HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 2
Chapter 2
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02
Including: Dan and Mayo Rivers, Pawpaw and Jacobs Creek
2.1 Subbasin Overview
Subbasin 03-02-02 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 231 mi2
Land area: 229 mi2
Water area: 2 mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 33,541 people
Pop. Density: 146 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 76%
Surface Water: 0.8%
Urban: 1.3%
Cultivated Crop: 3.6%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous:18.2%
Counties
Stokes, Rockingham and Guilford
Municipalities
Madison, Mayodan and
Stoneville
Monitored Stream Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total Streams: 39.9 mi
Total Supporting: 35.1 mi
Total Impaired: 4.8 mi
Recreation
Total Streams: 8.3 mi
Total Not Rated: 3.5 mi
Total Impaired: 4.8 mi
This subbasin contains a very short reach of the Dan River
(approximately 10 miles) and the entire North Carolina
section of the Mayo River. However, most of the Mayo
River watershed is located in Virginia. Most of the land is
forested (76 percent), but a significant portion is also in use
as cultivated cropland and pasture (22 percent). Population
is expected to increase by 24 percent in Stokes County and
by 8.5 percent in Rockingham County by the year 2020.
However, Madison and Mayodan experienced a decline in
percent change from 1990-2000 by 4.6 percent and 2.2
percent, respectively. For more information regarding
population growth and trends, refer to 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
$226,506 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 and 20.
Ten individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits are
issued in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 5.37
MGD. One facility is required to conduct whole effluent
toxicity testing. Refer to Appendix VI for more
information on NPDES permit. One registered swine
operation is located in this subbasin. Refer to Chapter 16
for more information regarding animal operations within
this basin.
One benthic macroinvertebrate community sample and four fish community samples (Figure 5
and Table 4) were collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from one
ambient monitoring station. 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.
Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02 21
#*
#*
XW
XW
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
^^
^
^
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
¡
¡
¡¡¡
¡
¡
¡
""
"
"
"
"
p
p
o
o
NL4 NL3
D
A
N
RIV
E
R
T o w n F o r k C r e e k
Snow Creek
Mayo River
Bele ws Creek
Hogans Creek
Ja c o bs Creek
DAN RIVER
Matrimony Creek
NB19
Pawpaw Creek
B u f f a l o C r e e k
D A N R I V E R
M
ayo
Riv
erBig Bea
v
e
r
I
s
l
a
n
d
C
ree
k
STOKES
FORSYTH GUILFORD
Buffalo Creek
STOKES
ROCKINGHAM
D A N R I V E R
R
e
e
d
C
r
e
e
k
Cadwell Creek
Hickory Creek
Stoneville
Madison
Walnut
Cove
Mayodan
Stoneville
Danbury
NC-704
N C -6 5
N
C
-
8
N C -1 3 5
NC-770
US-220
US-311
N
C
-7
7
2
NC-704
NA3
NA2
NL6
NL5
NF9
NF8
NB9
NF17
NB36
NF13
NF12
NF11
NF10
NB28
NB17
¬
Figure 5 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02
Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 30, 2006
0 2 4 6 81
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 03-02-02SubbasinTable 4
Big Beaver Island Creek
22-29
From source to Dan River
15.2 FW MilesC S ND
NF10 /2004G
DAN RIVER
22-(31.5)a
From a point 0.7 mile upstream of Jacobs Creek to subbasin
03-02-02/03 boundary
4.8 FW MilesWS-IV I INA3 CE Turbidity 16.4 NA3 CE Turbidity Unknown
Habitat Degradation Land Clearing
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Hogans Creek
22-31
From source to Dan River
12.7 FW MilesC S ND
NF11 /2004G
Jacobs Creek
22-32-(3)
From N.C. Hwy. 704 to Dan River
1.8 FW MilesWS-IV S ND
NF12 /2004G
Mayo River
22-30-(1)
From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to a point 0.6 mile
downstream of Hickory Creek
3.5 FW MilesWS-V S NR*NA2 NCE Turbidity 8.6
NB28 /2004G
NA2 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Turbidity Unknown
Pawpaw Creek
22-30-6-(2)
From a point 1.3 mile upstream of Rockingham County SR
1360 to Mayo R.
1.8 FW MilesWS-IV S ND
NF13 /2004GF
Nutrient Impacts Unknown
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-02Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:14 AMDRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-02SubbasinTable 4
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 35.1 FW Milesm
I 4.8 FW Milesm
NR 9.1 FW Milese
ND 89.6 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
3.5 FW MilesNR* m
4.8 FW MilesIm
13.2 FW MilesNR e
117.1 FW MilesND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
138.6 FW MilesIe
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-02Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:14 AMDRAFT
A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 5. Table 4 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 are identified by assessment unit number(s) (AU#). This
number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database, 303(d)
Impaired waters list and the various tables in this basin plan. The assessment unit number 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 assessment unit and the DWQ index segments are the same.
2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-02-02 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 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 39.9 stream miles (28.8 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category. In the recreation category, 8.3 stream miles (6 percent) were monitored. A
total of 4.8 stream miles (3.5 percent) are Impaired, for both the aquatic life and recreational use
categories. Refer to Table 4 for a summary of use support ratings for waters in subbasin 03-02-
02.
2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters
The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (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 an assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing
and reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII.
2.3.1 Dan River [AU# 22-(31.5)a]
2001 Recommendations
The Dan River [AU# 22-(31.5)a], from a point 0.7 miles upstream of Jacobs Creek to subbasin
03-02-03 boundary (4.8 miles), and [AU# 22-(31.5)b, in subbasin 03-02-03] from the 03-02-02
boundary to a point 0.8 miles downstream of Matrimony Creek (9.4 miles), was Impaired due to
turbidity standard violation. The 2001 basin plan recommended that DWQ would work with the
Division of Land Resources to evaluate and reduce turbidity from permitted instream mining
operations in the Dan River. As permits are renewed, monitoring upstream and downstream of
Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02 25
mining operations and instream BMPs (such as those used by the NC Department of
Transportation during bridge construction) could be required. In addition, DWQ will notify local
agencies of water quality concerns regarding these waters and work with them to conduct further
monitoring and to locate sources of water quality protection funding.
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
The Dan River [AU# 22-(31.5)a], from a point 0.7 mile upstream of Jacobs Creek to subbasin
03-02-03 boundary (4.8 miles), is Impaired for aquatic life and recreation due to turbidity and
fecal coliform bacteria standards violations at site NA3. This section of the Dan River spans
across two subbasin boundaries, refer to subbasin 03-02-03 section 3.3.1 [AU# 22-(31.5)b] for
more details about data collection and recommendations for this section of the Dan River.
This section of the Dan River will be placed on the 2008 303(d) list for Fecal Coliform
violations.
See Chapter 4, section 4.3.1 for Dan River summary.
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. Nonpoint
source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VIII.
2.4.1 Pawpaw Creek [AU# 22-30-6-(2)]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Pawpaw Creek, from a point 1.3 mile upstream of Rockingham County SR 1360 to Mayo River
(1.8 miles), is Supporting aquatic life due to a Good-Fair fish community bioclassification at site
NF13. The overall habitat was noted as high quality but no intolerant species were collected at
this site. The predominant land use is agricultural and nonpoint sources of nutrients may be
contributing to the abundance of the bluehead chub. DWQ will continue to monitor this site.
2.4.2 Mayo River [AU# 22-30-(1)]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Mayo River, from North Carolina-Virginia State Line to a point 0.6 miles downstream of
Hickory Creek (3.5) miles is Supporting aquatic life due to a Good benthic community
bioclassification at site NB28. However, data from the ambient monitoring station at site NA2
show the turbidity parameter is elevated, exceeding the standard in 8.6 percent of the samples
taken. DWQ will continue to monitor this site.
26 Chapter 2– Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02
This section of Mayo River is Not Rated in the recreation category due to 2003 ambient
monitoring fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria exceeded 25 percent of the samples were
greater than 400 colonies/100 ml at site NA2. Further assessment of the fecal coliform bacteria
standard was not conducted due to resource constraints.
During 2002-2003, the Mayodan WWTP received a State Revolving Loan from the DWQ
Construction Grants and Loans Section to upgrade and expand from 3.0 MGD to 4.5 MGD. This
was a regionalization effort to serve Stoneville WWTP and Madison. Stoneville WWTP was
tied into Mayodan in 2004 which discharges 4.5 MGD into the Mayo River.
In addition to the Dan River in Stokes County, the Wildlife Resources Commission conducted
mussel surveys on the Mayo River in Rockingham County between 2001 and 2002. Species
collected included: the federally endangered, James spinymussel, federal species of concern
green floater, and state species of concern notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) mussel. All
mussels have a unique life cycle dependent upon habitat suitability, especially water quality.
With maintenance and improvement of water quality in the basin, continued existence and
possible range expansion of these rare species may be observed (WRC, memo August 2005).
Water Quality Initiatives
The NC Ecosystems Enhancement Program (EEP) is working with landowners to establish
conservation easements with 300’ buffers along 9,355 linear feet of river frontage on one-side of
the Mayo River [AU 22-30-(1)]. EEP is also working on a similar easement on 4,038 linear feet
of one side of the Mayo River [AU 22-30-(5.5)] approximately one mile downstream. The tracts
targeted for protection also encompass several thousand feet of tributaries, including 2,430 feet
on Buffalo Creek (AU 22-30-4), 3,154 feet on Hickory Creek (AU 22-30-5), and 2,176 feet on
an unnamed tributary to the Mayo River [AU 22-30-(1)].
In addition, the Division of Parks and Recreation targeted the Mayo River for development of a
new state park. The Mayo River State Park was authorized as a new unit of the state parks
system in the 2003 session of the NC General Assembly. That action allows the division to
further develop plans for a park and to consider land acquisition strategies. The division has
worked closely with the Dan River Basin Association and the Rockingham County Planning
Department to identify a study area along the river corridor from the Virginia/North Carolina
border south to just above the town of Mayodan. The division hopes to assemble more than
2,000 acres for the park. The EEP preservation tracts listed above have contributed to this effort.
The Dan River Basin Association and the Piedmont Land Conservancy have done much of the
groundwork and continue to work with the local landowners to acquire new lands to be
incorporated into the Mayo River State Park system.
2.4.3 Jacobs Creek [AU# 22-32-(3)]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Jacobs Creek, from N.C. Hwy. 704 to Dan River (1.8 miles) is Supporting aquatic life due to a
Good fish community bioclassification at site NF12. However, the stream exhibited substantial
nonpoint source impacts such as sedimentation, bank erosion, deep scour pools, and riparian
bank instability. Prolonged high water (possibly from early spring 2003 to early spring 2004)
Chapter 2 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02 27
may have contributed to the severe bank erosion, sedimentation, and resulted in the low number
of fish that were collected. DWQ will continue to monitor this site.
2.4.4 Cadwell Creek [AU# 22-30-2-1-1]
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality developed a fecal coliform bacterium TMDL
for the South Mayo River. The TMDL was approved by the USEPA on February 27, 2004.
Cadwell Creek was included in the TMDL since it is in the South Mayo River watershed. The
TMDL recommended that in order for the standard to be met, the bacteria load would have to be
reduced by 98 percent (VADEQ, 2004). To view the entire document visit,
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/tmdl/apptmdls/roankrvr/smayo.pdf. Currently, there are no
permitted facilities discharging into the North Carolina segment of Cadwell Creek. This portion
of the creek makes up only 1.3 percent of the whole South Mayo River watershed.
2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-02
The following section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are
not specific to particular streams, lakes or reservoirs.
2.5.1 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 for avoiding water quality impacts and impairments. 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.
28 Chapter 2– Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02