d
R
oa
n
o
k
e
S
o
u
n
d
Pa m lic o S o u n d
Figure 9 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56
®
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/
Shellfish Harvesting 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 03-01-56SubbasinTable 18
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
ALBEMARLE SOUND
30f1
Portion of Albemarle Sound in subbasin 03-01-56. 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
7,713.5 S AcresSB ND S N9A NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina
30f2
Colington Harbor swimming beach
0.1 S AcresSB ND I N91 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina
Enterrococcus Unknown
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-56SubbasinTable 18
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Atlantic Ocean
99-(7)a
The waters of the Atlantic Ocean contiguous to that portion
of Pasquotank River Basin that extends from the North
Carolina-Virginia State Line to the northeast tip of Ocracoke
Island
110.1 Coast MilesSB ND S N1 NCE
N12 NCE
N12A NCE
N12B NCE
N14 NCE
N14A NCE
N15 NCE
N16A NCE
N17 NCE
N17A NCE
N18 NCE
N1A NCE
N2 NCE
N23 NCE
N25 NCE
N26 NCE
N26B NCE
N27 NCE
N29B NCE
N3 NCE
N30 NCE
N32 NCE
N34 NCE
N37 NCE
N4 NCE
N40 NCE
N5A NCE
N7 NCE
N7A NCE
N85A NCE
N19 NCE
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-56SubbasinTable 18
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
99-(7)b
Coastline 0.25 miles north and south of RECMON station
N22 near Old Oregon Rd and NC12
0.5 Coast MilesSB ND I N22 CE Enterrococcus Unknown
99-(7)c
Coastline 0.25 miles north and south of NC0070157
0.5 Coast MilesSB NR S N85 NCE Toxic Impacts WWTP NPDES
Blossie Creek
30-21-12
Entire Creek
33.3 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-1
Colington Creek
30-19-1a
From Kill Devil Hills Bridge north to Kitty Hawk Bay
758.1 S AcresSC ND S N13A NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina
30-19-1b
Wildlife Ramp on Bayview Dr.
0.4 S AcresSC ND I N13 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina
Enterrococcus
Enterrococcus Unknown
Fresh Water Lake at Kill Devil Hills
30-23
Entire Lake
23.8 FW MilesWS-III;CA ND S N16 NCE
Georges Creek
30-21-10
From source to Roanoke Sound
3.0 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-1
Lighthouse Bay
30-21-11
Entire Bay
19.3 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-1
Pamlico Sound
30-22i
Portion of Pamlico Sound (from Croatan and Roanoke
Sounds to a line running from Sandy Point south of Stumpy
Point Bay to the northeast tip of Ocracoke Island) in
subbasin 03-01-56
5,150.1 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND S APP
H-6
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-56SubbasinTable 18
SH Rating
Shellfish
Harvesting
GA
Pond Island
30-21-4b
The waters surrounding the Island within 1,000 feet from
shore within subbasin 03-01-56
40.3 S AcresSA;HQW ND S I PRO
H-1
N20A NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Roanoke Sound
30-21e1
Those waters in 03-01-56 in the eastern portion of Roanoke
Sound, from a line running from Northwest Point on
Roanoke Island northward to Rhodoms Point on Colington
Island, thence a line running eastward through Wright
Memorial Monument, to a line running
14,052.7 S AcresSA;HQW ND S S APP
I-2
N24 NCE
N88A NCE
30-21e2
Jockey's Ridge Soundside Access
4.2 S AcresSA;HQW ND I N88 CE Enterrococcus Stormwater Runoff
30-21f
DEH closed area northeast of a line from Rhodams Point to
Mann Point including Buzzard bay
1,177.4 S AcresSA;HQW NR ND I PRO
I-2
Total Suspended Solids WWTP NPDES
Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina
30-21g
The waters of Roanoke sound which include those waters
around the Villa Condominium STP Outfall beginning at a
point 35 degrees 57' 54" N- 75 degrees 38' 46" W, thence
200 yards in a southwesterly direction to a point in the
sound at 35 degrees 57' 48" N-
26.3 S AcresSA;HQW NR ND I PRO
H-1
Low Dissolved Oxygen WWTP NPDES
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-21h
DEH closed area east of Pond Island adjacent ot HWY 264
bridge
405.0 S AcresSA;HQW ND S I PRO
H-1
N21B NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES
30-21i
DEH closed area adjacent to Mill Landing in subbasin 03-
01-56
100.7 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
30-21j
DEH closed area in southern portion of Roanoke Sound
adjacent to Big Tim Island
37.1 S AcresSA;HQW ND ND I PRO
H-1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Pasquotank 03-01-56SubbasinTable 18
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
NR 1,203.7 S Acrese
NR 0.5 Coast Milee
ND 28,466.3 S Acres
ND 23.8 FW Miles
ND 110.6 Coast Mile
Recreation Rating Summary
22,969.7 S AcresSm
4.7 S AcresIm
23.8 FW MilesSm
110.6 Coast MileSm
0.5 Coast MileIm
6,695.6 S AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
29,670.0 S AcresIe
23.8 FW MilesIe
111.1 Coast MileIe
Shellfish Harvesting Rating Summary
19,258.3 S AcresSm
1,786.9 S AcresIm
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56
100 Chapter 7 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56
lengths, streams monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results, along with use support
ratings for waters in the subbasin.

Many of the waters in subbasin 03-01-56 are classified for shellfish harvesting (Class SA).
Many are also classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW). Several management strategies are in place to protect these waters.

Neither benthic samples nor ambient stations are located in this subbasin; however, there are
several recreational monitoring stations (RECMON) located throughout the subbasin. These
stations are evaluated by the NC Division of Environmental Health (DEH). Long-term trends in
water quality cannot be assessed in this subbasin. 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 18 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 is used 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.

7.2 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 19 provides a summary of use support for waters in subbasin 03-01-56.

In subbasin 03-01-56, use support was assigned for aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption and
shellfish harvesting. Waters are Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated and 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). There are no water supply watersheds
designated in this subbasin.

Criteria for making use support determinations for the shellfish harvesting category were based
on Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Sanitary Surveys (SS) growing area classifications.
The problem parameter for all shellfish waters is the potential for fecal coliform standards
exceedances. Differences in acreage estimates between basin cycles are not just related to
changes in water quality. Changes in acreage are related to more refined methods of estimating
acreages, changes in growing area classifications, extension of closure areas as a result of
additional boat slips, and to changes in use support methodology.

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.
Appendix V provides definitions of the terms used throughout this basin plan.

Chapter 7 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56 101
Table 19 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-56
Use Support
Rating Aquatic Life Recreation Shellfish Harvesting
Freshwater Saltwater Freshwater Saltwater Freshwater Saltwater
Monitored Waters
Supporting 0 0 23.8 mi 110.6 mi
22,969.7 ac 0 19,258.3 ac
Impaired* 0 0 0 0.5 mi
4.7 ac (0.02%) 0
1,786.9 ac (8.5%)
Total 0 0 23.8 mi 111.1 mi
22,974.4 ac 0 21,045.2 ac
Unmonitored Waters
Not Rated 0 0.5 mi
1,203.7 ac 0 0 0 0
No Data 23.8 mi 110.6 mi
28,466.3 ac 0 6,695.6 ac 0 0
Total 23.8 mi 111.1 mi
28,771.4 ac 0 6,695.6 ac 0 0
Totals
All Waters 23.8 mi 111.1 mi
28,771.8 ac 23.8 mi 111.1 mi
29,670 ac 0 21,045.2 ac
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored miles/acres only.

7.3 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 15.

For more information about use support determinations for the Impaired Class SA waters
presented in Table 20 below, 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. Refer to Figure 9 for a
map of subbasin 03-01-56.

Table 20 Summary of DEH Growing Areas H-1, I-2 Classifications in Subbasin 03-01-56
Class SA Waters Assessment Unit # Growing Area
Classification DEH Growing Area
Pond Island 30-21-4b PRO H-1
Roanoke Sound
30-21e1
30-21e2
30-21f
30-21g
30-21h
30-21i
30-21j
APP
APP
PRO
PRO
PRO
PRO
PRO
H-1, I-2
PRO=Prohibited, CAC=Conditionally Approved Closed, CAO=Conditionally Approved Open
102 Chapter 7 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56
7.3.1 Eastern Shore of Roanoke Sound Growing Area H-1

The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with these
waters are located within Growing Area H-1. If the
entire Class SA water is located within more than one
growing area it is noted in Table 20 or refer to the
basinwide Growing Area map in the Executive
Summary.

According to the Sanitary Survey of Roanoke
Sound, Area H-1 (DEH Shellfish Sanitation &
Recreational Water Quality Section, October 2002
and August 2006), little changes in water quality
were detected. Roanoke Sound is bordered on the
east by the Outer Banks and on the west by Roanoke
Island. H-1 is located in Dare County, undergoing
rapid population growth and large influxes in
seasonal populations. Nags Head has an estimated
permanent population of 3,200 with an increase to
over 60,000 during summer months.

Nags Head area continues to have significant construction of seasonal residences and retail
businesses adding to impervious surface cover. Much of the construction ties into the municipal
wastewater treatment system with land application disposal or package plants with low-pressure
pipe drain fields for final effluent disposal. One of the two septic systems operated by the US
National Park Service was found to be failing during the 2006 survey.

As a result of the 2002 survey an additional 10 acres of shellfishing waters were closed at the
canals of Old Nags Head Cove.

Pond Island [AU# 30-21-4b]

Pond Island (40.3 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Pond Island is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacteria levels. Pond Island
will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Roanoke Sound (Jockey’s Ridge Soundside) [AU# 30-21e2]

Roanoke Sound at Jockey’s Ridge State Park (4.2 acres) is Impaired in the recreation category
based on RECMON exceedences at site N88 for enterococci bacteria. The sampling location is
near the storm drain just south of Jockey’s Ridge. This section of the Roanoke Sound will be
added to the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired recreational waters.

Roanoke Sound [AU# 30-21g]

2002 Status
DEH posted a swimming advisory for a portion of the Roanoke Sound centered around the
discharge associated with the Villas Association, Inc. The Villas is a residential/resort

Chapter 7 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56 103
community in the Town of Nags Head. The advisory was posted in 1998. In 2002, the Villas
Association received a non-discharge permit to eliminate the direct discharge to Roanoke Sound.
The facility is now utilizing a land application method for its treated wastewater.

Current Status
Roanoke Sound (26.3 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. This section of the sound is
classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacteria
levels. This section of the Roanoke Sound will be remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired
waters for shellfish harvesting.

This segment of the Roanoke Sound [AU# 30-21g] is Not Rated for recreation due to concerns
with the previous WWTP discharges and will remain on the 303(d) list until further bacterial
assessment is completed. No RECOM samples were collected in this section of the Roanoke
Sound. The RECMON sampling location closest to the Villas is near the storm drain just south
of Jockey’s Ridge. DEH has had 35 advisory days at this location since the 2004 swimming
season.

Roanoke Sound [AU# 30-21h, 30-21i and 30-21j]

Current Status
These segments of the Roanoke Sound (542.8 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting. This
portion of the Roanoke Sound is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to
potential fecal coliform bacteria levels. Roanoke Sound will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of
Impaired waters.

7.3.2 Eastern Shore of Roanoke Sound Growing Area I-2

The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with
these waters are located within Growing Area
I-2. If the entire Class SA water is located
within more than one growing area it is noted
in Table 20 or refer to the basinwide Growing
Area map in the Executive Summary.

According to the Sanitary Survey of Eastern
Albemarle Sound, Area I-2 (DEH Shellfish
Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality
Section, June 2005), water quality has
improved with a few exceptions. The only
shellfish present in this area is Rangia clams.
The estimated population of this area is
11,000 people, which is a 50 percent increase since the last survey. With the influx of tourists
the population in this area more than triples. There are 15 subdivisions, many of which are
located along waters closed for shellfish harvesting.

104 Chapter 7 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56
Roanoke Sound (Buzzard Bay) [AU# 30-21f]

Roanoke Sound (1,177.4 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. This impaired section runs
from Rhodams Point to Mann Point and includes Buzzard Bay. It is classified by DEH SS as
prohibited in growing area I-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacteria levels. This section of the
Roanoke Sound will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

7.3.3 Previously or Currently Impaired Freshwater and Non-Shellfish Harvesting Waters

Albemarle Sound [AU# 30f2]

The Colington Harbor Swimming Beach in the Albemarle Sound (0.1 acres) is Impaired in the
recreation category based on recreational monitoring (RECMON) exceedances at site N91. This
section of Albemarle Sound will be added to the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired recreational
waters.

Atlantic Ocean [AU# 99-(7)b]

This 0.5 mile of coast line is Impaired in the recreation category based on RECMON
exceedences at site N22. This section of the Atlantic coastline will be added to the state’s 303(d)
list of Impaired recreational waters.

Colington Creek [AU# 30-19-1b]

Colington Creek (0.4 acres) is Impaired in the recreation category based on recreational
monitoring (RECMON) exceedances at site N13. During the assessment period extreme
elevated bacteria counts were detected. Shore birds and other waterfowl are abundant in this
area. The predominant southwest winds lead to limited flushing rates and often the waters
become stagnant adjacent to the shoreline. Also, a dock was being built at the end of Dock
Street, which was the location of the sampling site. During construction, sediments that include
bacteria were being re-suspended in the water column by the pumping of pilings and the use of
heavy equipment. This sampling station (N13) has now been dropped and replaced with a
station (N13a) about 200 yards offshore.

7.4 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.

7.4.1 Atlantic Ocean [AU# 99-(7)c]

The Dare County Reverse Osmosis (RO) WTP (Permit NC0070157) for Kill Devil Hills
discharges to an unnamed tributary that reaches this 0.5-mile section of the Atlantic coastline.
The permit specifies that the facility monitor whole effluent toxicity (WET). During the last two
years of the assessment period, WET tests show that the facility has failed to meet its 90 percent
acute toxicity target effluent concentration on three occasions for both outfalls (outfall 001 and
outfall 002). DWQ regional office staff report that outfall 001 is currently in compliance per the

Chapter 7 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56 105
permit; however, outfall 002 is showing high levels of chlorine. DWQ staff is working with the
facility to ensure that both outfalls are in compliance per permit limits.

7.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-56

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.

Several pump stations contribute to the Kill Devil Hills WWTP non-discharge system (Permit
WQ0002829), which have been non-compliant because of maintenance issues. Improved
operational management and the possible consolidation of ownership of the pump stations would
make inspections easier and maintenance issues could possibly be resolved. The facility is also
expanding from 300,000 GPD to 500,000 GPD.

Town of Nags Head
In the fall of 2000, the Town of Nags Head implemented the Septic Health Initiative to improve
management of septic systems and to reduce a potential source of microbes. This initiative
includes four major programs including a public education program, septic tank inspection and
pumping, water quality monitoring and the development of a long term decentralized wastewater
management plan. This voluntary program is designed to encourage homeowners to have their
septic systems inspected and pumped on a regular basis by providing refunds for inspection costs
and utility credits for septic pumping. A homeowner low interest loan program also promotes
the replacement of failing systems. The development of a decentralized wastewater management
plan is Nags Head's long-term strategy in protecting water quality while allowing the continued
use of on-site wastewater systems. (http://www.townofnagshead.net)
106 Chapter 7 – Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56

Chapter 8 - Water Quality Classifications and Standards 107
Chapter 8
North Carolina Water Quality Classifications and Standards

8.1 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).

8.1.1 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 21 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: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/. Figure 10 presents Class SA, ORW and water supply
classifications in the basin.

8.1.2 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.

High Quality Waters (Class HQW)
All shellfish harvesting (Class SA) have the supplemental classification of HQW by rule. There
are 395,269 acres of HQW waters in the Pasquotank River basin; all are SA waters except for
32.9 acres classified as SC waters. Special HQW protection management strategies are intended
to prevent degradation of water quality below present levels from both point and nonpoint
sources. HQW requirements for new wastewater discharge facilities and facilities, which expand
beyond their currently permitted loadings, address oxygen-consuming wastes, total suspended
solids, disinfections, emergency requirements, volume, nutrients (in nutrient sensitive waters)
and toxic substances.
108 Chapter 8 - Water Quality Classifications and Standards
Table 21 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.

For nonpoint source pollution, development activities which
require a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan in
accordance with rules established by the NC Sedimentation
Control Commission or an approved local erosion and
sedimentation control program, and which drain to and are
within one mile of HQWs, are required to control runoff
from the development using either a low density or high
density option. The low-density option requires a 30-foot
vegetated buffer between development activities and the
stream; whereas, the high-density option requires structural
stormwater controls. In addition, the Division of Land
Resources (DLR) requires more stringent erosion controls for
land-disturbing projects within one mile of and draining to
HQWs.

Outstanding Resource Waters (Class ORW)
There are 485 miles, 15,938 freshwater acres, and 43,154 saltwater acres of ORW waters in the
basin (Figure 10). These waters have excellent water quality (rated based on biological and
chemical sampling as with HQWs) and an associated outstanding resource.

Criteria for HQW Classification
• Waters rated as Excellent based on
DWQ’s chemical and biological
sampling.
• Streams designated as native or special
native trout waters by the Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC).
• Waters designated as primary nursery
areas or other functional nursery areas
by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
• Waters classified by DWQ as WS-I,
WS-II or SA.

Chapter 8 - Water Quality Classifications and Standards 109
The requirements for ORW waters are more
stringent than those for HQWs. Special protection
measures that apply to North Carolina ORWs are
set forth in 15A NCAC 2B .0225. At a minimum,
no new discharges or expansions are permitted, and
a 30-foot vegetated buffer or stormwater controls
for new developments are required. In some
circumstances, the unique characteristics of the
waters and resources that are to be protected require
that a specialized (or customized) ORW
management strategy be developed.

Class SA Waters
There are 395,236 acres of SA waters in the basin. The best uses of Class SA waters are for
shellfishing for market purposes and any other usage specified by the "SB" or "SC"
classification. SA waters also receive the supplemental classification of either HQW or ORW.
Fecal coliform bacteria in class SA waters shall meet the current sanitary and bacteriological
standards as adapted by the Commission for Health Services. Domestic wastewater discharges
are not allowed, and there are provisions for stormwater controls. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0221
for specifics on water quality standards in Class SA waters. All Class SA waters are also carry a
supplemental designation of HQW or ORW by rule (see above), depending on the resource value
present at the time of classification.

Primary Recreation (Class B and SB)
There are 25 freshwater miles, 15,938 freshwater acres, 111 saltwater miles, and 312,119
saltwater acres classified for primary recreation in the Pasquotank River basin. Waters classified
as Class B are protected for primary recreation, include frequent and/or organized swimming,
and must meet water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria. Sewage and all discharged
wastes into Class B waters must be treated to avoid potential impacts to the existing water
quality.

Aquatic Life Propagation and Secondary Recreation (Class C and SC)
There are 3,595 freshwater miles, 4,981 freshwater acres, 12 saltwater miles, and 374,818
saltwater acres classified for aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation in the
Pasquotank River basin.

Swamp Waters (Class Sw)
There are 3,159 freshwater miles, 20,918.9 freshwater acres, 8.8 saltwater miles, and 66,519
saltwater acres with the supplemental classification of swamp waters in the basin. Waters with
this supplemental classification will naturally be more acidic (have lower pH values) and have
lower levels of dissolved oxygen.

Water Supply watershed (Class WS)
There are 54 miles of waters classified as water supply waters. WS classifications are assigned to
watersheds based on land use characteristics of the area. Each water supply classification has a
set of management strategies to protect the surface water supply. There are five WS classes
ranging from WS-I through WS-V; only levels III, IV and V occur in the Pasquotank basin. WS-
I provides the highest level of protection and WS-IV provides the least protection. A Critical
Area (CA) designation is also listed for watershed areas within a half-mile and draining to the
water supply intake or reservoir where an intake is located.
The ORW rule defines outstanding
resource values as including one or more of
the following:
• an outstanding fisheries resource;
• a high level of water-based recreation;
• a special designation such as National Wild
and Scenic River or a National Wildlife
Refuge;
• within a state or national park or forest; or
• a special ecological or scientific
significance.
CURRITUCKCAMDEM
PASQUOTANK
GATES
PERQUIMANS
CHOWAN
WASHINGTON
TYRRELL
DARE
Elizabeth City
Winfall
Hertford
Manteo
Columbia
Roper
Creswell
03-01-54
03-01-50
03-01-52
03-01-53
03-01-51
03-01-56
03-01-55
Al b e m ar le S o u n d
P
aml
i
c
o S
ou
nd
C
u
r
r
i
t
u
c
k

S
o
u
n
d
P
a
s
q
u
ota
n
k Riv
er
N
o
rt
h

R
i
v
e
r
Little
Riv
er
Perquimans River
HYDE
Alliga
t
or River
Figure 10 ORW, SA and WS waters in the Pasquotank River Basin
0 7 14 21 283.5
Miles
®
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 2, 2007
Southern Shores
Kitty Hawk
Kill Devil Hills
Nags Head
Phelps
Lake
Legend
Subbasin Boundary
WS-IV
ORW
SA/HQW
Municipality
County Boundary
Hydrography

Chapter 9 - Stressors and Sources of Impairment 111
Chapter 9
Water Quality Stressors and Sources of Impairment in the
Pasquotank River Basin

9.1 Stressor 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.

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 potential sources. The Division of Environmental Health
Shellfish Sanitation Section collects data and information regarding potential sources of water
quality stressors to shellfish growing areas. 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 Department 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

9.1.1 Overview of Stressors Identified in the Pasquotank River Basin

The stressors noted below are summarized for all waters and for all use support categories.
Figure 11 identifies stressors noted for Impaired streams and streams with noted impacts for
freshwater bodies. The stressors noted in the figure may not be the sole reason for the
impairment or noted impacts. Fecal Coliform is the sole parameter that results in impairment in
the shellfish harvesting category. DWQ relies heavily on Division of Environmental Health
growing area classifications and Shellfish Sanitary Surveys for identification of sources of fecal
coliform. For specific discussion of stressors to the impaired or noted waters, refer to the
subbasin chapters. Stressor definitions and potential impacts are discussed in the remainder of
this chapter.
112 Chapter 9 - Stressors and Sources of Impairment
Figure 11 Freshwater Stressors
All Freshwater Stressors
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Chlorophyll
a
Habitat
Degradation
Lack of
organic
material
Low
Dissolved
Oxygen
Low pH Nutrient
Impact
Mil
e
s

9.1.2 Dioxin- Stressor

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
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/.

9.1.3 Copper- Stressor

Ambient water quality samples in the Pasquotank River basin found Copper as the most common
problem parameter identified. Copper is naturally occurring in the ocean and estuaries; however,
concentrations of copper typically range from 0.3 to 3.8 μg/L in estuaries and 0.1 and 2.5 μg/L in
coastal waters in the United States. For all twelve of the ambient stations, at least 10 percent of
the samples were above 3.8 μg/l. For eight of the twelve ambient stations, samples were above
3.8 μg/l at least 25 percent of the time. Higher than normal copper concentrations found in the
basin may indicate anthropogenic sources of copper such as copper antifouling boat paints.
These paints are designed to leach copper into the water to reduce barnacle and algal growth on
boat bottoms. Boaters should use alternative nontoxic antifouling paints to protect their boats.

9.2 Source Identification

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

Chapter 9 - Stressors and Sources of Impairment 113
predominant land use in a watershed. Stressors sources identified in the Pasquotank River basin
during this assessment period include urban or impervious surface runoff, construction sites, road
building, marinas and agriculture. Point source discharges are also considered a water quality
stressor source. In addition to these sources, many impacts originate from unknown sources.

Stormwater runoff from a variety of land use practices is identified as the primary source of
impairment to shellfish harvesting waters in the Pasquotank River basin. Runoff from rain
events carries the fecal coliform bacteria stressor that results in impairment of the shellfish
harvesting use support category. Established development, new construction, animal waste
(e.g., domestic pets, agricultural animals, and wildlife), and human waste from sewer overflows
and failing septic systems are all contributing factors to compounding problems in stormwater
runoff. Figure 12 below shows stressor sources identified in the Pasquotank River basin.

Figure 12 Stressors Sources
Freshwater Sources
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Agriculture Failing Septic
System
MS4 NPDES Unknown WWTP
NPDES
Mi
l
e
s

Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment- Source

As development continues to expand along the NC coastline new drinking water treatment
facilities have opened over the last several years to meet demands of population growth. There
are 16 permitted water treatment plants in the Pasquotank River basin. With these new facilities,
State and federal natural resource agencies are concerned with discharge of filter backwash and
reverse osmosis reject water into estuarine and coastal receiving waters. Reverse Osmosis (RO)
Water Treatment uses semipermeable membranes for water purification by forcing water through
a membrane against the concentration gradient. This process allows water molecules to pass
through the semipermeable membrane and excludes ions (e.g., Na+, Ca2+, Cl-) or larger
molecules (e.g., bacteria, organic contaminants). Discharge from RO plants has the potential to
create an ion-imbalance problem, depending on the salinity and mixing conditions of the
receiving waters. Discharge can be highly ionic which can further stress estuarine and coastal
environments.

114 Chapter 9 - Stressors and Sources of Impairment
Since 2000, DWQ permitting policy for monitoring whole effluent toxicity (WET) (i.e., tests to
determine toxicity of discharges to sensitive aquatic species) of RO facilities has evolved.
Permitting strategies were developed by an interagency workgroup to evaluate the impact RO
discharge may have on the state’s coastal waterways. As expected, data collected in coastal
basins indicate that the briny (i.e., salty) discharge is less toxic to saltwater organisms than
freshwater organisms. The interagency workgroup produced one major recommendation: the
initial planning stage of RO facilities should incorporate the location of discharge outfalls such
that the effluents produce minimal water quality impacts. WET data collected in the Pasquotank
River basin strongly support this recommendation. (DWQ ESS, April 2006).

An ecological assessment of the proposed Currituck County and Pasquotank County Reverse
Osmosis Water Treatment Plant discharge sites was conducted by Eastern Carolina University’s
Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources. In effort to identify potential effects on receiving
waters from RO facility discharges this study used environmental conditions at the Camden
County Reverse Osmosis WTP as a baseline. The following information is a summary of
environmental condition data for the Camden WTP area collected from July 2005 to June 2006
as reported by Rulifson et al., 2006.

The Camden WTP discharges to the Pasquotank River across from Elizabeth City and the US
Coast Guard facility. The facility draws water from two 600-foot wells from the Castle Hayne
aquifer, and two 100-foot wells from the Yorktown aquifer. Discharge from the Camden RO-
WTP was relatively constant at ~207,000 GPD, with the effluent plume shifting with prevailing
winds and current conditions.

• The salinity of the in-plant discharge from the Camden Reverse Osmosis WTP ranged
from 10.2-15.2 ppt and the groundwater feed to the plant varied from 8.1-8.3 ppt and 0.9-
1.0 ppt for the Castle Hayne and Yorktown, respectively.
• Ion concentrations were much more variable at the bottom sites around the diffuser than
at surface sites, and generally showed decreasing concentrations away from the diffuser
in all directions. Surface waters were not noticeably affected and showed less variable
chemistry than bottom waters.
• Ratios of major ions (except HCO3-) to chloride were similar to surface water and
groundwater samples. For, HCO3- in Cl- the groundwater feed into the RO-WTP and the
in-plant discharge were significantly higher than that of local water from the Pasquotank
River and Albemarle Sound.
• Agronite is the only mineral to potentially reach saturation and precipitate out in the
receiving waters, but will likely dissolve quickly as waters mix.
• Ammonium concentrations within 15 meters of the diffuser were significantly higher
suggesting the possibility of increased photosynthetic activity and perhaps algal blooms.
No algal blooms were observed during the study period, however, the naturally dark
color of the river water results in visibilities of less than 0.5 meters suggesting that
minimal light penetration may limit photosynthesis. (Rulifson et al., 2006).

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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm.

Chapter 10 - Stormwater and Wastewater Management 115
Chapter 10
Stormwater and Wastewater Management for Improved
Water Quality

10.1 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 wastewaters 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm.

10.2 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 25 individual stormwater permits listed for the Pasquotank 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.

116 Chapter 10 - 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. In particular, the Division
of Environmental Health needs to include the data in their extensive surveys of pollution sources
for shellfish growing areas.

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 a protocol exists for collecting GPS coordinates in a consistent manner at
permitted sites.

As a result of the 2005-2006 municipal outfalls updates the number of untreated stormwater
outfalls detected are listed in Table 22 below:

Table 22 Stormwater Outfalls (2005-06)
Municipality Number of Outfalls Identified
Columbia 9
Creswell 5
Elizabeth City 10
Hertford 11
Kill Devil Hills 2
Manteo 5
Southern Shores 3

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,
Elizabeth City and Dare County would improve water quality in their jurisdiction if they were to
voluntarily begin developing stormwater programs meeting 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.

10.3 Wastewater Management Programs
10.3.1 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

Chapter 10 - Stormwater and Wastewater Management 117
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 33 permitted wastewater dischargers in the Pasquotank River basin. Table
23 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.

Table 23 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Pasquotank River
Basin (August 2006).
Facility Categories 03-01-50 03-01-51 03-01-52 03-01-53 03-01-54 03-01-55 03-01-56 TOTAL
Total Facilities 6 6 4 11 2 3 1 34
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 4,984,000 1,490,000 700,000 753,000 600,000 2,143,200 1,420,000 12,090,200
Facilities Grouped by Size
Major Discharges 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Permitted Flow (MGD) 4,500,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,500,000
Minor Discharges 5 5 4 11 2 3 1 32
Permitted Flow (MGD) 484,000 490,000 700,000 753,000 600,000 2,143,200 1,420,000 6,590,200
Facilities Grouped by Type
100% Domestic Waste 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
Permitted Flow (MGD) 7,000 0 0 6,000 0 0 0 13,000
Municipal Facilities 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 6
Permitted Flow (MGD) 4,500,000 1,000,000 700,000 449,000 0 0 0 6,649,000
Nonmunicipal Facilities 5 5 3 8 2 3 1 28
Permitted Flow (MGD) 484,000 490,000 --- 304,000 600,000 2,143,200 1,420,000 5,441,200

10.3.2 NPDES Wastewater Non-Discharge Permit Summary

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 systems. 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, but they also
provide details on the permitting process and information that must be submitted with a permit
application.
118 Chapter 10 - Stormwater and Wastewater Management

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.

Within the Pasquotank 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, themselves, 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 2L 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.

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 Pasquotank River basin, 20 non-discharge permits have been issued (See Table 24). 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm).

Chapter 10 - Stormwater and Wastewater Management 119
Table 24 Summary of NPDES Non-Discharge Permits for the Pasquotank River Basin
(August 2006).
Facility Categories 03-01-50 03-01-51 03-01-52 03-01-53 03-01-54 03-01-55 03-01-56 TOTAL
Total Facilities 2 0 3 2 6 1 6 20
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 260,000 0 487,667 29,000 1,089,000 350,000 584,000 2,799,667
Facilities Grouped by Size
Major Discharges 1 0 2 1 5 1 4 14
Permitted Flow (MGD) 250,000 0 483,167 25,000 1,085,000 350,000 582,500 2,775,667
Minor Discharges 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 6
Permitted Flow (MGD) 10,000 0 4,500 4,000 4,000 0 1,500 24,000
Facilities Grouped by Type
Government-Municipal 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Permitted Flow (MGD) 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000
Government-County 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Permitted Flow (MGD) 0 0 0 0 540,000 0 0 540,000
Government-State 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Permitted Flow (MGD) 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 25,000
Non-Government 1 0 3 1 4 1 6 16
Permitted Flow (MGD) 250,000 0 487,667 4,000 549,000 350,000 584,000 2,224,667

10.3.2.1 Coastal Wastewater Management Strategies

New development activities in coastal areas frequently rely on non-discharge systems for
wastewater treatment and disposal. 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. Permitted non-discharge facilities can be a good alternative to
permitted surface water discharges when appropriately permitted based on site conditions for
disposal and treatment. 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 and are used in concert with
15A NCAC 02H .0400 rules (Coastal Waste Treatment Disposal Rules).

Reuse quality treatment may use infiltration ponds, but many systems use a sprayfield area with
known soil types and crop designations along with hydraulic limits for disposal. Older, smaller
package plants often have rotary distributor disposal systems, although these are becoming
outdated and are being replaced by drip irrigation or small spray systems.

Setbacks are required for surface waters, drainage ditches and waterways for all irrigation sites.
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
120 Chapter 10 - Stormwater and Wastewater Management
nutrients. In addition, the coarse grain sands do not always provide adequate adsorption and
retention time before it enters groundwater. With the promulgation of the Subchapter 02T rules,
high-rate systems must meet more stringent effluent limitations and/or increased setbacks.

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.

In the Pasquotank River basin there is documentation of some problems associated with these
non-discharge systems. These problems are typically traced back to operator and operational
system management issues or poor design. The Currituck Club, The Villages at Ocean Hill, Pine
Island, The Village at Nags Head, and The Villas in Nags Head are communities with
wastewater treated in package plants.

Another issue that can be associated with non-discharge systems is the installation of high rate
infiltration systems in very densely developed areas. The high rate systems, combined with low-
pressure systems and individual septic tank systems, can overload the upper groundwater aquifer
in coastal areas. These conditions make it very difficult to conduct meaningful groundwater
compliance monitoring because of the large number of neighboring influences from septic
systems. Some solutions include effluent monitoring limits combined with more effective
bacteriological treatment, increased denitrification, centralized waste treatment or limiting
growth.

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 conduit for runoff. Most non-
discharge spray irrigation sites have storage ponds that would allow the wastewater to be held
until appropriate to spray.

Many non-discharge systems are constructed by developers 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.

There are also "space" issues to consider. Although a designated green space area (in essence a
repair area) is required for a coastal project, the repair solution can still be difficult to implement
due to limited space to work in.

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.

Chapter 10 - Stormwater and Wastewater Management 121
10.4 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 onsite wastewater rules and laws is the responsibility of the local
environmental health specialists. For more information on NC 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 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
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.

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 Pasquotank 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 throughout tributary watersheds will aid in identifying where
122 Chapter 10 - Stormwater and Wastewater Management
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 an 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 also 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm.

On-going on-site waste management activities in the Pasquotank 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 Division
of Environmental Health (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, nonpoint source coordinator
grants for fate and transport of microbes in the shellfish areas, endocrine disrupting chemicals
and pharmaceuticals, and an on-site management grant. The DEH Shellfish Sanitation and
Recreational Water Quality Section also have significant involvement with on-site wastewater
inspections and protection of water quality in the CAMA counties. Sanitary Surveys are
conducted for the shellfishing harvesting areas, which include inspecting on-site wastewater
discharges. On-site wastewater systems are inspected once every year as a drive-by or shoreline
observation, and every three years door-to-door inspections. The Division of Waste
Management oversees the septage management firms and septage disposal in NC.

Chapter 11 - Population Growth and Development 123
Chapter 11
Changes in Our Coastal Communities
-Population Growth, Development and Water Quality
11.1 Our Changing Waterfronts and Loss of Public Access

Waterfronts in North Carolina are changing. Historic landmarks for those that have been born
and raised on the waterfronts are disappearing; as are fish houses and fishing fleets. These
historic uses of waterfronts are being replaced with “urban waterfronts”. Many waterfronts are
redeveloping into waterfronts more like Wilmington’s waterfront – the state’s only designated
“urban waterfront”. Redevelopment projects on historically working waterfronts include
activities such as restaurants, condominiums and mixed-use buildings. Fishing fleets are being
replaced by yachts, charter boats or sport fishing boats. Property values are soaring making it a
challenge for historic waterfront business to stay in operation, when selling the business and
property is more profitable. Reports of median selling prices for soundside lots on Hatteras
Island jumping from $82,000 in 1998 to $412,000 in 2005 are not uncommon. Profits like these
are hard to turn down, but with these selling prices comes a change of community structure and
history. Even smaller coastal communities are feeling the brunt of coastal redevelopment for
residences and businesses near the water. While land closest to the ocean has seen the first wave
of development, the second and third waves of development on the sound and tidal creeks are
already here.

Loss of Access to Public Use of Coastal Waters
North Carolina citizens and elected officials are concerned about the loss of working waterfronts,
as fewer marinas and fishing piers are available for public access. The North Carolina Marine
Fisheries Commission (MFC) recently passed a resolution asking that state leaders “recognize
the vital importance of public access to State estuarine and marine fisheries and waters”. A
resolution was also created and signed by scientists, authors and educators to preserve “the
cultural integrity and economic significance” of the commercial fishing industry in the state.
These resolutions were presented to the Joint Legislative Commission on Seafood and
Aquaculture for further action in 2006.

The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) attempts to not only protect Public Trust Waters as
provided for by the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), but also attempts to encourage
public access to these waters. Recognizing the demand for residences along coastal waters and
seeing the threat of loss of public access to these waters, the CRC at its March 2006 meeting
requested that a resolution be sent supporting the Joint Legislative Commission on Seafood and
Aquaculture efforts to identify ways to ensure public access to coastal waters is preserved. The
resolution calls for the creation of a Waterfront Access Study Committee to support efforts to
preserve the cultural integrity and character of eastern North Carolina.

The Waterfront Access Study Committee was to study the degree of loss and potential loss of the
diversity of uses along the North Carolina coastal shoreline, and how these losses impact access
to the public trust waters of the state. The Committee asks for the cooperation of municipalities,
public agencies, resource and facility-development granting entities, coastal developers,
businesses, and other coastal resource users to recognize and integrate enhanced waterfront-use
diversity and increased public access as beneficial factors and/or criteria in their decision
making. The Committee supports the use of limited public funds to achieve enhanced water
124 Chapter 11 - Population Growth and Development
quality, protection of natural and cultural/maritime heritage sites and resources, and maintaining
or advancing waterfront-use diversity and public access. A final committee report is available
online at: www.ncseagrant.org/waterfronts.

11.2 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. Three of the ten counties in the basin are
expected to experience growth rates in excess of thirty-five percent by 2020 (Table 25). As the
counties in the Pasquotank River basin continue to grow there will likely be a loss of natural
areas and an increase in the amount of impervious surface associated with new homes and
businesses. Impacts are quickly felt with population increases resulting in an increase in runoff
from roads and new developments, increase in wastewater treatment options, a change in the
shoreline fronts from fish houses to condominiums, reduced public access to waterfronts, beach
closures and a decline in our freshwater, estuarine and marine resources. Between 2003-2006,
DEH Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Program in the Pasquotank Basin reported 1,259
postings of beach closure days.

County population data present projected county growth estimates based on Office of State
Planning information (June and September 2004) (Table 25). Counties with the highest expected
growth are associated with the largest municipal areas and the most densely populated subbasins
in the basin.

Table 25 County Population and Growth Estimates
County
Percent of
County in
Basin ♦
County
Population
1990
County
Population
2000
Estimated %
Growth
1990-2000
Estimated
Population
2020
Estimated %
Growth
2000-2020
Camden 100 5,904 6,885 14.2 13,038 47.2
Chowan 33 13,506 14,150 4.6 15,154 6.6
Currituck 100 13,736 18,190 24.5 33,557 45.8
Dare 89 22,746 29,967 24.1 46,455 35.5
Gates 20 9305 10516 11.5 12962 18.9
Hyde 9 5,411 5,826 7.1 5,528 -5.4
Pasquotank 100 31,298 34,897 10.3 41,567 16.0
Perquimans 100 10,447 11,366 8.1 13,831 17.8
Tyrrell 100 3,856 4,149 7.1 4,492 7.6
Washington 68 13,997 13,723 -2.0 12,529 -9.5
Subtotals 130,206 149,669 109.5 199,113 180.6
♦ Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA), 1997.
Note: The numbers reported reflect county population; however, these counties may not entirely be within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for counties located wholly or partially within the basin.

Urban growth poses one of the greatest threats to aquatic resources more than any other human
activity. Greater numbers of homes, stores, and businesses require greater quantities of water.
Growing populations not only require more water, but they also lead to the discharge and runoff
of greater quantities of waste and pollutants into the state’s streams and groundwater. Thus, just
as demand and use increases, some of the potential water supply is lost (Orr and Stuart, 2000).
The Pasquotank River basin municipal population and growth trends are reported in Table 26.
Population fluctuations occur in developing coastal communities as seasonal changes bring time-

Chapter 11 - Population Growth and Development 125
share and rental property residents creating an increased demand on municipality resources and
natural resources. County, city and town planners need to account for these fluctuations and
recognize that temporary residents may have less incentive to invest in sustainable community
development efforts. Table 26 below 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.

Table 26 Municipal Population and Growth Trends
Municipality County April
1980
April
1990
April
2000
Percent Change
(1980-1990)
Percent Change
(1990-2000)
Columbia Tyrell 758 836 819 10.3 -2.0
Creswell Washington 426 361 278 -15.3 -23.0
Elizabeth City Camden, Pasquotank 14,007 14,292 17,188 2.0 20.3
Hertford Perquimans 1,941 2,244 2,070 15.6 -7.8
Kill Devil Hills Dare 1,671 4,238 5,897 153.6 39.1
Kitty Hawk Dare 849 1,937 2,991 128.2 54.4
Manteo Dare 902 991 1,052 9.9 6.2
Nags Head Dare 1,020 1,838 2,700 80.2 46.9
Roper Washington 795 669 613 -15.8 -8.4
Southern Shores Dare 520 1,447 2,201 178.3 52.1
Winfall Perquimans 634 501 554 -21.0 10.6

As development in urbanizing areas consumes neighboring forests and fields, the impacts on
rivers, lakes, and streams can be significant and permanent if stormwater runoff is not controlled
(Orr and Stuart, 2000). As watershed vegetation is replaced with impervious surfaces in the
form of paved roads, buildings, parking lots, and residential homes and driveways, the ability of
the environment to absorb and diffuse the effects of natural rainfall is diminished. Urbanization
results in increased surface runoff and correspondingly earlier and higher peak streamflows after
rainfall. Flooding frequency also increases. These effects are compounded when small streams
are channelized (straightened) or piped, and storm sewer systems are installed to increase
transport of stormwater downstream. Bank scour from these frequent high flow events tends to
enlarge urban streams and increase suspended sediment. Scouring also destroys the variety of
habitat in streams, leading to degradation of benthic macroinvertebrate populations and loss of
fisheries (EPA, 1999).

11.3 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 Pasquotank 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
126 Chapter 11 - Population Growth and Development
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.

The following Table 27 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.

Table 27 Land Cover in the Pasquotank River Basin: 1982 vs. 1997
MAJOR WATERSHEED AREAS*
Albemarle Sound
Watershed 1997 TOTALS 1982 TOTALS Land Cover Acres
(1000s)
% of
TOTAL
Acres
(1000s)
% of
TOTAL
Acres
(1000s)
% of
TOTAL
% Change
Since 1982
Cultivated. Crop 437.1 21.3 437.1 21.3 493.2 24.0 -11.4
Uncultivated. Crop 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0 0.0 10.0
Pasture 6.7 0.3 6.7 0.3 3.9 0.2 71.8
Forest 491.7 23.9 491.7 23.9 668.7 32.5 -26.5
Urban & Built-Up 68.7 3.3 68.7 3.3 36.9 1.8 86.2
Federal 271.8 13.2 271.8 13.2 69.1 3.4 293.3
Other 779.5 37.9 779.5 37.9 783.8 38.1 -0.5
Totals 2055.6 100 2055.6 100 2055.6 100.0
% of Total Basin 100 100
SUBBASINS 03-01-50 to 03-01-54
8 – Digit Hydraulic Units 03010205
* = Watershed areas defined by the 8-Digit Hydraulic Units do not necessarily coincide with subbasin titles used by DWQ.
Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service – 1982 and 1997 NRI.

11.4 Managing Growth, Development and Stormwater Runoff

11.4.1 Assessment of Current Conditions

The DWQ, in its goals to assure that all waters of the state meet or exceed their designated uses
began an assessment of the adequacy of the current North Carolina rules intended to protect
shellfish waters. DWQ further intended to determine if there was a way to enhance the level of

Chapter 11 - Population Growth and Development 127
protection provided to these waters if the current rules were deemed to be inadequately
protecting this vital resource in North Carolina. Critical to this review was an assessment of the
adequacy of North Carolina’s stormwater rules.

North Carolina’s current stormwater regulatory programs for coastal areas were adopted in the
late 1980’s as three primary coastal programs, the Coastal (State) Stormwater Program,
Shellfishing (Class SA) Waters Program, and the Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
Program. Each of these programs require engineered stormwater control structures for high
density areas, but no engineered stormwater controls were required for low density projects.
High density is defined as more than 24 percent built-upon area or more than two dwelling units
per acre. Recent reviews of scientific literature show that stream degradation and impairment
occurs to varying degrees when 10-15 percent impervious cover is established without structural
stormwater controls result in water quality degradation.

In North Carolina, over 1,255 acres of Class SA, ORW waters have been closed to commercial
shellfishing due to elevated levels of bacteria since 1990. The Division of Environmental Health
Shellfish Sanitation Program notes that stormwater runoff is the primary cause of bacterial
contamination in more than 90 percent of the shellfish areas sampled. In light of the increased
acreage of areas closed to shellfish harvesting, DWQ embarked on a study of the current
conditions and impacts to the state’s shellfish waters. DWQ found that between 1988 and 2005,
73 percent of new impervious surfaces in coastal areas were constructed under low density
provisions (<24 percent impervious surfaces) that do not require engineered stormwater control
measures, but instead rely on practices such as swales for water quality protection. The use of
swales for low density areas indicate only a 25 percent effectiveness rate in reducing bacterial
contaminants and may actually contribute to bacterial loading by providing a conduit to increase
runoff volumes and rates. In contrast, engineered stormwater control structures for high density
areas include wet ponds and wetlands with 70 and 78 percent bacteriological removal rates
respectively.

Stormwater runoff carries sediment particles from drainage ditches, streambanks, parking lots,
and construction sites. These sediments bind to other pollutants such as bacteria and viruses.
Binding to soil particles protects the bacteria from ultraviolet rays that can kill the organisms.
Bacteria coated sediment accumulates in coastal shallow water bottoms, which can be easily
agitated, allowing the sediments to go in and out of suspension. Under favorable conditions,
fecal coliform bacteria can survive in bottom sediments for an extended period (Howell et al.,
1996; Sherer et al., 1992; Schillinger and Gannon, 1985). Therefore, concentrations of bacteria
measured in the water column can reflect both recent inputs as well as the resuspension of older
inputs. In addition to the bacteria and pollutants, the sediment itself threatens the oyster beds by
smothering them.

DWQ assessed recent data and information on acres of shellfish closures in six tidal creeks in
New Hanover County in the Neuse River basin (Mallin, 2006). This research focused on a
county whose population grew 25 percent between 1990 and 2000, and is expected to increase an
additional 31 percent by 2020. This research found a strong correlation between bacteria levels
and impervious surfaces in the watershed; the greater the amount of impervious surfaces, the
greater the bacteria levels. This correlation has also been documented by other research in South
Carolina’s coastal tidal creeks (Holland et al., 2004). In addition, there is a strong association
between turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria levels in these estuarine waters.

128 Chapter 11 - Population Growth and Development
Sewer overflows and poorly designed and maintained septic systems contribute to bacteria
problems. The research further notes that areas in South Florida have found that septic tanks in
porous soils can readily pass through the soil and can enter coastal waters near the shore within
hours (Paul et al., 2000). Sandy soils and high water tables appear to be unsuitable for septic
systems, yet these systems are relied on heavily in eastern North Carolina for waste management.
Ditching and draining appear to facilitate the flow of septic waste to surface waters. Further
noted is that some areas have demonstrated that fecal bacteria counts are higher upon outgoing
tides and in wetter years due to subsurface movement through saturated soils and increased
runoff due to rain.

DWQ’s assessment of research results show that the acreages of shellfish waters closed
(approximately 4, 446 acres) to shellfishing has increased significantly between 1988 and 2005,
and there have been new closures after the implementation of the current stormwater programs.
North Carolina waters permanently closed to shellfishing have increased by approximately 19
percent since 1984. The reliance on no engineered stormwater controls for low density projects
is the major identifiable shortfall in the current programs. Without changes to these programs,
there will be continued degradation of shellfishing waters.

11.4.2 Assessment of Future Conditions

With this knowledge, DWQ will proceed to determine how shellfishing waters can be better
protected from stormwater runoff and its associated spectrum of pollutants. It will be critical to
adopt programs that require control structures to be used for more development activities in an
effort to better control and treat stormwater runoff. To this effect, DWQ will be assessing
options for lowering or removing the low density option waiver from engineered stormwater
controls. Two new programs may provide these options.

The Phase II stormwater rule is one of these options. These rules meet the federal Phase II
requirements and are contained in Session Law 2006-246. These new rules will commence in
July 2007 and are in part intended to redefine low density to 12 percent and areas within ½ mile
of “shellfish resource waters”. In addition, there are more stringent stormwater design controls
defined for high density projects.

The second option is the Universal Stormwater Management Program (USMP) developed by
DWQ. This is a voluntary program that may be adopted by local government discretion. It is
hoped that the USMP will become effective in early 2007. This program does not allow for a
low density waiver.

The goal of these and other stormwater control programs and mechanisms is to point to the fact
that new construction activities do not have to degrade water resources if controls and treatment
of stormwater are put into place.

Planning for sustainable growth in the Pasquotank Basin requires awareness, understanding and
implementation of sound design and management options. The coastal environment and natural
resources 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/.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 129
Chapter 12
Water Quality Management Strategies

12.1 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 and is 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 government 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 the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, whose duties include approval of Coastal Habitat Protection Plans and designation of
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC). After designation of these areas, the Commission 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 the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

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 NOAA 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 NC laws and regulations to minimize
redundancy and avoid conflict with other regulations, prioritize emerging coastal issues and use
adaptive management based on lessons learned.

130 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
12.2 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

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 131
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.

132 Chapter 12 - 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 non-point 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 non-
point 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 non-
point 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 non-point 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 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

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 133
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 a
copy of the plan. Questions and comments can be directed to [e-mail] or by calling
[phone] or [phone].

12.3 Oyster Action Plan

Over the past several years efforts to restore North Carolina’s native oyster have increased
significantly and annual oyster harvests have also increased. However, since the early 1900’s,
the oyster population has declined an estimated 90 percent due to of a variety factors – habitat
loss, pollution, diseases, and harvest pressure. Recognizing the need for concerted action to
reverse this trend and the value of a healthy oyster population, an Oyster Forum was sponsored
by the North Carolina Coastal Federation in 2003 and is supported by state’s CHPP. The forum
participants, including scientists, fishermen, policymakers and educators, drafted the Oyster
Restoration and Protection Plan for North Carolina: A Blueprint for Action. Goals of this plan
include:

• To restore and protect North Carolina’s native oyster populations, and habitat so that
estuaries are again robust, diverse, & resilient ecosystems,
• To build broad public awareness & support for the value of estuarine conservation &
sustainable fisheries, and
• To work with a strong coalition to make significant, demonstrable & meaningful progress
towards oyster restoration in the next 3-5 years.

Within the Pasquotank River Basin, the Oyster Action Plan has identified priority areas where
restoration and protection efforts will start.

• Low Priority areas include: Stumpy Point (H3)
• Medium Priority areas include: Hatteras (H4), Outer Banks (H5), Roanoke Sound &
Croatan Sound (H1/H2)

To achieve the goals of oyster protection and restoration there needs to be an increase in funding
and resources allocated to oyster research, public education, regulation enforcement and land
acquisition. The Blueprint identifies a need to increase resources available to the Division of
Marine Fisheries’ Shellfish Rehabilitation Program, planning oyster hatcheries at the NC
Aquariums, and designating more oyster sanctuaries. Public education activities could focus on
individual actions to include oyster shell recycling and oyster gardening. To promote a
sustainable oyster industry opportunities for increasing mariculture are sought. Cleaning up
existing sources of point and nonpoint source pollution in shellfish waters and watersheds is
essential along with improving enforcement of discharge regulations. Communities not under
stormwater regulations should voluntarily implement effective stormwater rules and include
them in their CAMA Land Use Plans. DEH Shellfish Sanitation surveys are a valuable source
for identifying water quality concerns and areas that threaten oyster health; supporting these
surveys with resources and expanding their mapping capabilities is important for oyster
restoration and protection.

134 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
12.4 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
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:

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 135
• 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
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).
136 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
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.

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.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 137
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.

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.

138 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
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.

12.5 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
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

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 139
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.

12.6 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 still have no 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.

12.6.1 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 assessment 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 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, natural area
140 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
buffers, 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.

12.6.2 Land Use Plans for Communities in the Pasquotank 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. Table 28
presents counties and their municipalities within the Pasquotank River basin. The status of each
CAMA Land Use Plan is also indicated.

Table 28 Local Planning Jurisdictions
Multi-County
Planning Region R
The Albemarle Commission
CAMA Land Use Plan CRC Certification Progress
(as of March 2007)
County Municipalities CRC
Certified
Review &
Revisions
Under State
Review
In
Process
Updates in
2008
Camden 2005
Currituck X
Dare X
Gates 2005
Pasquotank Elizabeth City X
Perquimans Hertford, Winfall X
Tyrrell Columbia X
Washington X
Town of Duck 2005
Town of Southern Shores X
Town of Kitty Hawk 2005
Town of Kill Devil Hills X
Town of Nags Head X
Dare
Town of Manteo 2007

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 141
Camden County
The LUP states the county will develop a shoreline access plan. The plan supports the reduction
of soil erosion, sedimentation, runoff to protect water quality. It also takes into consideration
countywide soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance and a stormwater ordinance to
include retention facilities and limits to impervious surface development. The county supports
the use of BMPs for agriculture and forestry land uses. Vegetated buffers are encouraged
between any right-of-ways. The county supports the use of package sewage treatment plants
outside of proposed sewer service areas. These package plants must have a plan to assimilate
into a public plan if private operation fails. The county opposes the installation of package
sewage treatment plants and septic systems near areas classified as wetlands or natural heritage
areas, with the exception of constructed wetlands. Strict enforcement of lot size requirements is
needed for houses using septic systems.

Specific policies aimed to protect water quality include: establishing buffers along Joyce,
Areneuse and Sawyer’s Creeks and reducing nutrient runoff from developing areas along these
waterways. The county supports state water quality and coastal management policies, including
stormwater regulations. The county will rely on state and federal agencies to promote protection
of aquatic nursery habitats and the Great Dismal Swamp. The county supports cluster
development.

Currituck County
The LUP separates the county into three areas to include: Knott’s Island, the Outer Banks, and
the mainland. Knott’s Island is expected to have modest residential development and is
development limited by the soil suitability for septic systems. Many of the new residential
developments along the Outer Banks are large vacation rental units, which limit stormwater
infiltration and pose concerns for the need to establish new wastewater treatment plants.
Redevelopment includes replacing older beach cottages with large structures leading to
intensification of land use and increased residential density. The coastline of the mainland is
experiencing modest development as it is a less expensive alternative to development on the
Outer Banks. Development is likely to move inland to agricultural tracts that are already cleared,
leveled and well drained.

There are no large central sewer systems in Currituck County, but there are nine large surface
sewage treatment plants and 64 on-site wastewater treatment systems. Septic systems are the
predominate wastewater treatment option, however poor soil suitability leaves many of these
systems failing. The LUP water and sewer policies include encouraging utility service extension
to areas that are in existing developed areas and potential growth zones, where development
densities make a public system more efficient, in new areas to support new industry and
economic growth and away from environmentally sensitive areas and farmland. Package plants
are supported to allow more efficient land use; these plants will be permanently managed on an
organizational basis and may require assimilation into a central sewer system once established.

The LUP states its policy is to support actions to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation from
entering the estuarine waters, controlling quality and quantity of stormwater runoff into the
estuary, runoff from land use activities should be close to natural conditions and new
developments are required to not exceed predevelopment runoff conditions. Stormwater
management for new development requires engineering plans to include 10- year storm or 4.3
inches management. Natural vegetation, wetlands and open spaces are encouraged to maintain
pervious surface areas and vegetated buffers are encouraged to help protect water quality. A
142 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
countywide drainage and flood management plan is to be developed to help resolve stormwater
problems.

Manteo LUP
Town of Manteo anticipates continued growth, with a higher percentage of people being retired.
Goals included in the LUP as identified by citizens of Manteo include: maintaining a small town
character, sense of community and history, protect wetlands and environmentally fragile areas
while providing public green spaces, improve water quality in Shallowbag Bay, and limit or
reduce growth to prevent exceeding the wastewater treatment plant’s capacity. With the
recognition that meeting many of the town’s goals is dependent on improving and protecting
water quality, the LUP identifies stormwater runoff, marinas, and discharge from their WWTP as
threats to water quality. In 2000 Manteo developed a Stormwater Management Plan which
identifies their stormwater conveyances as open ditches that lack capacity to convey during peak
flows and they do not treat the polluted runoff before it is discharged into surface waters. They
now have a stormwater management ordinance requiring new and redevelopment management
plans that include onsite stormwater treatments. The town is also pursuing green spaces for use
as stormwater treatment via bioretention and filtration. Shallowbag Bay was identified as one
site where stormwater management improvements could improve water quality.

Water quality and conservation policies include, encouraging low water consumption to reduce
the amount of wastewater needed to be treated, increase efficiency of the WWTP, limit
impervious surfaces, limit additional WWTP intake to the current planned and permitted
developments and encourage vegetated riparian buffers and wetlands. The LUP states one of the
main constraints to development is the limited capacity of the WWTP. The town acknowledges
that growth includes increased marina use and is encouraging marinas to become Clean Marina
Certified. The town supports island-wide water quality planning to help address environmental
protection issues that impact Manteo, but are outside the towns planning zone.

Perquimans County
Growth in Perquimans County is anticipated to occur mainly in the subdivision areas of Hertford
and Windfall. The county developed strategies to encourage residential development along
internal access roads and to discourage strip development along state roads. Development,
without the use of a centralized public sewer system, is limited because of poor soil conditions
causing technical difficulties with septic tank drain fields. The unincorporated portions of
Perquimans County rely on septic systems and Hertford currently operates a municipal
wastewater treatment system that is being improved. Windfall’s wastewater is collected and sent
to Hertford for treatment. Wastewater treatment package plants will be considered in certain
zones.

Specific water quality policies call for the enforcement of new ordinances regarding land use,
development and redevelopment activities to protect the Perquimans River, Little River, Yeopin
River and the Albemarle Sound. The LUP states the county will consider establishing criteria for
cluster housing, vegetated buffers, impervious surface limits, stormwater management
alternatives, erosion and sediment controls. The county may also amend zoning designations of
permitted and condition use density and intensity criteria. The LUP identifies stormwater
management and treatment is dependent on structures, swales and ditches associated with the
transportation system and ponds and natural areas. The county suggests a stormwater study be
completed to evaluate flood conditions and land use activities that contribute to intensified
flooding.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 143
Land Use Plan Critique
After review of several CAMA Land Use Plan 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 trainings for developers and local leaders. Overall, LUP policy
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.

12.7 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
144 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
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.
(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.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 145
(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.

12.8 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.

12.9 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. Camden County extended a moratorium on new subdivisions until
a new school can be completed to hold the additional students resulting from the developments.
Outside of the Pasquotank 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. 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
146 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
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. Growth management
requires planning for the needs of future population increases, as well as developing and
enforcing environmental protection measures. 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.

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 Pasquotank 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.

12.10 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
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.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 147
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.
This 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 are 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.

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.
The following local organizations and agencies are highlighted to share their efforts towards
water quality improvement.

12.10.1 Federal Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration and
restoration projects (Table 29). 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/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 29 Section 319 Grant Funded Projects in the Pasquotank River Basin
Fiscal
Year Name Description Agency Amount
2002
Effects of Drainage Ditches and Roads on Watershed
Ecology Hyrdrology and Water Quality within the
Emily and Richardson Pryer-Buckridge Coastal
Reserve
Wetlands &
Hydroloic
Modification
NC DENR,
DCM & NCSU $200,000
2000
Promote Responsible nutrient management by
developing a procedure to document forage crop
realistic yield expectations (RYE) NCSU
148 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
2003 -
2004 Manteo Stormwater Retrofit (not a 319 Project)
Urban Stormwater,
Planning CWMTF $247,500
2004
Adapt a Site Evaluation Tool (SET) for use by local
governements in Upper Neuse Basin in determining
w/stormwater performance standards for new
development
Upper Neuse
River Basin
Association
2005
Phytoremediation to Prevent NPS Discharge of
Gasoline Contaminated Groundwater to the Pasquitank
River
Groundwater
Protection, Stream
Restoration NCSU $145,054
2005 Kitty Hawk Stormwater Education
Urban Stormwater,
Education
DCM-NERR
Manteo $11,590
2005 -
2006 OBX LID Project
Urban Stormwater,
Planning, Education
Coastal Studies
Institute $58,300
Total Funding $662,444

12.10.2 Pasquotank River Watershed Project

In 2005, Congress approved a multi-year Pasquotank River Watershed Project led by the
Albemarle Regional Health Services Agency, NCSU’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
and Cooperative Extension. The Project will demonstrate the application of Integrated Water
Designs (IWD), which addresses all aspects of water management such as: septic systems,
stormwater, water table management, flood control and erosion and sedimentation control. IWD
concepts will be developed; appropriate technologies selected and designed, and a demonstration
community will be selected. Existing baseline water quality conditions and water quantity
impacts (e.g. storm water removal, flooding, etc.) will be monitored, including assessment and
tracking of key water quality pollutants as they move through the ground water. Bacterial source
tracking (BST) techniques will be investigated to determine if they can help identify key
microbial pollutant sources. More advanced types of septic systems than are currently in use will
be evaluated to determine their potential use as IWDs for repair of failing septic systems. NC
State University team, working in partnership with the Pasquotank County Cooperative
Extension office and the local Albemarle Agency staff will coordinate technology transfer
training in the county. Water management professionals throughout the state will also be trained
at the NCSU’s training centers located throughout the state. New hands-on demonstrations and
training materials will be developed to describe the IWD approach to practicing professionals
such as soil scientists, planners, technology designers, installers and service providers.
Cooperative Extension will lead public educational programming efforts for community decision
makers and field practitioners.

12.10.3 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
waters and establishing a network of riparian buffers and greenways. In the Pasquotank River
basin, 34 projects have been funded for a total of $34,157,005 (Table 30). For more information
on the CWMTF or these grants, call [phone] or visit the website at www.cwmtf.net.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 149
Table 30 Clean Water Management Trust Fund Projects in the Pasquotank River Basin
Project
Number Application Name Proposed Project Description Amount
Funded
1997B-006
NC Div Coastal Management -
Buckridge Tract
Acq&Restor/Alligator R
Restore and enhance 10,000 acres of wetlands at
Buckridge Tract. Monitor results. $3,858,500
1998A-008
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Hassell Tract Acq/
Whitehurst's Ck
Acquire through fee simple purchase 491 acres along
Whitehurst Creek. $169,000
1998A-010
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Tice Tract Acq/
NW River & Tulls Bay
Acquire through fee simple purchase 473 acres along the
Northwest River, Tulls Bay, and Crosses Creek. $250,000
1998A-011
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission -Midgett Marsh
Tract Acq/ Roanoke S.
Acquire through fee simple purchase 574 acres along
Roanoke Sound. $620,000
1998A-403
Roper- Roper Site Acq and Env
Cleanup/ Kendrick Ck
Purchase, clean up and preserve a waterfront greenway
property of 4.8 acres and 10,000 linear feet along
Kendricks Creek. $60,000
1998A-413
Pasquotank Co-Constructed
Wetlands/CE/Ag BMPs/Newland
Construct a series of "in-stream" wetlands along the 7
mile canal, modify and stabilize canal (6,000 acre
drainage). Restore riparian wetlands, and secure
easements on 278 acres buffers. Install water control
structures and ag BMPs. $413,600
1998A-414
Currituck County- Constructed
Wetlands/CE/Ag BMPs/Guinea
Mill
Construct a series of instream wetlands, restore 35 acres
of hardwood swamp, acquire 50 foot easements on both
sides of the canal. Implement ag BMPs in 6,000 acre
watershed. $352,610
1998B-507
Roanoke Villas Clean Water
Found. -Land Ap/WWTP
upgrade
Design, construct and operate infiltration pond alternative
to surface water discharge. Remove 60,000 GPD
permitted discharge into SA waters. $245,568
2000A-010
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Harrison Tract
Acq/North R
Acquire through fee simple purchase 3,915 acres along
the North River. CWMTF funds to acquire the 720 acres
of riparian buffers. $534,360
2000A-018
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Roanoke Island
Greenway I
Acquire through fee simple purchase 38 acres on Roanoke
Island. Tract to become part of a greenway system. $1,207,000
2000B-006
Nags Head & Nature
Conservancy- Nags Head Woods
Acq
Acquire through fee simple purchase 49 acres along
Roanoke Sound in the Nags Head Wood-Jockeys Ridge
conservation complex. $693,000
2000B-010
NC Div Coastal Management -
Roper Island Acq
Acquire through permanent conservation easements 8,274
acres on Roper Island along the Alligator River. CWMTF
funds to be combined with other funds to acquire the CE. $285,220
2000B-013
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Circle
Tract/Alligator River Acq
Acquire through fee simple purchase 5,401 acres along
the Alligator River and Second Creek. $1,715,000
2000B-015
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Roanoke Island II
Acq & Greenway
Acquire through fee simple purchase 46 riparian and
wetland acres along Roanoke Sound. Tract represents
Phase II of the Roanoke Island Greenway project. $2,707,000
2001B-023
NC Aquarium Society-
Acquisition & Stormwater/
Whalebone Junction
Acquire 5 acres along Atlantic Ocean and treat
stormwater runoff from 30 acres to Roanoke Sound. $4,600,000
2001B-042
Perquimans Co. Restoration
Assc.-Acquisition/ Perquimans
River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 38 acres on the
Perquimans River. Includes riparian buffer installation,
created wetland demonstration, nature trail construction,
and environmental education. $345,000
150 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
2001B-502
Camden County/Currituck
County -Sawyer's Creek
Provide funds to design and obtain permits for a regional
wastewater collection and land application systems to
address failing and straight-piped septic systems draining
to Sawyers Creek. $3,564,000
2002A-014
Nags Head - Acq/ Catfish Farm
Open Space
Acquire 11.4 acres through fee simple purchase along the
Roanoke Sound and tributary creeks. CWMTF would
fund purchase of 46% of the tract. $300,000
2002B-017
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Acq./Risky
Business, Roanoke Sound
Acquire through fee simple purchase 250 acres along the
Roanoke Sound, Johns Sand Beach and Broad Creeks. $375,000
2002B-608
Tyrrell County Water & Sewer
District 1 - Septic
Systems/Scuppernong II
Eliminate failing septic tanks in Districts 1&2 of the
County by constructing a collection system and pumping
waste to the Town of Creswell's WWTP. The Town of
Creswell's WWTP would be expanded. Would reduce
pollutant delivery to the Scuppernong River. $1,203,647
2003A-029
NC Div Parks & Recreation -
Acq./ Pettigrew State Park,
Scuppernong River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 1,864 acres along
the Scuppernong River and add the property to Pettigrew
State Park. $890,000
2003A-031
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission- Acq./ Davis Tract,
Alligator River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 340 acres draining to
the Little Alligator River. The tract contains areas of
ditched cropland which will be restored when the tract
becomes part of the adjoining Alligator River Game
Lands. $374,000
2003A-032
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission- Acq./ GMS Tract,
Alligator River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 8,476 acres,
including 4,860 riparian and wetland acres, along Second
Creek and Alligator River (both ORWs) and Little
Alligator River. The tract will be managed as part of
WRC's Game Lands Program. $1,700,000
2004A-702
Manteo, Town of - Storm./
Shallowbag Bay
Design, permit, & acquire stormwater easements for
pocket stormwater infiltration areas and/or construction of
pocket infiltration areas to treat runoff from 147 ac in the
Shallowbag Bay drainage area. $379,500
2004B-046
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission-Acq/ Pipkin Tract,
Broad Creek
Protect through fee simple purchase 120.5 acres along
Broad Creek and Roanoke Sound. The tract is adjacent to
open shellfish waters and would become part of the
Roanoke Marshes Game Lands. $200,000
2004B-604
Stumpy Point Water & Sewer
District - Septic/ Stumpy Point
and Lake Worth Septic Tanks
Construct 8 miles of a septic tank effluent pump sewer
collection system to connect 110 failing septic systems to
a tertiary WWTP with UV disinfection. Project will
reduce fecal coliform and nutrient delivery to Stumpy Bay
and Pamlico Sound. $1,728,000
2004B-802
Creswell, Town of - Plan/
Stormwater Management,
Scuppernong River
Develop a plan to address stormwater management needs
for the Scuppernong River and a tributary canal. Plan to
consider wetland pond modification, wetland
construction, pump station modification, and canal
widening. $25,000
2005A-024
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Acq/ Roanoke
Island Greenway, Amended
Project
Provide additional funds to finalize the purchase of 39
acres along Croatan Sound that were previously approved
by CWMTF (2000B-015). The tract has increased in
value since the original award. Tract will be managed as
part of the Game Lands program. $1,746,000
2005A-804
Manteo, Town of - Plan/WW/
Wastewater Treatment
Feasibility Plan, Shallowbag Bay
Develop a feasibility study of nutrient removal options for
wastewater discharged to Shallowbag Bay. $65,000
2005A-806
NC Coastal Federation -
Plan/Acq/ Currituck Sound
Protection Plan
Develop a plan to prioritize acquisition and restoration
efforts in Currituck Sound. Project to include landowner
outreach and development of funding proposals for top
two priority sites identified by the study. $40,000

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 151
2005B-504
Elizabeth City, City of - WW/
Hughes Boulevard Force Main,
Knobs Creek
Address infiltration & inflow problems by constructing
16,200 lf of force main to serve 2,200 residences. Would
reduce fecal coliform bacteria and nutrient contamination
to the Pasquotank River. Includes pump station upgrade
and standby power generation. $2,000,000
2006A-024
NC Coastal Land Trust - Ac/
Indian Creek Tracts
Protect a total of 1,027 acres along the Indiantown Creek
through purchase of 702 acres in fee and of a 325-acre fee
simple donation. $528,000
2006A-406
Perquimans County- Rest/
Newbold- White House and
Greenway, Perquimans River
Design, permit and construct natural channel design
shoreline stabilization project along 2,000 linear feet of
the Perquimans River. Construct 3 stormwater wetlands
and link to county greenway system. $340,000
2006B-706
Kitty Hawk, Town of -
Storm/Rest/ Stormwater BMPs,
Kitty Hawk Bay
Design and permit BMPs to improve water quality along
4,100 linear feet of shoreline in Kitty Hawk Bay. Potential
BMPs include a breakwater system, reestablishment of the
fringe marsh, and infiltration and bioretention areas. $543,000
2006B-816
Washington County - Plan/Acq/
Sustainable Development
Planning, Albermarle Sound
Fund the development of a long-term sustainable
development plan for the southern Albemarle Sound
shoreline between Mackey's Ferry and Leonard's Point.
Includes inventory of existing conditions, vision
statement, implementation strategies. $100,000
Total Funded $34,157,005
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.

12.10.4 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)

The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) combines an existing wetlands-restoration
initiative by the NC 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. NCEEP 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.

NCEEP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs or
environmental groups. For example NCEEP 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. The NCEEP actively seeks landowners throughout the state that have restorable
wetland, riparian, and stream restoration sites. For more information about NCEEP, visit
http://www.nceep.net/ or call [phone].

12.10.5 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
152 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
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 lands which 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.

12.10.6 Oyster Shell Recycling

The North Carolina Oyster Shell Recycling Partnership is encouraging restaurants, seafood
dealers, community organizations and individuals to participate in the effort to collect oyster
shells and use them to build oyster reefs in protected oyster sanctuaries. More information about
this recycling effort can be found at http://www.ncfisheries.net/shellfish/recycle1.htm. Oyster
recycling sites within the Pasquotank River Basin include:
• Nags Head: Jockey’s Ridge State Park (Hwy 158)
• Kill Devil Hills: Nature Conservancy, Nags Head Woods (701 West Ocean Acres Dr.)
• Wanchese: NCDMF office, Wanchese Seafood Industrial Park (604 Harbor Rd.)
• Avon: Village Grocery (40618 Hwy. 12)
• Hatteras Village: Burrus Red & White (57196 Kanlar Rd.)
• Rodanthe/Waves/Salvo: Recycling Center, Rodanthe Harbor (Myrna Peters Rd.)

12.10.7 Clean Marina Program

The Clean Marina Program is a voluntary program that began in the summer of 2000. The
program is designed to show that marina operators can help safeguard the environment by using
management and operations techniques that go above and beyond regulatory requirements. This
is a nationwide program developed by the National Marine Environmental Education
Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works to clean up waterways for better recreational
boating. The foundation encourages states to adapt Clean Marina principles to fit their own
needs. North Carolina joins South Carolina, Florida and Maryland as states with Clean Marina
programs in place.

Marina operators who choose to participate must complete an evaluation form about their use of
specific best management practices. If a marina meets criteria developed by N.C. Marine Trades
Services and the Division of Coastal Management, it will be designated as a Clean Marina. Such
marinas will be eligible to fly the Clean Marina flag and use the logo in their advertising. The
flags will signal to boaters that a marina cares about the cleanliness of area waterways. Marinas
that do not meet the standards will be able to learn about improvements needed for Clean Marina
designation. Marina owners can reapply after making the necessary changes.

The International Yachting Center in Columbia, NC is the only Clean Marina in the Pasquotank
River basin, while there are 14 other marinas with pump-out facilities in the basin. For more
information about the program, please see http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Marinas/clean.htm or
http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Marinas/marinas.htm
Or contact N.C. Coastal Reserve Education Office at 252-728-2170 or Coastal Management at
919-733-2293.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 153
12.10.8 Currituck Sound Restoration Feasibility Study

The Army Corps of Engineers and the State of North Carolina are partnering to conduct a
Feasibility Study on the Currituck Sound to identify ways to improve water quality and restore
the Sound. The ongoing study is being cost shared between the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Each cost
share partner pays 50 percent of the feasibility phase costs.

The Currituck Sound Restoration Coordination Team is collecting data and formulating
recommendations necessary to meet the established restoration goals and objectives. Data
collection efforts are being conducted as part of multiple individual studies within the Currituck
Sound as well as in the surrounding watersheds that impact the Sound, including Back Bay. A
Feasibility Report and NEPA document recommending viable restoration projects and
management measures will be the products of the study.

The Currituck Sound Restoration Coordination Team is composed of multiple agencies and
organizations including, but not limited to: USACE, Wilmington District, DENR, Division of
Water Resources (DWR), Elizabeth City State University (ECSU), USACE Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL), NC National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR), US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Geological Survey (USGS), USACE Engineer Research and
Development Center (ERDC), Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, Division of
Coastal Management (DCM), NC Coastal Federation (NCCF), Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation (VADCR), Currituck County, The Nature Conservancy (TNC),
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Pasquotank River
Basin Regional Council, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), Virginia
Marine Resources Commission (VAMRC), and Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary Program
(APNEP). The entities composing the restoration team participate in one or more of three
Workgroups, which are: Hydrologic, Hydrodynamics, and Water Quality Modeling Workgroup;
the Living Resources Workgroup; and the Planning and Public Involvement Workgroup.

The Hydrologic, Hydrodynamics, and Water Quality Modeling Workgroup is using a model to
characterize existing hydrologic and water quality conditions in Currituck Sound, develop a
baseline, and produce a model for use in determining the condition in which to restore the Sound.
This Workgroup is developing and using a modeling package based on modeling requirements of
the USGS in cooperation with USACE ERDC, DWR, and ECSU to develop a comprehensive
and cost effective data collection and monitoring plan for Currituck Sound, including site
locations, data type, frequency, and purpose of the data to be collected. The model will
characterize the effects of internal and external factors such as freshwater flow, tides, wind,
suspended and bottom sediments, nutrient inputs, land use, etc., on water quality and the health
of the biological communities in Currituck Sound.

The Living Resources Workgroup consists of four subgroups, which have individual data
collection efforts underway. The four subgroups and subject matter areas are as follows: the
Vegetation Subgroup (Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), forests, wetlands, marshes,
invasive species); the Survey/GIS Subgroup (land and hydrologic surveys, aerial photography,
mapping, and geographic analysis); the Fisheries Subgroup (freshwater and saltwater fisheries
and crabs); and the Waterfowl Subgroup (nesting water birds and waterfowl).

154 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
The Vegetation and Survey/GIS Subgroups have completed data collection efforts for historic
and existing SAV within the Currituck Sound and surrounding watershed. This is a critical
component of the Currituck Sound Feasibility Study because the abundance of SAV has
undergone several long-term downward trends since early 1900’s and has not fully recovered to
former abundant conditions of the past century. The SAV Habitat Cooperative Mapping Project
at ECSU has completed and will continue with field surveys, as well as recording data on water
clarity, temperature, salinity, DO, pH Distribution, density and species composition of SAV.
Also collaborative efforts to digitize the findings reported in the Sincock Master Surveys were
completed by USACE, ECSU, and others. The result of this effort is an interactive site, “The
Sincock Master Survey Internet Mapping Service & Website,” and is available at:
http://155.82.232.43/website/Currituck_Sincock_MS/ viewer.htm.

The Planning and Public Involvement Workgroup serves to gather information from the public
for incorporation into the study and to disseminate information from ongoing study findings out
to the public. This Workgroup is requesting historical information and records, fishing and
hunting logbooks, and old photographs and maps of the Sound and Shoreline. This Workgroup
will hold future Public Meetings; the public will be informed in advance. The planning function
of this Workgroup serves to balance the interests of all involved entities as well as produce the
Currituck Sound Restoration Feasibility Report. This report will capture and document the
Currituck Sound Restoration Coordination Team’s findings and make recommendations for
alternatives and management measures to improve water quality and restore the Sound.

For further information or inquiries regarding the Currituck Sound Restoration Feasibility Study,
you may visit http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Currituck Sound/main.htm or contact Tara
Anderson, Lead Planner, at 910-251-4694 or 1-800-626-8449, ext 4694.

12.10.9 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 of 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

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 155
generate an additional $8 to $12 billion. Clearly, it behooves us to protect these fragile,
beautiful, and valuable places.

In the Pasquotank 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 Pasquotank River basin, the APNEP funded
projects in three locations intended to improve water quality and to aid in environmental
education: Manteo, Winfall and Hertford.

The Perquimans County High School constructed wetland and environmental education project
in Hertford is a collaborative effort led by Perquimans County Schools, and the Perquimans
County Soil and Water Conservation District. The project reshaped and restored natural
wetlands located on the grounds of the school and included the construction of an access
boardwalk, pedestrian bridges and an observation deck. The now accessible wetlands are used as
the basis for an outdoor education program for 570 high school science students and their
teachers. This phase of the project builds on the successful first stage of the Jennie’s Gut
constructed wetlands project, also funded in part with an APNEP grant.

The goal of the Manteo Middle School demonstration project, to create two attractive stormwater
gardens (with signage) in a highly visible schoolyard site, included the labor of students,
teachers, and community volunteers. The gardens serve as a point of collections for stormwater
coming off the school’s parking lots and roof. The project also includes curriculum development
utilizing information on stormwater pollution.

The Town of Winfall’s drinking water treatment plant was exceeding water quality standards in
its backwash waters for some time. Regular monitoring showed high levels of iron, manganese,
magnesium, calcium, chlorides and sand. To remove the offending elements and treat the
discharge, a constructed wetland system with salt and iron tolerant plants was installed adjacent
to the plant. Two wetland cells were built using rock check dams and a third cell was built using
logs for the check dam. A boardwalk, with an observation platform at its center, allows the
wetland to be used as an outdoor environmental education classroom for the Perquimans County
Middle School adjacently located to the wetland. It should also be noted that an added benefit of
the wetland system is the diversion of runoff (showing high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus)
from an abandoned fertilizer plant across the rood, and from school grounds, roads and parking
lots adjacent to it.

For information on the APNEP, visit www.apnep.org.

12.10.10 Albemarle-Pamlico Regional Water Quality Study

The study will identify regional water quality, water management, and recreational concerns
resulting from land-use changes associated with unprecedented development in Chowan,
Perquimans, Pasquotank, Camden, Gates, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, and Washington
counties. This work will build on county-wide drainage studies and water quality projects that
the Albemarle Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D) and its partners have
implemented, or are implementing, in the Albemarle-Pamlico region. Projects identified and
implemented as a result of the study will help create a region-wide infrastructure for maintaining
the integrity of water resources and improving drainage. Components of the regional study will
include:
156 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
• Identify and prioritize streams and canals for a 5-year recurrence interval for clearing and
snagging in major watersheds.
• Identify opportunities to develop or upgrade stormwater ordinances in each county to
address water quality and drainage concerns associated with rapid commercial and
residential development. Ordinances would include standards for 1) evaluating upstream
and downstream drainage at the watershed level, 2) determining flooding consequences
for existing and new developments, and 3) reconstructing drainage systems on
commercial, residential and public/ agricultural properties using innovate techniques
including constructed wetlands, buffers, and water table management.
• Identify a commercial, residential and public/agricultural property in each county to
reconstruct drainage systems for demonstrating innovative stormwater management.
• Identify opportunities for establishing a water quality/water management advisory
committee in each county to provide technical information, public education, and
research support.
• Identify opportunities for establishing Special Use Water Management Districts
(SUWMD) in each county to provide a mechanism for public input to prioritize and
implement drainage and water quality improvement projects.
• Identify opportunities for establishing a regional Stewardship Development Program
similar to the Lower Cape Fear Stewardship Development Program. The program would
recognize innovative residential and commercial development projects that protect the
environment.
• Identify key issues and costs associated with monitoring and evaluating water quality and
reconstructed drainage projects at the local and regional level.

Each of the 10 counties in the region is at a different stage of developing the study components
listed above. For example, with assistance from NCRS and the Albemarle RC&D, Pasquotank
County is developing a stormwater ordinance that includes specifications for evaluating up-
stream and downstream drainage at the watershed level, and reconstructing drainage systems
using innovative techniques such as constructed wetlands instead of detention and retention
ponds. Perquimans County is beginning the process of developing a stormwater ordinance, and
may be able to save time and money by using Pasquotank County’s ordinance as a model. The
same scenario may apply to other counties in the region that will have to develop ordinances to
help manage stormwater runoff from residential and commercial development.

The regional study will help identify specific project opportunities in each county, and progress
toward maintaining the integrity of regional water quality and improving drainage. Conducting
the study and coordinating projects on a regional level will also allow the sharing of experiences
and information, and thus help avoid costly mistakes and duplication of effort.

Chapter 13 - Agriculture 157
Chapter 13
Agriculture and Water Quality

13.1 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 31 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 Pasquotank River basin contains approximately 74 animal operations,
including both permitted and nonpermitted cattle, poultry and hog farms, as shown in Figure 13.
Table 31 Permitted Animal Operations.
Cattle Swine
Subbasin No. of
Facilities
No. of
Animals
Total Steady State
Live Weight
No. of
Facilities
No. of
Animals
Total Steady State
Live Weight
03-01-50 - - - 1 500 216,500
03-01-51 - - - 1 1,350 182,250
03-01-52 - - 8 7,590 1,105,750
03-01-53 1 120 96,000 7 65,960 11,096,962
03-01-54 - - - - - -
03-01-55 - - - - - -
03-01-56 - - - - - -
Totals 1 120 96,000 17 75,400 12,601,462
* 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.
CURRITUCKCAMDEM
PASQUOTANK
GATES
PERQUIMANS
CHOWAN
WASHINGTON
TYRRELL
DARE
Elizabeth City
Winfall
Hertford
Manteo
Columbia
Roper
Creswell
03-01-5403-01-50
03-01-52
03-01-53
03-01-51
03-01-56
03-01-55
A l be m a r le S ou nd
Pamli
c
o Sound
C
u
r
r
i
t
u
c
k

S
o
u
n
d
P
a
s
q
u
ota
n
k Riv
er
N
o
rt
h

R
i
v
e
r
Little
R
iv
er
Perquimans River
HYDE
Alliga
t
or
River
Figure 15 Animal Operations in the Pasquotank River Basin
0 6 12 18 243
Miles
®
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 2, 2007
Legend
Animal_Operations
Cattle
Swine
Poultry
Subbasin Boundary
Municipality
Primary Roads
County Boundary
Hydrography
Southern Shores
Kitty Hawk
Kill Devil Hills
Nags Head

Chapter 13 - Agriculture 159
13.2 Agricultural Best Management Practices and Funding Opportunities

13.2.1 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 divide the approved BMPs into five main purposes or categories.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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
160 Chapter 13 - Agriculture
is completed, inspected and certified to be installed according to NRCS standards and
specifications and 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, $1,280,878 was provided for projects in the Pasquotank
River basin. Table 32 summaries the cost and total BMPs implemented (i.e., acres, units, linear
feet) throughout the Pasquotank River basin.

Table 32 Summary of NCACSP Projects in the Pasquotank River Basin (2000-2005)
Purpose of BMP
Erosion Reduction1
Sediment
Reduction2
Stream
Protection3 Animal Waste4
Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($)
Total
Cost ($)
2,962.5 ac 238,760 2,088.5 ac 43,267 0 0 4 units 18,123 300,150 Subbasin
03-01-50 400 ft 3 units
535 ac 51,000 1,907 ac 46,904 0 0 2 units 44,510 142,414 Subbasin
03-01-51 4 units
3,698.6 ac 410,746 2,573.3 ac 43,219 0 0 8 units 54,114 508,079 Subbasin
03-01-52 3 units 62 tons
1,349.4 ac 131,749 373 ac 74,551 0 0 3 units 27,500 233,800 Subbasin
03-01-53 24 units
416.6 ac 66,548 104.3 ac 22,405 0 0 0 0 88,953 Subbasin
03-01-54 26 units
121.1 ac 7,266 7.2 ac 216 0 0 0 0 7,482 Subbasin
03-01-55
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subbasin
03-01-56
1 Erosion Reduction/Nutrient Loss Reduction in Field
2 Sediment/Nutrient Delivery Reduction from Field
3 Stream Protection from Animals
4 Proper Animal Waste Management

Total Benefits

Soil Saved
(tons)
(N)itrogen
Saved (lb.)
(P)hosphorous
Saved (lb.)
Waste-N
Saved (lb.)
Waste-P
Saved (lb.)
Subbasin 03-01-50 3,736 98,799 10,595 17,030 18,674
Subbasin 03-01-51 130 6,008 8,026 0 0
Subbasin 03-01-52 6,446 10,954 6,787 85,736 35,146
Subbasin 03-01-53 1,718 29,329 1,367 13,785 13,803
Subbasin 03-01-54 1,179 36,564 4,575 0 0
Subbasin 03-01-55 0 571 0 0 0
Subbasin 03-01-56 0 0 0 0 0

* 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.

Chapter 13 - Agriculture 161
County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) contacts for the Pasquotank 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.

13.2.2 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.
NRCS district contacts for the Pasquotank 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.

13.3 SWCD Water Quality Strategy Plan

Agricultural land use and a growing 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 Pasquotank River basin, redesigning and
reconstructing drainage systems may improve water quality. Drainage redesign involves
evaluating the entire watershed to determine were instream 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 reassociate 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.
162 Chapter 13 - Agriculture

Chapter 14 - Natural Resources 163
Chapter 14
Natural Resources in the Pasquotank River Basin

14.1 River Basin Hydrologic Units

Under the federal system, the Pasquotank 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 33).

Table 33 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Pasquotank River Basin
Watershed Name and Major Tributaries
DWQ
Subbasin 6-
digit Codes
USGS 8-digit
Hydrologic
Units
USGS 14-digit Hydrologic Units Local
Watersheds*
Albemarle Sound
03-01-50
03-01-51
03-01-52
03-01-53
03010205
010010, 010020, 020010, 020020, 030010,
040010, 050010, 060010, 060020, 070010,
080010, 080020, 085020, 090010, 090020,
090030, 100010, 110010, 130010, 130040,
140010, 150010, 170010, 180010, 190010,
210010, 210020, 210030, 220010
Pasquotank River 03-01-50 03010205 240050
Alligator River and Croatan Sound 03-01-51 03010205 240060
Perquimans, Little and Yeopim River 03-01-52 03010205 240030
Scuppernong River 03-01-53 03010205 240040
Phelps Lake 03-01-53 03010205 160010
Currituck Sound 03-01-54 03010205 230010, 240100
North River 03-01-54 03010205 240090
Roanoke Sound and surrounding area 03-01-56 03010205 230020
Pamlico Sound 03-01-55 03020105 090020, 090016, 090014
*Numbers from the 8-digit and 14-digit column make the full 14-digit HU.

14.2 Water Resources and Water Supply Planning

NC DENR Division of Water Resources 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 Division also administers two
environmental education outreach programs, Stream Watch and Project WET. For more
information about the Pasquotank basin visit http://www.ncwater.org/basins/Pasquotank/.

14.3 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
164 Chapter 14 - Natural Resources
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
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, particularly
around lake shorelines. 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.

14.4 Source Water Assessment of Public Water Supplies

14.4.1 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 new 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 SWAP is the Public Water Supply (PWS)
Section of the DENR Division of Environmental Health (DEH). The PWS Section received

Chapter 14 - Natural Resources 165
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.

14.4.2 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.

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 1986, 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wswp/index.html.

14.4.3 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
166 Chapter 14 - Natural Resources
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
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, available sources of
existing data at federal, state and local levels. The SWAP selected sixteen statewide databases
that were attainable and contained usable geographic information related to PCSs.

14.4.4 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 the potential threat 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.

14.4.5 Public Water Supply Susceptibility in the Pasquotank 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
different ways, either through the interactive ArcIMS mapping tool or compiled in a written
report for each PWS system. To access the ArcIMS mapping tool, simply click on the “NC

Chapter 14 - Natural Resources 167
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 Pasquotank River Basin, 355 public water supply sources were identified. One is a surface
water source and 354 are groundwater sources. Of the 354 groundwater sources, 17 of them
have a Higher, 312 have a Moderate and 25 have a Lower susceptibility rating. Table 34
identifies the surface water source and its overall 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.

Table 34 SWAP Results for Surface Water Source in the Pasquotank River Basin
PWS ID
Number
Inherent
Vulnerability
Rating
Contaminant
Rating
Overall
Susceptibility
Rating
Name of Surface
Water Source PWS Name
0428010 L L L Fresh Pond Town of Nags Head

14.5 Forestry

14.5.1 Forest Management

Approximately 44 percent of forestland in the Pasquotank basin is privately owned; 10 percent is
owned by forest industry, and the remaining 46 percent 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 22,362 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 68,252 acres in the basin. This includes 1,384 plans, such as preharvest,
rehabilitation and forest stewardship plans, that provide site specific guidance for water quality
protection.

The DFR also 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 potential to negatively impact water quality. The DFR performs hazard reduction
burns to reduce fuel load and therefore wild fire hazard. During the period covered by this Plan,
approximately 3,055 acres were either prepared or burned for the reduction of hazardous fuels.

168 Chapter 14 - Natural Resources
14.5.2 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 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/SupplementalGuide.htm.

The 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 portion of the Pasquotank
basin north of Albemarle Sound has coverage by a Water Quality Forester, thanks to a new
position that was established in 2005, which is assigned from the Elizabeth City District Office.
Field foresters based in the Fairfield District Office work the southern portion of the basin. Water
Quality Foresters conduct FPG inspections, survey BMP implementation, check for compliance
with forest harvest requirements of state buffer rules, develop preharvest 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 Division of Forest Resources
inspected 916 forestry sites for FPG compliance the basin; 97 percent of the sites inspected were
in compliance. In addition, 181 re-inspections were performed to ensure that sites continued to
be or were brought into compliance with the FPGs.

14.5.3 Forestry Best Management Practices

Implementing Forestry Best Management Practices is strongly encouraged by the Division of
Forest Resources in order to efficiently and effectively protect the water resources of North
Carolina and maintain compliance with the FPGs. During this reporting period, DFR provided
467 written or verbal BMP recommendations on tracts totaling 18,910 acres in the Pasquotank
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, 17 of those surveys were performed in the
Pasquotank River Basin. On those sites, implementation of North Carolina’s recommended
BMPs was 83 percent. Two percent (2 percent) of the conditions on those sites had potential to
be a risk to water quality. Forestry BMP implementation in the Pasquotank 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 additional 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.

Chapter 14 - Natural Resources 169
14.5.4 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 harvest
activities. Temporary bridges are usually the best 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. 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 Web site
http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/.

14.5.5 Forest Products Industry

The forest industry is a vital economic driver throughout the Pasquotank River basin, with
significant forest industry operations located in the basin. In the Pasquotank basin, 7 different
businesses are considered “Primary Processors” of forest products raw material, which represents
3 percent of the total number of primary processors in the state. Examples of primary processors
in this basin include several sawmills that produce products such as rough and dressed lumber,
chips, bark and sawdust. 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-shared reforestation assistance for forest landowners.

14.6 Public Lands

The Embayed Region has large acreages in public ownership. Pocosin Lakes, Alligator River,
Great Dismal Swamp, and Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuges; Dare Bombing Range;
Dismal Swamp State Natural Area; Pettigrew State Park; and Northwest River and North River
Game Lands protect large acreages of pocosin, nonriverine swamp, and marsh from
development. Yet there are large, highly significant sites in this region that are in need of
acquisition or other protection action. The series of sites along the Northwest River, the North
River, the Scuppernong River, and a number of smaller sites have little or none of their area
protected. Protection is particularly urgent for Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests and Peatland
Atlantic White Cedar Forests. No examples of Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest are protected
in the region, and only one small example is protected anywhere in the state.

14.7 Ecological Significance of the Pasquotank River Basin

The Pasquotank River basin has a large number of significant natural areas, including aquatic
habitats. Coastal influence is prevalent in the basin. For instance, four of the five federally listed
threatened and endangered aquatic species are predominantly marine species -- the American
Alligator being the exception -- although the Shortnose Sturgeon is anadromous, spending some
stages of its life in freshwater rivers. The Pasquotank River basin, which includes waterways
that do not drain to the Pasquotank River, contains some extensive conservation lands, which
correspond to a number of expansive natural features (swamps, marshes, pocosins, etc). Rare
animal species and plants found in the Pasquotank River basin are listed in Table 35.

170 Chapter 14 - Natural Resources
For more information on rare plant and animal species, visit the NC Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) website at www.ncnhp.org.

14.7.1 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Pasquotank River Basin

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) compiles the list of Significant Natural
Heritage Areas. The list is based on the program’s inventory of natural diversity in the state.
Natural areas are evaluated on the basis of the occurrences of rare plant and animal species, rare
or high-quality natural communities, and geologic features. The global and statewide rarity of
these elements and the quality of their occurrence at a site relative to other occurrences
determines a site’s significance rating. The sites included on this list are the best representatives
of the natural diversity of the state, and therefore have priority for protection. Inclusion on the
list does not imply that any protection or public access exists.

Certain sites that contribute to the maintenance of water quality in the Pasquotank River Basin
are highlighted below. They are grouped by region, and the names of individual Significant
Natural Heritage Areas that constitute the grouping are bulleted. More complete information on
Significant Natural Heritage Areas may be obtained from the Natural Heritage Program.

Currituck Sound Significant Natural Heritage Areas
∗ Buckskin Creek/Great Swamp ∗ Northwest Backwoods
∗ Church Island Marsh ∗ Northwest River Marsh Game Land
∗ Currituck Banks Corolla Natural Area ∗ Maple Swamp Gordonia Forest
∗ Currituck Banks/Swan Island Natural Area ∗ Monkey Island Heronry
∗ Gibbs Woods/Tull Bay Marshes ∗ Pine Island/Currituck Club Natural Area
∗ Great Marsh ∗ Troublesome Point/Gibbs Point Marshes
∗ Nellie Bell Ponds, Marsh, and Cedar Swamp ∗ Upper Northwest River Marsh

The Currituck Sound region includes the Northwest River, North Landing River, and Currituck
Banks. Many of the Significant Natural Heritage Areas in Currituck Sound are Tidal Freshwater
Marsh and Nonriverine Swamp Forest/Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest communities
surrounding the estuarine shoreline and drowned river mouths. Several of the sites in this region
are extensive, such as Great Marsh (6,037 acres), Pine Island/Currituck Club Natural Area
(11,709 acres), and Buckskin Creek/Great Swamp (5,044 acres). These high-quality natural
areas provide water quality benefits as well as outstanding wildlife habitat. The Upper
Northwest River Marsh contains the only example of the Estuarine Fringe Pine Forest in the state
and one of only two known in the nation.

North River Significant Natural Heritage Areas
∗ Broad Creek Marshes ∗ North River/Deep Creek Marshes & Forest
∗ Hunting Creek Pocosin & Marsh ∗ North River/Crooked Creek Wetlands
∗ Indiantown Creek/North River Cypress Forest

Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the North River are characterized by vast, high-quality
Tidal Freshwater Marshes and Cypress--Gum Swamps, as well as nonriverine wetland
communities of Swamp Forest and Atlantic White Cedar. However, only a small fraction of the
area is protected.

Chapter 14 - Natural Resources 171

Great Dismal Swamp Significant Natural Heritage Areas
∗ Dismal Swamp State Natural Area ∗ The Green Sea
∗ Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge

The combined acreage of the Dismal Swamp State Natural Area and the Great Dismal Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge is over 41,000 acres. This vast area extends into Virginia and consists
mostly of Nonriverine Swamp Forest, High Pocosin, Atlantic White Cedar, and other associated
nonriverine wetland communities. Together with the Green Sea, a 9,592-acre natural area to the
east, the Great Dismal Swamp provides habitat for rare plant and animal species and is home to
wildlife such as black bear that require large undeveloped areas for survival. Sizeable portions
of the Dismal Swamp State Natural Area and the National Wildlife Refuge are Registered
Natural Heritage Areas, yet drainage of adjacent lands has significantly affected the hydrology of
these areas.

Albemarle Sound Significant Natural Heritage Areas
∗ Albemarle Sound Low Shoreline ∗ Harbinger Marshes
∗ Big Flatty Creek Forests & Marshes ∗ Little Flatty Creek Forests & Marsh
∗ Bull Neck Swamp ∗ Mamie Marshes & Ponds
∗ Durant Island ∗ Menzies Pond

The Significant Natural Heritage Areas that border Albemarle Sound are areas of high-quality
Tidal Freshwater Marsh, Nonriverine Swamp Forest, Maritime Forests, and important
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests. These areas, though scattered, serve important roles as
natural vegetated buffers for Albemarle Sound, in addition to providing habitat for wildlife.
Completing protection of river buffers could improve water quality in Albemarle Sound.

East Dismal Swamp Significant Natural Heritage Areas

East Dismal Swamp is a 3,868-acre remnant of a Nonriverine Swamp Forest that once stretched
over 100,000-acres in Washington and Beaufort counties. Certain old-growth forests
characteristics of the East Dismal Swamp make it an attractive stop over for neotropical migrant
birds. When protected, the East Dismal Swamp will contribute to the overall ecosystem function
of natural areas in the region.

Scuppernong River/Lake Phelps Significant Natural Heritage Areas
∗ Lake Phelps Aquatic Habitat ∗ Pungo Lake Natural Areas
∗ Palmetto-Peartree Swamp Forest ∗ Scuppernong River Swamp Forest
∗ Pettigrew State Park

Emptying into Albemarle Sound, the Scuppernong River drains northern Washington and Tyrrell
counties. The high-quality communities bordering the river comprise over 14,000 acres and
include Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype), Cypress--Gum Swamp
(Blackwater Subtype), Atlantic White Cedar, and Nonriverine Swamp Forest. Lake Phelps, one
of the Coastal Plain’s few natural lakes, drains into the Scuppernong River via canals. Lake
Phelps is noteworthy for its unique shoreline community. Another natural lake, Pungo Lake, is
one of the largest and most intact natural lakes in North Carolina, and it is a major concentration
area for wintering waterfowl.
172 Chapter 14 - Natural Resources

Alligator River, Dare/Tyrrell/northern Hyde counties Significant Natural Heritage Areas
∗ Alligator River/South Lake Swamp Forest ∗ Dare County Pocosin
∗ Alligator River/Swan Creek Swamp Forest ∗ Buck Island Bay Forest
∗ Alligator Creek/Second Creek Forest ∗ Harvester Road Tall Pocosin
∗ Alligator River Swamp Forest ∗ Faircloth Road Pond Pine Pocosin
∗ Alligator River Refuge/Central Section ∗ Mashoes Marshes
∗ Alligator River Refuge/Southeast Marshes ∗ New Lake Fork Pocosin
∗ Upper Alligator River Marshes & Forests ∗ Pine Road Swamp
∗ Upper Alligator River Pocosin ∗ Roper Island
∗ US 264 Low Pocosin ∗ Roanoke/Stumpy Point Marshes & Pocosin
∗ Taylor Road Natural Area

This large area is made up of extensive peatlands on either side of Alligator River. This region
has the greatest extent of peatland communities in North Carolina, and probably in the whole
eastern United States. Specifically, the Dare County Pocosin is one of the best Low Pocosin
communities globally, one of the most extensive and one of the best Pond Pine Woodland
occurrences globally, as well as one of the most outstanding peatland complexes. Nonriverine
communities -- Swamp Forests, Pocosins, Pond Pine Woodland, Atlantic White Cedar Forests --
dominate the landscape here, although they are quite rare outside the Pasquotank basin. Some
areas along the shores of the Albemarle Sound and the Alligator River support marshes and Tidal
Cypress--Gum Swamps. Much of the land in this region is publicly-owned. Protection of Roper
Island, Buck Island Bay Forest, and Alligator River/Swan Creek Swamp Forest in southern
Tyrrell and northern Hyde counties could add significantly to the ecological integrity of the area
by acting as a link between protected natural areas on either side of Alligator River.

Coastal Region Significant Natural Heritage Areas
∗ Cape Hatteras Point ∗ Jockey’s Ridge State Park
∗ Colington Woods ∗ Kitty Hawk Woods
∗ Bodie Island Lighthouse Pond ∗ Nags Head
∗ Buxton Woods ∗ Oregon Inlet/Roanoke Sound Bird Nesting Islands
∗ Fort Raleigh Maritime Forest ∗ Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
∗ Hatteras Island Middle Section ∗ Roanoke Island Juncus Marsh
∗ Hatteras Inlet Bird Nesting Islands ∗ Southern Shores Cypress Swamp
∗ Hatteras Sand Flats

The Coastal Region includes the barrier islands and peninsulas, along with their associated
marshes. These narrow ridges of unconsolidated sediment are among the most dynamic
environments in the state, subject to reworking by erosion and overwash by storms as well as the
more regular effects of tides, surf, salt spray, and wind. Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the
coastal region of the Pasquotank basin include communities of Maritime Grassland, Maritime
Forest, Sand Flats, and Salt Marshes. Protection exists for portions of several of these sites, such
as Buxton Woods, Jockey’s Ridge State Park, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, Nags Head
Woods, and part of Kitty Hawk Woods. Because of the extreme rarity of these barrier island
communities, protection should be a priority for the unprotected Significant Natural Heritage
Areas.

Chapter 14 - Natural Resources 173
14.7.2 Wetland Communities in the Pasquotank River Basin

The Pasquotank River basin constitutes a significant portion of the North Carolina Coastal Plain
known as the Embayed Region. The name Embayed Region refers to the prominence of
drowned river valleys, which form the large sounds and many bays. The land in the Embayed
Region is universally low and flat, and most is poorly drained. This region contains the largest
acreage and proportion of wetlands in the state. The extensive reach of the Pasquotank River
basin -- from the coastal environment of the outer banks, across estuaries, to embayed rivers and
natural lakes -- captures many types of wetland communities. Vast peatlands occupy the centers
of peninsulas between the drowned rivers. On the fringes of the peatlands are flat mineral soil
wetlands which are kept saturated primarily by rainfall and sheet flow. Additional large areas of
organic and mineral soil swamps and marshes lie adjacent to the sounds and tidally-influenced
rivers.

Freshwater tidal wetlands are an important component of the landscape in the Pasquotank River
basin, especially along Currituck Sound and the North and Northwest Rivers. Along the
Albemarle Sound, the land-water interface is characterized by Tidal Cypress-Gum Swamp
communities. Nonriverine wetland communities in the Pasquotank River basin include
Nonriverine Swamp Forest, Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest, High Pocosin, Low Pocosin,
Pond Pine Woodland, Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest, and Bay Forest. Both the Dismal
Swamp and the Dare mainland contain extensive Nonriverine Swamp Forest, and they also
support patches of Atlantic White Cedar, Pocosin, and Pond Pine Woodland. The extent of the
natural areas in both the Dismal Swamp and the Dare mainland allows for the natural ‘shifting
mosaic’ pattern of these wet peatland communities. The Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
community, which is dominated by oaks, is not part of the ‘shifting mosaic’ pattern, being
associated more with mineral soils than organic soils and peatlands. The high productivity of the
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood wetland community soils when cleared for agriculture has led to a
drastic decline in the acreage of this community type across the state.

Natural Lake Shoreline is a wetland community type composed of the vegetated shoreline zone
of large natural lakes. The vegetation may include emergent graminoids and other herbs, shrub
thickets, Cypress--Gum Swamps, or various bottomland species. The Natural Lake Shoreline of
Phelps Lake in Washington County is a high-quality example of this wetland community type
which is protected within Pettigrew State Park.

Nontidal coastal fringe wetlands occur primarily on the outer banks. Wetland communities on
the outer banks include Maritime Swamp Forest and Maritime Shrub Swamp, examples of which
are protected at Nag’s Head Woods; Maritime Wet Grassland, an example of which is found in
the Pine Island Audobon Sanctuary in Currituck County; and Interdune Pond, a protected
example of which is found at Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

14.7.3 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Species

The influence of the coastal location of the Pasquotank River basin is reflected in the rare aquatic
species. Most of the species found on this basin’s list are associated with marine and estuarine
environments, such as the Manatee, the sea turtles (Loggerhead, Hawksbill, and Northern
Diamondback Terrapin), and the fishes Lyre Goby and Shortnose Sturgeon. Even the American
Alligator lives in fresh to slightly brackish lakes, ponds, rivers and marshes.

174 Chapter 14 - Natural Resources
While there are other rare mammals in the Pasqotank basin, the Manatee (Trichechus manatus) is
the only rare aquatic mammal. A migratory animal that typically lives in the warmer waters of
Florida and other Gulf states, manatees occasionally inhabit North Carolina’s inlets, estuaries
and rivers from June to October. Manatees rest near the surface of the water, which makes them
vulnerable to motorboat propellers and discarded trash.

Table 35 List of Rare Aquatic Species in Pasquotank River Basin
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status
Animals
Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon E LE
Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator T T(S/A)
Caretta caretta Loggerhead T LT
Chelonia mydas Green Turtle T LT
Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill E LE
Evorthodus lyricus Lyre Goby SR
Fundulus confluentus Marsh Killifish SR
Fundulus cf. diaphanus Lake Phelps Killifish SR FSC
Malaclemys terrapin terrapin Northern Diamondback Terrapin SC FSC
Trichechus manatus Manatee E LE
Plants
Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach Amaranth T LT
Ceratophyllum australe Southern Hornwort SR
Didiplis diandra Water Purslane SR
Eriocaulon perkeri Estuary Pipewort SR
Heteranthera multiflora Multiflowered Mud-plantain SR
Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina Grasswort T
Myriophyllum tenellum Leafless Watermilfoil SR
Ranunculus ambigens Water-plantain Spearwort SR
Sphagnum torreyanum Giant Peatmoss SR
Torreyochloa pallida Pale Mannagrass SR
Utricularia macrorhiza Greater Bladderwort SR
Utricularia resupinata Northeastern Bladderwort SR
SR = Significantly Rare; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern; FSC = Federal Species of Concern; E = Endangered

Three rare fishes currently occur in the Pasquotank basin. The Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum) is a large, anadromous fish that once was common in North Carolina waterways.
A distinctive fish with five rows of bony plates running the length of the body (giving it a rather
prehistoric look), 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 fish moves from the ocean
and estuaries into freshwater rivers to spawn between February and May. Juveniles may remain
upriver for up to five years after birth before migrating to the ocean. The species has suffered
from excessive harvesting and habitat degradation, and is now in danger of extinction. Current
distribution is not well known, and the shortnose sturgeon has not been reported from the
Pasquotank basin for more than 20 years. The Lyre Goby (Evorthodus lyricus), so named for the
lyre-shaped marking on its caudal fin, is a small fish limited to coastal areas in North Carolina.
It is found in the Cape Fear River estuary, tidepools at Wrightsville Beach, and Bogue and
Pamlico sounds. It prefers shallow, muddy tidepools dominated by smooth cordgrass. Human
impacts to smooth cordgrass marshes place constant pressures on the natural habitat of the lyre
goby. The third rare fish found in the Pasquotank basin is the Lake Phelps Killifish (Fundulus
cf. diaphanus), and is endemic to North Carolina.

Chapter 14 - Natural Resources 175
Several rare reptiles are found in the Pasquotank basin. Three species of sea turtles have been
identified in the basin: the Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta), the Green Turtle (Chelonia
mydas), and the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). A fourth turtle, the Northern
Diamondback Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin), is basically restricted to estuarine
situations, and lives in coastal marshes, tidal flats, coves, estuaries, and lagoons behind barrier
beaches. It is intolerant of long-term exposure to freshwater or 100 percent seawater. The
American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), lives in slow moving coastal rivers, canals,
lakes, marshes and estuaries and is a state and federally threatened species. The American
Alligator has recovered from the low populations of the past century, and is no longer
biologically threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. However, it retains
the federally threatened status due to its similarity of appearance to other rare crocodilians, and
commercial hunting and trade are regulated.

14.8 Fisheries

14.8.1 River Herring Fisheries Management Plan

Within the Pasquotank River basin exists 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.

14.8.2 Fish Kill Summary

DWQ has systematically monitored and reported fish kill events across the state since 1996.
From 2000 to 2005, field investigators reported eleven fish kill events in the Pasquotank River
basin. Low dissolved oxygen, high water temperatures 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.

14.9 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) is a fish habitat dominated by one or more species of
underwater vascular plant. These vegetation beds occur in both subtidal and intertidal zones and
may occur in isolated patches or cover extensive areas. Fresh water vegetation may also grow in
SAV beds. In North Carolina, SAV usually occurs in water less than 6 ft deep because of light
176 Chapter 14 - Natural Resources
limitations. SAV is valued as a Critical Habitat Area under Marine Fisheries Commission rules.
Over 150 fish and invertebrate species are known to use SAV as adults or juveniles, of which
about 30 are important commercial fishery species. SAV beds provide an excellent nursery area
for many species, including blue crabs, red drum, pink shrimp, spotted seatrout, and gag. SAV
blades provide a surface for post-larval shellfish attachment, especially bay scallops, and refuge
for small fish like mummichogs, pipefish, and grass shrimp. Large predators like flounders,
rays, and red drum forage around SAV. SAV produces oxygen and detritus that is exported to
other habitats, and reduces moderate turbidity and turbulence.

SAV coverage has declined and currently there are about 200,000 acres of SAV in coastal North
Carolina. Aerial and ground surveys of SAV condition and growth provide baseline maps for
future management actions are being coordinated through Albarmarle Pamilico National Estuary
Program, National Oceanic Atmospheric Association and local universities. SAV areas in
Currituck Sound have been mapped. SAV is an environmental indicator and responds to water
quality conditions. SAV is extremely dependent on clarity of the water column for its existence.
Reduced light availability from nutrient and sediment loading is thought to be the primary cause
of losses. Efforts need to continue to support SAV research to promote restoration and to
identify water quality conditions that are limiting growth.

Chapter 15 - Impaired Waters List 177
Chapter 15
North Carolina’s Impaired Waters List

15.1 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.

15.2 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/.

15.3 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:

178 Chapter 15 - 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.

Chapter 15 - Impaired Waters List 179
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 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).

15.4 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.
180 Chapter 15 - 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.

15.5 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 2004), 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.

15.6 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.
Specific conditions that the Division will consider prior to revising an existing, approved TMDL
include the following:

Chapter 15 - Impaired Waters List 181
• 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.
182 Chapter 15 - Impaired Waters List

References 183
References
CAMA Land Use Plans
____. Camden County. 2004. Prepared by Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. Wilmington, NC
and Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, P.A. Nags Head, NC.
____. Currituck County. 2005. Prepared by Currituck County Planning Board, Board of
Commissioners and Planning Department.
____. Perquimans County. 2005-2006. Prepared by Community Planning Collaborative, Inc.
____. Town of Manteo. 2007. Prepared by Community Development by Design.

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.

Holland A.F, Sanger D.M., Gawle C.P., Lerberg S.B., Santiago M.S., Riekerk
G.H.M., Zimmerman L.E. and G.I. Scott. 2004. Linkages between tidal creek ecosystems
and the landscape and demographic attributes of their watersheds. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 298:151-178.

Howell, J.M., M.S. Coyne and P.L. Cornelius. 1996. Effect of Sediment Particle Size and
Temperature on Fecal Bacteria Mortality Rates and the Fecal coliform/Fecal
Streptococci Ratio. J Environ Qual. 21:1216-1220.

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.

Mallin, Michael. 2006. Wading in Waste. Scientific American. 294:43-49.

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

____. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Planning Section. September 1997; July 2002.
Pasquotank 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/

184 References
____. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS) Biological Assessment Unit (BAU). March,
April, May 2006. Basinwide Assessment Report: Pasquotank River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/ or
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Basinwide/PASQUOTANK2006Final.pdf

____. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS) Biological Assessment Unit (BAU). December
2000. Special Study Memorandum: Effects from Dare County Landfills. Raleigh, NC.

____. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS) Biological Assessment Unit (BAU). May 2002.
Special Study Memorandum: Survey of Pasquotank Subbasin 50, Pasquotank County,
March 2002, Wetlands Restoration Project Area. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Department of
Environmental Health. Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section. Report
of Sanitary Survey of Albemarle/Currituck Sound Areas I-1, I-3 through I-16, November
1999 - June 2005, December 2005.

____. DEH. Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section. Report of Sanitary
Survey of Croatan Sound Area H-2, May 2000 - May 2005, December 2005.

____. DEH. Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section. Report of Sanitary
Survey of Eastern Albemarle Sound Area I-2, December 1999 – May 2005, June 2005.

____. DEH. Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section. Report of Sanitary
Survey of Hatteras Area H-4, April 1995 – November 2001, May 2002 & April 2002-
November 2006, March 2007.

____. DEH. Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section. Report of Sanitary
Survey of Outer Banks Area H-5, December 1996 – June 2002, October 2002 &
November 2001-July2006, September 2006.

____. DEH. Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section. Report of Sanitary
Survey of Roanoke Sound Area H-1, October 1996 – July 2002, October 2002 and
October 2001 - July 2006, August 2006.

____. DEH. Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section. Report of Sanitary
Survey of Stumpy Point Area H-3, May 2001- March 2006, May 2006.

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

Orr, D.M., Jr. and A.W. Stuart. 2000. The North Carolina Atlas. The University of North
Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.

Paul, J. H., McLaughlin, M. R., Griffin, D. W., Lipp, E. K., Stokes, R. and Joan B. Rose. 2000.
Rapid Movement of Wastewater from On-Site Disposal Systems into Surface Waters in
the Lower Florida Keys. Estuaries. 23:662-668.

References 185
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.

Rulifson, R.A., T.L. Woods, and K.E. Kleber. 2006. Environmental Assessment of the
Pasquotank County Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant Discharge Site, Albemarle Sound,
North Carolina. In Support of Environmental Assessment Report for Pasquotank County,
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A. East Carolina University, ICMR Contribution Number 06-
03. 126 p.

Schillinger, J.E. and J.J. Gannon. 1985. Bacterial Adsorption and Suspended Particles in Urban
Stormwater. Journal WPCF. 57:384-389.

Sherer, B.M., J.R. Miner, J.A. Moore and J.C. Buckhouse. 1992. Indicator Bacterial Survival in
Stream Sediments. J Environ Qual. 21:591-595.

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.
186 References

Appendices

Appendix I

DWQ Water Quality
Monitoring Programs
in the Pasquotank
River Basin

188 Appendix I – Monitoring Program

189 Appendix I – Monitoring Program
DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Pasquotank 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 Pasquotank 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 Pasquotank River basin,
available from the Environmental Sciences Section
website at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling [phone].

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 11 benthic samples collected during this assessment period. The following table lists
the total bioclassifications (by subbasin) for all benthos sites in the Pasquotank River basin. For
detailed information regarding the samples collected during this assessment period, refer to the
table that follows the next section.

Summary of Bioclassifications for All Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sites (using the
most recent rating for each site) in the Pasquotank River Basin
Bioclassifications Swamp Streams Bioclass.
Subbasin Excellent Good Good-
Fair Fair Poor Not
Rated Natural Moderate Severe
Stress Total
03-01-50 1 3 4
03-01-52 1 3 4
03-01-53 1 1 2
03-01-54 1 1
DWQ monitoring programs for the
Pasquotank River Basin include:
• Benthic Macroinvertebrates
• Fish Assessments
• Lakes and Reservoirs
• Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
• Ambient Monitoring System

190 Appendix I – Monitoring Program

Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Northeastern Coastal Plain

There are three types of streams in the Pasquotank 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.

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. Three 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 better
assess water quality.

Benthic macroinvertebrate basinwide monitoring data collected in the Pasquotank River basin,
2000-2005.
Subbasin/
Waterbody
Map
ID Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT
BI BioClass
03-01-50
Pasquotank R MB4 SR 1361 Pasquotank 30-3-(1) 2/22/2005 30 2 7.56 6.40 Moderate
3/6/2002 29 1 7.19 --- Not Rated
8/3/2000 27 0 8.28 --- Not Rated
Newland
Drainage Canal MB2 SR 1363 Pasquotank 30-3-1.5 2/22/2005 44 2 7.77 6.73 Moderate
3/6/2002 26 2 7.13 7.10 Moderate
Pasquotank R MB3 Goat Island Pasquotank 30-3-(3) 8/24/2005 52 4 7.79 7.20 Fair
8/2/2000 31 4 8.09 6.83 Not Rated
Sawyers Cr MB5 SR 1200 Camden 30-3-6 3/7/2002 29 0 6.89 --- Not Rated
2/18/2000 27 0 7.55 --- Natural
Areneuse Cr MB1 NC 343 Camden 30-3-13-(1) 2/23/2005 36 1 7.98 9.80 Moderate

191 Appendix I – Monitoring Program
3/6/2002 16 0 7.88 --- Not Rated
2/18/2000 22 0 7.82 --- Moderate
Newbegun Cr SR 1132 Camden 30-3-16-(1) 2/23/2000 20 0 8.59 --- Moderate
03-01-51
NW Fk Alligator R Canoe Trail Mile 4 Tyrrell 30-16-8 3/1/2000 13 0 8.19 --- Not Rated
SW Fk Alligator R Canoe Trail Mile 2 Tyrrell 30-16-8-2 3/1/2000 14 0 7.19 --- Not Rated
UT Billys Ditch off US-64 E of
FWS ofc Dare 10/10/2000 33 2 8.42 6.67 Not Rated
UT Billys Ditch off US 64 nr
landfill Dare 10/10/2000 43 2 8.05 7.98 Not Rated
UT Callaghan Cr ditch off Cub Rd Dare 10/10/2000 37 2 8.87 5.46 Not Rated
UT Callaghan Cr ditch off Long
Curve Rd Dare 10/10/2000 31 0 8.78 --- Not Rated
03-01-52
Little R MB7 SR 1221 Perquimans 30-5-(1) 2/23/2005 40 1 8.35 6.40 Moderate
2/11/2000 24 0 7.95 --- Moderate
Perquimans R SR 1204 Perquimans 30-6-(1) 2/22/2000 26 0 7.54 --- Moderate
Perquimans R MB8 NC 37 Perquimans 30-6-(1) 2/22/2005 25 0 7.53 --- Moderate
Perquimans R MB12 above Hertford Perquimans 30-6-(1) 8/23/2005 41 4 7.91 6.80 Fair
8/2/2000 45 4 8.04 6.91 Not Rated
Burnt Mill Cr MB6 NC 37 Chowan 30-8-1 2/21/2005 54 0 7.91 --- Moderate
2/22/2000 37 0 7.92 --- Moderate
03-01-53
Kendrick Cr US 64 Washington 30-9-(1) 10/26/2000 35 0 7.60 --- Not Rated
Main Canal MB9 SR 1180 Washington 30-9-4 2/21/2005 33 1 8.34 6.20 Severe
2/23/2000 31 1 8.62 9.80 Severe
Deep Cr SR 1302 Washington 30-14-2 2/23/2000 28 1 7.06 6.40 Natural
Scuppernong R SR 1155 Washington 30-14-4-(1) 8/3/2000 49 2 8.14 6.06 Poor
Scuppernong R MB10 SR 1105 Tyrrell 30-14-4-(1) 8/25/2005 59 2 8.27 7.62 Poor
03-01-54
UT Cowells Cr MB11 NC 34 Currituck 2/24/2005 36 1 8.02 9.80 Moderate

Overview of Fish Tissue Assessment

Because fish spend their entire lives in the aquatic environment, they incorporate chemicals from
this environment into their body tissues. Contamination of aquatic resources have been
documented for heavy metals, pesticides, and other complex organic compounds. Once these
contaminants reach surface waters, they may be available for bioaccumulation, either directly or
through aquatic food webs, and may accumulate in fish and shellfish tissues. Results from fish
tissue monitoring can serve as an important indicator of further contamination of sediments and
surface water.

Since 1991, fish tissue surveys have been conducted as part of the Basinwide Assessment
Program. Fish tissues were sampled for metals and organic contaminants throughout the year’s
scheduled basins with the intent of assessing as many waterbodies as possible. While this
included efforts to assess suspected ”trouble spots” in a basin, significant time and resources
were spent in gathering data from areas where few fish tissue contaminants were historically
detected. Review of data after the first round of basin assessments were completed revealed that,

192 Appendix I – Monitoring Program
except for mercury, there were no widespread fish contaminant issues in the state that warranted
basinwide-style investigations.

In 1999, the scope of fish tissue surveys were revised and shifted from basinwide assessments to
areas where contaminants exist or are suspected. This shift has resulted in less basinwide
coverage, but has focused resources on known contaminant issues within a basin.

All fish samples were collected according to standard operating procedures (NCDENR 2001).
Analysis results are used as indicators for human health concerns, fish and wildlife health
concerns, and the presence and concentrations of various chemicals in the ecosystem.
The Division conducted fish tissue surveys at three stations within the Pasquotank Basin during
2003 and 2004. These surveys were conducted as part of statewide fish tissue mercury
assessments. All fish samples were analyzed for concentrations of total mercury (wet weight,
ppm).

Eighty-nine fish tissue samples were collected from three stations in the Pasquotank basin during
2003 and 2004 and analyzed for mercury contamination. The samples included largemouth bass,
yellow perch, sunfish and catfish. Results from the period show 48 of 89 samples collected
contained mercury concentrations exceeding the state criteria of 0.4 ppm.

Fish samples and results exceeding NC criteria in Subbasin 53 in the Pasquotank River basin.
Description Years
Sampled Species Number
Samples
Samples exceeding NC Hg criteria
(0.4 ppm)
Kendricks Creek 2003 Bass, Sunfish, Catfish,
Pickerel, Yellow Perch 23 7
Lake Phelps 2003, 2004 Bass, Sunfish, Catfish,
Yellow Perch 59 39
Scuppernong
River 2004 Bass, Sunfish 7 2

Fish Kill Assessment

DWQ has systematically monitored and reported fish kill events across the state since 1996.
From 2000 to 2005, field investigators reported eleven kill events in the Pasquotank River basin.
Low dissolved oxygen, high water temperatures 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.

Overview of Lakes Assessment

Phelps Lake was the only lake sampled between October 1, 2001 and September 30, 2005. The
lake was sampled four times in 2005 for chlorophyll a, pH, dissolved oxygen, water temperature,
turbidity and metals and eight times as part of a low-level mercury study from November 2002
through September 2006. Except for one sample with mercury exceeding state standards, all
water quality standards were met.

193 Appendix I – Monitoring Program
Overview of 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.

Sixteen NPDES permits in the Pasquotank River basin currently require WET testing. Two of
these facilities have a WET limit, while fourteen require monitoring without a limit; all of these
facilities are drinking water treatment plants discharging filter backwash or reverse osmosis
reject water. 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.

Overview of 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, including 12 stations
in the Pasquotank River basin. Between 23 and 32 parameters are collected monthly at each
station. In the Pasquotank River basin, five ambient parameters exceeded state water quality
parameters including: copper, iron, nickel, pH, 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 Pasquotank River Basinwide Assessment
Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html for more detailed analysis of ambient water
quality monitoring data.

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

194 Appendix I – Monitoring Program
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.

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 Pasquotank 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.”

195 Appendix I – Monitoring Program
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.

Locations of DWQ Monitoring stations in the Pasquotank River Basin, 2000 - 2005.
Map
ID
50
M2750000 MA1 Pasquotank River at Elizabeth City SB
M390000N MA4 Albemarle Sound near Frog Island North Shore SB
51
M7175000 MA12 Alligator River at US 64 near Alligator SC Sw ORW
M390000S MA5 Albemarle Sound near Frog Island South Shore SB
M390000C MA3 Albemarle Sound near Frog Island Mid Channel SB
52
M3500000 MA2 Little River at SR 1367 at Woodville C Sw
M5000000 MA6 Perquimans River at SR 1336 at Hertford SC
M610000N MA8 Albemarle Sound btwn Harvey Point and Mill Point N Shore SB
53
M6920000 MA10 Kendrick Creek at SR 1300 at Mackeys SC
M6980000 MA11 Scuppernong River at SR 1105 near Columbia C Sw
M610000S MA9 Albemarle Sound btwn Harvey Point and Mill Point S Shore SB
M610000C MA7 Albemarle Sound btwn Harvey Point and Mill Point Mid Channel SB
Subbasin/
Station ID
Little River, Perquimans River, and Central Albemarle Sound
Scuppernong River, Kendrick Creek, and Southwest Albemarle Sound
Alligator River and Southeast Albemarle Sound
Location Class
Pasquotank River and Northeast Albemarle Sound

196 Appendix I – Monitoring Program

197 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology

Appendix II

Use Support Methodology

198 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology

199 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
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

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

200 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
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.
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

201 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
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
areas within a mercury advice, or has no fish tissue data.
ND AL, REC,
SH
No data available in AU during assessment period.

202 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
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.

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).

203 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
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.

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

204 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
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
River basins. The definition of "piedmont" for these four river basins is based upon a map of
North Carolina watersheds (Fels, 1997). Specifically:

205 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
• 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

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

206 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
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. Instantaneous
concentrations of 4.0 mg/L or less (5.0 mg/L in salt water) are in violation of the standard unless
caused by natural (e.g. swampy) conditions. In areas with continuous 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

207 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
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.

208 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
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.

Shellfish Harvesting Use Support

The shellfish harvesting use support category is a human health approach to assess whether
shellfish can be commercially harvested and is therefore applied only to Class SA waters. The
following data sources are used to assign use support ratings for shellfish waters.

Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Shellfish Sanitation Surveys

DEH is required to classify all shellfish growing areas as to their suitability for shellfish
harvesting. Estuarine waters are delineated according to DEH shellfish management areas (e.g.,
Outer Banks, Area H-5) which include Class SA, SB and SC waters. DEH samples growing

209 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
areas regularly and reevaluates the areas by conducting shellfish sanitation shoreline surveys
every three years to determine if their classification is still applicable. DEH classifications may
be changed after the most recent sanitary survey. Classifications are based on DEH bacteria
sampling, locations of pollution sources, and the availability of the shellfish resource. Growing
waters are classified as follows.

DEH
Classification
DEH
Criteria
Approved
(APP)
Fecal Coliform Standard for Systematic Random Sampling:
The median fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) or the geometric mean MPN of
the water shall not exceed 14 per 100 milliliters (ml), and the estimated 90th percentile
shall not exceed an MPN of 43 MPN per 100 ml for a 5-tube decimal dilution test.

Fecal Coliform Standard for Adverse Pollution Conditions Sampling:
The median fecal coliform or geometric mean MPN of the water shall not exceed 14 per
100 ml, and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed 43 MPN per 100 ml for
a 5-tube decimal dilution test.
Conditionally
Approved-Open
(CAO)
Sanitary Survey indicates an area can meet approved area criteria for a reasonable period
of time, and the pollutant event is known and predictable and can be managed by a plan.
These areas tend to be open more frequently than closed.
Conditionally
Approved-Closed
(CAC)
Sanitary Survey indicates an area can meet approved area criteria for a reasonable period
of time, and the pollutant event is known and predictable and can be managed by a plan.
These areas tend to be closed more frequently than open.
Restricted
(RES)
Sanitary Survey indicates limited degree of pollution, and the area is not contaminated to
the extent that consumption of shellfish could be hazardous after controlled depuration or
relaying.
Prohibited
(PRO)
No Sanitary Survey; point source discharges; marinas; data do not meet criteria for
Approved, Conditionally Approved or Restricted Classification.

Assigning Use Support Ratings to Shellfish Harvesting Waters (Class SA)

DWQ use support ratings may be assigned to separate segments within DEH management areas.
In assessing use support, the DEH classifications and management strategies are only applicable
to DWQ Class SA (shellfish harvesting) waters. It is important to note that DEH classifies all
actual and potential growing areas (which includes all saltwater and brackish water areas) for
their suitability for shellfish harvesting. This will result in a difference of acreage between DEH
areas classified as CAC, PRO and RES, and DWQ waters rated as Impaired. For example, if
DEH classifies a 20-acre area CAC, but only 10 acres are Class SA, only those 10 acres of Class
SA waters are rated as Impaired.

The DEH "Closed" polygon coverage includes CAC, RES and PRO classifications, and it is not
currently possible to separate out the PRO from the RES areas. Therefore, these areas are a
combined polygon coverage, and DWQ rates these waters as Impaired.

Sources of fecal coliform bacteria are more difficult to separate out for Class SA areas. DEH
describes the potential sources in the sanitary surveys, but they do not describe specific areas
affected by these sources. Therefore, in the past, DEH identified the same sources for all Class
SA sections of an entire management area (e.g., urban runoff and septic systems). Until a better
way to pinpoint sources is developed, this information will continue to be used. A point source
discharge is only listed as a potential source when NPDES permit limits are exceeded.

210 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology

DWQ and DEH are developing the database and expertise necessary to assess shellfish
harvesting frequency of closures. In the interim, DWQ has been identifying the frequency of
closures in Class SA waters using an interim methodology (see below) based on existing
databases and GIS shapefiles. There will be changes in reported acreages in future assessments
using the permanent methods and tools that result from this project.

Past Interim Frequency of Closure-Based Assessment Methodology

The interim method was used for the 2001 White Oak, 2002 Neuse and 2003 Lumber River
basin use support assessments. Shellfish harvesting use support ratings for Class SA waters
using the interim methodology are summarized below.

Percent of Time Closed
within Basin Data Window
DEH
Growing Area Classification
DWQ
Use Support Rating
N/A Approved* Supporting
Closed ≤10% of data window Portion of CAO closed ≤10% of data window Supporting
Closed >10% of the data window Portion of CAO closed >10% of data window Impaired
N/A CAC and PRO/RES** Impaired
* Approved waters are closed only during extreme meteorological events (hurricanes).
** CAC and P/R waters are rarely opened to shellfish harvesting.

For CAO areas, DWQ worked with DEH to determine the number of days and acreages that
CAO Class SA waters were closed to shellfish harvesting during the assessment period. For
each growing area with CAO Class SA waters, DEH and DWQ defined subareas within the CAO
area that were opened and closed at the same time. The number of days these CAO areas were
closed was determined using DEH proclamation summary sheets and the original proclamations.

The number of days that APP areas in the growing area were closed due to preemptive closures
because of named storms was not counted. For example, all waters in growing area E-9 were
preemptively closed for Hurricane Fran on September 5, 1996. APP waters were reopened
September 20, 1996. Nelson Bay (CAO) was reopened September 30, 1996. This area was
considered closed for ten days after the APP waters were reopened.

Current Assessment Methodology

Use support assessment is now conducted such that only the DEH classification will be used to
assign a use support rating. By definition, CAO areas are areas that DEH has determined do not,
or likely do not, meet water quality standards and these areas will be rated Impaired, along with
CAC and PRO/RES areas. Only APP areas will be rated Supporting.

Growing areas that have been reclassified by DEH during the assessment period from a lower
classification to APP will be rated Supporting. Areas that are reclassified from APP to any other
classification during the assessment period will be rated Impaired.

Over the next few years, DWQ, DEH, Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMF) will be engaged in developing a database with georeferenced (GIS)

211 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
shellfish harvesting areas. The new database and GIS tools will be valuable for the above
agencies to continue to work together to better serve the public. Using the new database with
georeferenced areas and monitoring sites, DEH will be able to report the number of days each
area was closed excluding closures related to large or named storms.

Water Supply Use Support

This human health related use support category is used to assess all Class WS waters for the
ability of water suppliers to provide potable drinking water. Water quality standards established
for drinking water apply to water delivered to consumers after it has been treated to remove
potential contaminants that may pose risks to human health. Ambient standards established by
states under the Clean Water Act are not intended to ensure that water is drinkable without
treatment. Modern water treatment technologies are required to purify raw water to meet
drinking water standards as established by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Health.

Water supply use support is assessed by DWQ using information from the seven DEH regional
water treatment plant consultant staff. Each January, the DEH staff consultants are asked to
submit a spreadsheet listing closures and water intake switch-overs for all water treatment plants
in their region. This spreadsheet describes the length and time of the event, contact information,
and the reason for the closure or switch.

The spreadsheets are reviewed by DWQ staff to determine if any closures/switches were due to
water quality concerns. Those closures/switches due to water quantity problems and reservoir
turnovers are not considered for use support. The frequency and duration of closures/switches
due to water quality concerns are considered when assessing use support. Using these criteria,
North Carolina’s surface water supplies are currently rated Supporting on an Evaluated basis.
Specific criteria for rating waters Impaired are to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

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
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.

212 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
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.

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

213 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
• 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.

214 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology

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.

215 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology
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.

216 Appendix II – Use Support Methodology

217 Appendix III - Permits

Appendix III

NPDES Discharge, Non-Discharge
and
Stormwater Permits

218 Appendix III - Permits

NPDES Dischargers in the Pasquotank River Basin (2007)
219 Appendix III - Permits
NPDES Dischargers
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class Flow Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0007978 South Mills Water Association Inc South Mills Water Association WTP Camden Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 45000 30150 Dismal Swamp Canal
NC0025011 City of Elizabeth City Elizabeth City WWTP Pasquotank Washington Municipal, Large Major 4500000 30150 Pasquotank River
NC0036447 City of Elizabeth City Elizabeth City WTP Pasquotank Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 30150 Knobbs Creek
NC0037214 Camden County Board of Education Grandy Primary School Camden Washington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 7000 30150 Sawyers Creek
NC0043583 Pasquotank County Pasquotank County WTP Pasquotank Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 30150 New Begun Creek
NC0086681 Camden County Camden County Reverse Osmosis
WTP Camden Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 432000 30150 Pasquotank River
NC0001732 Daniels Seafood Company Daniels Seafood / Nags Head Dare Washington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 30151 Roanoke Sound
NC0035670 Dare County Skyco Regional WTP Dare Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 192000 30151 Croatan Sound
NC0041386 NC Department of Commerce Wanchese Harbor Project Dare Washington Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor 270000 30151 Mill Landing Creek (Mill Creek)
NC0048151 Etheridge Seafood Company Etheridge Seafood Company Dare Washington Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor 25000 30151 Mill Landing Creek (Mill Creek)
NC0056065 State of North Carolina Department
of Transportation Marine Maintenance facility Dare Washington Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor 3000 30151 Spencer Creek
NC0079057 Town of Manteo Manteo WWTP Dare Washington Municipal, Large Major 1000000 30151 Shallowbag Bay
NC0021849 Town of Hertford Hertford WWTP Perquimans Washington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 700000 30152 Perquimans River
NC0051373 Perquimans County Winfall WTP Perquimans Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 30152 Mill Creek
NC0068861 Perquimans County Bethel WTP Perquimans Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 30152 Bethel Creek
NC0081850 Town of Winfall Winfall WTP Perquimans Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 30152 Mill Creek
NC0007510 Town of Columbia Columbia WTP Tyrrell Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 20000 30153 Scuppernong River
NC0020443 Town of Columbia Columbia WWTP Tyrrell Washington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 300000 30153 Scuppernong River
NC0027600 Town of Creswell Creswell WTP Washington Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 30153 Scuppernong River
NC0031925 Town of Roper Roper WTP Washington Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 9000 30153 Main Canal
NC0036315 Town of Roper Roper WWTP Washington Washington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 85000 30153 Main Canal
NC0048861 Town of Creswell Creswell WWTP Washington Washington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 64000 30153 Scuppernong River
NC0085081 Charlson S. Boucher Dalton House Motel/Restaurant Tyrrell Washington 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 6000 30153 Scuppernong River
NC0086924 Tyrrell County Reverse Osmosis WTP Tyrrell Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 216000 30153 Bull Bay
NC0087009 Washington County Washington County WTP Washington Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 30153 ALBEMARLE SOUND
NC0087092 Tyrrell County Tyrrell County WTP Tyrrell Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 53000 30153 Riders Creek (First Creek) and
connecting canals
NPDES Dischargers in the Pasquotank River Basin (2007)
220 Appendix III - Permits
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class Flow Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0088234 Philip Carawan Capt. Neill's Seafood, Inc. Tyrrell Washington Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor not limited 30153 ALBEMARLE SOUND
NC0072150 Currituck County Currituck County WTP Currituck Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 30154 East Creek
NC0087670 Currituck County Southern Outer Banks Water System
WTP Currituck Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 600000 30154 Atlantic Ocean
NC0083909 Dare County Rodanthe/Waves/Salvo Reverse
Osmosis WTP Dare Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 300000 30155 Blackmar Gut
NC0085707 Dare County/Cape Hatteras Water
Assoc
Cape Hatteras Reverse Osmosis
WTP Dare Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 1800000 30155 Pamlico Sound
NC0086932 Dare County Stumpy Point Reverse Osmosis WTP Dare Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 43200 30155 Stumpy Point Bay
NC0070157 Dare County Kill Devil Hills Reverse Osmosis WTP Dare Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor 1420000 30156 Atlantic Ocean
General Stormwater Permits in the Pasquotank River Basin (2007)
221 Appendix III - Permits
General Stormwater Permits
COC
Number Facility Name Receiving Stream Subbasin County
NCG020566 Superior Sand Company Incorporated Pasquotank River # 03-01-50 Pasquotank
NCG020587 Camden Yard Materials Dismal Swamp Canal # 03-01-50 Camden
NCG020617 Route 17 Mine Dismal Swamp Canal # 03-01-50 Camden
NCG020642 Stevenson Sand Mine New Begun Creek # 03-01-50 Pasquotank
NCG020644 Stevenson Sand Mine Pasquotank River # 03-01-50 Pasquotank
NCG020649 Winslow Pit Knobbs Creek # 03-01-50 Pasquotank
NCG080759 Chesapeake & Albermarle Railroad Knobbs Creek # 03-01-50 Pasquotank
NCG160076 Barnhill Contracting Co-Pasquo Knobbs Creek # 03-01-50 Pasquotank
NCG210017 J W Jones Lumber Company Inc Pasquotank River # 03-01-50 Pasquotank
NCS000336 Universal Forest Products - Eastern Div Inc Elizabeth City Knobbs Creek # 03-01-50 Pasquotank
NCG020596 Dare Co - C & D Landfill Borrow Pit Sandy Ridge Gut (Sawyer Lake) # 03-01-51 Dare
NCG020625 Roberson's Contracting Tyrell County Pit ALBEMARLE SOUND # 03-01-51 Tyrrell
NCG020650 J Tildon Whitehurst, Jr. Mine Little River # 03-01-52 Perquimans
NCG020675 Whitehurst Sand Company Mine Little River # 03-01-52 Perquimans
NCG030213 Mitek Edenton ALBEMARLE SOUND # 03-01-52 Chowan
NCG190056 Shore Flyte Marina Perquimans River # 03-01-52 Perquimans
NCG190063 Albemarle Sportfishing Boats Inc ALBEMARLE SOUND # 03-01-52 Chowan
NCS000008 Fortress Wood Products Little River # 03-01-52 Pasquotank
NCG020447 Tyrrell Ready Mix-Dolly Mine Scuppernong River # 03-01-53 Tyrrell
NCG020662 Davenport Sand Company Kendrick Creek (Mackeys Creek) # 03-01-53 Washington
NCG210303 Mackeys Ferry Sawmill - Roper Kendrick Creek (Mackeys Creek) # 03-01-53 Washington
NCG020641 Green Acres Land Development, Inc. Currituck Sound # 03-01-54 Currituck
NCG140226 Coastal Ready Mix Concrete Roland Creek # 03-01-54 Currituck
NCG080464 NC Power-Kitty Hawk Combustion Kitty Hawk Bay # 03-01-56 Dare
NCG140324 TNT Services Inc Kitty Hawk Bay # 03-01-56 Dare

General Stormwater Permits in the Pasquotank River Basin (2007)
222 Appendix III - Permits
Non-Discharge NPDES Permits

Permit Owner Facility County Region Owner Type Perm Type Class Perm_StatuFlow
WQ0029868 Sandy Point Water &
Sewer LLC Sandy Point WWTF Chowan Washington Non-Government Reuse Major ACTIVE 300000
WQ0000185 Currituck County Ocean Sands Currituck Washington Government -
County High-Rate Infiltration Major ACTIVE 500000
WQ0004696 Carolina Village L L CCarolina Village Currituck Washington Non-Government Surface Irrigation Major ACTIVE 60000
WQ0011284 Carolina Water
Service Inc Of NC
Corolla Light Water
Trmt. Plant -
Infiltration Pond
Currituck Washington Non-Government High-Rate Infiltration Minor ACTIVE 4000
WQ0014306 Sandler Utilities at
Mill Run LLC Eagle Creek Currituck Washington Non-Government Reuse Major ACTIVE 321000
WQ0015052 Enviro-Tech of North
Carolina Inc Village at Ocean Hill Currituck Washington Non-Government Reuse Major ACTIVE 164000
WQ0015053 Currituck County Moyock Commons Currituck Washington Government -
County Surface Irrigation Major ACTIVE 40000
WQ0000910 Carolina Water
Service Inc Of NC
The Village at Nags
Head Dare Washington Non-Government High-Rate Infiltration Major ACTIVE 500000
WQ0002042 J R S Partners LLC Holiday Inn-Nags
Head Dare Washington Non-Government High-Rate Infiltration Major ACTIVE 30000
WQ0002284
Outer
Banks/Kinnakeet
Associates L L C
Kinnakeet Shores Dare Washington Non-Government Reuse Major ACTIVE 350000
WQ0007256 Baycliff Homeowners'
Association Inc Baycliff Dare Washington Non-Government High-Rate Infiltration Major ACTIVE 20000
WQ0014757 Hatchell Concrete Inc Hatchell Concrete
Inc-Carwas Dare Washington Non-Government Wastewater Recycling Minor EXPIRED 0
WQ0017224
Ginguite Woods Wtr
Reclamation Assoc
Inc
Ginguite Woods Dare Washington Non-Government Reuse Major ACTIVE 32500
WQ0001189 Rollingview Marina
Inc Rollingview Marina Durham Raleigh Non-Government Surface Irrigation Minor ACTIVE 1500
WQ0006932 Professional
Laboratories & R
Professional
Laboratories & R Gates Washington Non-Government Surface Irrigation Minor ACTIVE 4500
WQ0014808 City of Elizabeth City
City of Elizabeth City
WTP Residuals
Storage Facility
Pasquotank Washington Government -
Municipal
Surface Disposal of
Residual Solids(503
Exempt)
Minor ACTIVE 10000
General Stormwater Permits in the Pasquotank River Basin (2007)
223 Appendix III - Permits
WQ0024740 Tanglewood Utilities,
LLC
Tanglewood
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Pasquotank Washington Non-Government Lagoons,
Infiltration/Evaporative Major ACTIVE 250000
WQ0001817 Albemarle Utilities Inc Albermarle PlantationPerquimans Washington Non-Government Surface Irrigation Major ACTIVE 183167
WQ0000265 NC Department Of
Corrections
Washington
Correctional Center Washington Washington Government -
State Surface Irrigation Major ACTIVE 25000
WQ0012892 New Colony Farms
LLC
New Colony Farms
LLC Washington Washington Non-Government Surface Irrigation Minor ACTIVE 4000

General Stormwater Permits in the Pasquotank River Basin (2007)
224 Appendix III - Permits

225 Appendix IV - Contacts

Appendix IV

Pasquotank River Basin
Nonpoint Source Program
Description and Contacts

226 Appendix IV - Contacts

227 Appendix IV - Contacts
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 3
Conservationist William J. Harrell 919-751-0976 Cashwell Office Park, Suite C, 208 Malloy St., Goldsboro,
NC 27534
Camden County R. Dwane Hinson 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932-1735
Chowan County R. Dwane Hinson 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932-1735
Currituck County R. Dwane Hinson 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932-1735
Dare County Todd Waters 252-926-4195 PO Box 264, Swanquaters, NC 27885-0264
Gates County William P. Boone 252-358-7846 PO Box 265, Winton, NC 27986-0265
Hyde County Todd Waters 252-926-4195 PO Box 264, Swanquaters, NC 27885-0264
Pasquotank County R. Dwane Hinson 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932-1735
Perquimans County R. Dwane Hinson 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932-1735
Tyrrell County Rufus W. Croom 252-793-4561 128 East Water Street, Suite 202, Plymouth, NC 27962-1330
Washington County Rufus W. Croom 252-793-4561 128 East Water Street, Suite 202, Plymouth, NC 27962-1330
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.
Camden County 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932-1735
Chowan County 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932-1735
Currituck County 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932-1735
Dare County 252-926-4195 PO Box 264, Swanquaters, NC 27885-0264
Gates County 252-358-7846 PO Box 265, Winton, NC 27986-0265
Hyde County 252-926-4195 PO Box 264, Swanquaters, NC 27885-0264
Pasquotank County 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932-1735
Perquimans County 252-482-4127 730 N. Granville Street, Suite B, Edenton, NC 27932-1735
Tyrrell County 252-793-4561 128 East Water Street, Suite 202, Plymouth, NC 27962-1330
Washington County 252-793-4561 128 East Water Street, Suite 202, Plymouth, NC 27962-1330

228 Appendix IV - Contacts
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/
Washington Region David Cash
(Area 5 Coordinator) 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square, Washington, NC 27889
Central Office David B. Williams 919-715-6103 512 N Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27604
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/
Central Office J. Kent Messick 919-733-2655 4300 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh NC 27607
Region 1 Wayne Nixon 252-426-7210 Rt. 2 Box 161-E, Hertford, NC 27944
Region 2 Kent Yarborough 252-793-4118 Tidewater Research Station, Plymouth, NC 27962
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
Camden County 252-338-1919 120 NC Highway 343 N, Camden, NC 27921-0129
Chowan County 252-482-6585 730 North Granville St., Chowan County Agricultural
Center, Suite A, Edenton, NC 27932-1434
Currituck County 252-232-2261 153 Courthouse Rd, Room 211, Currituck, NC 27929
Dare County 252-473-4290 517 Budleigh St., Manteo, NC 27954
Gates County 252-357-1400 112 Court Street, Gatesville, NC 27938
Hyde County 252-926-4486 1372 Main Street, NC Cooperative Extension at O.A
Peay School, Swan Quarter, NC 27885
Pasquotank County 252-338-3954 1209 Mcpherson St., Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Perquimans County 252-426-5428 601-A South Edenton Road Street, Hertford, NC
27944
Tyrrell County 252-796-1581 407 Martha Street, Columbia, NC 27925-0209
Washington County 252-793-2163 128 E Water St., Plymouth, NC 27962
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

229 Appendix IV - Contacts
Elizabeth City
District Office
(District 7)
Water Quality Forester
DFR’s Bertie County 252-794-3725
113 Wakelon Road, Windsor, NC 27983
Fairfield District
Office (District 13) Field Forester 252-926-3041 P.O. Box 127 9291 Piney Woods Road
Fairfield, NC 27826-0127
Griffiths Forestry
Center (Statewide)
Water Quality & Wetlands
Staff Forester
919-553-6178
ext. 230
2411 Old US Hwy 70-West
Clayton, NC 27520
Central Office
(Statewide) Forest Hydrologist 919-733-2162
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 Mall, 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
Town of Kill Devil
Hills Matt Lowcher 252-449-5318 PO Box 1719, Kill Devil Hills, NC 27948
Town of Kitty Hawk Holly White 252-261-3552 PO Box 549, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Town of Nags Head Kim Allen 252-441-5508 PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC 27959
General Water Quality
DENR DWQ Planning Section:
Coordinate the numerous nonpoint source programs carried out by many agencies; coordinate the 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

230 Appendix IV - Contacts
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 Region * 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square, Washington, NC 27889
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
Washington Region * Bob Uebler 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square, Washington, NC 27889
Camden County Jerry Parks 252-338-4460 PO Box 189, Elizabeth City, NC 27907-0189
Chowan County Jerry Parks 252-482-6023 PO Box 189, Elizabeth City, NC 27907-0189
Currituck County Jerry Parks 252-232-6603 PO Box 189, Elizabeth City, NC 27907-0189
Dare County Anne Thomas 252-475-5555 PO Box 1000, Manteo, NC 27954
Gates County Jerry Parks 252-357-1380 PO Box 189, Elizabeth City, NC 27907-0189
Hyde County Linda Mayo 252-926-4200 PO Box 100, Swan Quarter, NC 27885
Pasquotank County Jerry Parks 252-338-4490 PO Box 189, Elizabeth City, NC 27907-0189
Perquimans County Jerry Parks 252-338-4400 PO Box 189, Elizabeth City, NC 27907-0189
Tyrrell County Keith Patton 888-388-9208 408 Bridge St., Columbia, NC 27925
Washington County Keith Patton 888-388-9208 408 Bridge St., Columbia, NC 27925

* 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
231 Appendix V - Glossary

Appendix V

Glossary
of
Terms and Acronyms

232 Appendix V - Glossary
233 Appendix V - Glossary
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).
234 Appendix V - Glossary
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.
235 Appendix V - Glossary
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.
236 Appendix V - Glossary
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.
237 Appendix V - Glossary
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