HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 1
Chapter 1
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01
Including: Dan River, Big Creek, Town Fork, Belews Creek and Snow Creeks
1.1 Subbasin Overview
Although the headwaters of the Dan River originate in
Virginia, this subbasin contains the uppermost reaches of
the Dan River in North Carolina. More than seventy
percent of this subbasin is forested, and less than three
percent is in cultivated crop, the lowest percentage of this
type land use in any of the subbasins. The percentage of
the subbasin utilized for pasture was the greatest of any
of the subbasins. Hanging Rock State Park is the largest
publicly owned property in this subbasin.
By the year 2020, populations within Stokes and Forsyth
counties are expected to increase by 24 percent and 21
percent, respectively. Of particular concern is residential
and urban development occurring in the suburbanizing
areas of northeastern Winston-Salem. Consequently,
streams in these areas may be negatively impacted by
sediment and streambank erosion commonly associated
with development activities. Information regarding
population growth, trends and impacts can be found in
Chapter 12 and Appendix I.
Several water quality improvement programs have been
implemented in this subbasin. The NC Agriculture Cost
Share Program (NCACSP), which helps reduce
agricultural runoff by helping farmers implement best
management practices, is one of these programs. The
NCACSP provided $164,929 towards implementing
sediment and nutrient reduction practices, animal waste
management, and livestock stream access elimination
within this subbasin. For more information on this and
other programs, refer to watershed discussion throughout
this chapter as well as in Chapters 16 (Agriculture and
Water Quality) and 20 (Water Quality Initiatives).
Twenty-one individual NPDES discharge permits are
issued in this subbasin, five of which are required to conduct whole effluent toxicity testing.
Refer to Appendix VI for more information on NPDES permit holders. Two registered cattle
and one registered swine operations are located in this subbasin. Refer to Chapter 16 for more
information regarding animal operations within this basin.
Subbasin 03-02-01 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 453 mi2
Land area: 445 mi2
Water area: 8 mi2
Population
2000 Est. Pop.: 108,615 people
Pop. Density: 240 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 72.8%
Water: 1.9%
Urban: 0.6%
Cultivated Crop: 2.9%
Pasture: 21.8%
Counties
Surry, Stokes, Rockingham,
Guilford and Forsyth
Municipalities
Danbury, Kernersville, Rural Hall,
Walkertown and Walnut Cove
Monitored Stream Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total Streams: 153.7 mi/2867.7 ac
Total Supporting:142.1 mi/2668.1 ac
Total Impaired: 11.6 mi
Total Not Rated: 46.1 mi
Recreation
Total Streams: 11.6 mi
Total Supporting: 11.6 mi
Chapter 1 – Roanoke River Basin 03-02-01 7
#*
#*
#*
XW
XW#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
^
^
^^
^
^
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
p
p
o
o
Uninc.
NA1
NL4 NL3
D
A
N RIV
E
R
T o w n F o r k C r e e k
Big Creek
Snow Creek
DAN RIVE R
N or t h D o u bl e
C re e k
S o u t h D o u b l e
C r e e k
T
o
w
n
F
o
r
k
C
r
e
e
k
Mayo River
Belews Creek
Hogans Creek
Cascade Creek
West Belews Creek
NB19
East Belews Creek
Belews Creek
B u ff a l o C r e e k
D A N R I V E R
Big B
e
a
v
e
r Island Creek
STOKES
SURRY
STOKES
FORSYTH GUILFORD
STOKES
ROCKINGHAM
Winston-
Salem
DAN RIVER
ArchiesCreek Elk
Creek P
et
er
s
C
re
e
k
Kernersville
Rural
Hall
D A N R I V E R
R
e
e
d
C
r
e
e
k
Cadwell Creek
Hickory Creek
Winston-Salem
King
Walnut
Cove
Rural Hall
MayodanDanbury
STOKES
FORSYTH
NC-704
N
C-8
NC-89
NC-66
N C-103
NC-770
N C-2 6 8
US-311
N
C-7
7
2
U S-158
NC-66
NC-8
NA2
NL6
NL5
NL2
NL1
NF9
NF8
NF7
NF6
NF5
NF4
NF3
NF2
NF1
NB9
NB8
NF10
NB28
NB83
NB82
NB21
NB17NB15
¬
Figure 3 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01
Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 30, 2006
0 3 6 9 121.5
Miles
^
Legend
Subbasin Boundary
Primary Roads
Municipality
County Boundary
Aqutic Life Use Support Rating
Impaired
No Data
Not Rated
Supporting
")Benthic Community
[¡Fish Community
po Ambient Monitoring Station
Lake Monitoring Station
NPDES Dischargers
XW Major
#*Minor
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-01SubbasinTable 3
Archies Creek
22-2
North Carolina portion
7.3 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
NF1 /2004E
Belews Creek (including Belews Lake below elevation 725) (1)
22-27-(7)
From Southern Railroad Bridge to to a point 1.8 mile
downstream of Forsyth-Stokes County Line
789.7 FW AcresC S NDNL6 NCE
22-27-(7.5)
From a point 1.8 mile downstream of the Forsyth-Stokes
County Line to Dan River, excluding the Arm of Belews
Lake described below which are classified "WS-IV&B"
1,283.8 FW AcresWS-IV S NDNL5 NCE
NL3 NCE
Belews Creek (Kernersville Lake)
22-27-(1.5)
From a point 0.5 mile upstream of backwaters of
Kernersville Lake to Town of Kernersville Water Supply
Dam
46.1 FW AcresWS-IV;CA NR NDNL2 ID
Big Creek
22-9
From source to Dan River
19.9 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
NF2 /2004G
Brushy Fork Creek
22-25-1
From source to Town Fork Creek
3.0 FW MilesC S ND
NB82 /2004G
Cascade Creek (Hanging Rock Lake)
22-12-(2)a
From backwaters to dam at swimming lake
12.2 FW AcresB S NDNL1 NCE
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-01Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:13 AMDRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-01SubbasinTable 3
DAN RIVER
22-(8)
From Big Creek to to a point 0.2 mile downstream of Town
Fork Creek
25.9 FW MilesWS-V S ND
NB9 /2004G
DAN RIVER (North Carolina portion)
22-(1)a
From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to Little Dan River
5.1 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
NF3 /2004G
22-(1)b
From Little Dan River to Peters Creek
11.6 FW MilesC;Tr I SNA1 CE Turbidity 24.1
NB8 /2004E
NA1 NCE Turbidity
Elk Creek
22-5
From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to Dan River
2.9 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
NF4 /2004GF
Habitat Degradation Land Clearing
North Double Creek
22-10
From source to Dan River
14.0 FW MilesC S ND
NB15 /2004G
NF5 /2004GF
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
Nutrient Impacts Unknown
Peters Creek
22-6
From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to Dan River
9.1 FW MilesC;Tr S ND
NF6 /2004E
Snow Creek
22-20
From source to Dan River
18.9 FW MilesC S ND
NB17 /2000G
NB17 /2004G
NF8 /2004G
South Double Creek
22-11
From source to Dan River
9.9 FW MilesB S ND
NF7 /2004G
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-01Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:13 AMDRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-01SubbasinTable 3
Town Fork Creek
22-25a
From source to Timmons Cr.
8.0 FW MilesC S ND
NB83 /2004G
22-25b
From Timmons Cr. to Dan River
18.0 FW MilesC S ND
NB19 /2004G
NB21 /2004GF
NF9 /2004G
Habitat Degradation Unknown
West Belews Creek (West Belews Creek Arm of of Belews Lake below elevation 725)
22-27-9-(4)
From a point 0.4 mile downstream of Powerplant to Belews
Creek
582.4 FW AcresWS-IV S NDNL4 NCE
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-01Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:13 AMDRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-01SubbasinTable 3
Use Categories:Monitoring data type: Use Support Ratings 2005:
AL - Aquatic Life NF - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent S - Supporting, I - Impaired
REC - Recreation NB - Benthic Community Survey G - Good NR - Not Rated
NA - Ambient Monitoring Site GF - Good-Fair NR*- Not Rated for Recreation (screening criteria exceeded)
NL- Lake Monitoring F - Fair ND-No Data Collected to make assessment
P - Poor
NI - Not Impaired
Miles/Acres m- Monitored N- Natural
FW- Fresh Water e- Evaluated M - Moderate CE-Criteria Exceeded > 10% and more than 10 samples
S-Severe NCE-No Criteria Exceeded
ID- Insufficeint Data Available
Results:
Results
Aquatic Life Rating Summary
S 142.1 FW Milesm
I 11.6 FW Milesm
S 2,668.1 FW Acresm
NR 46.1 FW Acresm
NR 13.8 FW Milese
ND 262.9 FW Miles
ND 326.5 FW Acres
Recreation Rating Summary
11.6 FW MilesSm
18.2 FW MilesNR e
400.5 FW MilesND
3,040.7 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
430.3 FW MilesIe
3,040.7 FW AcresIe
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-01Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:14 AMDRAFT
Nine benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and nine fish community samples (Figure 3
and Table 3) were collected during this assessment period in this subbasin. Data were also
collected at one ambient monitoring station and three lakes. Refer to the 2005 Roanoke River
Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Appendix IV for
more information on monitoring.
A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 3. Table 3 contains a summary of assessment units and lengths, streams
monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results, along with use support ratings for waters
in this subbasin. Refer to Appendix IX for more information about use support ratings.
Waters in the following sections and tables are identified by assessment unit number(s) (AU#).
This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database and
303(d) Impaired waters list. The AU# is a subset of the DWQ classification identification
segment number or index number. A letter attached to the end of the AU# indicates that the
assessment is a smaller segment than the DWQ index number. No letter indicates that the AU#
and the DWQ index numbers are the same.
1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-02-01 in the aquatic life, recreation,
fish consumption and water supply categories. All waters are Impaired on an evaluated basis in
the fish consumption category because of fish consumption advice that applies to the entire
basin. In the water supply category, all waters are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on
reports from DEH regional water treatment plant consultants.
There were 153.7 stream miles (35.7 percent) and 2714.2 freshwater acres (89.3 percent)
monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. Of this, 142.1 stream miles
(33 percent) and 2,668.1 freshwater acres (87.8 percent) were supporting and 11.6 stream miles
(2.7 percent) were impaired for aquatic life. In the recreation category, all 11.6 monitored
stream miles (2.7 percent) were supporting. Refer to Table 3 for a summary of use support
ratings for waters in subbasin 03-02-01.
1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters
The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2001) 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 are identified by the assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing
and reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII.
Chapter 1 – Roanoke River Basin 03-02-01 13
1.3.1 Town Fork Creek Watershed [AU# 22-25a & b & 22-25-1]
2001 Recommendation
The 2001 Basinwide Plan identified 8 miles of Town Fork Creek [AU# 22-25a], from source to
Timmons Creek, as partially supporting for aquatic life due to a Poor benthic community
bioclassification in 1995 at SR 1700 located less than 500 meters downstream from an
impoundment. The plan recommended that more field investigation was needed in order to
determine the actual sources of pollution in the watershed.
14-digit HU# 03010103190010
Figure 4 - Upper Town Fork Creek Watershed
Current Status
Town Fork Creek (AU# 22-25a & b), from source to Dan River is Supporting aquatic life due to
Good and Good-Fair benthic community bioclassifications at sites NB83 and NB21. A TMDL
stressor study was conducted in 2004 in the upper Town Fork Creek watershed, see Figure 4.
One benthos site NB83 was sampled upstream and another site NB21 was sampled well below
the impoundment. In addition, Town Fork Creek (AU#22-25b) received a Good fish community
bioclassification at site NF9, and a Good benthic community rating at site NB19, see Figure 3
and 4. Both sites NB83 and NB21 indicated the portion of the stream sampled in close proximity
to the impoundment in 1995 was not representative of conditions in the upper Town Fork Creek
watershed.
Brushy Fork Creek (AU# 22-25-1), from source to Town Fork Creek, was also sampled as part
of the stressor study and is Supporting aquatic life due to a Good benthic community
bioclassification at site NB82.
14 Chapter 1 – Roanoke River Basin 03-02-01
2006 Recommendation
Town Fork Creek [AU# 22-25a] will be removed from the 303(d) list due to the Good-Fair
benthic community bioclassification.
Water Quality Initiatives
Several agricultural BMPs were installed in the upper Town Fork Creek watershed during this
basinwide cycle. These practices include the installation of 22.8 acres of conservation tillage,
0.3 acres of critical area plantings, 0.5 acres of grassed waterways, and 0.8 acres of field borders.
In addition, a stormwater management system, 2 tanks, 3,645 feet of livestock exclusion fencing,
2 heavy use areas, and a stock trail were also installed. Funding was provided by the NCACSP
for a total cost of $46,504. In addition, there is one Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) contract planned for this watershed for $26,283. This project would include one well,
one stock trail for 415 linear feet, one large heavy use area protection (approx. 2,500 sq. ft.),
three watering facilities, three small (20' x 20') heavy use areas under the waterers, 2,550 feet
pipeline, fencing (livestock exclusion from streams) for 8,340 linear feet and one roof runoff
management system.
Refer to Chapter 16 for more information about the NCACSP and EQIP or contact the Stokes
County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) for more information.
1.3.2 Dan River [AU# 22-(1)b]
2001 Recommendation
The 2001 Basinwide Plan identified this segment of the Dan River as exceeding the turbidity
standard in 35 percent of the samples collected from 1995 to 1999 at NC 704. However, this
segment of the river was Supporting aquatic life due to a Good benthic community
bioclassification at the same site location.
Current Status
The Dan River from Little Dan River to Peters Creek (11.6 miles), is Impaired for aquatic life
because the turbidity standard of 10 NTUs was exceeded in 24 percent of the samples at site
NA1. This segment is classified as Trout (Tr) waters, which are “suitable for natural trout
propagation and maintenance of stocked trout” (15A NCAC02B.0301). A concurrent site (NB8)
received an Excellent benthic community bioclassification. However, because each data type is
assessed independently, the segment will remain Impaired for aquatic life. Refer to Appendix IX
for more information.
This segment of the Dan River is Supporting for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria
screening criteria was not exceeded at site NA1.
DWQ conducted a trends and annual load analysis on data collected from 1990 to 2004 at site
NA1. The analysis included trends on total nitrogen (TN), defined as the sum of total Kjeldahl
nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen, total phosphorus (TP), water temperature, turbidity and total
suspended solids (TSS). Results indicated that average TN and TP concentrations peaked in
February and August respectively and decreased to a minimum in October. TSS and turbidity
Chapter 1 – Roanoke River Basin 03-02-01 15
levels peaked in the late spring and early summer months. There were no trends significant at
the 95 percent confidence level.
2006 Recommendation
High levels of turbidity over a sustained period of time have the potential to negatively impact
aquatic communities. In 1991, trout buffer language was added to the NC Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act, stating that waters classified as trout waters shall have an undisturbed
buffer zone of 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to confine siltation within the twenty-five
percent of the buffer zone nearest the land disturbing activity. This law also pertains to all
unnamed tributaries that drain to classified trout waters. DWQ will continue to monitor the Dan
River. DWQ will also work with local agencies to identify sediment sources and assist agency
personnel to locate resources for water quality protection funding. It is recommended that local
agencies work to install BMPs and implement a sediment and erosion control program.
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has identified this portion of the Dan River as
an area that supports listed and otherwise rare and sensitive aquatic species. The James
spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) was listed as federally endangered in 1988 and at the time of
listing was known only from the James River drainage in Virginia and West Virginia. Primary
threats to the James spinymussel include: habitat loss and modification; siltation due to
agriculture, forestry, and urban development; interactions with the non-native Asiatic clam
(Corbicula fluminea); impoundments; and pollution by municipal, industrial, and agricultural
sources (USFWS 1990). The first collection of the James spinymussel in North Carolina
occurred in 2000 from the Dan River in Stokes County. As of 2006, a comprehensive surveys
has not been completed in the Dan River drainage by WRC.
The Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) is classified as a federal species of concern and state
endangered species and is also found in the Dan River drainage. Future surveys into tributaries
and additional mainstem surveys may yield further data regarding species populations within the
area. Based on known occurrences, the Dan River in Stokes County and the Mayo River in
Rockingham County currently support a diversity of rare mussel species. Good environmental
management decision should be made to protect these species and their aquatic habitats (WRC,
memo August 2005).
See Chapter 4, section 4.3.1 for Dan River summary.
1.4 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. Nonpoint
source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VIII.
16 Chapter 1 – Roanoke River Basin 03-02-01
1.4.1 Elk Creek [AU# 22-5]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendation
Elk Creek, from North Carolina-Virginia State Line to Dan River (2.9 miles) is Supporting due
to a Good-Fair fish community bioclassification at site NF4. Despite the occurrence of wild
brown trout, five species of darters, and three endemic species including one cutlip minnow, this
site and its fish community suffer from altered riparian habitats (narrow zones that offer minimal
shading; riparian zones that have been periodically burned and riparian zones with numerous
breaks that contribute nonpoint source nutrients and sediment to the stream). Stream restoration
activities are desirable along Elk Creek to stabilize and improve the overall creek habitat.
1.4.2 North Double Creek [AU# 22-10]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendation
North Double Creek, from source to Dan River (14.0 miles), is Supporting aquatic life because
of a Good-Fair fish community bioclassification at site NF5 and a Good benthic community
bioclassification at site NB15. Site NF5 was one of only two sites in Stokes and Rockingham
counties where no intolerant fish species were collected (the other site being Pawpaw Creek in
subbasin 03-02-02). However, the intolerant chainback darter was collected upstream in 2002 -
2003 by the NCWRC (Hodges 2004). The predominant land use is agricultural and nonpoint
sources of nutrients from upstream sources may have contributed to the abundance of the
bluehead chub; 43 percent of all the fish collected were this species. This site and others within
the watershed should be resampled to determine what is preventing the community from being
rated Good or Excellent.
1.4.3 Snow Creek [AU# 22-20]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendation
Snow Creek, from source to Dan River (18.9 miles) is Supporting aquatic life based on Good
fish and benthic community bioclassifications at sites NF8 and NB17. The 2001 Roanoke River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan identified nonpoint source pollution impacts in this watershed.
Sedimentation, infrequent riffle areas and a significant lack of riparian vegetation were observed.
DWQ will continue to monitor Snow Creek.
Water Quality Initiatives
The Ecosystems Enhancement Program conducted a stream restoration project on Snow Creek
from Snow Hill Church Rd to Moir Farm Road, just upstream of site NF8. The project was
completed in January 2005 and restored 3,400 linear feet of Snow Creek and over 650 linear feet
on two tributaries. The project also included a conservation easement of 970 feet. In addition,
9,300 ft of fencing was installed for cattle exclusion and 2,200 ft as alternative pasture
management. Additional BMPs are planned and will be installed through the federally funded
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
Chapter 1 – Roanoke River Basin 03-02-01 17
1.4.4 Dan River [AU# 22-(25.5)]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendation
Dan River, from a point 0.2 mile downstream of Town Fork Creek to a point 0.3 mile upstream
of Reed Creek, in subbasin 03-02-02 (9.2 miles) is Not Rated on an evaluated basis for aquatic
life. KobeWieland Copper Products, Inc experienced noncompliance with their whole effluent
toxicity (WET) testing permit requirement in early 2004. DWQ worked with the facility to
identify and correct the toxicity problem. The facility has since been in compliance with the
WET requirement and will continue to conduct WET testing per their permit requirement.
See Chapter 4, section 4.3.1 for Dan River summary.
1.5 Additional Water Quality Information within Subbasin 03-02-01
The following section discusses lakes assessments, other water quality issues and identifies those
surface waters given an Excellent bioclassification, and therefore, may be eligible for
reclassification to a High Quality Water (HQW) or an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). It
should be noted that these are streams that were sampled by DWQ during this basinwide cycle.
There may be other tributaries eligible for reclassification in addition to the ones listed below.
For more information regarding water quality standards and classifications, refer to Chapter 11.
1.5.1 Cascade Creek (Hanging Rock Lake) [AU# 22-12-(2)a]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendation
Hanging Rock Lake (12.2 acres) is Supporting aquatic life due to lakes assessment data from site
NL1. This small reservoir located inside Hanging Rock State Park was sampled in the summers
of 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004. Low chlorophyll a and nutrient concentrations were found
throughout the summers of 2002 and 2004 indicating low biological productivity. Assessment of
parameters related to biological productivity indicated low biological productivity and
oligotrophic status. Water clarity was good and Hanging Rock Lake exhibits excellent water
quality.
1.5.2 Belews Creek (Kernersville Lake) [AU#22-27-(1.5)]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendation
Kernersville Lake (Belews Creek), from a point 0.5 mile upstream of backwaters of Kernersville
Lake to Town of Kernersville Water Supply Dam (46.1 acres), is Not Rated for aquatic life due
to the small number of samples (less than 10) taken at site NL2. Kernersville Lake is a backup
water supply for the Town of Kernersville, and was sampled in 2000, 2001 and 2004. Water
quality monitoring indicated moderately high nutrient and chlorophyll a levels. Assessment of
parameters related to biological productivity indicated eutrophic conditions. Water clarity was
somewhat reduced and typical of a eutrophic lake. Manganese levels were slightly elevated,
probably due to bottom disturbances resuspending manganese in the sediments. This is expected
in a small, fairly shallow reservoir such as Kernersville. There were no drinking water problems
associated with these levels of manganese reported by the Town of Kernersville.
18 Chapter 1 – Roanoke River Basin 03-02-01
1.5.3 Belews Lake [AU# 22-27-(7), 22-27-(7.5), (West Belews Creek) 22-27-9-(4)]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendation
Belews Lake (Belews Creek) [AU# 22-27-(7)], from Southern Railroad Bridge to a point 1.8
mile downstream of Forsyth-Stokes County Line (789.7 acres) is Supporting aquatic life based
on data from samples taken at site NL6. Belews Lake (Belews Creek) [AU# 22-27-(7.5)], from a
point 1.8 mile downstream of the Forsyth-Stokes County Line to Dan River, excluding the Arm
of Belews Lake described below which are classified "WS-IV&B" (1,283.8 acres), is Supporting
aquatic life based on data from samples collected at sites NL3 and NL5. It was noted that the
percent dissolved oxygen saturation exceeded the target of 120 percent in 9 percent of the
samples taken, indicating potential algal activity. However, no other parameters were elevated in
this segment. Belews Lake (West Belews Creek) [AU# 22-27-9-(4)], from a point 0.4 mile
downstream of Power plant to Belews Creek (582.4 acres), is Supporting aquatic life based data
from samples taken at site NL 4.
The lake provides condenser cooling water for the Belews Creek Duke Power Steam Station.
Water quality sampling during the summers of 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004 indicated low
concentrations of nutrients and chlorophyll a. Assessment of parameters related to biological
productivity indicated low biological productivity and oligotrophic conditions, as has been seen
in historical sampling. Water temperatures were above the state water quality standard for
temperature on some sampling visits but this has been seen in historical sampling and is due to
the discharge from Duke Power’s Belews Creek Steam Station coal-fired power plant. Duke
Power has a temperature variance for the lake that allows exceedance of the state temperature
standard above the dam.
Duke Power has performed chemical treatment on about 100 acres in 2004 to control Hydrilla
sp. in Belews Lake (Rob Emens, N.C. Division of Water Resources, personal communication) in
the vicinity of NC 158 outside the area where DWQ sampling sites are located.
A fish consumption advisory against eating fish contaminated with selenium due to a now closed
coal ash disposal basin at the power plant was rescinded in August 2000 as selenium levels in the
fish were below concentrations of concern (Luanne Williams, NC Division of Public Health,
personal communication). This reduction resulted in the removal of Belews Lake from the
303(d) list of impaired waters.
Duke Power also conducts water quality sampling and benthic macroinvertebrate and fisheries
monitoring of Belews Lake (Duke Power, 2001). This monitoring has shown that Belews Lake
water chemistry has improved since the mid 1980’s. The dry fly ash discharge from the Belews
Creek Steam Station was rerouted from Belews Lake to the Dan River in 1985. Sediment
arsenic and selenium levels in the lake have remained elevated relative to non-impacted sites but
have gradually declined. Selenium levels in benthic macroinvertebrates have also declined but
levels in macroinvertebrates collected in the downstream portion of the lake were higher than
those collected in the upstream portion of the lake. The benthic macroinvertebrate species
diversity indicates that the Belews Creek Steam Station is not impacting the benthic
macroinvertebrate community. Selenium concentrations in the fish in Belews Lake are not high
enough to pose a threat to fish or human populations. The fish community in Belews Lake was
Chapter 1 – Roanoke River Basin 03-02-01 19
found to be typical of that in a piedmont lake of similar productivity and indicates no impact
from the power plant.
1.5.4 Archies Creek [AU# 22-2]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendation
Archies Creek, North Carolina portion (7.3 miles), is Supporting aquatic life due to an Excellent
fish community bioclassification at site NF1 making it eligible for reclassification to HQW or
ORW. At site NF1, five species of darters and three endemic species including eleven cutlip
minnows were collected. The current DWQ classification is class C Tr.
1.5.5 Peters Creek [AU# 22-6]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendation
Peters Creek, from North Carolina-Virginia State Line to Dan River (9.1 miles), is Supporting
aquatic life due to an Excellent fish community bioclassification at site NF6 making it eligible
for reclassification to HQW or ORW. At site NF6, the instream and riparian habitats were of
exceptional high quality and was qualified as a new fish community regional reference site by
DWQ biologists. At site NF6, twenty-four species (the second greatest number of species
collected from any site in the basin), six species of darters (the most number of species collected
from any site in the basin) and three endemic species including two bigeye jumprocks were
collected. This was the only site in the basin where the State Threatened bigeye jumprock
(Scartomyzon ariommus) was collected and was the only site in the basin where five intolerant
species were collected. The current DWQ classification is class C Tr.
1.6 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-01
The following section discusses issues that affect 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.
1.6.1 Land Clearing Activities
Most of the terrain is hilly in this subbasin; therefore sedimentation problems are more intense
during land clearing and grading activities. Sediment, when not properly controlled by BMPs,
frequently causes excessive damage to the aquatic ecosystems. As land is converted from forest
or agriculture to residential developments, the proper enforcement and oversight of BMPs is
necessary to avoid water quality impacts and impairment. Local governments are encouraged to
implement a stricter local sediment and erosion control ordinance, which would target land
clearing activities that are less than a half acre.
20 Chapter 1 – Roanoke River Basin 03-02-01