HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 7
Chapter 7
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07
Including: Smith Creek, Sixpound Creek and Lake Gaston
7.1 Subbasin Overview
This subbasin consists mainly of Lake Gaston (Reservoir)
and many small tributaries that flow to the reservoir.
Urbanized land represents the least amount of land cover in
the entire basin at only 0.1 percent. The majority of the
subbasin lies with in Warren County. Warren County is
predicted to grow by 17 percent by the year 2020. Refer to
Appendix I for more information regarding population
growth and trends.
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. Within this subbasin,
the NCACSP provided $144,924 towards the application of
sediment and nutrient reduction practices and elimination of
livestock stream access. For more information on this and
other programs, refer to recommendations throughout this
chapter as well as in Chapters 16 and 20.
There are no NPDES wastewater discharge permits issued
in this subbasin. Refer to Appendix VI for identification
and more information on individual NPDES permit holders.
Seven registered animal operations (3 cattle and 4 swine)
are located in this subbasin. Refer to Chapter 16 for more
information regarding animal operations within this basin.
A map including the locations of the water quality
monitoring stations is presented in Figure 11. Table 9
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.
Five benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and
one fish community sample (Figure 11 and Table 9) were collected during this assessment
period. Data were also collected from one ambient monitoring station and one lake (3
monitoring stations). 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.
Subbasin 03-02-07 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 195 mi2
Land area: 174 mi2
Water area: 21 mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 9,252 people
Pop. Density: 48 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 75.1%
Surface Water: 10.9%
Urban: 0.1%
Cultivated Crop: 7.4%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 6.4%
Counties
Warren, Northampton and
Halifax
Municipalities
Portions of Norlina, Macon and
Littleton
Monitored Stream Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total Streams: 23.1 mi/11939.2 ac
Total Supporting: 7.9 mi
Total Impaired: 15.2 mi
Total Not Rated: 11939.2 ac
Recreation
Total Streams: 3.0 mi
Total Supporting: 3.0 mi
Chapter 7 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07 71
#*
^
^
^
[
[
¡
¡
"
"
"
"
"
"
po
Newmans Creek
Smith Creek
Sixpound Creek
Lake Gaston
Hawtree Creek
Blue Mud Creek
Big Stonehouse
Creek
Little Hubquarter
Creek
Deep Creek
Ca
b
i
n
Bra
n
ch
WARR
E
N
HALIFAX
NORTH HAMPTON
Norlina LittletonMacon
WARREN
I-85
U S-1
US-158
U S -1 5 8
NL29
NL28
NL27NF41NB90
NB89
NB88
NB52
NB51
NA14
¬
Figure 11 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07
Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 30, 2006
0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25
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 03-02-07SubbasinTable 9
Newmans Creek (Little Deep Creek)
23-10-2
From source to Smith Creek
6.1 FW MilesC I ND
NB88 /2004F
Habitat Degradation Unknown
ROANOKE RIVER (Lake Gaston below normal full power pool elevation 200 MSL)
23-(12)
From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to a line across
Lake Gaston following the Warren-Northampton County
Line
7,964.8 FW AcresWS-V,B NR NDNL28 ID
NL27 ID
23-(20.2)
From a line across Lake Gaston following the Warren-
Northampton County Line to a line across Lake Gaston 0.5
mile upstream of Lake Gaston Dam
3,974.4 FW AcresWS-IV,B NR NDNL29 ID
Sixpound Creek
23-13
From source to Lake Gaston, Roanoke River
6.3 FW MilesC S ND
NB51 /2004GF
Habitat Degradation Unknown
Smith Creek
23-10a
From source to Cabin Branch
6.1 FW MilesC I ND
NB89 /2004F
Habitat Degradation Unknown
23-10b
From Cabin Branch to SR1208
1.6 FW MilesC S ND
NB90 /2004GF
23-10c
From SR1208 to North Carolina-Virginia State Line
3.0 FW MilesC I SNA14 CE Low DO 12.5
NB52 /2004F
NF41 /2004F
NA14 NCE Habitat Degradation Impoundment
Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-07Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:16 AMDRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-07SubbasinTable 9
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 7.9 FW Milesm
I 15.2 FW Milesm
NR 11,939.2 FW Acresm
ND 73.3 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
3.0 FW MilesSm
93.4 FW MilesND
11,939.2 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
96.4 FW MilesIe
11,939.2 FW AcresIe
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-07Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:17 AMDRAFT
The following sections identify waters by their assessment unit number (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 DWQ
index number indicates that the assessment unit is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No
letter indicates that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.
7.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-02-07 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 basin wide fish consumption advice. 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 23.1 stream miles (24 percent) and 11,939.2 freshwater acres (100 percent)
monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. Of these, 15.2 stream miles
(15.8 percent) are Impaired. In the recreation category, 3.0 stream miles (3.1 percent) were
monitored and classified as Supporting. Refer to Table 9 for a summary of use support ratings
for waters in subbasin 03-02-07.
7.3 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. Each
is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII.
7.3.1 Smith Creek [AU#23-10a, b & c] watershed, Newmans Creek [AU#23-10-2]
2001 Recommendations
Smith Creek was Impaired in the 2001 basin plan. There are no NPDES permitted dischargers in
the Smith Creek watershed; therefore most, if not all, impacts to this stream are from nonpoint
sources of pollution. DWQ will continue to work cooperatively with agencies that administer
sediment control programs in order to maximize effectiveness of these programs and to take
appropriate enforcement action to protect or restore water quality. However, more voluntary
implementation of BMPs on agricultural lands is needed in order to substantially improve water
quality in this watershed. Funding is available through numerous federal and state agencies for
farmers to restore and/or protect water quality on their land.
Chapter 7 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07 75
Current Status
Smith Creek [AU#23-10a], from source to Cabin Branch (6.1 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life
due to a Fair benthic community bioclassification at site NB89. Smith Creek [AU#23-10b], from
14-digit HU # 03010106031010
Figure 12 - Map of Smith Creek Watershed
Cabin Branch to SR 1208 (1.6 miles) is Supporting aquatic life due to a Good-Fair benthic
community bioclassification at site NB90. Smith Creek [AU#23-10c], from SR 1208 to North
Carolina-Virginia State Line (3.0 miles) is Impaired for aquatic life due to Fair fish and benthic
community bioclassifications at sites NF41 and NB52 and at site NA14 where 12.5 percent of
the samples were below the dissolved oxygen criteria. See Figure 12 for Smith Creek watershed
map.
Newmans Creek (Little Deep Creek) [AU#23-10-2], from source to Smith Creek (6.1 miles) is
Impaired for aquatic life due to a Fair benthic community bioclassification at site NB88 (Figure
12).
The Smith Creek watershed was evaluated for a 303(d) related stressor study in 2004 that
involved a more intensive sampling regime. Physical, chemical and biological (benthos)
parameters were assessed within the watershed. The study indicated low dissolved oxygen
values, sedimentation, nutrient enrichment, lack of flow or no flow and reduced habitat.
However, it was noted that site NB90 (AU# 23-10b) had the highest habitat score, suggesting
that the riparian and instream habitats of the other sites may be limiting the benthic communities
at those sites since land use is similar among all sites. In addition, this site had a high species
richness, thus showing signs of possible water quality improvement. Newmans Creek will be
added to the 2008 303(d) list.
76 Chapter 7 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07
2006 Recommendations and Water Quality Initiatives
DWQ will continue to monitor Smith Creek and Newmans Creek. With the many efforts from
the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) projects in this watershed,
water quality is expected to improve by the end of the next assessment period (August 2009). In
March 2005, Warren County SWCD received an EPA Section 319 grant totaling over $48,000 to
restore Smith Creek by targeting nonpoint source pollution and implementing BMPs. Such
practices include livestock exclusion, heavy use protection and erosion control. In addition,
Warren County SWCD was granted approximately $150,000 to carry out their projects in the
Smith Creek watershed over the next three years. For more information on the Smith Creek
project contact the Warren County SWCD.
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 to facilitate
water quality improvements. DWQ will notify local agencies (Chapter 20) 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 contacts are listed in Appendix VIII.
7.4.1 Sixpound Creek (AU# 23-13)
Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Sixpound Creek, from source to Lake Gaston, Roanoke River (6.3 miles), is Supporting based on
a Good-Fair benthic community bioclassification at site NB51. Poor habitat with very few pools
and riffles as well as eroding banks was noted at this site. Water quality and habitat conditions
are likely influenced by nonpoint source runoff from agriculture and large amounts of (not
forested) land. BMPs are needed to improve water quality. DWQ will continue to monitor
Sixpound Creek.
7.4.2 Roanoke River (Lake Gaston below normal full power pool elevation 200 MSL)
[AU# 23-(12) & 23-(20.2)]
Current Status and 2006 Recommendation
Lake Gaston [AU# 23-(12)], from North Carolina-Virginia State Line to a line across Lake
Gaston following the Warren-Northampton County Line (7,964.8 acres), is Not Rated for aquatic
life due to insufficient number of samples taken at sites NL27 and NL28. Lake Gaston [AU# 23-
(20.2)] from a line across Lake Gaston following the Warren-Northampton County Line to a line
across Lake Gaston 0.5 mile upstream of Lake Gaston Dam (3,974.4 acres) is Not Rated for
aquatic life due to insufficient number of samples taken at site NL29.
Lake Gaston was monitored by DWQ in June, July and August of 2004. Moderate nutrient and
chlorophyll a levels were found. Assessment of parameters related to biological productivity
indicated mesotrophic conditions and moderate biological productivity. This lake has generally
rated as mesotrophic since sampling was first performed in 1981. The aquatic weed Hydrilla
Chapter 7 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07 77
was observed in the lake in 2004, especially near the shoreline in the upstream part of the lake.
Aquatic weed control measures have been conducted in recent years. These measures included
the stocking of grass carp and chemical spraying (Rob Emens, N.C. Division of Water
Resources, personal communication). The spraying is funded by the Lake Gaston Association
and is being conducted in the coves. For more information on Lake Gaston Association’s weed
control projects, visit their website at: http://www.lakegastonassoc.com/. The aquatic weeds are
problematic; and a more comprehensive survey of the coverage is recommended.
78 Chapter 7 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07