FINAL ROA Plan 2006

Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
September 2006
Division of Water Quality North Carolina Department of Basinwide Planning Unit Environment and Natural Resources

Roanoke River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan

September 2006

Prepared by:
Nora Deamer
[e-mail]
[phone] ext. 374

NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Cover Photograph taken by Mike Yount

This Document was approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission on
September 14, 2006 to be used as a guide by the NC Division of Water Quality for carrying out
its Water Quality Program duties and responsibilities in the Roanoke River basin. This plan is
the third five-year update to the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan approved by the
NC Environmental Management Commission in September 1996.

ii Table of Content
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Roanoke River Basin - Executive Summary ...........................................................................xiii
Introduction....................................................................................................................................1
What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?.............................................................................. 1
Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning .............................................................................. 1
Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning .......................................................................... 2
How You Can Get Involved ....................................................................................................... 2
Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations .................................................................. 2
Some Other Reference Materials ................................................................................................ 4
How to Read the Basinwide Plan................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 1 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01.............................................................................7
Including: Dan River, Big Creek, Town Fork, Belews Creek and Snow Creeks ...................7
1.1 Subbasin Overview .......................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ............................................................................... 13
1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.................... 13
1.3.1 Town Fork Creek Watershed [AU# 22-25a & b & 22-25-1]............................. 14
1.3.2 Dan River [AU# 22-(1)b]................................................................................... 15
1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...................................... 16
1.4.1 Elk Creek [AU# 22-5]....................................................................................... 17
1.4.2 North Double Creek [AU# 22-10]..................................................................... 17
1.4.3 Snow Creek [AU# 22-20].................................................................................. 17
1.4.4 Dan River [AU# 22-(25.5)]................................................................................ 18
1.5 Additional Water Quality Information within Subbasin 03-02-01 ................................ 18
1.5.1 Cascade Creek (Hanging Rock Lake) [AU# 22-12-(2)a].................................. 18
1.5.2 Belews Creek (Kernersville Lake) [AU#22-27-(1.5)]....................................... 18
1.5.3 Belews Lake [AU# 22-27-(7), 22-27-(7.5), (West Belews Creek) 22-27-9-(4)]19
1.5.4 Archies Creek [AU# 22-2]................................................................................. 20
1.5.5 Peters Creek [AU# 22-6]................................................................................... 20
1.6 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-01 ......................................... 20
1.6.1 Land Clearing Activities ................................................................................... 20
Chapter 2 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02...........................................................................21
Including: Dan and Mayo Rivers, Pawpaw and Jacobs Creek ..............................................21
2.1 Subbasin Overview ........................................................................................................ 21
2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ............................................................................... 25
2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.................... 25
Table of Contents iii
2.3.1 Dan River [AU# 22-(31.5)a].............................................................................. 25
2.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...................................... 26
2.4.1 Pawpaw Creek [AU# 22-30-6-(2)].................................................................... 26
2.4.2 Mayo River [AU# 22-30-(1)]............................................................................. 26
2.4.3 Jacobs Creek [AU# 22-32-(3)]........................................................................... 27
2.4.4 Cadwell Creek [AU# 22-30-2-1-1].................................................................... 28
2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-02 ......................................... 28
2.5.1 Land Clearing Activities .................................................................................... 28
Chapter 3 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03...........................................................................29
Including: Dan River, Smith River, Hogans Creek and Wolf Island Creek.........................29
3.1 Subbasin Overview ........................................................................................................ 29
3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ............................................................................... 34
3.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.................... 34
3.3.1 Dan River [AU# 22-(31.5)b].............................................................................. 34
3.3.2 Dan River [AU # 22-(38.5) & 22-(39)a]............................................................ 35
3.3.3 Smith River [AU # 22-40-(1), 22-40-(2.5) & 22-40-(3)]................................... 36
3.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...................................... 37
3.4.1 Hogans Creek [AU #22-50]............................................................................... 37
3.4.2 Rock House Creek [AU#22-34-(2)]................................................................... 37
3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-03 ......................................... 38
3.5.1 Land Clearing Activities .................................................................................... 38
Chapter 4 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04...........................................................................39
Including: Dan River, Country Line Creek, Rattlesnake Creek and Moon Creek..............39
4.1 Subbasin Overview ........................................................................................................ 39
4.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ............................................................................... 43
4.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.................... 43
4.3.1 Dan River [AU # 22-(39)b]................................................................................ 43
4.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...................................... 45
4.4.1 Moon Creek [AU# 22-51].................................................................................. 45
4.4.2 Rattlesnake Creek [AU# 22-52]........................................................................ 46
4.4.3 Cane Creek [AU# 22-54)].................................................................................. 46
4.4.4 Country Line Creek [AU# 22-56-(3.7)]............................................................ 46
4.4.5 Country Line Creek (Farmer Lake) [AU# 22-56-(3.5)].................................... 46
Chapter 5 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05...........................................................................49
Including: Hyco Creek, Hyco Lake, Marlowe Creek, Mayo Creek and Mayo Reservoir...49
5.1 Subbasin Overview ........................................................................................................ 49
iv Table of Content
5.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ............................................................................... 54
5.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.................... 54
5.3.1 Hyco River (Hyco Lake) [AU# 22-58-(0.5)]..................................................... 54
5.3.2 Hyco Creek (North Hyco Creek) [AU # 22-58-1]............................................. 56
5.3.3 Marlowe Creek [AU # 22-58-12-6a & b].......................................................... 56
5.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...................................... 57
5.4.1 Mayo Creek (Maho Creek) [AU # 22-58-15-(3.5)]........................................... 57
5.4.2 Mayo Creek (Mayo Reservoir) [AU #22-58-15-(0.5)]...................................... 58
5.4.3 Storys Creek (Roxboro City Lake) (Lake Isaac Walton) [AU # 22-58-12-(1.5)]
58
5.4.4 South Hyco Creek (Lake Roxboro) [AU # 22-58-4-(1.4)]................................ 59
5.4.5 Hyco River [AU # 22-58-(9.5)]......................................................................... 59
Chapter 6 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06...........................................................................61
Including: Little Island Creek, Nutbush Creek and J.H. Kerr Reservoir .............................61
6.1 Subbasin Overview ........................................................................................................ 61
6.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ............................................................................... 66
6.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.................... 66
6.3.1 Nutbush Creek (AU#23-8-(1)a & b).................................................................. 66
6.3.2 Little Island Creek [AU# 23-4-3]...................................................................... 67
6.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...................................... 68
6.4.1 Island Creek [AU# 23-4]................................................................................... 68
6.4.2 Nutbush Creek Arm of J.H. Kerr Reservoir (below normal pool elevation 300
feet MSL or as this elevation may be adjusted by the Corps of Engineers) [AU# 23-8-
(2)] 68
6.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-06 ......................................... 69
6.5.1 Significant Ecological Indicator ........................................................................ 69
Chapter 7 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07...........................................................................71
Including: Smith Creek, Sixpound Creek and Lake Gaston ..................................................71
7.1 Subbasin Overview ........................................................................................................ 71
7.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ............................................................................... 75
7.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.................... 75
7.3.1 Smith Creek [AU#23-10a, b & c] watershed, Newmans Creek [AU#23-10-2]75
7.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...................................... 77
7.4.1 Sixpound Creek (AU# 23-13)............................................................................ 77
7.4.2 Roanoke River (Lake Gaston below normal full power pool elevation 200 MSL)
[AU# 23-(12) & 23-(20.2)]............................................................................................ 77
Chapter 8 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08...........................................................................79
Table of Contents v
Including: Roanoke Rapids Lake, Roanoke River, Chockoyotte Creek, Quankey Creek,
Conoconnara Swamp, Occoneechee Creek and Kehukee Swamp ..........................................79
8.1 Subbasin Overview ....................................................................................................... 79
8.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ............................................................................... 84
8.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.................... 84
8.3.1 Roanoke Rapids Lake (Roanoke River) [AU# 23-(22.5)]................................. 85
8.3.2 Quankey Creek [AU #23-30a & b].................................................................... 85
8.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...................................... 86
8.4.1 Bridgers Creek [AU #23-34] ............................................................................. 86
8.4.2 Chockoyotte Creek [AU #23-29]....................................................................... 87
8.4.3 Conoconnara Swamp [AU # 23-33].................................................................. 87
8.4.4 Kehukee Swamp (White Millpond) [AU # 23-42]............................................ 87
8.4.5 Little Quankey Creek [AU # 23-30-1]............................................................... 88
8.4.6 Roanoke River [AU# 23-(26)a & 23-(26)b1].................................................... 88
8.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-08 ......................................... 89
8.5.1 Primary Nursery Area ........................................................................................ 89
8.5.2 US Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................................ 90
8.5.3 Dominion Power Generation ............................................................................. 90
8.5.4 Conservation Tillage .......................................................................................... 90
Chapter 9 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09...........................................................................93
Including: Roanoke River, Conoho Creek, Sweetwater Creek, Devils Gut, Hardison Mill
Creek and Welch Creek..............................................................................................................93
9.1 Subbasin Overview ........................................................................................................ 93
9.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ............................................................................... 97
9.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters.................... 97
9.3.1 Roanoke River [AU# 23-(26)b3 & 23-(53)], Welch Creek [AU# 23-55],
Albemarle Sound (Batchelor Bay)[AU# 24]................................................................. 98
9.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts...................................... 99
9.4.1 Conoho Creek [AU# 23-49a & 23-49b].......................................................... 100
9.4.2 Hardison Mill Creek [AU# 23-50-3)].............................................................. 100
9.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-09 ....................................... 100
9.5.1 Indian Creek [AU# 23-47)].............................................................................. 100
9.5.2 Roanoke River [AU # 23-(26)b2].................................................................... 100
Chapter 10 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10.......................................................................103
Including: Cashie River, Roquist Creek and Hoggard Mill Creek......................................103
10.1 Subbasin Overview ..................................................................................................... 103
10.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ............................................................................ 107
10.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters................. 107
vi Table of Content
10.3.1 Cashie River [AU# 24-2-(1)a, 24-2-(1)b, 24-2-(9), 24-2-(11), & 24-2-(15)]. 107
10.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts................................... 108
10.4.1 Hoggard Mill Creek [AU# 24-2-6].................................................................. 109
10.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-10..................................... 109
10.5.1 Roquist Creek [AU# 24-2-7] and Indian Creek [AU# 23-47]........................ 109
Chapter 11 North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications .........................111
11.1 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards ..................................... 111
11.1.1 Statewide Classifications ................................................................................. 111
11.1.2 Statewide Water Quality Standards ................................................................. 111
11.2 Reclassification of Surface Waters ............................................................................. 114
11.2.1 Pending and Recent Reclassifications in the Roanoke River Basin ................ 114
Chapter 12 Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality.........................117
12.1 General Sources of Pollution ...................................................................................... 117
12.2 Managing the Impacts of Growth, Development, and Stormwater Runoff ................ 118
12.2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 118
12.2.2 Effects of Growth and Development in the Roanoke River Basin .................. 118
12.2.3 The Role of Local Governments...................................................................... 119
12.2.4 Maintain and Develop Riparian Buffers .......................................................... 121
12.2.5 Protecting Headwaters ..................................................................................... 121
12.2.6 Reduce Impacts of Future Development.......................................................... 123
Chapter 13 Water Quality Stressors........................................................................................125
13.1 Stressor and Sources Identification............................................................................. 125
13.1.1 Introduction - Stressors .................................................................................... 125
13.1.2 Introduction - Stressor Sources ........................................................................ 125
13.1.3 Overview of Stressors Identified in the Roanoke River Basin ........................ 126
13.1.4 Overview of Stressors Sources Identified in the Roanoke River Basin........... 128
13.2 Aquatic Life Stressors - Habitat Degradation ............................................................. 130
13.2.1 Introduction and Overview .............................................................................. 130
13.2.2 Sedimentation .................................................................................................. 131
13.2.3 Loss of Riparian Vegetation and Organic Aquatic Microhabitats................... 134
13.2.4 Channelization ................................................................................................. 135
13.2.5 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation .................................... 135
13.3 Aquatic Life Stressors – Water Quality Standard Violations ..................................... 137
13.3.1 Introduction and Overview .............................................................................. 137
13.3.2 Low Dissolved Oxygen.................................................................................... 137
13.3.3 Turbidity .......................................................................................................... 137
13.3.4 Toxic Impacts................................................................................................... 138
13.3.5 Other Aquatic Life Stressors.......................................................................... 138
13.4 Recreation Stressor ..................................................................................................... 138
13.4.1 Fecal Coliform Bacteria ................................................................................... 138
Table of Contents vii
13.5 Fish Consumption Stressors........................................................................................ 140
Chapter 14 Wastewater and Stormwater Programs..............................................................143
14.1 NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Summary....................................................... 143
14.2 DWQ Stormwater Programs ....................................................................................... 144
14.2.1 NPDES Phase I ................................................................................................ 144
14.2.2 NPDES Phase II............................................................................................... 145
14.2.3 State Stormwater Program ............................................................................... 147
14.3 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules............................................................... 148
Chapter 15 TMDLs in the Roanoke River Basin...................................................................151
15.1 Introduction to TMDLs............................................................................................... 151
15.2 Approved TMDLs in the Roanoke River Basin ......................................................... 151
15.3 Scheduled TMDLs in the Roanoke River Basin......................................................... 151
15.4 TMDL Implementation Efforts................................................................................... 151
15.5 Impaired Waters – 303(d) listing ................................................................................ 152
Chapter 16 Agriculture and Water Quality............................................................................153
16.1 Animal Operations ...................................................................................................... 153
16.2 Impacted Streams in Agricultural Areas..................................................................... 154
16.3 Agricultural Best Management Practices Funding Opportunities .............................. 156
16.3.1 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).............. 156
16.3.2 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program ............................................................... 156
16.3.3 Agricultural Sediment Initiative ...................................................................... 159
16.3.4 Conservation Security Program ....................................................................... 159
Chapter 17 Forestry in the Roanoke River Basin...................................................................161
17.1 Forestland Ownership ................................................................................................. 161
17.2 Forestry Water Quality Regulations in North Carolina .............................................. 161
17.2.1 Forest Practices Guidelines for Water Quality (FPGs).................................... 161
17.2.2 Other Forestry Related Water Quality Regulations ......................................... 162
17.2.3 Water Quality Foresters ................................................................................... 162
17.2.4 Forestry Best Management Practices............................................................... 162
17.3 Forest Resources ......................................................................................................... 164
17.3.1 Forest Products Industry .................................................................................. 164
17.3.2 Forest Management.......................................................................................... 164
17.3.3 Urban and Community Forestry ...................................................................... 164
17.3.4 Forestry Accomplishments .............................................................................. 165
Chapter 18 Water Resources ....................................................................................................167
18.1 River Basin Hydrologic Units..................................................................................... 167
viii Table of Content
18.2 Minimum Streamflow ................................................................................................. 168
18.3 Interbasin Transfers .................................................................................................... 169
18.4 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought ................................................................... 170
18.5 Source Water Assessment of Public Water Supplies.................................................. 171
18.5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 171
18.5.2 Delineation of Source Water Assessment Areas ........................................... 172
18.5.3 Susceptibility Determination – North Carolina’s Overall Approach............. 172
18.5.4 Source Water Protection ................................................................................ 173
18.5.5 Public Water Supply Susceptibility Determinations in the Roanoke River Basin
174
Chapter 19 Natural Resources .................................................................................................177
19.1 Ecological Significance of the Roanoke River Basin ................................................. 177
19.2 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species................................................ 177
19.3 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Roanoke River Basin................................ 179
19.4 Significant Aquatic Habitats in the Roanoke River Basin.......................................... 183
19.5 Public Conservation Lands ......................................................................................... 184
Chapter 20 Water Quality Initiatives......................................................................................185
20.1 The Importance of Local Initiatives............................................................................ 185
20.2 Federal Initiatives........................................................................................................ 188
20.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program......................................................... 188
20.2.2 National Estuary Program................................................................................ 188
20.3 State Initiatives............................................................................................................ 189
20.3.1 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan ..................................................................... 189
20.3.2 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program.......................................... 189
20.3.3 Clean Water Management Trust Fund ............................................................. 191
20.3.4 NC Construction Grants and Loans Programs................................................. 193
20.3.5 Clean Water Bonds – NC Rural Center ........................................................... 194
20.3.6 Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee (VRRBAC) and the
Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission ................................................................ 195
References...................................................................................................................................199
Table of Contents ix

APPENDICES

I Population and Growth Trends in the Roanoke River Basin

II Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Roanoke River Basin

III Land Cover in the Roanoke River Basin

IV DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Roanoke River Basin

V Other Water Quality Data in the Roanoke River Basin

VI NPDES Discharges and General Stormwater Permits

VII 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methodology

VIII Roanoke River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts

IX Use Support Methodology and Use Support Ratings

X Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
x Appendices

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure i - General Map Roanoke River Basin………………………………………………….xxv
Figure ii - General Map of Western Portion of the Roanoke River Basin in NC………..……xxvi
Figure iii - General Map of Eastern Portion of the Roanoke River Basin in NC……….....…xxvii
Figure 1 - Basinwide Planning Schedule (2002 to 2007)............................................................... 1
Figure 2 - Division of Water Quality Regional Offices.................................................................. 5
Figure 3 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-01 ................................................................................ 8
Figure 4 - Upper Town Fork Creek Watershed ............................................................................ 14
Figure 5 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-02 .............................................................................. 22
Figure 6 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03 .............................................................................. 30
Figure 7 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04 .............................................................................. 40
Figure 8 - Dan River ..................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 9 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-04-05 .............................................................................. 50
Figure 10 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06 ............................................................................ 62
Figure 11 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-07 ............................................................................ 72
Figure 12 - Map of Smith Creek Watershed................................................................................. 76
Figure 13 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 ............................................................................ 80
Figure 14 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09 ............................................................................ 94
Figure 15 - Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10 .......................................................................... 104
Figure 16 – ORWs, Water Supply Watershed and Trout Waters in the Roanoke River Basin.. 115
Figure 17 - Diagram of Headwater Streams within a Watershed Boundary .............................. 122
Figure 18 - Noted Stressors to Impaired Freshwater Streams Miles and Saltwater Acres in the
Roanoke River Basin.......................................................................................................... 126
Figure 19 - Noted Stressors to Impacted Freshwater Streams/Rivers in the Roanoke River Basin
............................................................................................................................................. 127
Figure 20 - Noted Stressors to Impacted Freshwater Acres in the Roanoke River Basin .......... 127
Figure 21 - Sources of Stressors Identified in the Roanoke River Basin (Freshwater Stream
Miles).................................................................................................................................. 128
Figure 22 - Sources of Stressors Identified in the Roanoke River Basin (Fresh and Saltwater
Acres).................................................................................................................................. 129
Figure 23 - Registered Animal Operations in the Roanoke River basin..................................... 155
Figure 24 - Ownership of Forestland in the Roanoke River Basin............................................. 161
Figure 25 - 8-Digit Hydrologic Units in the Roanoke River Basin ............................................ 175
Figure 26 - Roanoke River Basin Managed Lands and Significant Heritage Areas .................. 180

List of Figures xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table i - Summary of Monitored Waters in the Roanoke River Basin………………………..xviii
Table ii – Monitored Impaired Waters in the Roanoke River Basin……………..……………xxix
Table 1 - Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007)................................................................. 3
Table 2 - Five-Year Planning Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan............ 3
Table 3 - DWQ Assessment And Use Support Ratings Summary For Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-02-01 .................................................................................................................. 9
Table 4 - DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary of Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-02-02 ................................................................................................................ 23
Table 5 - DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-02-03 ................................................................................................................ 31
Table 6 - DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-02-04 ................................................................................................................ 41
Table 7 - DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-02-05 ................................................................................................................ 51
Table 8 - DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-02-06 ................................................................................................................ 63
Table 9 - DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-02-07 ................................................................................................................ 73
Table 10 - DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-02-08 ................................................................................................................ 81
Table 11 - DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-02-09 ................................................................................................................ 95
Table 12 - DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 03-02-10 .............................................................................................................. 105
Table 13 - Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications........................................ 112
Table 14 - Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Roanoke River Basin
(as of 04/21/05)................................................................................................................... 144
Table 15 - Communities in the Roanoke River Basin Subject to Stormwater Requirements .... 149
Table 16 - Registered Animal Operations in the Roanoke River Basin (as of 01/28/05)........... 154
Table 17 – NC Agriculture Cost Share Programs Contributions, BMPs Implemented and
Potential Loadings Saved within the Roanoke River Basin ............................................... 158
Table 18 - Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Roanoke River Basin .............................................. 167
Table 19 - SWAP Results for Surface Water Sources in the Roanoke River Basin................... 174
Table 20 - Rare aquatic animal species in the Roanoke River Basin (Source: NC Natural
Heritage Program, July 2005)............................................................................................. 178
Table 21 - Local Water Quality Initiatives ................................................................................. 186
Table 22 - Projects in the Roanoke River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management Trust
Fund (as of August 2005)................................................................................................... 191
Table 23 - NC Construction Grants and Loans Programs disseminated within the Roanoke River
Basin ................................................................................................................................... 194
Table 24 - Clean Water Bonds Awarded in the Roanoke River Basin ....................................... 196

xii List of Tables

Roanoke River Basin - Executive Summary

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
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 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, their implementation and the protection of water quality entail the coordinated efforts of
many agencies, local governments and stakeholders throughout the state.

The goals of basinwide planning are to:

ƒ identify water quality problems and restore full use to Impaired waters,
ƒ identify and protect high value resource waters, and
ƒ protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic development.

DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives:

ƒ collaborate with regional and local agencies to develop appropriate management
strategies (This includes providing agencies information related to financial and funding
opportunities.),
ƒ assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity,
ƒ evaluate cumulative effects of pollution,
ƒ improve public awareness and involvement, and
ƒ regulate point and nonpoint sources of pollution where other approaches are not
successful.

This document is the third five-year update of the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
The first basinwide plan for the Roanoke River basin was completed in 1996 and the second in
2001. The format of this third plan was revised in response to comments received during the
first and second planning cycles. DWQ replaced much of the general information in the first two
plans with more detailed information specific to the Roanoke River basin. For this plan, a
greater emphasis is placed on watershed level information in order to facilitate protection and
restoration efforts.

DWQ considered comments from local resource agency staff and citizens during draft plan
development. This input will help guide continuing water quality management activities in the
basin over the next five years.

Basin Overview

The Roanoke River begins in the Blue Ridge Mountains of northwestern Virginia and flows in a
generally southeastern direction for 400 miles before emptying into the Albemarle Sound in
eastern North Carolina (Figure i). By the time it reaches the fall line near Roanoke Rapids, it has
captured water from nearly 8,000 square miles of land. From Roanoke Rapids to the coast, the
river drains another 2,000 square miles, carrying more water than any other river in North
Executive Summary xiii
Carolina. The North Carolina portion of the basin (roughly 36 percent of the entire watershed) is
composed of two major drainages: the Dan River and its tributaries in the western section; and
the Roanoke River from Virginia to the Albemarle Sound in the eastern section (Figure ii and
iii). The Roanoke River enters North Carolina through John H. Kerr Reservoir and then flows
into Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Lake before regaining its riverine form.

The upper Dan River is classified as trout waters and part of the area is also designated a State
Water Trail by the NC Division of Parks and Recreation. The lower portion of the basin also
includes large tracts of bottomland hardwood forests owned by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission, the US Fish and Wildlife Services, and The Nature Conservancy. The NC Wildlife
Resources Commission has designated a portion of the river as an Inland Primary Nursery Area
due to its great importance as spawning habitat for anadromous fish and world-class recreational
fisheries for striped bass and hickory shad. Anadromous fish spawned in the Roanoke River
migrate into the Atlantic Ocean, so the importance of the Roanoke River as a spawning and
nursery area for these fish has wide reaching implications. This area is also an important habitat
for black bear, bobcat, large populations of wild turkey, 14 species of waterfowl, as well as an
additional 220 bird species.

There are 11 major reservoirs in the North Carolina portion of the basin. Most of them are
located in the upper portion of the basin on tributaries of the Dan and Roanoke Rivers (notably
Belews Lake, Hyco Lake and Mayo Reservoir). Three reservoirs, Kerr, Gaston and Roanoke
Rapids, are impoundments of the Roanoke River mainstem. They are managed by Dominion
and the US Army Corps of Engineers for electrical energy production and flood control. Flow
from these reservoirs directly influences the quality of water in the lower Roanoke River.

Information presented in this basinwide water quality plan is based on data collected from
September 1999 to August 2004. Maps of each subbasin are included in each of the subbasin
chapters. Each subbasin has its own characteristics and water quality concerns. These are
discussed in Chapters 1 through 10.

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 the predominant land use in a watershed. In the Roanoke River basin, new
development/construction activities, land clearing, agriculture, municipal and industrial point
source and impoundments were all identified as possible stressors. These are discussed in detail
in Chapter 13. Water quality decline can often be attributed to a combination of many stressors
that lead to habitat and water quality degradation. In some way, every person, industry,
landowner and municipality in the basin impacts water quality. Therefore, every resident of the
basin should play a role in management strategies designed to protect and restore the streams,
lakes and rivers of the basin.

Population Growth and Changes in Land Use
The Roanoke River basin encompasses all or portions of 15 counties and 42 municipalities. In
2000, the overall population in the basin (based on the percent of the county land area in the
basin) was 344,638. The most populated areas are located north of the Winston-
Salem/Greensboro area and around the larger municipalities in the basin, such as Roanoke
Rapids, Eden, Williamston and Plymouth.
xiv Executive Summary

Population in Forsyth, Granville, Persons and Stokes counties is projected to increase 20-30
percent from 2000 to 2020. Between 1990 and 2000, the fastest growing county was Granville,
which had an increase of 20.9 percent and is expected to grow by another 29.3 percent by 2020
for an estimated total population of 68,600 people. Population growth trends and the
accompanying impacts to water quality are discussed in Chapters 12 and 13.
Expanding populations are typically characterized by a loss of natural areas and an increase in
impervious surfaces. Based on the most current land cover information provided by the National
Resources Inventory (USDA-NRCS, 2001), there was a 136 percent increase in Urban and Built-
up areas adding 74,700 acres to this land cover category in the Roanoke River basin from 1982
to 1997. Uncultivated cropland also increased by 22,200
acres (89.5 percent), while cultivated croplands decreased
by 97,000 acres (20.4 percent). Forest and pastureland
cover significantly decreased by 7,000 (0.5 percent) and
24,000 (21.5 percent) acres, respectively. Most land
cover change is accounted for in the lower Roanoke
River. Land cover tables and statistics are included in
Appendix III.

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. The impacts on rivers, lakes and
streams can be significant and permanent if stormwater
runoff is not controlled. Just as demand and use
increases, some of the potential water supply is also lost
(Orr and Stuart, 2000).

Water Quality Standards and 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.
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. The
Primary classifications and best uses in the Roanoke
River basin are; Class C, aquatic life
propagation/protection and secondary recreation; Class B,
primary recreation and all Class C uses; and WS I-V,
water supply (the classification is based on specific land
use characteristics). Chapter 11 further describes the
water quality standards and classifications and includes a
map showing the designated Water Supply (WS) watersheds, and the supplemental
classifications of High Quality Waters (HQW) and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) (Figure
16).
Roanoke River Basin Statistics
(North Carolina Portion)

Total Area: 3,503 sq. miles
Freshwater Stream Miles: 2,213
No. of Counties: 15
No. of Municipalities: 42
No. of Subbasins: 10
Population (2000): 344,638
Pop. Density (2000): 98
persons/sq. mile*

Water Quality Statistics

Aquatic Life
Monitored Streams: 37.8%
Supporting: 30.0%
Impaired: 5.7%
Not Rated: 4.2%

Recreation
Monitored Streams: 10.5%
Supporting: 8.1%
Impaired: 2.0%
Not Rated: 4.3%

Identified Water Quality Stressors
Habitat Degradation: 223 miles
Fecal Coliform Bacteria: 87.4 miles
Low Dissolved Oxygen: 70.4 miles
Turbidity: 58.6 miles
Toxic Impacts: 25.5 miles

* Estimated based on % of county land
area that is partially or entirely within the
basin, not the entire county population.

Executive Summary xv
HQW and ORW are supplemental classifications to the primary freshwater classification placed
on a waterbody. Special management strategies are often associated with the supplemental
HQW and ORW classification and are intended to prevent degradation of water quality below
present levels from point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Two creeks in subbasin 03-02-01
(Archies Creek and Peters Creek) received an excellent aquatic life use support rating which
make them eligible for reclassification to HQW or ORW. In the Roanoke River basin, there are
currently only two small segments making up a total of 1.6 stream miles in subbasin 03-02-01
that are classified as ORW.

Use Support Summary

Use support assessments based on surface water classifications form the foundation of this
basinwide plan. Surface waters are classified according to their best-intended use. Determining
how well a waterbody supports its use (use support rating) is an important method of interpreting
water quality data and assessing water quality.

Use support methods were developed to assess ecosystem health and human health risk through
the development of use support ratings for five categories: aquatic life; fish consumption;
recreation; shellfish harvesting; and water supply. These categories are tied to the uses
associated with the primary classifications applied to North Carolina rivers, streams and lakes
discussed in the previous section. There are no shellfish harvesting waters located in the
Roanoke River basin.

Biological, chemical and physical monitoring data collected between September 1999 and
August 2004 were used to assign use support ratings in the Roanoke River basin. A total of
832.4 stream miles for aquatic life, 230.6 stream miles for recreation and 49.4 stream miles for
fish consumption were monitored within the Roanoke River basin. Of these, 124, 43 and 49
stream miles were impaired respectively. Table i presents the totals of all the streams, lakes and
sound monitored and gives a summary of those Impaired and Supporting. Table ii lists all of the
monitored Impaired waters in the Roanoke River basin. Use support summary tables, which also
identify potential stressors and their sources as well as maps showing the current ratings, are
presented in each subbasin chapter (Chapters 1-10). Current status and recommendations for
restoration of water quality for each Impaired segment is also discussed in each subbasin chapter.

Use support methodology has changed significantly since the 2001 revision of the Roanoke River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
Report Guidance issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requests that states
no longer subdivide the Impaired category. In agreement with this guidance, North Carolina
currently rates waters as Supporting (S), Impaired (I), Not Rated (NR) or No Data (ND). NR is
used to identify those waters that had inconclusive data. These ratings refer to whether the
classified uses of the water (e.g., water supply, aquatic life, primary/secondary recreation) are
being met. Detailed information on use support methodology is provided in Appendix IX.

Water Quality Stressors
Water quality stressors are identified when impacts have been noted to biological (fish and
benthic) communities or water quality standards have been violated. Whenever possible, water
quality stressors are identified for Impaired waters as well as waters with notable impacts.
xvi Executive Summary

Stressors identified during this assessment are briefly discussed below and in more detail in
Chapter 13 as well as in each subbasin chapter (Chapters 1-10).

Certain stressors are associated with specific use support categories. For example, in the
recreation category, violations of the fecal coliform bacteria standard are the reason for
impairment; therefore, fecal coliform bacteria is the stressor for Impaired waters in this category.
In the aquatic life category, Impaired waters result from violations of one or more numerical
water quality standards or because a biological community sample (fish or benthic) did not meet
use support criteria. Stressors to aquatic life can be numerical water quality standards that are
violated, or a host of aquatic habitat quality indicators such as excessive sediment or lack of
organic habitat. The following discussion summarizes stressors identified during this assessment
period and possible sources of the stressors.

Table i – Summary of Monitored Waters in the Roanoke River Basin

Use Support
Category Units
Total
Monitored
Waters
Total
Impaired
Waters
Total
Supporting
Waters
Total
Not Rated
Monitored &
Evaluated
Total
No Data
Miles/
Acres
Miles/
Acres % Miles/
Acres % Miles/
Acres
Miles/
Acres
Aquatic Life
Freshwater acres
(impoundments) 36,485 0 0 3162 8.4 33,323 1058
Aquatic Life
Freshwater miles
(streams) 834.4 124.7 5.7 661 30 91.4 1327
Aquatic Life Estuarine acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 1476
Recreation
Freshwater acres
(impoundments) 0 0 0 0 0 0 37543
Recreation
Freshwater miles
(streams) 230.6 43 2 179 8.1 96 1886
Recreation Estuarine acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 1476
*Fish
Consumption
Freshwater acres
(impoundments) 0 0 0 0 0 0 37543
*Fish
Consumption
Freshwater miles
(streams) 49.4 49.4 2.2 0 0 0 2155
*Fish
Consumption Estuarine acres 1476 1476 100 0 0 0 0

* Fish Consumption data is for Dioxin only. All waters within the Roanoke River basin are Impaired on an evaluated
basis for mercury (37,543 freshwater acres, 2,204 freshwater stream miles and 1,476 saltwater acres).

DWQ identifies the source of a stressor as specifically as possible depending on the amount of
information available in a watershed. Most often the source is based on the predominant land
use in a watershed. Stressor sources identified in the Roanoke River basin during this
assessment period include urban or impervious surface areas, construction sites, land clearing,
agriculture and water impoundments. Because land disturbance is one of the main stressor
sources, there has been increased funding to the Division of Land Resources to help address
these source. Point source discharges are also a water quality stressor sources in the Roanoke
River basin.
Executive Summary xvii
Habitat Degradation
One of the most noted water quality stressors is instream habitat degradation. Instream habitat
degradation is identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or a negative
change in habitat. Sedimentation, streambank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian
vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour are all associated
with habitat degradation. These stressors are typically a result of increased flow of stormwater
runoff due to land use changes or to sediment runoff from land-disturbing activities. In the
Roanoke River basin, 60 streams miles are Impaired and another 163 stream miles were
negatively impacted where at least one form of habitat degradation is the suspected stressor.
Streams with noted habitat degradation are discussed in the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1-10).

To assess instream habitat degradation requires extensive technical and monetary resources.
Although DWQ and other agencies are starting to address this issue, local efforts are needed to
prevent further instream habitat degradation and to restore streams that have been impacted by
activities that caused habitat degradation. As discharges become less of a source of water quality
impairment, nonpoint sources that pollute water and cause habitat degradation need to be
addressed to further improve water quality in North Carolina’s streams and rivers.

DWQ recommends the use of careful planning to maintain riparian buffers and the use of good
land use management practices during all land disturbing activities to prevent habitat
degradation. In addition, watersheds that are being developed need to maintain management
practices for long periods to prevent excessive runoff that is the ultimate source of the habitat
degradation noted above.

Low Dissolved Oxygen
Maintaining an adequate amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) is critical to the survival of aquatic
life and to the general health of surface waters. A number of factors influence DO
concentrations including water temperature, depth and turbulence. Additionally, in the Roanoke
River basin, a large swampy floodplain drainage system and flow management from upstream
impoundments also influences DO. Oxygen-consuming wastes such as decomposing organic
matter and some chemicals can reduce DO levels in surface water through biological activity and
chemical reactions. NPDES permits for wastewater discharges set limits on certain parameters
in order to control the effects that oxygen depletion can have in receiving waters.

In the Roanoke River basin during this assessment period, there were over 20 stream miles
Impaired because of dissolved oxygen (DO) standards violations. This includes a portion of the
Lower Roanoke River (Chapter 9 and 13). There were also over 18 stream miles where
dissolved oxygen levels were low enough to be of concern, although this area has a supplemental
classification of swamp waters (Sw) where low DO levels are possibly due to natural conditions.

Turbidity
In the Roanoke River basin during this assessment period, there were 55 stream miles Impaired
because of turbidity standards violations. All of the turbidity violations occurred in the western
portion of the basin. Almost the entire North Carolina portion of the Dan River and the entire
5.1 stream mile portion of the Smith River are Impaired due to noted turbidity violations. In this
same region of the basin, elevated turbidity levels were also seen in the Mayo River. These are
discussed in detail in each of the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1-4). Only 14.2 stream miles of
xviii Executive Summary

the Dan River were impaired for turbidity during the last basin cycle. The turbidity violations
during this assessment period were mostly associated with unknown nonpoint source pollution as
well as with land clearing activities.

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria are intended to ensure safe use of waters for
recreational uses, therefore only class B waters are intensively sampled to assess the standard. In
the Roanoke River basin there were 43 stream miles where the fecal coliform bacteria standard
was violated, these waters are Impaired for recreation. As with turbidity, almost the entire North
Carolina portion of the Dan River and the entire portion of the Smith River are Impaired due to
fecal coliform bacteria violations. These are discussed in detail in each of the subbasin chapters
(Chapters 1-4). These violations were mostly associated with unknown nonpoint source
pollution.

Dioxin
The 36.1 mile stretch of the Roanoke River from Highway 17 bridge in Martin County to the
Albemarle Sound, as well as 1,476 saltwater acres of the Albemarle Sound/Batchelor Bay are
Impaired for fish consumption based on a dioxin advisory from the NC Department of Health
and Human Services’ (DHHS) for carp and catfish. This advisory also includes all of Welch
Creek (13.3 miles) that flows into this section of the Roanoke River. This is discussed in
Chapter 9.

The fish consumption Impairments are due to the NC DHHS fish consumption advisory posted
in October 2001 for carp and catfish. It is advised that carp and catfish from these waters may
contain low levels of dioxins. Swimming, boating, and other recreational activities present no
health risks and are not affected by this advisory. For more information regarding fish
consumption advisories, call [phone] or visit the NC DHHS Division of Public Health
website at http://www.schs.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html.

Mercury in Fish Tissue
The presence and accumulation of mercury in North Carolina’s aquatic environment are similar
to contamination observed throughout the country. Mercury has a complex life in the
environment, moving from the atmosphere to soil, to surface water and into biological
organisms. A dominant pathway of mercury in the environment is through the atmosphere.
Mercury that has been emitted from industrial and municipal stacks into the ambient air can
circulate across the globe. At any point, mercury may then be deposited onto land and water.
Once in the water, mercury can accumulate in fish tissue and humans. Mercury is also
commonly found in wastewater.

All waters within the Roanoke River basin are Impaired on an evaluated basis in the fish
consumption category. This is based on a fish consumption advise from the NC Department of
Health and Human Services. For more information on fish consumption advisories and advice,
contact NC DHHS (see contact information above or see discussion in Chapter 13).

Agriculture and Water Quality
Excess nutrient loading, pesticide and/or herbicide contamination, bacterial contamination and
sedimentation are often associated with agricultural activities, and all can impact water quality.
Executive Summary xix
Chapter 16 provides information related to the impacts of agriculture on water quality. Impacts
to water quality from agricultural sources may decrease over the next basin cycle due to
substantial increases in urban/built-up areas throughout the river basin.

DWQ will identify streams where agricultural activities may be impacting water quality and
aquatic habitat. This information will be related to local Division of Soil and Water
Conservation (DSWC) and Natural Resources Conservation Service staff to investigate impacts
in these watersheds and to reduce these impacts. The DSWC Ag Cost Share Program has spent
over $3 million on various management practices in the Roanoke River basin. DWQ
recommends that funding and technical support for agricultural BMPs be continued and
increased. Refer to Chapter 16 for specific BMP information and Appendix VIII for agricultural
nonpoint source agency contact information.

Forestry and Water Quality
Based on land cover information provided by the North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database
(CGIA) and the USDA-NRCS, 73 percent of land in the Roanoke River Basin consists of
forest/wetland. Several stream miles were potentially identified as being impacted by stressors
associated with forestry activities. Where forest harvesting is identified as a potential source of
water quality impact, DWQ will notify the Division of Forest Resources (DFR) to investigate
potential violations and the enforcement of management strategies. Chapter 17 presents more
information related to the impacts of forestry on water quality.

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Currently, there are 77 permitted wastewater discharges in the Roanoke River basin with a
permitted flow of approximately 188 MGD. Chapter 14 provides summary information (by type
and subbasin) about the discharges. This chapter also provides guidance for permitting in
various watersheds that may be water quality limited and also contains general information
related to wastewater treatment disposal associated with registered animal operations. Maps of
permitted facilities are provided in each subbasin chapter. For a complete listing of permitted
facilities in the basin, refer to Appendix VI. The majority of NPDES permitted wastewater
discharges into the waters of the Roanoke River basin are from major municipal wastewater
treatment plants. Nonmunicipal discharges also contribute substantial wastewater into the
Roanoke River basin.

There are 155 stream miles noted throughout this plan where point sources may have negatively
impacted the water quality. Facilities, large or small, where recent data show problems with a
discharge are discussed in each subbasin chapter. DWQ will determine if any violations are
ongoing and address them using the NPDES permitting process. Many watersheds are adversely
impacted by the cumulative effects of discharges and nonpoint source runoff.

Impacts from Stormwater Runoff
Stormwater runoff is rainfall or snowmelt that runs off the ground or impervious surface (e.g.,
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
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. The impact of
xx Executive Summary

stormwater runoff is particularly 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
or curb and gutter systems into nearby streams. For more information on stormwater as it relates
to growth and development, refer to Chapter 12.

There are many different stormwater programs administered by DWQ. One or more of these
programs affect many communities in the Roanoke River basin. 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 NPDES Phase I and II, coastal
county stormwater requirements, HQW/ORW stormwater requirements, and requirements
associated with the Water Supply Watershed Program. Chapter 14 includes more information on
the statewide stormwater programs and a list of Local governments that are or may be affected
by these programs.

Water Resources
Chapter 18 presents information related to minimum streamflow requirements, interbasin
transfers, water quality during drought conditions, and source water protection. The chapter also
includes the federal cataloging units (commonly referred to as hydrologic units) as they relate to
the state subbasin boundaries.

Significant Ecological Resources and Endangered Species
The Roanoke River basin is ecologically significant and diverse in numerous ways, and contains
habitat for over 140 rare plant and animal species. The character of the basin as it enters North
Carolina, contains some natural communities often associated with mountains. The Roanoke
then flows about 100 miles through the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain. The Piedmont provides
habitat for a number of rare fish and mussels, as well as small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine
micranthera), a species only known to Stokes County and adjacent Hentry County, Virginia.
This endemic plant requires small or intermittent streams and seepage areas, and is found in the
wet soil and rocks along small stream banks in hardwood forest with intact forest cover. This
species was presumed extinct, however it was rediscovered in 1985, nearly 30 years after it had
last been seen. The Coastal Plain section of the Roanoke River contains high-quality examples
of wetland communities such as Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods and Cypress-Gum
Swamps. Some of these natural communities are extensive, and the large blocks of habitat are
excellent for wildlife. Finally, the Roanoke River is the major contributor of freshwater to
Albemarle Sound.

The Natural Heritage Program has identified over 145 individual natural areas in the Roanoke
River basin. Several of these areas are discussed in Chapter 19. A table of rare animals
associated with aquatic habitats in the Roanoke River basin is also provided. There are 11 rare
mollusks, five rare insects, one rare crustacean, and nine rare fish in the basin. The James
Spinymussle is a federally listed endangered species found in the Roanoke River subbasins 03-
02-01 and 03-02-02. Some of these rare species are also noted in the individual subbasin
chapters.

Executive Summary xxi
Water Quality Initiatives
Local organizations and agencies are able to combine professional expertise and local knowledge
not present at the state and federal level. This allows groups to holistically understand the
challenges and opportunities of local water quality concerns. Involving a wide array of people in
water quality projects also brings together a wide range of knowledge and interests and
encourages others to become involved and invested in these projects. Working in cooperation
across jurisdictional boundaries and agency lines opens the door to additional funding
opportunities and eases the difficulty of generating matching or leveraged funds. This could
potentially allow local entities to do more work and be involved in more activities because
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.

The collaboration of local efforts is key to water quality improvements, and DWQ applauds the
foresight and proactive response by locally based organizations and agencies to protect water
quality. There are many excellent examples of local agencies and groups using these cooperative
strategies throughout the state. Several local watershed projects are highlighted throughout the
subbasin chapters (Chapters 1-10). Chapter 20 also summarizes monies spent by federal and
state programs to help implement water quality improvement projects. Over $48,000 was
granted by the Clean Water Act Section 319 program for one project in this basin and over $13
million was made available over the last several years through the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund. This chapter also contains information about the Ecosystem Enhancement Program.

Waters on the North Carolina 303(d) List

For the next several years, addressing water quality impairment in waters that are on the state’s
303(d) list will be a DWQ priority (Table i). 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 Roanoke River basin that are on this list are discussed in the
individual subbasin chapters (Chapters 1-10). 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 to 13 years. Information regarding
303(d) listing and reporting methodology can be found in Appendix VII.

The rigorous and demanding task of developing TMDLs for each listed water during a 13-year
time frame will require the focus of many resources. It will be a priority for North Carolina’s
water quality programs over the next several years to develop TMDLs for 303(d) listed waters.
Roanoke River Basin TMDLs are discussed in the individual subbasin chapters. There are many
new impaired segments in the Roanoke River basin. These are likely to be placed on the 2008
303(d) list and will require TMDL development for the next several years.

Challenges Related to Achieving Water Quality Improvements

To achieve the goal of restoring Impaired waters throughout the basin, DWQ will need to work
closely with other state agencies and stakeholders to identify and control pollutants. The costs of
restoration can be high, but several programs exist to provide funding for restoration efforts.
These programs include the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), the NC
xxii Executive Summary

Agricultural Cost Share Program (NCACSP) and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP).

Balancing economic development and water quality protection will be a tremendous challenge.
Point source impacts on surface waters can be measured and addressed through the basinwide
planning process. Nonpoint source pollution can be identified through the basinwide plan, but
actions to address these impacts must be taken at the local level. Such actions should include:
development and enforcement of local erosion control ordinances; requirement of stormwater
BMPs for existing and new development; development and enforcement of buffer ordinances;
and land use planning that assesses impacts on natural resources. This basinwide plan presents
many water quality initiatives and accomplishments that are underway throughout the Roanoke
River basin. These actions provide a foundation on which future initiatives can be built.

Executive Summary xxiii
D a n R i v e r Hyco Lake
MayoCreek
Kerr
Reservoir
Belews Lake
M
a
y
o

R
i
v
e
r
C o u n tr y L i n e
C r e e k
Smith Mountain Lake
D a n R i v e r
Lake Gaston
Roanoke River
R
oa
n
oke Riv
er
Cashie River
Albermarle Sound®
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 30, 2006
0 20 40 60 8010
Miles
Figure i General Map of the Entire Roanoke River Basin
M
a
y
o

R
i
v
e
r
Dan

R
i
v
e
r
Kerr
Reservoir
Hyco
Lake
Belews
Lake
Winston-Salem
Eden
Reidsville
Roxboro
Madison Henderson
King
Yanceyville
Walnut Cove
Rural Hall
Stoneville
Danbury
Stovall
Kernersville
Milton
Middleburg
STOKES
PERSON GRANVILLE
CASWELL
FORSYTH
ROCKINGHAM
VANCE
03-02-01 03-02-03 03-02-05 03-02-0603-02-0403-02-02
®
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
April 7, 2006
0 102030405
Miles
Figure ii General Map of Western Portion
of the Roanoke River Basin in North Carolina
Muncipalities
Legend
Counties
Subbasin Boundary
Hydrography
Albemarle
Sound
Lake Gaston
R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
CashieRiver
Gaston
Roanoke
Rapids
Weldon
Aulander
Roxobel
Jackson
Williamston
Hobgood
Norlina
Kelford
Littleton
Rich Square
Askewville
Jamesville
Oak City
Scotland Neck
Macon
Hamilton
Halifax
Lewiston-
Woodville
Hassell
g
Windsor
Plymouth
03-02-09
03-02-08
03-02-10
03-02-07
BERTIE
HALIFAX
MARTIN
WARREN
NORTHAMPTON
WASHINGTON®
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
April 7, 2006
0 9 18 27 364.5
Miles
Figure iii General Map of Eastern Portion
of the Roanoke River Basin in North Carolina
Muncipalities
Legend
Counties
Subbasin Boundary
Hydrography
Monitored Impaired Waters in Roanoke River Basin
Subbasin Stream Name AU Number Length/Area Reason for Impairment
03-02-01 DAN RIVER (North Carolina portion)22-(1)b 11.6 FW Miles High Turbidity
03-02-02 DAN RIVER 22-(31.5)a 4.8 FW Miles High Turbidity
High Fecal Coliform Bacteria
03-02-03 DAN RIVER 22-(31.5)b 9.4 FW Miles High Turbidity
High Fecal Coliform Bacteria
03-02-03 DAN RIVER 22-(38.5) 0.6 FW Miles High Turbidity
High Fecal Coliform Bacteria
03-02-03 DAN RIVER (North Carolina portion)22-(39)a 13.8 FW Miles High Turbidity
High Fecal Coliform Bacteria
03-02-03 Smith River 22-40-(3) 1.8 FW Miles High Turbidity
High Fecal Coliform Bacteria
03-02-03 Smith River 22-40-(1) 2.8 FW Miles High Turbidity
High Fecal Coliform Bacteria
03-02-03 Smith River 22-40-(2.5) 0.5 FW Miles High Turbidity
High Fecal Coliform Bacteria
03-02-04 DAN RIVER (North Carolina portion)22-(39)b 9.6 FW Miles High Turbidity
High Fecal Coliform Bacteria
03-02-05 Hyco Creek (North Hyco Creek)22-58-1 16.8 FW Miles Fish Community Impaired
03-02-05 Marlowe Creek 22-58-12-6a 6.6 FW Miles Benthic Community Impaired
03-02-06 Little Island Creek (Vance County)23-4-3 11.8 FW Miles Fish Community Impaired
03-02-06 Nutbush Creek (Including Nutbush Creek Arm
of John H. Kerr Reservoir below normal pool
elevation)
23-8-(1)b 1.6 FW Miles Benthic Community Impaired
Fish Community Impaired
03-02-07 Newmans Creek (Little Deep Creek)23-10-2 6.1 FW Miles Benthic Community Impaired
03-02-07 Smith Creek 23-10a 6.1 FW Miles Benthic Community Impaired
03-02-07 Smith Creek 23-10c 3.0 FW Miles Fish Community Impaired
Benthic Community Impaired
Low Dissolved Oxygen
03-02-09 ALBEMARLE SOUND (Batchelor Bay)24 1,475.5 S Acres Fish Consumption Advisory Dioxin
03-02-09 ROANOKE RIVER 23-(26)b3 17.8 FW Miles Low Dissolved Oxygen
03-02-09 ROANOKE RIVER 23-(53) 18.3 FW Miles Fish Consumption Advisory Dioxin
03-02-09 Welch Creek 23-55 13.3 FW Miles Fish Consumption Advisory Dioxin
Roanoke River Basin Executive Summary

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 (2002 to 2007)

Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning

The goals of basinwide planning are to:

ƒ identify water quality problems and restore full use to Impaired waters;
ƒ identify and protect high value resource waters; and
ƒ protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic development.

DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives:

Introduction 1
ƒ collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies (This
includes providing agencies information related to financial and funding opportunities.);
ƒ assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity;
ƒ evaluate cumulative effects of pollution;
ƒ improve public awareness and involvement; and
ƒ 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:

ƒ focusing resources on one river basin at a time;
ƒ using sound ecological planning and fostering comprehensive NPDES permitting by
working on a watershed scale;
ƒ ensuring better consistency and equitability by clearly defining the program's long-term
goals and approaches regarding permits and water quality improvement strategies;
ƒ fostering public participation to increase involvement and awareness about water quality;
and
ƒ 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. DWQ is
continually 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 be involved throughout the planning
process by contacting their county extension service or local SWCD and reporting water quality
concerns.

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. Remember,
you may contact the basinwide planner responsible for your basin anytime during the plan’s
development.

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.
2 Introduction

Table 1 - Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007)

Basin DWQ Biological
Data Collection
Public Mtgs. And
Draft Out For
Review
Final Plan
Receives EMC
Approval
Begin NPDES
Permit Issuance
Chowan Summer 2010 5/2007 9/2007 11/2007
Pasquotank Summer 2010 5/2007 9/2007 12/2007
Neuse Summer 2010 3/2007 7/2007 1/2008
Broad Summer 2010 7/2007 1/2008 7/2008
Yadkin-Pee Dee Summer 2006 1/2008 4/2008 9/2008
Lumber Summer 2006 1/2008 1/2008 7/2009
Tar-Pamlico Summer 2007 1/2009 5/2009 9/2009
Catawba Summer 2007 1/2009 5/2009 12/2009
French Broad Summer 2007 1/2009 5/2009 7/2010
New Summer 2008 1/2010 5/2010 1/2011
Cape Fear Summer 2008 3/2010 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
• Identify sampling needs
• Conduct biological monitoring activities
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
Years 1 – 2

Water Quality Data Collection
• Coordinate with local stakeholders and other agencies to continue to
implement goals identified in current basinwide plan Identification of Goals and Issues
• 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
Years 2 – 3

Data Analysis and Collect
Information from State
Local Agencies
• 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
• 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
Begin Implementation of Plan

• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
Introduction 3
Some Other Reference Materials

There are several reference documents and websites that provide additional information about
basinwide planning and the basin’s water quality. These include:
ƒ A Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Management in North Carolina (August 2000) 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/basinwide_wq_planning.htm to
download this document.
ƒ Basinwide Assessment Report Roanoke River Basin (NCDENR-DWQ, April 2005). This
technical report presents physical, chemical, and biological data collected in the Roanoke
River basin. This report can be found on the DWQ Environmental Sciences Section
(ESS) website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/Basinwide/ROA2005.pdf
ƒ Roanoke Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (September 1996; July 2001).
These first basinwide plans for the Roanoke River basin present water quality data,
information, and recommended management strategies for the first two five-year cycles.
Visit the website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/ to download this document.
ƒ 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 - 10: 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 waters with notable impacts.
• Goals and recommendations for the next five years by subbasin.

Chapter 11 – 20

• Presents information on various topics of interest to protect and restore water quality
in the basin, including:
• Stream classifications.
• Population and land cover changes.
• Water Quality stressors.
• Agricultural, forestry and permitting activities in the basin.
• Water and natural resources.
• Local initiatives.

Appendices
• Population and land use changes over time.
• Local governments in the basin.
• Water quality data collected by DWQ, use support methodology and 303(d) listing.
• NPDES dischargers and general stormwater permits.
• Points of contact.
• Glossary of terms and acronyms.
4 Introduction
Asheville Mooresville
Fayetteville
Wilmington
WashingtonRaleighWinston-Salem
WAKE
NASH
HALIFAX
CHATHAM
JOHNSTON
LEE
WARREN
FRANKLIN
PERSON
G
R
A
N
VILLE
WILSON
ORANGE
VANCE
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
A
L
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
TRANSYLVANIA
MI
TC
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
PE
R
Q
UIM
A
NS
PA
S
Q
U
O
T
A
N
K
CU
RRIT
U
CK
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
Asheville Regional Office (ARO)
Rex Gleason, Surface Water Protection SupervisorAndrew Pitner, Aquifer Protection Supevisor610 East Center Avenue / Suite 301Mooresville, NC 28115COURIER 09-08-06Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Belinda Hinson, Surface Water Protection SupervisorArt Barnhardt, Aquifer Protection Supervisor225 Green StreetSystel Building Suite 714Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043COURIER 14-56-25Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Roger Edwards, Surface Water Protection SupevisorLandon Davidson, Aquifer Protection Supervisor2090 US Highway 70Swannanoa, NC 28778COURIER 12-59-01Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Chuck Wakild, Surface Water Protection SupervisorJay Zimmerman, Aquifer Protection Supervisor3800 Barrett DriveRaleigh, NC 27609COURIER 52-01-00Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Al Hodge, Surface Water Protection SupervisorDavid May, Aquifer Protection Supervisor943 Washington Square MallWashington, NC 27889COURIER 16-04-01Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Ed Beck, Surface Water Protection SupervisorCharlie Stehman, Aquifer Protection Supervisor127 Cardinal Drive ExtensionWilmington, NC 28405-2845COURIER 04-16-33Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO)
Mooresville Regional Office (MRO)
Raleigh Regional Office (RRO)
Washington Regional Office (WaRO)
Wilmington Regional Office (WiRO)
Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSRO)
Steve Tedder, Surface Water Protection SupervisorSherri Knight, Aquifer Protection Supervisor585 Waughtown StreetWinston-Salem, NC 27107COURIER 13-15-01Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
AveryBuncombeBurkeCaldwellCherokeeClayGraham
HaywoodHendersonJacksonMaconMadisonMcDowellMitchell
PolkRutherfordSwainTransylvaniaYancey
AnsonBladenCumberlandHarnettHokeMontgomery
MooreRichmondRobesonSampsonScotland
ChathamDurhamEdgecombeFranklinGranvilleHalifax
JohnstonLeeNashNorthamptonOrangePerson
VanceWakeWarrenWilson
BrunswickCarteretColumbusDuplin
New HanoverOnslowPender
BeaufortBertieCamdenChowanCravenCurrituckDare
GatesGreeneHertfordHydeJonesLenoirMartin
PamlicoPasquotankPerquimansPittTyrrellWashingtonWayne
AlexanderCabarrusCatawbaClevelandGastonIredell
LincolnMecklenburgRowanStanlyUnion AlamanceAlleghanyAsheCaswellDavidsonDavie
ForsythGuilfordRandolphRockinghamStokesSurry
WataugaWilkesYadkin
Central Office
DENRDIVISION OF WATER QUALITY1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTERRALEIGH NC 27699-1617COURIER 52-01-00Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Planning SectionBasinwide Planning UnitJuly 12, 2006
®
Figure 2 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality Regional Offices
6 Introduction

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

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

Chapter 3
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03
Including: Dan River, Smith River, Hogans Creek and Wolf Island Creek

3.1 Subbasin Overview
This subbasin contains approximately 25 river miles of the
Dan River, prior to it flowing back into Virginia. The Smith
River is a major tributary of the Dan River in this subbasin,
but most of its watershed is in Virginia and its flow is
regulated by upstream releases primarily from Philpott
Reservoir and secondarily from Martinsville Reservoir.
Other smaller tributaries include Matrimony Creek, Rock
House Creek, Wolf Island Creek and Hogans Creek.
Approximately three-fourths of this subbasin is forested. By
the year 2020, overall county population is expected to
increase by 8.5 percent and 16 percent in Rockingham and
Caswell counties, respectively. Refer to Appendix I for
more information for 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. The NCACSP provided
$118,375 towards implementing sediment and nutrient
reduction practices, and livestock stream access elimination
within this subbasin. For more information on this and other
programs, refer to the watershed discussion throughout this
chapter as well as in Chapters 16 and 20.

Eleven individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits are
issued in this subbasin, four of which are major dischargers.
Refer to Appendix VI for identification and more
information on individual NPDES permit holders. One
registered animal operation is located in this subbasin. Refer
to Chapter 16 for more information regarding animal
operations within this basin.

Subbasin 03-02-03 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 340 mi2
Land area: 335 mi2
Water area: 5 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 48,270 people
Pop. Density: 142 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 74%
Surface Water: 1.2%
Urban: 2.1%
Cultivated Crop: 3.3%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 19.4%

Counties
Rockingham and Caswell

Municipalities
Eden, Reidsville and
Wentworth
Monitored Stream Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total Streams: 105.1 mi
Total Supporting: 76.1 mi
Total Impaired: 29.0 mi
Recreation
Total Streams: 29.0 mi
Total Impaired: 29.0 mi
A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 6. Table 5 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.

One benthic macroinvertebrate community sample and five fish community samples (Figure 6
and Table 5) were collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from four
Chapter 3 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03 29
XW
#*#*
XW
#*
XW
#*
#*
#*
XW
XW
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
^
^^[[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
¡¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡¡
"
"
p
pp
ppp
o
oo
ooo
Jacob s Cre ek
DAN RIVER
D A N R I V E R
Rock House Creek
Matrimony Creek
S
m
i
t
h
R
i
v
e
r
Pawpaw Creek
ROCKINGHAM
CASWELL
H oga ns Creek
J o n e s C r e e k
W olf Isla n d C re e k
H ogans Creek
Lick F ork Cre e k

Buffalo Creek
ROCKINGHAM
C o u n tr y L i n e C r e e k
M o o n C r e e k
Farmer Lake
CASWELL
N
C-8
6
Stoneville
Reidsville
D A N R I V E REden
Reidsville
Yanceyville
Stoneville
NC-62
N C -6 5
N
C
-
1
4
N C-7 0 0
N C -1 3 5
NC-87
U S-29
N C -1 5 0
N
C-8
6
US -15 8
U S-158
NC-704
N C -7 7 0
NL9NL8
NL7
NA6NA5NA4
NA3
NF24
NB84
NF20
NF18
NF17
NF16
NF15
NB36
NF12
NF11
¬
Figure 6 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03
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 03-02-03SubbasinTable 5
DAN RIVER
22-(31.5)b
From 03-02-02 boundary to a point 0.8 mile downstream of
Matrimony Creek
9.4 FW MilesWS-IV I INA3 CE Turbidity 16.4 NA3 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Turbidity Unknown
22-(38.5)
From a point 0.8 mile downstream of Matrimony Creek to
Mill Branch (Town of Eden water supply intake)
0.6 FW MilesWS-IV;CA I INA6 CE Turbidity 17.5 NA6 CE Turbidity Unknown
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
DAN RIVER (North Carolina portion)
22-(39)a
From Mill Branch to NC/VA crossing downstream of Wolf
Island Creek
13.8 FW MilesC I INA6 CE Turbidity 17.5 NA6 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Turbidity
Hogans Creek
22-50
From source to Dan River
29.1 FW MilesC S ND
NF15 /2004G
Jones Creek (Lake Wade)
22-50-3
From source to Hogans Creek
7.6 FW MilesC S ND
NF16 /2004G
Matrimony Creek (North Carolina portion)
22-38
From source to Dan River
11.2 FW MilesWS-IV S ND
NF17 /2004G
Rock House Creek
22-34-(2)
From Rockingham Countly SR 2381 to Dan River
6.5 FW MilesWS-IV S ND
NB36 /2001GF
NF18 /2004G
Habitat Degradation
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-03Friday, 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 03-02-03SubbasinTable 5
Smith River
22-40-(1)
From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to a point 0.8 mile
downstream of Rockingham County SR 1714 (Aiken Road)
2.8 FW MilesWS-IV I INA4 CE Turbidity 12.5
NA5 ID
NA4 NCE
NA5 CE
Turbidity Unknown
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
22-40-(2.5)
From a point 0.8 mile downstream of Rockingham County
SR 1714 (Aiken Road) to Fieldcrest Mills Water Supply
Intake
0.5 FW MilesWS-IV;CA I INA4 CE Turbidity 12.5
NA5 ID
NA4 NCE
NA5 CE
Turbidity Unknown
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
22-40-(3)
From Fieldcrest Mills Water Supply Intake to Dan River
1.8 FW MilesC I INA4 CE Turbidity 12.5
NA5 ID
NA4 NCE
NA5 CE
Turbidity Unknown
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
Wolf Island Creek
22-48
From source to Dan River
21.8 FW MilesC S ND
NF20 /2004G
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-03Friday, 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 03-02-03SubbasinTable 5
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 76.1 FW Milesm
I 29.0 FW Milesm
NR 11.1 FW Milese
ND 133.9 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
29.0 FW MilesIm
11.1 FW MilesNR e
210.0 FW MilesND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
250.0 FW MilesIe
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-03Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:15 AMDRAFT
ambient 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 data.

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.

3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-02-03 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 102.7 stream miles (41.1 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category. In the recreation category, 26.6 stream miles (10.6 percent) were
monitored. A total of 26.6 stream miles (10.6 percent) are Impaired, for both the aquatic life and
recreational use categories. Refer to Table 5 for a summary of use support ratings by use
category for waters in subbasin 03-02-03.

3.3 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.

3.3.1 Dan River [AU# 22-(31.5)b]

2001 Recommendations
The Dan River, from a point 0.7 miles upstream of Jacobs Creek to Mill Branch (14.8 miles;
includes both 22-(31.5)a & b), was Impaired for aquatic life due to a turbidity standard violation
at site NA3 (N2300000). The site exceeded the standard in 18 percent of samples. The 2001
basin plan recommended that DWQ 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 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
34 Chapter 3 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03

waters and work with them to conduct further monitoring and to locate sources of water quality
protection funding.

Current Status
The Dan River [AU#22-(31.5)b], from the 03-02-02 boundary to a point 0.8 miles downstream
of Matrimony Creek (9.4 miles), is Impaired for aquatic life due to turbidity standard violation at
site NA3. The turbidity standard was violated in 16.4 percent of samples in this assessment
period. This segment will remain on the 303(d) list (category 4a; for more information on 303(d)
listing and reporting, see appendix VII). DWQ developed a TMDL for turbidity for this section
of the Dan River. The TMDL was finalized by the USEPA on January 11, 2005 and
recommended that a 59 percent total suspended solids reduction distributed over both point and
nonpoint sources should be achieved in order to meet the turbidity standard. Since the 2001
basin plan, several instream mining operations have become inactive and permits have been
rescinded to the Division of Land Resources mostly due to permit modifications of required
upstream and downstream monitoring.

This section of the Dan River is also Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria
standard was exceeded at site NA3. Intensive fecal coliform bacteria monitoring in 2004 was
also part of supporting an interstate TMDL with Virginia since the Dan River is 303(d) listed in
Virginia for bacteria. This section will be added to North Carolina’s 303(d) list for fecal
coliform bacteria.

2006 Recommendations
Local agencies are encouraged to secure funding opportunities for restoration projects to control
nonpoint sources of pollution.

See Chapter 4, section 4.3.1 for Dan River summary.

3.3.2 Dan River [AU # 22-(38.5) & 22-(39)a]

Current Status
The Dan River (North Carolina portion) [AU#22-(38.5)], from a point 0.8 miles downstream of
Matrimony Creek to Mill Branch (Town of Eden water supply intake) (0.6 miles), and [AU# 22-
(39)a] from Mill Branch to NC/VA crossing downstream of Wolf Island Creek (13.8 miles), is
Impaired for aquatic life due to turbidity standard violation at site NA6. The turbidity standard
was violated in 17.5 percent of samples in this assessment period. This segment will be added to
the 303(d) list of impaired waters.

This section of the Dan River is also Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria
standard was exceeded at site NA6. Intensive fecal coliform bacteria monitoring in 2004 was
also part of supporting an interstate TMDL with Virginia since the Dan River is 303(d) listed in
Virginia for fecal coliform bacteria. This segment will be added to North Carolina’s 303(d) list
for fecal coliform bacteria.

2006 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Dan River. Local agencies are encouraged to secure funding
opportunities for restoration projects to control nonpoint sources of pollution.
Chapter 3 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03 35

See Chapter 4, section 4.3.1 for Dan River summary.

3.3.3 Smith River [AU # 22-40-(1), 22-40-(2.5) & 22-40-(3)]

2001 Recommendations
The 2001 basin plan recommended that DWQ work with the NC Division of Water Resources,
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) and the Town of Martinsville,
Virginia to address flow fluctuation issues. However, nonpoint source pollution in the North
Carolina portion of the watershed may also contribute to degradation of habitat and water quality
downstream. It is imperative that, in addition to citizen and municipality lead actions in
Virginia, citizens and municipalities in North Carolina implement best management practices as
well. Of particular concern are urban areas and construction activities in and around Eden.

Current Status
Smith River, from North Carolina-Virginia State Line to the Dan River (5.1 miles) is Impaired
for aquatic life because 12.5 percent of the samples taken at site NA4 exceeded the turbidity
standard.

This same section of the Smith River is Impaired for recreation due to fecal coliform bacteria
standard violation at site NA5. Intensive fecal coliform bacteria monitoring in 2004 was also
part of supporting an interstate TMDL with Virginia since the Dan River is 303(d) listed in
Virginia for bacteria.

The entire North Carolina segment of the Smith River will be added to North Carolina’s 303(d)
list for fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity standard violations. This section is already on the
303(d) list for impaired biological integrity due to a Fair benthic rating in 1999.

The Eden WWTP has experienced significant inflow and infiltration problems during this
assessment period. As of January 2004, Eden was under a Special Order of Consent for their
collection system and upgrading including resizing pump stations. Eden is starting a four million
dollar sewer line rehabilitation project, which will be followed up with an anticipated two
million dollar sewer pump station upgrade.

The Philpott Reservoir located on the Smith River approximately 33 miles from the Virginia-
North Carolina State line is owned and operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE).
The minimum flow out of Philpott dam is 59 cubic feet per second (cfs) and can reach maximum
flow releases of 1,400 cfs during power generation operation. In 2003, the ACOE proposed to
conduct a reconnaissance study under Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970.
Unfortunately funds were cut in federal fiscal year 2005 and the study was not funded. The
study would have begun to identify the needs and opportunities for improvements to the Philpott
Dam and Reservoir. From Philpott Reservoir the river flows to the Martinsville Reservoir near
Martinsville, Virginia. The Martinsville Reservoir (Smith River) is a small hydropower
operation with minimal holding capacity. This hydropower is exempt from obtaining a Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission license because they generate less than five megawatts of power
(VADEQ, B. LaRoche pers. comm.).

36 Chapter 3 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03

2006 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Smith River and work with the town of Eden on discharge
requirements. It is also recommended that VADEQ and NCDWQ support future ACOE studies,
including a Section 216 study for Philpott Reservoir and Dam.

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. Nonpoint
source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VIII.

3.4.1 Hogans Creek [AU #22-50]

Current Status
Hogans Creek, from source to Dan River (29.1 miles) is Supporting aquatic life due to a Good
fish community bioclassification at site NF15.

Water Quality Initiative
In 1997, the Caswell County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Wetlands Restoration
Program conducted a stream restoration project on an unnamed tributary of Hogans Creek.
Approximately, 900 feet of stream was restored to 1,800 feet. DWQ conducted pre and post
stream project data collections in 1996 and 1998. Since then, beavers have populated the
restored area. Due to the lack of flow, primarily from beaver ponding activity, DWQ was not
able to sample for post mitigation comparison in 2004.

2006 Recommendations
DWQ does not have a state standard regarding beaver activities on streams. Best management
practices do exist to reduce ponding activities.

3.4.2 Rock House Creek [AU#22-34-(2)]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Rock House Creek, from Rockingham County SR 2381 to Dan River (6.5 miles) is Supporting
aquatic life due to Good fish community and Good-Fair benthic community bioclassifications at
sites NF18 and NB36. Most of the land use is predominantly agriculture and during sampling it
was noted that the stream exhibited substantial nonpoint source erosion impacts such as
sedimentation and riparian bank instability problems. Also, nonpoint nutrients from upstream
sources may have contributed to the abundance of the bluehead chub; 37 percent of all the fish
collected were this species. It is recommended that local agencies work with landowners to
assess the need for and prioritize the installation of BMPs to improve the riparian zones and
restore the streambanks along this creek.
Chapter 3 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03 37
3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-03

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.

3.5.1 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 cause 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.

38 Chapter 3 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-03

Chapter 4
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04
Including: Dan River, Country Line Creek, Rattlesnake Creek and Moon Creek

4.1 Subbasin Overview
This subbasin contains an eight-mile reach of the Dan
River, from Virginia at Danville to North Carolina near
Milton, before it flows into the Roanoke River. The
subbasin is mostly rural. By the year 2020, population in
Caswell County is expected to increase by 16 percent.
Subbasin 03-02-04 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 239 mi2
Land area: 236 mi2
Water area: 3 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 13,495 people
Pop. Density: 57 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 75.9%
Surface Water: 1%
Urban: 0.5%
Cultivated Cropland: 2.3%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 20.4%

Counties
Rockingham, Caswell and Person

Municipalities
Yanceyville and Milton

Monitored Stream Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total Streams: 65.0 mi/361.8 ac

Four individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits are
issued in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 0.66
MGD (only 2 of the 4 permits are currently active). Refer
to Appendix VI for identification and more information on
individual NPDES permit holders. Refer to Appendix I
for more information regarding population growth and
trends. Two cattle operations are registered in this
subbasin. Refer to Chapter 16 for more information
regarding animal operations within this basin.

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 $169,139 towards implementing
sediment and nutrient reduction practices, 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. Total Supporting: 55.4 mi
Total Impaired: 9.6 mi

A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and
water quality monitoring stations is presented in Figure 7.
Table 6 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.
Total Not Rated: 361.8 ac

Recreation
Total Streams: 9.6 mi
Total Impaired: 9.6 mi

Two benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and three fish community samples (Figure 7
and Table 6) were collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from one
ambient monitoring station and one lake. 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 4 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04 39
XW
XW
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
^
^^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[[
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡¡
¡
¡¡
"
"
p
p
o
o
ROCKINGHAM
CASWELL
H oga ns Creek
Lick F ork C re ek
NB40 PERSON
ROCKINGHAM C o u n tr y L i n e C r e e k
M o o n C r e e k
DAN RIVER
Farmer Lake
C o u n try Line Creek
PERSON
CASWELLHyco Creek
S outh H yco Creek
Reedy Fork Creek
CASWELL
NC
-8
6
NC-86
Cane
Creek
Rattlesnake
Creek
Yanceyville
NC-62
N
C
-
5
7
N C -7 0 0
NC-119
N C -1 5 0
N
C
-8
6
U S -1 5 8
U S-158
NC-62
N C-11 9
NA8
NL9NL8
NL7
NA7
NL15
NL14
NL13
NL12
NL11
NL10
NF30
NF29
NF26NF24
NF21
NB84
NF20
NF16
NF15
¬
Figure 7 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04
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 03-02-04SubbasinTable 6
Cane Creek
22-54
From North Carolina-Virginia State Line to Dan River
0.8 FW MilesC S ND
NF21 /2004G
Country Line Creek
22-56-(1)
From source to a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth of Nats
Fork
10.5 FW MilesWS-II;HQW S ND
NB84 /2004G
22-56-(3.7)
From dam at Farmer Lake to Dan River
24.5 FW MilesC S NR
NB40 /2004G
Country Line Creek (Farmers Lake)
22-56-(3.5)
From a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth Nats Fork to dam
at Farmer Lake (Town of Yanceyville water supply intake
located 1.8 mile upstream of N.C. Hwy. 62)
361.8 FW AcresWS-II;HQW,CA NR NDNL7 ID
NL9 ID
NL8 ID
Turbidity Unknown
Nutrient Impacts Unknown
DAN RIVER (North Carolina portion)
22-(39)b
From NC/VA crossing downstream of Wolf Island Creek to
last crossing of North Carolina-Virginia State Line
9.6 FW MilesC I INA7 CE Turbidity 16.1 NA7 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Turbidity Unknown
Moon Creek (Wildwood Lake)
22-51
From source to Dan River
17.0 FW MilesC S ND
NF24 /2004G
Rattlesnake Creek
22-52
From source to Dan River
2.7 FW MilesC S ND
NF26 /2004G
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-04Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:15 AMDRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-04SubbasinTable 6
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 55.4 FW Milesm
I 9.6 FW Milesm
NR 361.8 FW Acresm
ND 83.7 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
9.6 FW MilesIm
24.5 FW MilesNR e
114.6 FW MilesND
361.8 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
148.7 FW MilesIe
361.8 FW AcresIe
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-04Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:15 AMDRAFT

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 unit is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No
letter indicates that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.

4.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-02-04 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 65 stream miles (43.7 percent) and 361.8 freshwater acres (100 percent; Farmers
Lake) monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. In the recreation
category, 9.6 stream miles (6.5 percent) were monitored. A total of 9.6 stream miles (6.5
percent) are Impaired, for both the aquatic life and recreational use categories. Refer to Table 6
for a summary of use support rating by category for waters in subbasin 03-02-04.

4.3 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.

4.3.1 Dan River [AU # 22-(39)b]

Current Status
The Dan River (North Carolina portion), from NC/VA crossing downstream of Wolf Island
Creek to the last crossing of North Carolina-Virginia State Line (9.6 miles), is Impaired for
aquatic life due to turbidity standard violations at site NA7. The turbidity standard was violated
in 16.1 percent of samples in this assessment period. This segment will be added to the 303(d)
list of impaired waters.

This section of the Dan River is also Impaired for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria
standard was exceeded at site NA7. Intensive fecal coliform bacteria monitoring in 2004 was
also part of supporting an interstate TMDL with Virginia since the Dan River is 303(d) listed in
Virginia for bacteria. This segment will be added to North Carolina’s 303(d) list for fecal
coliform bacteria.
Chapter 4 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04 43
2006 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Dan River. Local agencies are encouraged to secure funding
opportunities for restoration projects in controlling nonpoint sources of pollution.

Water Quality Initiative
The NCEEP is developing a project along the Dan River [22-(39)b] that has the potential to
restore 82 acres of riverine wetland. This project will also include the preservation of
approximately 3 acres of bottomland hardwood wetlands.

Dan River Summary

Figure 8 - Dan River

There are a total of 49.8 miles of the Dan River impaired for turbidity standard violations as well
as 38.2 miles impaired for fecal coliform bacteria standard violations.

Subbasin
No.
Distance
Impaired
(miles)
Turbidity
Impairment
(% exceeded)
New
Turbidity
Impairment
Fecal
Impairment
New
Fecal
Impairment
03-02-01 11.6 24 % Yes No
03-02-02 4.8 16.4 % No Yes Yes
03-02-03 9.4
15.6
16.4 %
17.5 %
No
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
03-02-04 9 16.1 % Yes Yes Yes

The 11.6 miles in the upper Dan River (subbasin 01) are in trout waters where the allowable
turbidity levels are at or below 10 NTUs. These same waters received an Excellent and a Good
benthic bioclassification during the last two basin cycles. This segment of the Dan River had
elevated turbidity during the last assessment period as well, however each data type was not
assessed independently unlike during this assessment period.
44 Chapter 4 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04

The remaining 38.2 miles of the Dan River are impaired for both turbidity and fecal coliform
bacteria. Of these, 14.2 miles were impaired for turbidity during that last basin cycle (4.8 miles
in subbasin 02 and 9.4 miles in subbasin 03). A TMDL for this 14.2 miles segment was
approved by the USEPA in January 2005, which recommends a 59 percent reduction in Total
Suspended Solids distributed over both point and nonpoint sources in order to achieve acceptable
water quality levels in this area. A TMDL will have to be developed for the remaining 24 miles.
This new segment will be added to the 2008 303(d) list of impaired waters and a TMDL will be
completed within 13 years of listing. The entire 38.2 miles will also be added to the impaired
waters list for fecal coliform and a TMDL will also be required.

In the past, the Dan River was often called the “Muddy Dan” by locals. The river almost always
ran brown due to sediment in the river. There were several instream sand mining operations as
well as a lot of agricultural activity along the river. All of the mining operations are gone and
many of the tobacco fields in this area have been converted to other agricultural practices such as
cattle farming. Many of these fields have also been converted to permanent grasslands or to
natural vegetation with help from the NC agriculture cost share program. While more
environmentally friendly agricultural practices have started to occur in this area, a lot more
timber harvesting is occurring in both North Carolina and Virginia. Since the Dan River flows
back and forth across the state line, timber harvesting practices in one state ultimately affects the
water quality in the other. Development of single family homes have increased in this area as
well. Sediment and erosion controls are generally lacking on these smaller size lots. The use of
ATV’s was also noted as an activity in this area that is likely contributing to the sediment load in
the small tributaries that flow into the Dan River. With a continued push to improve agricultural
and forestry BMPs in the area as well as better sediment and erosion control ordinances along the
Dan River, improvements should be achievable.

4.4 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.

4.4.1 Moon Creek [AU# 22-51]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Moon Creek, from source to Dan River (17.0 miles), is Supporting aquatic life due to a Good
fish community bioclassification at site NF24. The fish community was noted as very unstable,
which was likely related to the instream and riparian habitats and lingering effects from the 2002
drought. The land use is predominantly agriculture and like other streams in subbasins 02 - 04,
Moon Creek appeared to have been impacted by very substantial nonpoint source erosion
including sedimentation, a shifting sand substrate, bank “blowouts”, scour pools, and channel
Chapter 4 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04 45
and riparian bank instabilities. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Moon Creek. It
is recommended that local agencies work with landowners to install BMPs to improve the
riparian areas.

4.4.2 Rattlesnake Creek [AU# 22-52]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Rattlesnake Creek, from source to Dan River (0.8 miles), is Supporting aquatic life due to a
Good fish community bioclassification at site NF26. Rattlesnake Creek appeared to have been
impacted by very substantial nonpoint source erosion including sedimentation, bank “blowouts”,
deep scour pools, entrenchment, and channel and riparian bank instabilities. DWQ will continue
to monitor water quality in this segment of the river. It is recommended that local agencies work
with landowners to install BMPs to improve the riparian areas.

4.4.3 Cane Creek [AU# 22-54)]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Cane Creek, from the North Carolina-Virginia State Line to the Dan River (0.8 miles), is
Supporting aquatic life due to a Good fish community bioclassification at site NF21. The
majority of the creek’s watershed lies in southwestern Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The
monitoring site was located at the State line, approximately 0.8 miles above its mouth. Like
other streams in the area, the banks are sloughing, the substrate is sand, and a large quantity of
sediment is transported during high flow events. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in
Cane Creek. It is recommended that local agencies in North Carolina and Virginia work with
landowners to install BMPs to improve the riparian areas.

4.4.4 Country Line Creek [AU# 22-56-(3.7)]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Country Line Creek, from dam at Farmer Lake to the Dan River (24.5 miles), is Supporting
aquatic life for a Good benthic community bioclassification at site NB40. At this site, there were
indications of deeply incised banks and signs of moderate erosion; the channel was filled with
sediment and sand bar development was noted. Habitat deficiencies included sandy substrate,
marginal instream habitat, bank vegetation, canopy and insufficient pools and riffles. It is
recommended that local agencies work with landowners to install BMPs to improve the riparian
area along Country Line Creek.

4.4.5 Country Line Creek (Farmer Lake) [AU# 22-56-(3.5)]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Farmer Lake (Country Line Creek), from a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth of Nats Fork to the
dam at Farmer Lake (Town of Yanceyville water supply intake located 1.8 mile upstream of
N.C. Hwy. 62) (361.8 acres), is Not Rated for aquatic life. Farmer Lake was monitored at sites
NL7, NL8 and NL9.in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004. Moderate nutrient and chlorophyll a levels
were generally found each year, indicating biological productivity. Assessment of parameters
related to biological productivity indicated eutrophic conditions confirming biological
productivity. High dissolved oxygen saturation values were also noted, indicating algal activity.
46 Chapter 4 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04

Algal analyses of samples collected in August 2004 at the upper lake and in mid-lake indicated a
moderate to severe blue-green algal bloom at both stations. The algal bloom was composed
primarily of the blue-green algae Cylindrospermopsis. Some strains of this species have the
ability to produce toxins, but there are no reports in North Carolina of humans becoming ill from
blue-green toxins or evidence that this strain exhibited toxicity. Water clarity in this lake is
somewhat reduced due to sedimentation, especially at the most upstream station.

While surface water quality standards were not exceeded in more than 10 percent of the samples
taken on Farmer Lake, this lake is not being rated due to concerns related to the elevated
turbidity, low water clarity and elevated percent dissolved oxygen saturation. If resources are
available, further study of this lake will be conducted.

Water Quality Initiatives
The NCEEP is working with a landowner to place a conservation easement with 300 foot buffers
along 2,304 feet of two unnamed tributaries to Country Line Creek [22-56-(3.5)].
Chapter 4 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04 47

48 Chapter 4 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-04

Chapter 5
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05
Including: Hyco Creek, Hyco Lake, Marlowe Creek, Mayo Creek and Mayo Reservoir

5.1 Subbasin Overview
The entire Hyco River and Mayo Creek watershed
including reservoirs, largely make up this subbasin. Other
major tributaries include Storys Creek and Marlowe Creek.
All major streams flow generally northward into Virginia.
By the year 2020, populations throughout Caswell and
Person counties are expected to increase by 16 percent and
22 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
$230,976 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.

Seven individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits are
issued in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 26.0
MGD three are major dischargers. Four facilities are
required to conduct whole effluent toxicity testing, all of
which have been in compliance during this assessment
period. Refer to Appendix VI for identification and more
information on individual NPDES permit holders. Five
registered animal operations (1 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 NPDES discharges and
water quality monitoring stations is presented in Figure 9. Table 7 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.
Subbasin 03-02-05 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 337 mi2
Land area: 322 mi2
Water area: 15 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 28,648 people
Pop. Density: 85 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 71.9%
Surface Water: 4.5%
Urban: 1.3%
Cultivated Crop: 2.4%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 19.8%

Counties
Caswell, Person, Granville,
Alamance and Orange

Municipalities
Roxboro

Monitored Stream Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total Streams: 35.9 mi/7594.8 ac
Total Supporting:12.5 mi/493.6 ac
Total Impaired: 23.4 mi
Total Not Rated: 7101.2 ac

Recreation
Total Streams: 28.5 mi
Total Supporting: 24.0 mi
Total Not Rated: 4.5 mi

Chapter 5 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05 49
#*
XW
XW
XW#*
#*
XW
#*
#*
#*
#*
^
^
^
^
^
^^
^^^
^
^
^[
[[
[
[
[[
¡
¡¡
¡
¡
¡¡
"
"
"
p
p
p
p
p
o
o
o
o
o
NB40 PERSON
DAN RIVER
C o u n try Line Creek
PERSON
CASWELLHyco Cre e k
H y c o R i v e r
Marlowe Creek
Storys Creek
Mayo Reservoir
G hent Creek
South H yco Creek
Reedy Fork Creek
NC-86
ORANGE
PERSON
Aarons Creek
Cane
Creek
Rattlesnake
Creek
Mitchell
Creek
Mayo Creek
Roxboro
NC-49
N
C
-
5
7
US-158
NC-119
US-501
US-158
N C-49
NC-62
NC
-
86
N C-11 9
NA9
NA8
NA7
NL22
NL21
NL20
NL19
NL18
NL17
NL16
NL15
NL14
NL13
NL12
NL11
NL10
NF30
NF29
NF27
NB85
NB43
NA12
NA10
NF26
NF21
¬
Figure 9 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05
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 03-02-05SubbasinTable 7
Hyco Creek (North Hyco Creek)
22-58-1
From source to Hyco Lake, Hyco River
16.8 FW MilesC I SNA8 NCE
NF29 /2004P
NA8 NCE Habitat Degradation Agriculture
Habitat Degradation Impoundment
Hyco River
22-58-(9.5)
From dam of Hyco Lake to North Carolina-Virginia State
Line, including all portions in North Carolina
6.8 FW MilesC S SNA9 NCE NA11 NCE
NA9 NCE
Hyco River, including Hyco Lake below elevation 410
22-58-(0.5)
From source in Hyco Lake to dam of Hyco Lake, including
tributary arms below elevation 410
4,297.9 FW AcresWS-V,B NR NDNL16 ID
NL10 ID
NL15 ID
NL14 ID
Marlowe Creek
22-58-12-6a
From source to Mitchell Creek
6.6 FW MilesC I ND
NB85 /2004F
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
22-58-12-6b
From Mithcell Creek to Storys Creek
4.5 FW MilesC S NR*NA10 NCE
NB43 /2004GF
NF27 /2004GF
NA10 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Toxic Impacts WWTP NPDES
Mayo Creek (Maho Creek)
22-58-15-(3.5)
From dam of Mayo Reservoir to North Carolina-Virginia
State Line
0.5 FW MilesC S SNA12 NCE NA12 NCE
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-05Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:15 AMDRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-05SubbasinTable 7
Mayo Creek (Maho Creek) (Mayo Reservoir)
22-58-15-(0.5)
From source to dam of Mayo Reservoir
2,613.8 FW AcresWS-V NR NDNL22 ID
NL20 ID
NL21 ID
South Hyco Creek
22-58-4-(3)
From a point 0.6 mile downstream of Double Creek to Hyco
Lake, Hyco River (City of Roxboro water supply intake)
0.7 FW MilesWS-II;HQW,CA S ND
NF30 /2004G
South Hyco Creek (Lake Roxboro)
22-58-4-(1.4)
From backwaters of Lake Roxboro to dam at Lake Roxboro
493.6 FW AcresWS-II,B;HQW S NDNL13 NCE
NL12 NCE
NL11 NCE
Storys Creek [Roxboro City Lake (Lake Issac Walton)]
22-58-12-(1.5)
From a point 0.9 mile downstream of N.C. Hwy. 57 to
Roxboro City Lake Dam
189.5 FW AcresWS-II;HQW,CA NR NDNL19 ID
NL18 ID
NL17 ID
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-05Friday, 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 03-02-05SubbasinTable 7
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 12.5 FW Milesm
I 23.4 FW Milesm
S493.6FW Acresm
NR 7,101.2 FW Acresm
ND 147.7 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
24.0 FW MilesSm
4.5 FW MilesNR* m
155.1 FW MilesND
7,594.8 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
183.6 FW MilesIe
7,594.8 FW AcresIe
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-05Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:16 AMDRAFT
Two benthic macroinvertebrate community samples, three fish community samples (Figure 9 and
Table 7) and one fish tissue sample were collected during this assessment period. Data were
collected from five ambient monitoring stations and four 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.

Waters in the following sections are identified by 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
AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates
that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.

5.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-02-05 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 35.9 stream miles (19.6 percent) and 7,594.8 freshwater acres (100 percent)
monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. Of these, 12.5 stream miles
(6.8 percent) and 493.6 freshwater acres (6.5 percent; Lake Roxboro) were supporting. There are
23.4 miles (12.8 percent) Impaired in this same category. Of the 28.5 steam miles (15.5 percent)
monitored in the recreation category, 24.0 miles (13.1 percent) were classified as supporting.
Refer to Table 7 for a summary of use support ratings for waters in subbasin 04-03-05.

5.3 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 is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII.

5.3.1 Hyco River (Hyco Lake) [AU# 22-58-(0.5)]

2001 Recommendations
DWQ, in cooperation with Carolina Power & Light Company, will continue to monitor Hyco
Lake and the permitted discharge to insure a continued decline in selenium concentrations.
DWQ will work closely with the Department of Health and Human Services to lift the advisory
when there is no longer a risk to human health from consumption of fish from Hyco Lake.
54 Chapter 5 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05

Current Status
Hyco River (Hyco Lake), from source in Hyco Lake to dam of Hyco Lake, including tributary
arms below elevation 410 (4,297.9 acres), is Not Rated for aquatic life due to insufficient number
of samples within the assessment period; however, data indicate a healthy aquatic system. Hyco
Lake was monitored by DWQ in June, July, and September of 2004 at sites NL10, NL14, NL15
and NL16. Low concentrations for most nutrient parameters and chlorophyll a were generally
found each month. Assessment of parameters related to biological productivity indicated
moderate biological productivity and mesotrophic conditions.

Progress Energy has conducted water quality sampling of Hyco Lake applicable to the basinwide
schedule and has published reports for this data (Progress Energy 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004).
Historical problems of selenium accumulation due to the power plant discharge were addressed
in 1990 with a conversion to a dry fly ash handling system. Work is underway to determine if
Progress Energy’s sampling meets the quality assurance objectives for use in 303(d) reporting.
If it does, that data will be used in the future to assist with use assessments on their reservoirs.

This same segment is no longer Impaired in the fish consumption category for selenium,
although it is still Impaired for fish consumption on an evaluated basis due to the NC Department
of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) fish consumption advice for mercury that
encompasses the entire Roanoke basin (see section 13.4). NCDHHS rescinded the selenium
advisory in August 2001. The advisory, enacted by the State Health Director in 1988, had
advised the public to limit consumption of fish from the lake due to elevated selenium levels.
The advisory was partially rescinded in 1994 to include only carp, white catfish and green
sunfish and was further modified in 1999 to include only carp. The order to remove the advisory
followed several years of fish tissue sampling. The tests showed that the average selenium levels
for carp and other fish were safe. Visit the NCDHHS website for more information at
www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish.

In addition, three largemouth bass samples were collected from Hyco Reservoir during 2004 and
analyzed for pesticide and polychloratinated biphenyls (PCB) contaminants at site NT1. The
samples were collected as part of an ongoing statewide organics assessment. Two bass samples
contained trace amounts of dichlordiphenylethylene (DDE), a DDT metabolite, but
concentrations were well below US EPA, US FDA, and State of North Carolina criteria. PCB
contaminants were not detected in any samples.

2006 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Hyco Lake for lakes assessment and fish tissue. Hyco Lake will
be removed from the 303(d) list for selenium.

Water Quality Initiatives
The NCEEP is working with a landowner to place a conservation easement with 300 foot buffers
along 12,333 feet of unnamed tributaries to Hyco River (22-58-(0.5)).

Chapter 5 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05 55
5.3.2 Hyco Creek (North Hyco Creek) [AU # 22-58-1]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Hyco Creek (North Hyco Creek), from source to Hyco Lake, Hyco River (16.8 miles), is
Impaired for aquatic life due to a Poor fish community bioclassification at site NF29. This site
received the lowest score of any stream in the basin in 2004. The watershed drains an area of
rural southeastern and eastern Caswell County. It was recommended that this creek and others
within it’s watershed be resampled to verify the 2004 results and to identify, if possible, the
factors causing the low fish community rating. However, due to drought conditions in 2005 and
2006 a re-evaluation could not be done. DWQ will reassess this watershed during the next
basinwide assessment period.

This section of Hyco Creek will be added to the 2008 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

This same section of Hyco Creek is Supporting in the recreation category due to no criteria
exceeded at site NA8.

DWQ conducted a trends and annual load analysis on data collected from 1990 to 2004 at site
NA8. 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 showed that average TN and TP concentrations peaked in July
and decreased to a low in October. TSS and turbidity both exhibited increased levels in February
and July. Water temperature followed a seasonal cycle, peaking in July. Results indicated a
statistically significant negative trend in flow-adjusted TN. There were no other significant
trends at the 95 percent confidence level.

5.3.3 Marlowe Creek [AU # 22-58-12-6a & b]

2001 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to work with the Town of Roxboro’s WWTP and Cogentrix to correct
remaining problems at these facilities and Roxboro’s collection system. However, it is possible
that aquatic life will remain impaired because of significant habitat degradation in the stream.
The Town of Roxboro should begin to install urban stormwater controls and best management
practices to prevent further degradation by runoff from urban areas and construction sites. DWQ
will continue to monitor the stream and work with local NPS agencies to restore water quality.

Current Status
Marlowe Creek [22-58-12-6a], from source to Mitchell Creek (6.6 miles) is Impaired for aquatic
life due to a Fair benthic community bioclassification at site NB85. Upgrades were made to the
Roxboro WWTP in 2003, and more intensive sampling of Marlowe Creek was conducted to
determine if improvements at the facility resulted in improvements in the benthic community.
An upstream site was located at SR 1351, site NB85, above the WWTP, (approximately 300
meters) to compare to results at the basin site (NB43) at SR 1322 (approximately 3 miles
downstream of the facility). Due to the fact that the headwaters of Marlowe Creek originate in
the center of Roxboro, any benthic community improvements may be masked by urbanized
impacts following the upgrades at the Roxboro WWTP. While urban effects are evident at the
upstream location, downstream the cumulative effect of the influences of Roxboro and the
56 Chapter 5 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05

WWTP may be difficult to separate. However, during this assessment period, Roxboro did
frequently experience sewer system collection overflows. This segment [22-58-12-6a] will
remain on the 2008 303(d) list of Impaired waters for Impaired Biological Integrity.

Marlowe Creek [22-58-12-6b], from Mitchell Creek to Storys Creek (4.5 miles) is Supporting
aquatic life due to Good-Fair fish and benthic community bioclassifications at sites NF27 and
NB43. This site showed water quality improvement from the 2001 basin plan. Previously this
site received a Fair benthic bioclassification. Several impacts were noted during benthic
sampling, such as eroding banks, marginal instream habitat, which includes undercut banks and
exposed root mats, few pools, and unproductive riffles. Riparian areas were intact and bank
vegetation was generally healthy. Cogentrix-Roxboro completed a Special Order of Consent for
rectifying toxicity issues in 2003 and have been in compliance. This segment [22-58-12-6b] will
be removed from the 303(d) list.

Marlowe Creek [22-58-12-6b], from Mitchell Creek to Storys Creek (4.5 miles) is Not Rated for
recreation due to bacteria screening criteria exceeded at site NA10. Further assessment of the
standard was not conducted due to lack of resources.

2006 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Marlowe Creek. It is recommended that Roxboro work towards
implementing a stormwater program.

Water Quality Initiative
The city of Roxboro received a State Emergency Loan (SEL) from the DWQ Construction,
Grants and Loans Section in 2001. The purpose of the project is for sewer rehabilitation in
replacing sewer pipes.

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. Nonpoint
source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VIII.

5.4.1 Mayo Creek (Maho Creek) [AU # 22-58-15-(3.5)]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Mayo Creek, from dam of Mayo Reservoir to North Carolina-Virginia State Line (0.5 miles) is
Supporting aquatic life and recreation due to no criteria exceeded at site NA12.

DWQ conducted a trends and annual load analysis on data collected from 1990 to 2004 at site
NA12. 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
Chapter 5 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05 57
suspended solids (TSS). Results showed that the distributions of TN and TP did not show a high
degree of seasonality. Average TSS concentrations were generally lower in summer months and
peak in March. Average turbidity peaked in December. Water temperature followed the
standard seasonal trend, with peak average temperature in August. There were no trends
significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

5.4.2 Mayo Creek (Mayo Reservoir) [AU #22-58-15-(0.5)]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Mayo Reservoir, from source to dam of Mayo Reservoir (2,613.8 acres), is Not Rated for aquatic
life due to the small number of samples taken during this assessment period. However, water
quality appears to be good and improving over previous years although the presence of Hydrilla
is a concern. DWQ sampled Mayo Reservoir in June, July and August 2004 from sites NL20,
NL21 and NL22. Water quality sampling indicated low to moderate nutrient and chlorophyll a
concentrations. Assessment of parameters related to biological productivity confirmed moderate
biological productivity with a mesotrophic status. Mayo Reservoir has generally rated as
oligotrophic (low biological productivity) in historical sampling. Water clarity was very good.
The aquatic weed Hydrilla was observed in the lake, especially in the cove areas, but not yet at
problematic conditions. No aquatic weed control measures are currently in place. A Progress
Energy power plant is located near the dam at this lake and most of the shoreline was forested.

Progress Energy has conducted water quality sampling applicable to the basinwide schedule and
has published reports for this data (Progress Energy 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). In general,
concentrations of most variables were highest near the power plant ash pond discharge and
decreased rapidly with distance away from the discharge. All trace element concentrations were
below the state water quality standards except for arsenic values near the ash pond discharge in
2000, 2002 and 2003. Selenium concentrations in fish tissues were also higher at the station near
the ash pond discharge. Arsenic concentrations in fish tissue decreased from 2000 through 2003,
with no significant concentrations found in 2003. The fish community composition was
determined to be typical of a southeastern reservoir from 2000 through 2003. Work is underway
to determine if Progress Energy’s sampling meets the quality assurance objectives for use in
303(d) reporting. If it does, that data will be used in the future to assist with use assessments on
their reservoirs.

5.4.3 Storys Creek (Roxboro City Lake) (Lake Isaac Walton) [AU # 22-58-12-(1.5)]

Current Status
Roxboro City Lake (Lake Issac Walton), from a point 0.9 mile downstream of N.C. Hwy. 57 to
Roxboro City Lake Dam (189.5 acres), is Not Rated for aquatic life because of insufficient
number of samples taken during this assessment period. DWQ monitored Roxboro City Lake at
sites NL17, NL18 and NL19 in June, July, August and September of 2004. Moderate nutrient
and chlorophyll a concentrations were generally found in the lake each month. Assessment of
parameters related to biological productivity indicated slightly eutrophic conditions.

58 Chapter 5 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05

5.4.4 South Hyco Creek (Lake Roxboro) [AU # 22-58-4-(1.4)]

Current Status
Lake Roxboro, from backwaters of Lake Roxboro to dam at Lake Roxboro (493.6 acres), is
Supporting aquatic life due to lakes assessments data from sites NL11, NL12 and NL13. DWQ
monitored Lake Roxboro in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004. This water quality monitoring
indicated moderate to elevated nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations. Some exceedances of
the state standard for chlorophyll a were found at this reservoir; however, in-lake averages were
never above the standard. Assessment of parameters related to biological productivity indicated
eutrophic conditions and high biological productivity. High dissolved oxygen saturation values
(9 percent) were also found confirming algal activity. Algal analyses of samples collected in the
summer of 2004 indicated moderate algal blooms all three months. These blooms were
composed of a diverse assemblage and included species associated with agricultural runoff and
species that may cause taste and odor problems in drinking water.

5.4.5 Hyco River [AU # 22-58-(9.5)]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Hyco River, from dam of Hyco Lake to North Carolina-Virginia State Line, including all
portions in North Carolina (6.8 miles) is Supporting aquatic life at site NA9 and recreation at
sites NA9 and NA11due to no criteria exceedances at these sites.

DWQ conducted a trends and annual load analysis on data collected from 1990 to 2004 at site
NA9. 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 the distributions of TN and TP concentrations
showed some seasonality, with both nutrients peaking in average concentration in November.
Average concentrations of TSS peak in January at a much higher concentration than for any
other month. The monthly distribution of turbidity indicated peak turbidity in March with a
gradual decline in turbidity until October when turbidity begins to increase. Water temperature
followed the standard seasonal trend, with peak average temperature in August. There were no
trends significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
Chapter 5 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05 59
60 Chapter 5 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-05

Chapter 6
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06
Including: Little Island Creek, Nutbush Creek and J.H. Kerr Reservoir

6.1 Subbasin Overview
This subbasin contains many small to medium-sized
headwater tributaries of John H. Kerr Reservoir. Granville
County has the highest estimated population growth in the
Roanoke River basin at 29 percent by the year 2020.
Population increases of 22 percent, 16 percent and 17
percent are projected for Person, Vance and Warren
counties, respectively. For more information regarding
population growth and trends, refer to Appendix I.

Three individual NPDES discharge permits are issued in
this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 6 MGD. The
largest is Henderson Water Reclamation Facility (WRF).
Refer to Appendix VI for identification and more
information on individual NPDES permit holders. Two
registered swine operations are located in this subbasin.
Refer to Chapter 16 for more information regarding animal
operations within this basin.

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
$881,669 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.

A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and
water quality monitoring stations is presented in Figure 10.
Table 8 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.
Subbasin 03-02-06 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 329 mi2
Land area: 295 mi2
Water area: 34 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 38,992 people
Pop. Density: 119 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 75%
Surface Water: 6.4%
Urban: 1.1%
Cultivated Crop: 8.6%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 9%

Counties
Person, Granville, Vance and
Warren

Municipalities
Stovall and Henderson

Monitored Stream Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total Streams: 61.8 mi/9690.1 ac
Total Supporting: 20.4 mi
Total Impaired: 13.4 mi
Total Not Rated:28.0 mi/9690.1 ac

Recreation
Total Streams: 1.6 mi
Total Supporting: 1.6 mi

Five benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and four fish community samples (Figure 10
and Table 8) were collected during this assessment period. Data were collected from one
ambient monitoring station and one fish tissue site. Refer to the 2005 Roanoke River Basinwide
Chapter 6 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06 61
XW
#*
#*
#*
^
^
^
^[
[
[
[
[
¡
¡
¡
¡
¡
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
po
Mayo Reservoir
PERSON
Aarons Creek
Johnson Creek
G r a s s y C r e e k
Little Grassy Creek
Isla n d C re e k
L
i
t
t
l
e

I
s
l
a
n
d

C
r
e
e
k
Nutbush Creek Arm of
John H.Kerr Reservoir
Newmans Creek
Smith Creek
Nutbush
Creek
Moutain Creek
WA
RREN
Fla t C r e e k
Henderson
Stovall
Middleburg
GRANVILLE
VANCE
N
C-9
6
US-15
NC-39
NB88
NL26
NL25
NL24
NL23
NF38
NF37
NF36
NF31
NB87
NB86
NB49
NB48
NB45
NA13
¬
Figure 10 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06
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 03-02-06SubbasinTable 8
Aarons Creek
22-59
From source to North Carolina-Virginia State Line
8.6 FW MilesC S ND
NF31 /2004G
Grassy Creek (Grass Creek)
23-2-(1)
From source to John H. Kerr Reservoir at Granville County
SR 1431
18.3 FW MilesC NR ND
NB86 /2004NR
Island Creek (Island Creek Reservoir)
23-4
From source to North Carolina-Virginia State Line,
including that portion of Island Creek Reservoir in North
Carolina below normal operating elevation
6.4 FW MilesC S ND
NB45 /2004GF
Habitat Degradation Agriculture
Habitat Degradation Land Clearing
Johnson Creek
23-2-7-(1)
From source to Little Johnson Creek
5.3 FW MilesC S ND
NF36 /2004GF
Habitat Degradation Impoundment
Little Island Creek (Vance County)
23-4-3
From source to Island Creek Reservoir, Island Creek
11.8 FW MilesC I ND
NF37 /2004P
Toxic Impacts Land Clearing
Habitat Degradation Impoundment
Mountain Creek
23-2-3
From source to Grassy Creek
8.1 FW MilesC NR ND
NB87 /2004NR
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-06Friday, 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 03-02-06SubbasinTable 8
Nutbush Creek (Including Nutbush Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir below normal pool elevation)
23-8-(1)a
From source to NC 39
1.7 FW MilesC NR ND
NB48 /2004NR
23-8-(1)b
From NC 39 to SR 1317
1.6 FW MilesC I SNA13 NCE
NB49 /2004F
NF38 /2004F
NA13 NCE
Nutbush Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir (below normal pool elevation 300 feet MSL or as this elevation may be adjusted by the Corps of Engineers)
23-8-(2)
From Crooked Run to North Carolina-Virginia State Line
9,690.1 FW AcresB NR NDNL25 ID
NL24 ID
NL23 ID
NL26 ID
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-06Friday, 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 03-02-06SubbasinTable 8
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 20.4 FW Milesm
NR 28.0 FW Milesm
I 13.4 FW Milesm
NR 9,690.1 FW Acresm
ND 121.6 FW Miles
ND 731.0 FW Acres
Recreation Rating Summary
1.6 FW MilesSm
181.8 FW MilesND
10,421.1 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
183.4 FW MilesIe
10,421.1 FW AcresIe
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-06Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:16 AMDRAFT
Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Appendix IV for more information on
monitoring.

Waters in the following sections are identified by 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
AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates
that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.

6.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-02-06 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 61.8 stream miles (33.7 percent) and 9,690 freshwater acres (93 percent) monitored
during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. Of these, 13.4 stream miles (7.3
percent) are Impaired. In the recreation category 1.6 stream miles (0.9 percent) were monitored,
these are classified as Supporting. Refer to Table 8 for a summary of use support ratings by
category for waters in the subbasin 03-02-06.

6.3 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 is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII.

6.3.1 Nutbush Creek (AU#23-8-(1)a & b)

2001 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to work with the Town of Henderson’s WWTP to correct remaining
problems from their discharge and collection system. However, it is likely that aquatic life will
remain impaired because of habitat degradation in the stream. Urban stormwater issues need to
be addressed by the Town of Henderson. Best management practices to prevent further
degradation by runoff from urban areas and construction sites should be installed. DWQ will
continue to monitor the stream and work with local agencies to restore water quality.

66 Chapter 6– Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06

Current Status
Nutbush Creek [AU#23-8-(1)a], from source to NC39 (1.7 miles), is Not Rated for aquatic life
due to a Not Rated benthic community bioclassification at site NB48. The stream could not be
rated because it is too small and does not fit the criteria to assign a bioclassification. The benthic
community is degraded however, and urban influences are of concern since the stream’s origin is
in Henderson making it difficult to sustain colonization of benthic communities. A lack of flow
and low dissolved oxygen were also observed.

Nutbush Creek [AU#23-8-(1)b], from NC 39 to SR1317 (1.6 miles), is Impaired for aquatic life
based on a fair fish and benthic community bioclassifications at concurrent sites NF38 and
NB49. It is Supporting recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria was not
exceeded at site NA13 (also concurrent with sites NF38 and NB49). Sites NB49 and NF38 were
sampled approximately 1.3 miles below the Henderson WRF. The specific conductance at NF38
was elevated at 467 µmhos/cm in April 2004, and was the highest of any fish community sites in
the basin. During the benthic community sampling at NB49 in June 2004, the conductivity was
501 μmhos/cm; in the summer of 1999 the conductivity was 601 μmhos/cm. Likewise, the 50th
percentile of specific conductance at site NA13 was 423 μmhos/cm. Heavy filamentous algal
growths were present on the bedrock in the lower reaches. The habitat reflected an abundance of
sand, few riffles (the single riffle was bedrock), few pools, modest instream habitat (roots were
abundant, however), and severely eroding, sparsely vegetated banks. The flow was moderate
and the water was slightly turbid at the time of sampling. An elevated pH of 8.0 s.u. could also
be traced to the WWTP, as the addition of lime is a component of the treatment process. Unlike
other streams in this subbasin that may have reduced flow during dry periods, this stream keeps
flowing because of the upstream discharge.

2006 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Nutbush Creek. DWQ is working to develop biocriteria for
assigning bioclassifications to streams with watersheds that are less than 3 square miles.
Nutbush Creek [AU#23-8-(1)b], will remain on the 303(d) list.

6.3.2 Little Island Creek [AU# 23-4-3]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Little Island Creek, from source to Island Creek, Island Creek Reservoir (11.8 miles), is Impaired
for aquatic life based on a Poor fish community bioclassification at site NF37. The fish
community species diversity was low and habitat score was also low. This site and the lower
part of the adjacent Island Creek watershed encompass the defunct Tungsten Queen Mine, an
inactive hazardous site (NCDENR’s Division of Waste Management, NCD082362989). The
mine ceased operations in 1971 but at one time was one of the largest tungsten mines in the
country. The tailings (sands) in Little Island Creek appeared to be similar to those at the
tungsten mine and may have similar contaminant metals of concern including lead, arsenic,
antimony, cadmium and zinc. Currently, the area including the tailings (sands) is under a
remedial action by the Inactive Hazardous Site Branch of Superfund (Keith Snavley, DWM,
pers. com., February 14, 2005). Like other streams in this subbasin, it is probable that the flow
in this stream becomes very reduced during dry periods. Recolonization of the fish community
from downstream sources is hindered by the barrier of the backwaters of Island Creek Reservoir.
Chapter 6 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06 67
These three factors -- flow, recolonization sources, and potential impacts from the abandoned
tailings – may all play a role in the fish community.

It was recommended that this creek be resampled to verify the 2004 results and to identify, if
possible, the factors causing the low fish community rating. However, due to drought conditions
in 2005 and 2006 a re-evaluation could not be done. DWQ will reassess this watershed during
the next basinwide assessment period. Little Island Creek will be added to the 303(d) list of
Impaired waters.

6.4 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.

6.4.1 Island Creek [AU# 23-4]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Island Creek, from source to North Carolina-Virginia State Line, including that portion of Island
Creek Reservoir in North Carolina below normal operating elevation (6.4 miles), is Supporting
aquatic life based on a Good-Fair benthic community bioclassification at site NB45. Riparian
areas were intact (though narrow on the right bank), instream habitat included a variety of types,
and the substrate was a good mix of gravel, cobble, and boulders. However, riffles were
infrequent and moderately embedded and pools were infrequent. Banks were severely eroded
with sparse vegetation, the channel appeared filled in with sediment in places, and the stream
was only partially shaded. The land use is predominantly agriculture and it is recommended that
local agencies work with landowners to install BMPs to improve riparian zones and the overall
water quality in Island Creek.

6.4.2 Nutbush Creek Arm of J.H. Kerr Reservoir (below normal pool elevation 300 feet
MSL or as this elevation may be adjusted by the Corps of Engineers)
[AU# 23-8-(2)]

Current Status
Arm of J.H. Kerr Reservoir (Nutbush Creek), from Crooked Run to North Carolina-Virginia
State Line (9,690.1 acres), is Not Rated due to insufficient samples taken from sites NL23,
NL24, NL25 and NL26. DWQ monitored Nutbush Arm of Kerr Reservoir in June, July, and
August of 2004. Moderate nutrient and chlorophyll a levels were found. Assessment of
parameters related to biological productivity indicated moderate biological productivity and
mesotrophic status. The reservoir has historically rated either mesotrophic or slightly eutrophic
(biologically productive) in historical water quality sampling. Some high dissolved oxygen
68 Chapter 6– Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06

saturation values were found in 2004 indicating algal activity, although no visible algal blooms
or chlorophyll a water quality standards violations were found.

One largemouth bass and two golden redhorse sucker samples were collected from the Nutbush
Creek arm of Kerr Lake during 2003 and analyzed for pesticide and PCB contaminants. The
samples were collected as part of an ongoing statewide organics assessment. All samples
contained trace amounts of DDE, a DDT metabolite, but concentrations were well below US
EPA, US FDA, and State of North Carolina criteria. The golden redhorse sucker samples also
contained trace amounts of chlordane and tetrabromodiphenyl ether (a PCB-like contaminant)
however, the concentrations were below any level of concern.

6.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-06

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.

6.5.1 Significant Ecological Indicator

Aarons Creek (AU# 22-59)
Aarons Creek, from source to North Carolina-Virginia State Line is Supporting aquatic life due
to a Good fish community bioclassification at site NF31. From the confluence of Crooked Fork
(just upstream of NC 96) to the NC/VA state line, is considered to be an Aquatic Habitat Site of
regional significance because of the presence of four species of rare freshwater mussels in the
creek (Sarah McRae, Natural Heritage Program, pers. com. February 15, 2005). At this crossing,
the instream, riparian, and watershed characteristics are of high quality and qualified the site as a
new fish community regional reference site. It is possible that the flow in this stream becomes
very reduced during dry periods and this may have caused the lower than expected fish
community score and bioclassification.

Chapter 6 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06 69

70 Chapter 6– Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-06

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

Chapter 8
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08
Including: Roanoke Rapids Lake, Roanoke River, Chockoyotte Creek, Quankey Creek,
Conoconnara Swamp, Occoneechee Creek and Kehukee Swamp

8.1 Subbasin Overview
This subbasin contains the largest intact and least-
disturbed bottomland hardwood forest floodplain in the
mid-Atlantic region and encompasses subbasins
Subbasin 03-02-08 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 513 mi2
Land area: 473 mi2
Water area: 40 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 30,274 people
Pop. Density: 59 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 65.2%
Surface Water: 2.8%
Urban: 1.5%
Cultivated Crop: 28.4%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 2.0%

Counties
Halifax, Northampton, Martin and
Bertie

Municipalities
Roanoke Rapids, Gaston, Weldon,
Garysburg, Halifax, Jackson,
Scotland Neck, Rich Square,
Roxobel, Lewiston Woodville

Monitored Stream Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total Streams: 152.6 mi/4185.0 ac
Total Supporting: 152.6 mi
Total Not Rated: 4185.0 ac

Recreation
Total Streams: 76.6 mi
Total Not Rated: 76.6 mi
03-02-09 and 03-02-10. The lower Roanoke River is one
of five major brownwater ecosystems in the Southeast.
By the year 2020, population in Halifax, Northampton
and Martin counties are expected to increase by 3, 6 and
0.6 percent respectively. Bertie County is estimated to
experience an 8 percent decrease in population by 2020.
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 BMPs,
is one of these programs. The NCACSP provided
$472,693 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
recommendations 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 41.9
MGD; three are major dischargers. Seven facilities are
required to conduct whole effluent toxicity testing. Five
individual stormwater permits are issued in this subbasin.
Refer to Appendix VI for identification and more
information on individual NPDES permit holders.
Sixteen registered animal operations (4 cattle, 1 poultry
and 11 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 NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 13. Table 10 contains a summary of assessment units and lengths, streams
monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results,
Chapter 8 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 79
XWXWXW
#*
XW
#*
#*XW
#*#*
XW
#*
#*
#*
^
^^^
[
[
¡
¡
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
p
p
p
p
p
o
o
o
o
o
Lake Gaston
Conocon nara Swamp
R O A N O K E R IVE R
R O A N O K E RIVE R
K
e
h
u
k
e
e

S
w
a
m
p
B rid g e r s C r e e k
Roanoke Rapids
Lake
Deep Creek
Quankey Creek
G
u
m
b
erry S
w
a
m
p
C
o
n
o
h
o Cre
ek
Indian Creek
Etheridge Swa
m
p
C
ashie River
HALIFAX
NORTH HAMPTON
S
a
n
d
y

R
u
n
Roanoke Rapids
Gaston
Weldon
Rich Square
Roxobel
Garysburg
Jackson
Hobgood
Kelford
Lewiston-
Woodville
Scotland
Neck
Halifax
HALIFAX
NORTHAMPTON
I-95
N C -4 8
NC-46
NC
-
3
0
8
N C-5 6 1
NC-903
NC-1 86
US-301
U S-2 5 8
US-158
US-301
NC-305
US-301
NC-903
US-158
U S-15 8
N
C-561
NL32NL31NL30
NF45 NF43
NB92
NB91
NB59
NB55
NB54
NB53
NA24
NA23
NA17
NA16
NA15
NL29
¬
Figure 13 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08
Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 30, 2006
0 4 8 12 162
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 03-02-08SubbasinTable 10
Chockoyotte Creek
23-29
From source to Roanoke River
10.6 FW MilesC S ND
NB91 /2004M
NF43 /2004NR
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
Habitat Degradation Impoundment
Habitat Degradation Land Clearing
Conoconnara Swamp
23-33
From source to Roanoke River
17.7 FW MilesC S ND
NB53 /2004M
Deep Creek
23-24-(1)
From source to a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth
11.6 FW MilesWS-IV S ND
NB54 /2004N
NF45 /2004G
Kehukee Swamp (White Millpond)
23-42
From source to Roanoke River
10.6 FW MilesC S ND
NB55 /2004M
Little Quankey Creek
23-30-1
From source to Quankey Creek
9.5 FW MilesC S ND
NB92 /2004M
Quankey Creek
23-30a
From source to Little Quankey Creek
16.0 FW MilesC S ND
NB59 /2004N
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-08Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:17 AMDRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-08SubbasinTable 10
ROANOKE RIVER
23-(25.5)
From a point 0.6 mile upstream of N.C. Hwy. 48 bridge to a
line across river 50 feet downstream of N.C. Hwy. 48 (City
of Roanoke Rapids, Town of Weldon water supply intakes)
1.7 FW MilesWS-IV;CA S SNA15 NCE NA15 NCE
23-(26)a
From a line across the river 50 ft downstream of NC Hwy
48 bridge to the confluence of Sandy Run Cr at the Bertie
50.1 FW MilesC S SNA16 NCE
NA23 NCE
NA16 NCE Total Suspended Solids Impoundment
Habitat Degradation Impoundment
23-(26)b1
From the confluence of Sandy Run Cr at the
Bertie/Northampton/Halifax Co. line to subbasin 8/9
boundary
24.8 FW MilesC S SNA17 NCE
NA24 NCE
NA17 NCE
ROANOKE RIVER (Lake Gaston below normal full power pool elevation 200 MSL and Roanoke Rapids Lake below normal full power pool elevation 132 feet MSL)
23-(22.5)
From a line across Lake Gaston 0.5 mile upstream of Lake
Gaston Dam to Roanoke Rapids Dam
4,185.0 FW AcresWS-IV,B;CA NR NDNL30 ID
NL31 ID
NL32 ID
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-08Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:17 AMDRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-08SubbasinTable 10
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 152.6 FW Milesm
NR 4,185.0 FW Acresm
NR 11.2 FW Milese
ND 142.7 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
76.6 FW MilesSm
3.4 FW MilesNR e
226.4 FW MilesND
4,185.0 FW AcresND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
306.4 FW MilesIe
4,185.0 FW AcresIe
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-08Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:17 AMDRAFT
along with use support ratings for waters in this subbasin. Refer to Appendix IX for more
information about use support ratings.

Benthic biocriteria for swamp streams have been developed since the previous basin plan (2001).
Where appropriate, those criteria have been applied to sites that were previously Not Rated
(Deep Creek, Quankey Creek, Conoconnara Swamp and Kehukee Swamp). Six benthic
macroinvertebrate community samples, two fish community samples (Figure 13 and Table 10)
and one fish tissue sample were collected during this assessment period. Data were collected
from three ambient monitoring stations 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.

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
AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates
that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.

8.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-02-08 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 152.6 stream miles (50 percent) and 4,185 freshwater acres (100 percent) monitored
during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. Of these, all 152.6 stream miles (50
percent) were Supporting. In the recreation category, all of the 76.6 monitored stream miles (25
percent) were Supporting. Refer to Table 10 for a summary of use support ratings for waters in
subbasin 03-02-08.

8.3 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 is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII.

84 Chapter 8– Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08

8.3.1 Roanoke Rapids Lake (Roanoke River) [AU# 23-(22.5)]

2001 Recommendations
DWQ will work the Roanoke Rapids Lake Management Council and DWR to reduce aquatic
weeds. Water quality could also benefit from nutrient reduction in this lake. Additionally, a
public education campaign is recommended so that introduction of additional aquatic
macrophytes from boats that have been in other waters is minimized.

Current Status
Roanoke Rapids Lake, from a line across Lake Gaston 0.5 mile upstream of Lake Gaston Dam to
Roanoke Rapids Dam (4,768.0 acres), is Not Rated for aquatic life due to insufficient number of
samples taken at sites NL30, NL31 and NL32. Roanoke Rapids Lake was monitored by DWQ in
June, July and August of 2004. Low nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations found indicated
low biological productivity with respect to algal activity. Assessment of parameters related to
biological productivity indicated this low biological productivity with slightly oligotrophic
conditions. Water clarity was generally good. Large areas of invasive aquatic weeds were
observed in 2004, primarily in the center of the lake. These weeds were Hydrilla sp., Brazilian
Elodea (Egeria densa) and Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.). No aquatic weed
control measures have been conducted at this reservoir due to economic reasons (Rob Emens,
N.C. Division of Water Resources, personal communication).

Roanoke Rapids Lake is on the 303(d) list for impaired aquatic life due to aquatic weeds. A
draft management strategy plan for aquatic weeds has been developed for Roanoke Rapids Lake
and five other lakes and has been sent to EPA for approval.

Two largemouth bass and two common carp samples were collected from Roanoke Rapids Lake
at site NT3 during 2003 and analyzed for pesticide and PCB contaminants. The samples were
collected as part of an ongoing statewide organics assessment. Both carp and one bass sample
contained trace amounts of DDE, a DDT metabolite, but concentrations were well below EPA,
FDA, and State of North Carolina criteria. PCB contaminants were not detected in any samples.

2006 Recommendations
The draft aquatic weeds management strategy plan recommends development of an
implementation plan since aquatic weed control is an ongoing concern that requires long-term
commitment. The plan should focus on regular evaluations of the control measures and allow for
modification as conditions change. Integration of control measures and modification should be
sought through evaluating program effectiveness, organizing public outreach for a noxious and
invasive weed prevention program and developing funding strategies. Roanoke Rapids Lake
will be moved to a lower priority category, removing it from the 303(d) list, pending approval of
the draft management strategy plan by the EPA. DWQ will continue to monitor Roanoke Rapids
Lake.

8.3.2 Quankey Creek [AU #23-30a & b]

2001 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to work with the Town of Halifax to resolve problems with the WWTP
discharge. The town received a grant in March 2000 to begin addressing the most critical
Chapter 8 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 85
maintenance problems at the facility. More funding is needed to complete collection system
rehabilitation and construction of new sewer lines to eliminate failing septic systems in the Town
of Halifax.

Additionally, DWQ will continue to monitor Quankey Creek and, as resources allow, sample
Little Quankey Creek during the next basinwide cycle to assess its contribution to degraded
water quality in this watershed.

Current Status
Quankey Creek [AU# 23-30a], from source to Little Quankey Creek is Supporting aquatic life
based on a Natural benthic community bioclassification at site NB59. Quankey Creek [AU 23-
30b], from Little Quankey Creek to Roanoke River is No Data because it was not resampled in
2004. This segment of Quankey Creek will remain on the 303(d) list for impaired biological
integrity.

2006 Recommendations
DWQ will resample Quankey Creek in the next basinwide assessment. The Town of Halifax
WWTP has chronic problems with exceeding their discharge limits for BOD, DO and fecal
coliform bacteria. There have been numerous NOV’s and civil penalties levied against the
WWTP. The Town was granted an SOC to relax their BOD limits in March 2006. The Town
paid an upfront SOC penalty of $16,166. The SOC requires the Town of Halifax to complete
construction and eliminate discharge by tying into the Town of Weldon’s WWTP by April 2007.

8.4 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.

8.4.1 Bridgers Creek [AU #23-34]

Current Status and Recommendation
Bridgers Creek, from source to Roanoke River (7.8 miles) is Not Rated on an Evaluated basis for
aquatic life. The Rich Square WWTP is currently completing construction for a land application
discharge system. In early 2004, DWQ Regional Office staff discovered an illegal bypass from
their spray irrigation lagoon. DWQ is working with Rich Square to get them under a SOC that
will provide for a schedule for a properly engineered removal of the bypass. In June 2004, Rich
Square had received a Clean Water Bond grant for sewer rehabilitation including inflow and
infiltration for the spray irrigation system but not for the bypass. DWQ will continue to work
with Rich Square.

86 Chapter 8– Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08

8.4.2 Chockoyotte Creek [AU #23-29]

Current Status
Chockoyotte Creek, from source to Roanoke River (10.6 miles) is Supporting aquatic life due to
a Moderate Stress benthic community bioclassification at site NB91. The habitat was severely
impacted at this site. Sedimentation, bank erosion, partial shading, inadequate riparian zones and
an absence of instream habitat were all noted. It appeared that the stream had once been
dammed at the sampling location and there were remains of large concrete blocks and rocks.
Although Chockoyotte Creek received a Moderate Stress bioclassification, it has a highly
degraded habitat due to urban impacts from the cities of Roanoke Rapids and Weldon. The
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District relocated their discharge pipe from Chockoyotte Creek to the
Roanoke River in winter 2004/2005 and received new permit limits. Chockoyotte Creek was not
rated in the fish community bioclassification due to questions regarding the applicability of the
Piedmont or Coastal Plain regional criteria at site NF43. The overall community was abundant,
diverse (19 species including 5 species of sunfish) and the species were well represented by
multiple age groups. Multiple species were found from both regional criteria. The American eel
and the redbreast sunfish represented the most abundant species making up 74 percent of all the
fish collected. This is the only site where the American eel was collected. This is likely the case
because of the numerous dams on the Roanoke River impeding upstream migrations and the
colonization of historical habitats.

2006 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Chockoyotte Creek. The towns of Roanoke Rapids and Weldon
are encouraged to develop a stormwater program to address the severe habitat degradation from
lack of controlling stormwater runoff.

8.4.3 Conoconnara Swamp [AU # 23-33]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Conoconnara Swamp, from source to Roanoke River (17.7 miles), is Supporting aquatic life due
to a Moderate Stress benthic community bioclassification at site NB53. In comparing this 2004
sample to the previous 1999 sample, which would have received a Natural bioclassification, the
2004 data indicated a decline in the benthic community. A narrow riparian zone was noted on
the left bank and an open canopy slightly decreased the habitat score. The decline in the benthic
community could be a sign of increasing stress in the watershed and warrants future monitoring.

8.4.4 Kehukee Swamp (White Millpond) [AU # 23-42]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Kehukee Swamp, from source to Roanoke River (10.6 miles), is Supporting aquatic life due to a
Moderate Stress benthic bioclassification at site NB55. The benthic community resembled
mostly pollution-tolerant species. In addition, undercut banks and root mats were rare.
However, the riparian zone was wide and intact on both sides of the stream. DWQ will continue
to monitor Kehukee Swamp.

Chapter 8 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 87
8.4.5 Little Quankey Creek [AU # 23-30-1]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Little Quankey Creek, from source to Quankey Creek (9.5 miles), is Supporting aquatic life due
to a Moderate Stress benthic community bioclassification at site NB92. High erosion potential
and a narrow riparian zone were observed at this site. A slightly more pollution-tolerant benthic
community was collected, indicating signs of water quality stress. DWQ will continue to
monitor Little Quankey Creek.

8.4.6 Roanoke River [AU# 23-(26)a & 23-(26)b1]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations

Roanoke River [AU# 23-(26)a], from a line across the river 50 ft downstream of NC Hwy 48
bridge to the confluence of Sandy Run Creek at the Bertie/Northampton/Halifax Co. line (50.1
miles) (sites NA16 and NA 23) and Roanoke River [23-(26)b1], from the confluence of Sandy
Run Creek at the Bertie/Northampton/Halifax Co. line to subbasin 08/09 boundary (24.8 miles)
(sites NA17 and NA24), is Supporting aquatic life due to DWQ and USGS concurrent ambient
monitoring at these sites. During this assessment period no benthic or fish community sites were
sampled on the Roanoke River due to resource constraints and high flows. The two historic sites
(at Halifax and US 258) should be sampled in future basinwide assessments.

This section of the Roanoke River is also Supporting recreation because the fecal coliform
bacterial screening criteria was not exceeded at sites NA16 or NA17.

A 74-stream mile portion of the Roanoke River mainstem from Roanoke Rapids (at hwy NC-48)
to Hamilton (at the wildlife boat ramp) was modeled for a dissolved oxygen TMDL. A model
was used to determine the assimilative capacity of this section of the Roanoke River under
critical low flow/warm weather conditions. This water quality management tool allows DWQ to
develop allocations for oxygen consuming wastes and established an oxygen-consuming TMDL.
The USEPA approved the TMDL in November 1996. This section of the Roanoke includes just
above AU# 23-(26)a, 23-(26)b1 and part of 23-(26)b2 in subbasin 03-02-09.

It is noted that severe bank erosion is occurring on the Roanoke River. River flows are managed
for flood control by the US Army Corp of Engineers and for hydropower generation by private
industries. These managed flows are not similar to natural seasonal flow conditions and
subsequently extend the length of time flooding occurs on the floodplain and in backswamps. In
addition, frequent managed high flows at bankfull heights further accelerate river bank erosion.

The NC Department of Corrections, Caledonia WWTP was granted an SOC in October 2003 for
fecal coliform bacteria. They were required to have an upgrade to their system by March 31,
2005; however they continued to have fecal coliform violations. DWQ will continue to purse
corrections to these violations.

Water Quality Initiatives
The NCEEP purchased two tracts on the Roanoke River [23-(26)b1] in coordination with The
Nature Conservancy. This acquisition protects 25,718 feet on one side of the river, 23,572 feet of
88 Chapter 8– Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08

streams in the interior of the tracts and 523 acres of riverine cypress gum swamp and bottomland
hardwood wetlands. The two tracts lie approximately three miles apart, with the Roanoke River
Wetlands Game Lands situated between. With the exception of one mile of privately owned
land, this acquisition creates a 9-mile block of protected land along the north shore of this
segment of the Roanoke River.

8.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-08

The following section discusses water quality topics downstream from the major reservoirs; J.H.
Kerr, Gaston and Roanoke Rapids. The topics discussed may be related to water quality
protection primarily concerning flow fluctuations from upstream dam releases.

8.5.1 Primary Nursery Area

The Roanoke River, from the Roanoke Rapids Dam to US 258 is designated as a Primary
Nursery Area (PNA) by the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), per rules set forth in the
NC Administrative Code 15ANCAC 10C.0501. Inland PNAs “are defined as those areas
inhabited by the embryonic, larval or juvenile life stages of marine or estuarine fish or crustacean
species due to favorable physical, chemical or biological factors”. These rules are “to establish
and protect fragile inland waters which support embryonic, larval or juvenile populations of
marine or estuarine fish or crustacean species. Nursery areas are necessary for the early growth
and development of virtually all of North Carolina’s important marine or estuarine fish or
crustacean species. Nursery areas need to be maintained, as much as possible, in their natural
state, and the fish and crustacean populations within them must be permitted to develop in a
normal manner with as little interference from man as possible”. This designation is based
primarily upon evidence that this section of the Roanoke River, approximately 35 miles, is the
spawning reach for the Roanoke River/Albemarle Sound striped bass stock.

Because the continued health and reproduction of many aquatic species and wildlife is directly
linked to good water quality, the WRC goal of conservation, management and enhancement of
these species and habitats is key in protecting this valuable and complex ecosystem. WRC
frequently conducts research and survey projects in the Roanoke River basin to assure that
resource management decisions are based upon current data. The results of these projects
demonstrate the diversity of aquatic species within portions of the basin as well as the
importance of the Roanoke River as a spawning and nursery area to anadromous fish species.
Because of the significance of diadromous fishes throughout the entire river basin including
upper reaches extending into Virginia, a Diadromous Fish Restoration Technical Advisory
Committee (DFRTAC) was formed as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
relicensing project number 2009. This is a multi-agency, collaborative effort between the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, United States Geological
Survey, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, local universities, and Dominion Power. Initial efforts are focusing on restoration of
American eel and American shad in the upper portions of the Roanoke River basin, in which
historical migration paths have been blocked by dams in the lower portion of the river basin.
Projects have been conducted in subbasins 03-02-08, 03-02-09 and 03-02-10. These projects
included analysis of striped bass and American Shad spawning stock attributes and evaluations
Chapter 8 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 89
of American shad restoration techniques. For more information regarding these WRC studies
contact WRC, Division of Inland Fisheries.

8.5.2 US Army Corps of Engineers

The US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) owns and operates John H. Kerr Reservoir. The
project is located in Mecklenburg County, Virginia; 20.3 miles downstream from Clarksville,
Virginia and 18 miles upstream from the Virginia-North Carolina State line. The main purpose
of the reservoir is for reduction of flood damage, generation of hydroelectric power and low
water control for pollution abatement and conservation of fish and wildlife.

The flow regime from the dam is managed. How the flow is released has the potential to affect
water quality downstream. Carelessly managing a high flow release to a lower flow, especially
in hot weather, could have significant potential to reduce downstream dissolved oxygen. High
flow releases inundate the adjacent downstream back swamps. The surface of these areas is high
in organic material, which when decomposed by bacteria, will strip dissolved oxygen from the
downstream waters. As these swamps continue to flood, their slope is generally less, increasing
the time required for them to drain. New flood flow to these areas will then cover more land per
unit volume of water in contact with oxygen removing materials. The subsequent drainage of
these waters into the river can increase the risk of anoxic or hypoxic conditions downstream.

In a cooperative effort with state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, the ACOE Wilmington
District formed a water management group to discuss water quality conditions in the lower
Roanoke River. These regular discussions also include immediate weather forecasts, river and
reservoir conditions and forecast lake levels. This effort has been very useful in avoiding
potentially devastating fish kill events. A key resource tool in the decision making process has
been the water quality gage stations which are maintained by USGS. These water quality gage
stations provide real-time data of dissolved oxygen levels in the Roanoke River mainstream.

8.5.3 Dominion Power Generation

Dominion Power Generation owns and operates Lake Gaston and Dam and Roanoke Rapids
Lake and Dam for the purpose of hydropower generation. Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids
Lake are located directly downstream from John H. Kerr Reservoir. Per the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) license requirements, Dominion Power is to conduct water
quality monitoring for dissolved oxygen when the dissolved oxygen standard is not met at the
Roanoke Rapids Dam. Subsequent reporting of the standard violation and water quality data
results are required to be submitted to DWQ.

8.5.4 Conservation Tillage

Conservation tillage is a practice that has been implemented throughout the Roanoke River
Basin, with particular success in this subbasin. Conservation tillage practices produce
environmental benefits that may include reduced soil erosion, sedimentation, and pollution from
dissolved and sediment-attached substances.

90 Chapter 8– Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08

Through the NCACSP, there were three eligible practices that provided cost share assistance to
farmers utilizing conservation tillage: long-term no-till (5 year), conservation tillage (3 year) and
conservation tillage (1 year). The one-year contract was removed from the program in 2003.
According to the NCACSP, the three-year conservation tillage practice means any tillage and
planting system in which at least 60 percent of the at-plant soil surface is covered by plant
residue. The long-term no-till practice means planting all crops for five consecutive years with
at least 80 percent of the at-plant soil surface covered by plant residue from preceding crops.
The goal of implementing these practices is to improve water quality.

During this basinwide cycle, 1999-2004, the following conservation tillage BMPs were installed
in this subbasin through the NCACSP:

Practice Acres Enrolled Cost
Conservation Tillage (1 year) 166.68 acres $17,719
Conservation Tillage (3 years) 1,257.1 acres $158,674
Long-term No-Till (5 years) 547.4 acres $52,291

Chapter 8 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08 91
92 Chapter 8– Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08

Chapter 9
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09
Including: Roanoke River, Conoho Creek, Sweetwater Creek, Devils Gut, Hardison Mill
Creek and Welch Creek

9.1 Subbasin Overview
This subbasin contains a very expansive floodplain
ecosystem with many inlets and outlets. In addition, there is
a complex distributary system at the mouth of the Roanoke
River that may, during periods of low flow experience
saltwater intrusion and tidal effects that extend more than
halfway up the Roanoke River (Bales and others, 1993).
Over 55,000 acres of land are owned either by US Fish and
Wildlife Service, NC Wildlife Resources Commission or The
Nature Conservancy. The area is mostly rural, consisting
largely of forest and agricultural land. Martin County has an
estimated growth of 0.6 percent by the year 2020 and Bertie
County may decrease by 8 percent in population by 2020.
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
$431,084 towards implementing sediment and nutrient
reduction practices and animal waste management 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.

Eight individual NPDES discharge permits are issued in this
subbasin with a total permitted flow of 86 MGD, the largest
permitted flow in the basin. Three facilities are required to
conduct whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing. McMurray
Fabrics Inc. had significant noncompliance for WET testing
requirements in this assessment period. One individual
stormwater permit is issued in this subbasin. Refer to
Appendix VI for identification and more information on
individual NPDES permit holders. Six registered animal operations are located in this subbasin.
Refer to Chapter 16 for more information regarding animal operations within this basin.
Subbasin 03-02-09 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 559 mi2
Land area: 435 mi2
Water area: 124 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.:25,359 people
Pop. Density: 45 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 71.5%
Surface Water: 2.4%
Urban: 0.6%
Cultivated Crop: 24.8%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 0.8%

Counties
Halifax, Martin, Bertie,
Washington, Edgecombe and
Beaufort
Municipalities
Oak City, Hassell, Hamilton,
Williamston, Jamesville and
Plymouth
Monitored Stream Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total Streams: 116.4 mi
Total Supporting: 80.3 mi
Total Impaired: 17.8 mi
Total Not Rated: 18.3 ac
Recreation
Total Streams: 47.2 mi
Total Supported: 47.2 mi

A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 14. Table 11 contains a summary of assessment units and lengths, streams
Chapter 9 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09 93
XW #*
#*
XW
XW
#*
XW
XW
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
"
"
"
"
""
""
""
"
pp
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ROANOKE RI V ER
K
e
h
u
k
e
e

S
w
a
m
p
C
o
n
oho C
reek
Conoho Creek
R O A N O K E RIV E R
Hardison Mill Creek
Indian Creek
Etheridge S
wam
p
Welch Creek
D
e
e
p
R
u
n
S
w
a
m
p
B E A U F O R T
R O A N OKE RIVER
Roquist Creek
C
o
n
n
a
rits
a
S
w
a
m
p
C
h
u
c
k
l
e
m
a
k
e
r

S
w
a
m
p
Cashie River
White Oak
Swamp
H o g g a r d M ill C r e e k
Cashie River
Batchlor
Bay
Ply m o u th
Windsor
Williamston
Hobgood
Jamesville
AskewvilleLewiston-
Woodville
Oak City
Hamilton
Hassell
BERTIE
M A R T I N
N C-1 7 1
U
S
-17
N
C-
45
US-64
NC-903
NC-308
N C-90 3
U S -1 7
US-64
N
C-903 NC-308
NB80
NB78
NB76
NA19
NB93
NB69
NB67
NA27
NA26
NA25
NA21
NA20
NA18
NB55
NA24
NA17
¬
Figure 14 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09
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 03-02-09SubbasinTable 11
ALBEMARLE SOUND (Batchelor Bay)
24
West of a line extending from a point of land 0.3 mile north
of mouth of Morgan Swamp in a southerly direction to a
point of land on the eastside of the mouth of Roanoke River
1,475.5 S AcresB;Sw ND ND Dioxin
Conoho Creek
23-49a
From source to Martin Co 1417 below Beaverdam Cr
24.5 FW MilesC S ND
NB93 /2004M
23-49b
From Martin Co 1417 to Roanoke River
7.0 FW MilesC S ND
NB67 /2004N
Hardison Mill Creek
23-50-3
From source to Sweetwater Creek
19.9 FW MilesC S ND
NB69 /2004M
Habitat Degradation Unknown
ROANOKE RIVER
23-(26)b2
From subbasin 8/9 boundary to Hwy 17 Bridge in
Williamston
28.9 FW MilesC S SNA18 NCE
NA25 NCE
NA18 NCE
23-(26)b3
From Hwy 17 bridge at Williamston to the 18 mile marker
at Jamesville
17.8 FW MilesC I NRNA27 CE Low DO 16.3 Fecal Coliform Bacteria WWTP NPDES
Dioxin WWTP NPDES
Low Dissolved Oxygen Impoundment
23-(53)
From 18 mile marker at Jamesville to Albemarle Sound
(Batchelor Bay)
18.3 FW MilesC;Sw NR SNA20 NCE
NA21 NCE
NA26 NCE Low DO 22.9
NA20 NCE
NA21 NCE
Dioxin WWTP NPDES
Low Dissolved Oxygen Unknown
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-09Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:17 AMDRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-09SubbasinTable 11
Welch Creek
23-55
From source to Roanoke River
13.3 FW MilesC;Sw ND ND Dioxin WWTP NPDES
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 80.3 FW Milesm
NR 18.3 FW Milesm
I 17.8 FW Milesm
ND 1,475.5 S Acres
ND 194.3 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
47.2 FW MilesSm
17.8 FW MilesNR e
1,475.5 S AcresND
245.7 FW MilesND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
1,475.5 S AcresIm
49.4 FW MilesIm
261.3 FW MilesIe
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-09Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:18 AMDRAFT

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.

Benthic community biocriteria for swamp streams have been developed since the previous
basinwide plan (2001). Where appropriate, those criteria were applied to sites Not Rated in the
2001 basin plan (Conoho Creek and Hardison Mill Creek). Three benthic macroinvertebrate
community samples (Figure 14 and Table 11) 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.

Waters in the following sections are identified by 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
AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates
that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.

9.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-02-09 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 116.4 stream miles (37.5 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category. Of these, 17.8 stream miles (5.7 percent) are Impaired and 80.3 stream
miles (25.8 percent) were Supporting. In the recreation category, all 47.2 monitored stream
miles (15.2 percent) were Supporting. There were also 49.4 stream miles (15.9 percent) and
1,475.5 saltwater acres (100 percent) that were Impaired on a monitored basis in the fish
consumption category for dioxin contamination. All surface waters within this basin are
Impaired on an evaluated basis for mercury based on an advice by NC Department of Heath and
Human Services. Refer to Table 11 for a summary of use support ratings by category for waters
in the subbasin 03-02-09.

9.3 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 is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII.
Chapter 9 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09 97
9.3.1 Roanoke River [AU# 23-(26)b3 & 23-(53)], Welch Creek [AU# 23-55], Albemarle
Sound (Batchelor Bay)[AU# 24]

2001 Recommendations
DWQ, in cooperation with Weyerhaeuser Company, will continue to monitor the lower Roanoke
River and Welch Creek and will work closely with the Department of Health and Human
Services’ Division of Public Health to lift the advisory when there is no longer a risk to human
health from consumption of fish due to dioxin concentrations.

Current Status
The Roanoke River [AU# 23-(26)b3], from Hwy 17 bridge at Williamston to the 18 mile marker
at Jamesville (17.8 miles), is Impaired for aquatic life based on the dissolved oxygen standard
violation at site NA27. A US Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a study entitled, “Relations
Among Floodplain Water Levels, Instream Dissolved-Oxygen Conditions, and Streamflow in the
Lower Roanoke River, North Carolina, 1997-2001” (USGS Water-Resources Investigations
Report 03-4295). Data from this study indicated that from September 1999 through August
2004, 16.3 percent of the samples taken were below the continuous monitoring dissolved oxygen
standard for the daily average of 5 mg/l. This section of the Roanoke River will be placed on the
2008 303(d) list.

McMurray Fabrics Inc. had significant noncompliance for their Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)
testing requirements in this assessment period. DWQ is working with the facility to rectify the
problem. The facility will continue to conduct WET testing per their permit requirements.

The Town of Williamston WWTP has had chronic problems exceeding their discharge limits for
fecal coliform bacteria and total suspended solids. They have had civil penalties levied in excess
of $70,000 over the past several years. The town was issued an SOC for fecal coliform in
February 2006. They are required to upgrade their chlorination and dechlorination system by
December 2007. They paid an upfront SOC penalty of $5,000.

The Roanoke River [AU# 23-(53)] from the 18 mile marker at Jamesville to Albemarle Sound
(Batchelor Bay) (18.3 miles), is not rated for aquatic life due to inconclusive data available in the
swamp area. Dissolved oxygen was below the standard for the daily average of 5 mg/l in 22.95
percent of the samples taken at USGS site NA26 (swamp water area). This section of the
Roanoke River is supporting for recreation because the fecal coliform bacterial screening criteria
was not exceeded at sites NA20 and NA21.

The Town of Plymouth were awarded a nearly $2 million dollar grant from the NC Clean Water
Management Trust Fund. The Plymouth sewer system has experienced a large amount of
groundwater infiltration, which is overburdening lift stations after heavy rain events. Sewer lines
and possibly waterlines will be replaced or repaired using funds from this grant. This project is
divided into two phases. Construction on phase I is projected to start in January 2007 and will
result in the replacement of sewer and waterlines. Phase II will involve slip lining of sewer pipes
and manhole replacement. Phase II construction should start in January 2008.

It is noted that severe bank erosion is occurring on the Roanoke River. River flows are managed
for flood control by the US Army Corp of Engineers and for hydropower generation by private
98 Chapter 9 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09

industries. These managed flows are not similar to natural seasonal flow conditions and
subsequently extends the length of time flooding occurs on the floodplain and in backswamps.
In addition, frequent managed high flows at bankfull heights further accelerate river bank
erosion. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) re-licensing requirements for
Dominion North Carolina Power (Dominion) are be discussed in Section 9.5 (Additional Water
Quality Issues).

Dioxin Fish Consumption Advisory
These same areas of the Roanoke River (from Hwy 17 bridge [AU# 23-(26)b3] to the Albemarle
Sound [AU# 23-(53)]) (36.1 miles total) as well as Albemarle Sound (Batchelor Bay) [AU# 24]
from west of a line extending from a point of land 0.3 miles north of mouth of Morgan Swamp in
a southerly direction to a point of land on the eastside of the mouth of Roanoke River (1,475.5
saltwater acres) and Welch Creek [AU# 23-55], from the source to Roanoke River (13.3 miles),
is Impaired for fish consumption based on an advisory from the NC Department of Health and
Human Services’ (DHHS) for dioxin in carp and catfish.

The Albemarle Sound, from Bull Bay to Harvey Point, west to mouth of the Roanoke River and
to the mouth of the Chowan River to the US Hwy 17 Bridge, is also Impaired for fish
consumption under this same dioxin advisory.

The fish consumption impairments are due to the fish consumption advisory posted in October
2001 for carp and catfish. It is advised that carp and catfish from these waters may contain low
levels of dioxins. Women of childbearing age and children should not eat any carp or catfish
from these areas. All other persons should eat no more than one meal per person per month of
carp and catfish from these areas. Swimming, boating, and other recreational activities present
no health risks and are not affected by this advisory. For more information regarding fish
consumption advisories, call [phone] or visit the NC DHHS Division of Public Health
website at http://www.schs.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html.

2006 Recommendations
DWQ, in cooperation with Weyerhaeuser Company, will continue to monitor the lower Roanoke
River and Welch Creek and will work closely with the DHHS to lift the advisory when there is
no longer a risk to human health from consumption of fish. The EPA approved a dioxin TMDL
in 1996. Discussions between multiple state and federal agencies regarding alternative dioxin
clean up options have ensued. Such alternatives look at site remediation and testing, removal
and capping of the dioxin contaminant in Welch Creek.

9.4 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.
Chapter 9 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09 99
9.4.1 Conoho Creek [AU# 23-49a & 23-49b]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Conoho Creek [AU# 23-49a], from source to Martin Co. 1417 below Beaverdam Creek (24.5
miles) and [AU#23-49b] from Martin Co. 1417 to Roanoke River (7.0 miles), is Supporting
aquatic life based on Moderate Stress and Natural benthic community bioclassifications at sites
NB93 and NB67. Riparian areas were intact at site NB93 and considering the range of Moderate
Stress scores, this site nearly scored a Natural. The downstream site NB67 scored Natural likely
due to the larger drainage area (increased flow and dilution of impacts), which may contribute to
the better benthic community bioclassfication. DWQ will continue to monitor Conoho Creek.

9.4.2 Hardison Mill Creek [AU# 23-50-3)]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Hardison Mill Creek, from source to Sweetwater Creek (19.9 miles), is Supporting aquatic life
based on a Moderate Stress benthic community bioclassification at sites NB69. A large clear cut
area on the right bank and adjacent riparian zone was noted. Actual cutting was in progress
during the sampling effort. Microhabitats were also lacking at this site. DWQ will continue to
monitor Hardison Mill Creek.

9.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-09

9.5.1 Indian Creek [AU# 23-47)]

Water Quality Initiatives
The NCEEP is facilitating the transfer of the Roquist Pocosin tract from the NC Department of
Transportation to the Wildlife Resource Commission. The tract provides water quality protection
to Indian Creek (AU# 23-47). This will be discussed in more detail in section 10.5.1.

9.5.2 Roanoke River [AU # 23-(26)b2]

Current Status
Roanoke River, from subbasin 03-02-08/-09 boundary to Hwy 17 bridge in Williamston (28.9
miles), is Supporting aquatic life due to DWQ and USGS concurrent ambient monitoring at sites
NA18 and NA25. During this assessment period, no benthic or fish community sites were
sampled on the Roanoke River due to resource constraints and high flows.

This section of the Roanoke River is also Supporting recreation because the fecal coliform
bacterial screening criteria was not exceeded at site NA18.

DWQ as well as other state and federal agencies are extensively involved with Dominion
Power’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) new license requirements to conduct
several studies including monitoring and reporting of water quality conditions in the Roanoke
River and upstream reservoirs.

A comprehensive Section 216 study was initiated to study the potential impacts John H Kerr dam
has on the lower Roanoke River. The relationship between river flow, floodplain water level,
100 Chapter 9 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09

and instream dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations are important but poorly understood for the
lower Roanoke River. Flooding and floodplain inundation of this area no longer follows a
natural seasonal pattern, but are instead primarily governed by upstream reservoir releases.

The objective of the proposed study is to provide the flow and water quality modeling tools that
can be used to assess the effects of changes in John H. Kerr operations on Roanoke River flows;
duration, extent, depth, and timing of floodplain inundation; DO levels in the river; and intrusion
of brackish water from Albemarle Sound upstream into the river. These objectives will be met
by performing the following tasks:
(1) review existing data and develop a hydrologic and water quality monitoring plan to
support modeling,
(2) review existing modeling frameworks for the Roanoke River,
(3) implement the hydrologic and water quality monitoring program,
(4) develop, calibrate, and test hydrodynamic models that are capable of simulating upstream
and downstream movement of water, as well as the storage and release of water from the
floodplains,
(5) develop, calibrate, and test unsteady water quality models that simulate DO dynamics in
the main channel and the floodplain and accounts for the effects of brackish water
intrusion from Albemarle Sound on flow and DO processes, and
(6) apply these models to determine effects of selected water management scenarios on
downstream flows, floodplain inundation, and DO.

As of August 2006, task 1 and 2 have been completed and task 3 (monitoring) has been initiated.
The hydrodynamic modeling activities are proposed to begin concurrently with data collection.
The entire project is scheduled to be complete by mid-2008.

The study will provide policy makers and water resource managers in North Carolina and
Virginia with the tools and data that are essential to assessing management strategies for
maintaining and enhancing Roanoke River water quality and riparian habitat. The flow and
transport model for the Roanoke River can be used to assess the effects of flow management
scenarios on dissolved-oxygen in the river.

Chapter 9 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09 101
102 Chapter 9 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-09

Chapter 10
Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10
Including: Cashie River, Roquist Creek and Hoggard Mill Creek

10.1 Subbasin Overview
This subbasin is located entirely within the lower coastal
plain. Most of the streams are slow moving and often stop
flowing in the summer months. This subbasin is the least
densely populated and has the lowest estimated population
projection in the entire river basin. Most of this subbasin is
located in Bertie County, which is expected to decrease by 8
percent in population by 2020. For more information
regarding population growth and trends, refer to Appendix I.
Subbasin 03-02-10 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 307 mi2
Land area: 290 mi2
Water area: 17 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 8,192 people
Pop. Density: 27 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 79.2%
Surface Water: 0.6%
Urban: 0.3%
Cultivated Crop: 19.4%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 0.6%
Counties
Bertie and Northampton
Municipalities
Roxobel, Kelford, Askewville
and Windsor
Monitored Stream Statistics
Aquatic Life
Total Streams: 79.0 mi
Total Supporting: 79.0 mi
Recreation
Total Streams: 15.2 mi
Total Supporting: 15.2 mi

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
$199,373 towards implementing sediment and nutrient
reduction practices, and animal waste management. For more
information on this and other programs, refer to watershed
discussion throughout this chapter as well as in Chapters 16
and 20.

Three individual NPDES discharge permits are issued in this
subbasin with a total permitted flow of 1.3 MGD. Windsor
WWTP is required to conduct whole effluent toxicity testing
per their NPDES permit and have been in compliance during
this assessment period. Refer to Appendix VI for
identification and more information on individual NPDES
permit holders. Three registered animal operations are
located in this subbasin. Refer to Chapter 16 for more
information regarding animal operations within this basin.

A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 15. Table 12 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.

Benthic community biocriteria for swamp streams have been developed since the previous
basinwide plan (2001) for the Roanoke River basin. Where appropriate, those criteria were
applied to sites Not Rated in the 2001 basin plan (Cashie River, Roquist Creek and Hoggard Mill
Creek). Four benthic macroinvertebrate community samples (Figure 15 and Table 12) were
collected during this assessment period. Data were collected from one ambient monitoring
Chapter 10 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10 103
XW
#*
XW
XW
#*
#*
""
""
""
"
pp
p
p
oo
o
o
R O A N O K E R IVE R
Conoho Creek
Indian Creek
R O A N O KE RIVER
C
ashie River
Roquist Creek
C
o
n
n
a
rits
a
S
w
a
m
p
C
h
u
c
k
l
e
m
a
k
e
r

S
w
a
m
p
Cashie River
White Oak
Swamp
H o g g a r d M ill C r e e kCashie River
Windsor
Aulander
Roxobel
Kelford
AskewvilleLewiston-
Woodville
Hamilton
BERTIE
N
C
-45
N
C
-
3
0
8
NC-903
NC
-30
5
NC-308
U S -1 7
NC-308
NB80
NB78
NB76
NB75
NA19
NA25
NA24
NA17
¬
Figure 15 Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10
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 03-02-10SubbasinTable 12
Cashie River
24-2-(1)a
From source to Bertie County SR 1225
15.2 FW MilesC;Sw S SNA19 NCE
NB75 /2004M
NB75 /2004M
NA19 NCE Habitat Degradation Unknown
24-2-(1)b
From Bertie County SR 1225 to a point 1 mile upstream
from Bertie Co. SR 1500
30.1 FW MilesC;Sw S ND
NB76 /2004N
NB76 /2004N
24-2-(11)
From the Thoroughfare (The Gut between Cashie and
Roanoke Rivers) to N.C. Hwy. 45
5.8 FW MilesC;Sw ND ND
24-2-(15)
From N.C. Hwy. 45 to Albemarle Sound (Batchelor Bay)
1.2 FW MilesB;Sw ND ND
24-2-(9)
From a point 1.0 mile upstream from Bertie County SR
1500 to the Thoroughfare (The Gut between Cashie and
Roanoke Rivers)
2.3 FW MilesB;Sw ND ND
Hoggard Mill Creek
24-2-6
From source to Cashie River
7.4 FW MilesC;Sw S ND
NB78 /2004M
NB78 /2004M
Habitat Degradation Land Clearing
Roquist Creek
24-2-7
From source to Cashie River
26.3 FW MilesC;Sw S ND
NB80 /2004N
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-10Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:18 AMDRAFT
AU Number
Description
Length/AreaClassification
AL Rating REC RatingStation
Year/
ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
ROANOKE 03-02-10SubbasinTable 12
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 79.0 FW Milesm
ND 77.1 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
15.2 FW MilesSm
140.9 FW MilesND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
156.1 FW MilesIe
ROANOKE Subbasin 03-02-10Friday, April 07, 2006 10:48:18 AMDRAFT

station and one fish tissue site. 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.

Waters in the following sections are identified by 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
AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates
that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.

10.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-02-10 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.

All 79 stream miles (50.6 percent) monitored in the aquatic life category and 15.2 stream miles
(9.7 percent) monitored in the recreation category are rated as Supporting. All other surface
waters within this basin are Impaired on an evaluated basis for mercury based on an advice by
NC Department of Heath and Human Services. Refer to Table 12 for a summary of use support
ratings by category for waters in the subbasin 03-02-10.

10.3 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 is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII.

10.3.1 Cashie River [AU# 24-2-(1)a, 24-2-(1)b, 24-2-(9), 24-2-(11), & 24-2-(15)]

2001 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor fish tissue in the Cashie River and will work to identify sources
of mercury. Given the global scale of mercury cycling, it may be difficult for DWQ to recognize
significant reductions of mercury in fish over the short-term.

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Cashie River [AU# 24-2-(1)a], from source to Bertie County SR 1225 (15.2 miles), is Supporting
aquatic life based on a Moderate Stress benthic community bioclassification at site NB75. The
habitat scores differed considerably from 94 in 1999 versus 78 in 2004. The habitat score
Chapter 10 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10 107
decreased due to both a homogeneous benthic substrate of detritus and to the lack of favorable
reach available for colonization. Low water depths in 1999 versus high levels in 2004 may
account for some of the differences. Beaver activity was also observed at this site. This decline
appeared to result in the lower number of macroinvertebrate taxa, with 29 collected in 2004
versus 41 in 1999. The biotic index of both samples was identical in both years (7.5) suggesting
that water quality may not have decreased as much as the loss of nearly 30 percent of the taxa
may suggest. Although a 50 percent reduction in EPT taxa, from six in 1999 to three in 2004,
was observed, there was only a decrease of three (from 10 to seven) in EPT abundance. This site
has been sampled four times (1983 and 1984 in summer; 1999 and 2004 in winter) with the 2004
results showing the lowest number of total taxa thus far. This is a concern since swamp site
diversity is nearly always greater in the winter when flow is sustained than in summer, when
they are stagnant. However, high water may have limited the collection effort. One species,
Tvetenia sp NC (Epler), which is not commonly encountered in North Carolina was collected in
2004. A tolerant species of heavily polluted conditions, Procladius sp., was collected in 2004
and not collected in 1999. But, as in 1999, the overall benthic macroinvertebrate fauna does not
signal a specific nutrient-loading problem from the upstream Lewiston/Woodville WWTP.

This section of the Cashie River is Supporting the recreation category because the fecal coliform
bacteria screening criteria was not exceeded at site NA19.

The Cashie River [AU# 24-2-(1)b], from Bertie County SR 1225 to a point 1 mile upstream from
Bertie Co. SR 1500 (30.1 miles), is Supporting aquatic life based on a Natural benthic
community bioclassification at site NB76.

All waters within the Roanoke River basin are Impaired on an evaluated basis in the fish
consumption category. This is based on a fish consumption advise from the NC Department of
Health and Human Services. For more information on fish consumption advisories and advice,
contact NC DHHS. Largemouth bass, sunfish, yellow perch, and catfish samples were collected
from the Cashie River near Windsor during 2003 and analyzed for mercury contamination. The
samples were collected as part of an eastern North Carolina mercury assessment. Largemouth
bass, yellow perch and redear sunfish (10 of 23 samples) contained mercury concentrations
exceeding the state criteria of 0.4 ppm. Mercury levels in all samples ranged from 0.09 to 1.5
ppm. This data is used to support the NC DHHS mercury advice for this region. In 2004, DWQ
developed a draft Mercury TMDL for the Cashie River. The draft TMDL has been submitted to
the USEPA for final approval. To view the draft TMDL visit:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/TMDL_list.htm. DWQ will continue to monitor Cashie River.

10.4 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.
108 Chapter 10 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10

10.4.1 Hoggard Mill Creek [AU# 24-2-6]

Current Status and 2006 Recommendations
Hoggard Mill Creek, from source to Cashie River (7.4 miles), is Supporting aquatic life due to a
Moderate Stress bioclassification at site NB78. The effects of Hurricane Isabel were very
apparent at this site, especially the considerable blow down of the riparian area. A more
pollution tolerant benthic community and fewer total taxa were found in 2004 (30) than 1999
(46). Only three of the seven EPT taxa collected in 1999 were found in 2004. DWQ will
continue to monitor Hoggard Mill Creek.

10.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-02-10

10.5.1 Roquist Creek [AU# 24-2-7] and Indian Creek [AU# 23-47]

Current Status
Roquist Creek [AU# 24-2-7] from source to Cashie River (26.3 miles) is supporting for aquatic
life based on a Natural swamp bioclassification at site NB80. This swamp appears to be stable
with no change in the biotic index from 1999 to 2004.

Water Quality Initiatives
The NCEEP is facilitating the transfer of the Roquist Pocosin tract from the NC Department of
Transportation to the Wildlife Resource Commission. The tract provides water quality protection
to Indian Creek [AU# 23-47 (in subbasin 03-02-09)] and Roquist Creek [AU# 24-2-7]. The
Roquist Pocosin is not actually a pocosin but rather a large area of nonriverine swamp forest and
nonriverine wet hardwood forest, both of which are significantly rare wetland communities. The
tract contains 3,776 acres of these wetland types in various stages of succession. At least several
hundred acres of nonriverine wet hardwood forest is entirely intact, not having been timbered in
over 90 years. In addition, the EEP is carrying out restoration of 52 acres of nonriverine wet
hardwood forest in the Roquist Pocosin, which drain to Indian Creek and Roquist Creek. The
restoration involves removal of roads to restore hydrology and replanting of native wetland
species.
Chapter 10 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10 109

110 Chapter 10 – Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-10

Chapter 11
North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications

11.1 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 by 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, and the protection of unique and special pristine waters with outstanding resource values.

11.1.1 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 13 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 of North Carolina.
Information on this subject is also available at DWQ’s website: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/.

11.1.2 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)

There are no stream miles classified as HQW waters in the Roanoke River basin except for the
WS-II waters that have a supplemental HQW classification (Figure 16). 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, disinfection, emergency requirements,
volume, nutrients (in nutrient sensitive waters) and toxic substances.
Chapter 11 – NC Water Quality Standards and Classifications 111
Table 13 - 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 (e.g., 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 setback between
development activities and the stream; whereas, the
high-density option requires structural stormwater
controls (e.g., stormwater infiltration system, wet
detention ponds). 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.

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.
• 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.

112 Chapter 11 – NC Water Quality Standards and Classifications

Outstanding Resource Waters (Class ORW)
There are 1.6 stream miles of ORW waters in the
Roanoke River basin (Figure 16). These waters
have excellent water quality (rated based on
biological and chemical sampling as with HQWs)
and an associated outstanding resource.

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 setback 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.
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.

Primary Recreation (Class B)
There are 111 stream miles, 31,543 freshwater acres and 1,475.5 estuarine acres classified for
primary recreation in the Roanoke 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.

Trout Waters
There are 92.0 stream miles classified as Trout (Tr) waters in the Roanoke River basin (Figure
16). Different water quality standards for some parameters, such as dissolved oxygen,
temperature and turbidity, have been developed to protect freshwaters for natural trout
propagation and survival of stocked trout. These water quality standards result in more
restrictive limits for wastewater discharges to trout water streams. There are no watershed
development restrictions associated with the Tr classification; however, the NC Division of Land
Resources (DLR), under the NC Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act (SPCA), has
requirements for protecting trout streams from land-disturbing activities. The SPCA states that
“waters that have been classified as trout waters by the Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) shall have an undisturbed zone either 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to confine
visible siltation within the twenty-five percent (25 percent) of buffer zone nearest the land-
disturbing activity, whichever is greater” [G.S. 113A-57(1)]. This rule applies to all named and
unnamed tributaries flowing to the affected trout water stream. For more information regarding
land-disturbing activities along designated trout streams, refer to the DLR website at
www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/.

The NC Wildlife Resources Commission administers a state fishery management classification
known as the Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters. It provides for public access to streams
for fishing and regulates fishing activities (seasons, size limits, creel limits, and bait and lure
restrictions). Although many of these waters are also classified Tr by DWQ, this is not the same
classification.
Chapter 11 – NC Water Quality Standards and Classifications 113
Swamp Waters
There are 237.3 stream miles and 1,475.5 estuarine acres classified as Swamp (Sw) waters in the
Roanoke River basin. These waters are recognized as waters that will naturally be more acidic
(have lower pH values) and have lower levels of dissolved oxygen.

Water Supply Watersheds (Class WS)
There are 246 stream miles and 26,320 freshwater acres currently classified for water supply in
the Roanoke River basin (Figure 16). The purpose of the Water Supply Watershed Protection
Program is to provide a proactive drinking water supply protection program for communities.
Local governments administer the program based on state minimum requirements. There are
restrictions on wastewater discharges, development, landfills and residual application sites to
control the impacts of point and nonpoint sources of pollution to water supplies.

There are five water supply classifications (WS-I to WS-V) that are defined according to the land
use characteristics of the watershed. The WS-I classification carries the greatest protection for
water supplies. No development is allowed in these watersheds. Generally, WS-I lands are
publicly owned. WS-V watersheds have the least amount of protection and do not require
development restrictions. These are either former water supply sources or sources used by
industry. WS-I and WS-II classifications are also HQW by definition because requirements for
these levels of water supply protection are at least as stringent as those for HQWs. Those
watersheds classified as WS-II through WS-IV require local governments having jurisdiction
within the watersheds to adopt and implement land use ordinances for development that are at
least as stringent as the state’s minimum requirements. A minimum 30-foot setback is required
on perennial streams in those watersheds in low-density areas; a minimum 100 feet setback is
required in high-density areas. The Roanoke River basin currently contains, WS-II, WS-III, WS-
IV and WS-V water supply watersheds. Water supply watersheds in the Roanoke River basin
cover 26,320 Acres and 246 stream miles.

11.2 Reclassification of Surface Waters

The classification of a surface water may be changed if a request is submitted by a local
government, watershed group, or a local citizen. DWQ reviews each request for reclassification
and conducts an assessment of the surface water to determine if the reclassification is
appropriate. If it is determined that a reclassification is justified, the request must proceed
through the state rule-making process. To initiate a reclassification, the “Application to Request
Reclassification of NC Surface Waters” must be completed and submitted to DWQ’s
Classification and Standards Unit. For more information on requests for reclassification and
contact information, visit http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/.

11.2.1 Pending and Recent Reclassifications in the Roanoke River Basin

In Chapters 1 through 10, DWQ identified those surface waters as having Excellent
bioclassification, and therefore, may be eligible for reclassification. There may also be many
other surface waters eligible for reclassification that were not identified with the subbasin
chapters. Both private and public stakeholders play an important role in the reclassification
process and are responsible for filing formal requests with DWQ for reclass consideration.
114 Chapter 11 – NC Water Quality Standards and Classifications
WARREN
Dan

R
i
v
e
r
Hyco
Lake
Mayo
Reservoir Kerr
Reservoir
STOKES
FORSYTH
ROCKINGHAM CASWELL
PERSON GRANVILLE VANCE
D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
Belews
Lake HALIFAX
Lake
Gaston
M
a
y
o

R
i
v
e
r
Count
y

L
i
n
e

C
r
e
e
k
®
Figure 16 ORW* , Water Supply Watershed, and Trout Waters
in the Roanoke River Basin**
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 30, 2006
*The only ORW for this basin is in Stokes County, southwest of Danbury.
**All ORW's, WSW's and Trout Waters are located between subbasins 03-02-01 and 03-02-08.
0 102030405
Miles
Legend
Trout Waters
WS-II
WS-IV
ORW
WS-III
Hydrography
Subbasin Boundary
Counties

116 Chapter 11 – NC Water Quality Standards and Classifications

Chapter 12
Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality

12.1 General Sources of Pollution

Human activities can negatively impact
surface water quality, even when the
activity is far removed from the
waterbody. With proper management of
wastes and land use activities, these
impacts can be minimized. Pollutants that
enter waters fall into two general
categories: point sources and nonpoint
sources.
Point Sources

Piped discharges from:
• Municipal wastewater treatment plants
• Industrial facilities
• Small package treatment plants
• Large urban and industrial stormwater systems

Point sources are typically piped discharges and are controlled through regulatory programs
administered by the state. All regulated point source discharges in North Carolina must apply for
and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the state.

Nonpoint sources are from a broad range of land use activities. Nonpoint source pollutants are
typically carried to waters by rainfall, runoff or snowmelt. Sediment and nutrients are most often
associated with nonpoint source pollution. Other
pollutants associated with nonpoint source
pollution include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance
that may be washed off the ground or deposited
from the atmosphere into surface waters.

Unlike point source pollution, nonpoint pollution
sources are diffuse in nature and occur
intermittently, depending on rainfall events and
land disturbance. Given these characteristics, it is difficult and resource intensive to quantify
nonpoint contributions to water quality degradation in a given watershed. While nonpoint source
pollution control often relies on voluntary actions, the state has many programs designed to
reduce nonpoint source pollution.
Nonpoint Sources

• Construction activities
• Roads, parking lots and rooftops
• Agriculture
• Failing septic systems and straight pipes
• Timber harvesting
• Hydrologic modifications
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.
Every person living in or visiting a watershed
contributes to impacts on water quality. Therefore,
each individual should be aware of these contributions
and take actions to reduce them.
Chapter 12 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 117
12.2 Managing the Impacts of Growth, Development, and Stormwater
Runoff

12.2.1 Introduction

Urban growth poses one of the greatest threats to aquatic resources. The impacts on rivers, lakes
and streams as development surrounding metropolitan areas consumes neighboring forests and
fields can be significant and permanent if stormwater runoff is not controlled. 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
increase, some of the potential water supply is lost (Orr and Stuart, 2000).

In addition, 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 is also increased. These effects are compounded when small
streams are channelized (straightened) or piped and storm sewer systems are installed to increase
transport of drainage waters 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).

Most of the impacts result in habitat degradation (Chapter 13), but urban runoff also carries a
potentially toxic cocktail including oil and grease from roads and parking lots, street litter and
pollutants from the atmosphere. Cumulative impacts from developing and urban areas can cause
severe impairment to urban streams.

12.2.2 Effects of Growth and Development in the Roanoke River Basin

Although the Roanoke River basin is not one of the fastest developing basins in the state, the
effects of development are impacting water quality. Seven of the fifteen counties in the basin
experienced growth rates in excess of 13 percent in the last decade of the 20th century. The
sparsely developed watersheds the western foothills portion of the basin generally contain
streams with high water quality, excellent aquatic species populations, and Supporting use
support ratings. Water quality declines dramatically in streams in the central piedmont
watersheds, in rural and urbanized areas.

Populations of counties that are wholly or partly contained within the basin increased by over
115,000 people between 1990 and 2000. Appendix I presents projected population growth by
county for the Roanoke River basin from 2000 to 2020. Forsyth, Granville, Orange, Person and
Stokes counties are growing the fastest in the basin. These counties have an estimated growth
rate of over 20 percent by 2020. Wentworth, Rural Hall and Kernersville had high growth rates.
Walkertown increased population substantially in the last ten years. Although the Roanoke
River basin population is growing slower than some other river basins, there will be increased
118 Chapter 12 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality

drinking water demands and wastewater discharges. There will also be loss of natural areas and
increases in impervious surfaces associated with construction of new homes and businesses.

The overall population of the basin based on 2000 Census data is 344,638, with approximately
98 persons/square mile. Population density estimated by subbasin is presented in Appendix I.

Refer to Appendix II for local governments’ listing and Appendix III for land cover changes
related to urbanization.

The Roanoke River basin has an abundance of surface water that has supported industrial and
domestic expansions of the mid-20th century. Even today, there is sufficient water to serve its
diverse domestic, agricultural, industrial, energy production and recreational needs except in
periods of severe drought. However, as population increases in the basin, the availability and
needs of those water supplies will need to be carefully planned and coordinated between state
and local governments. Clean water can likely be provided in sufficient quantity to supply the
future needs of the basin, but only with inspired foresight, planning and management. See
Chapter 18 on Water Resources for more information.

Also, in times of drought much coordination between state and local agencies needs to be
maintained to assure not only sufficient flows for water supply but also for downstream water
quality.

12.2.3 The Role of Local Governments

A summary of necessary management actions needed by local authorities is provided here,
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 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
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.

Actions one through five are important to restoring and sustaining aquatic communities in the
watershed, with the first three recommendations being the most important.

1. Feasible and cost-effective stormwater retrofit projects should be implemented
throughout the watershed to mitigate the hydrologic effects of development (increased
stormwater volumes and increased frequency and duration of erosive and scouring flows).
This should be viewed as a long-term process. Although there are many uncertainties, costs
in the range of $1 million per square mile can probably be anticipated.
Chapter 12 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 119
a. Over the short-term, currently feasible retrofit projects should be identified
and implemented.
b. In the longer 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 Section 319 funds, or the North Carolina Clean Water Management
Trust Fund.

2. A watershed scale strategy to address toxic inputs should be developed and
implemented, including a variety of source reduction and stormwater treatment
methods. As an initial framework for planning toxicity reduction efforts, the following
general approach is proposed:
a. Implementation of available BMP opportunities for control of stormwater
volume and velocities. As recommended above to improve aquatic habitat
potential, these BMPs will also remove toxics 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 non-storm inputs of toxics; reducing pollutants available
for runoff during storms; and managing water to reduce storm runoff.

3. Stream channel restoration activities should be implemented in target areas, in
conjunction with stormwater retrofit BMPs, in order to improve aquatic habitat.
Before beginning stream channel restoration, a geomorphologic survey should be conducted
to determine the best areas for stream channel restoration. Additionally, it would probably be
advantageous to implement retrofit BMPs before embarking on stream channel restoration, as
restoration is probably best designed for flows driven by reduced stormwater runoff. Costs
of approximately $200 per foot of channel should be anticipated (Haupt et al., 2002 and
Weinkam et al., October 2001). Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from
federal sources, such as EPA’s Section 319 funds, or state sources including North Carolina
Clean Water Management Trust Fund.

4. Actions recommended above (e.g., stormwater quantity and quality retrofit BMPs) are likely
to reduce nutrient/organic loading and associated impacts to some extent. 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; and the installation of
additional BMPs targeting BOD and nutrient removal at appropriate sites.

5. Prevention of further channel erosion and habitat degradation will require effective post-
construction stormwater management for all new development in the study area.

6. 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 be beneficial.
120 Chapter 12 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality

7. 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; and
d. reducing and properly managing pesticide and fertilizer use.

12.2.4 Maintain and Develop Riparian Buffers

The presence of intact riparian buffers and/or wetlands can reduce the impacts of stormwater
flow from development in urban and rural areas as well as from various agricultural practices.
Establishment and protection of buffers should be considered where feasible, and the amount of
impervious cover should be limited as much as possible. Wide streets, large cul-de-sacs, and
long driveways and sidewalks lining both sides of the street are all features of urban
development that create excess impervious cover and consume natural areas.

Preserving the natural streamside vegetation (riparian buffer) is one of the most economical and
efficient BMPs. Forested buffers in particular provide a variety of benefits including filtering
runoff and taking up nutrients, trapping bacteria, moderating water temperature, preventing
erosion and loss of land, providing flood control and helping to moderate streamflow, and
providing food and habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Counties and municipalities
should adopt ordinances that require buffers along streams whether in urban or rural areas. To
obtain a free copy of DWQ’s Buffers for Clean Water brochure, call [phone], ext. 558.

12.2.5 Protecting Headwaters

Many streams in a given river basin are only small trickles or seeps of water that emerge from
the ground. A larger stream is formed at the confluence of these trickles (Figure 17). This
constant merging eventually forms a large stream or river. Most monitoring of fresh surface
waters evaluates these larger streams. The many miles of small trickles, collectively known as
headwaters, are not directly monitored and in many instances are not even indicated on maps.
These streams account for approximately 80 percent of the stream network and provide many
valuable services for quality and quantity of water delivered downstream (Meyer et al.,
September 2003). However, degradation of headwater streams can (and does) impact the larger
stream or river and should be protected.

There are three types of headwater streams: ephemeral (flow only after precipitation events),
intermittent (flow during wet seasons), and perennial (flow year-round). All types of headwater
streams provide benefits to larger streams and rivers. Headwater streams control flooding,
recharge groundwater, maintain water quality, reduce downstream sedimentation, recycle
nutrients, and create habitat for plants and animals (Meyer et al., September 2003).
In smaller headwater streams, fish communities are not well developed and benthic
macroinvertebrates dominate aquatic life. Benthic macroinvertebrates are often thought of as
"fish food" and, in mid-sized streams and rivers, they are critical to a healthy fish community.
Chapter 12 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 121
However, these insects, both in larval and adult stages, are also food for small mammals, such as
river otter and raccoons, birds and amphibians (Erman, 1996). Benthic macroinvertebrates in

Figure 17 - Diagram of Headwater Streams within a Watershed Boundary

headwater streams also perform the important function of breaking down coarse organic matter,
such as leaves and twigs, and releasing fine organic matter. In larger rivers, where coarse
organic matter is not as abundant, this fine organic matter is a primary food source for benthic
macroinvertebrates and other organisms in the system (CALFED, 1999). When the benthic
macroinvertebrate community is changed or extinguished in an area, even temporarily, as occurs
during land use changes, it can have repercussions in many parts of both the terrestrial and
aquatic food web.

Headwater streams also provide a source of insects for repopulating downstream waters where
benthic macroinvertebrate communities have been eliminated due to human alterations and
pollution. Adult insects have short life spans and generally live in the riparian areas surrounding
the streams from which they emerge (Erman, 1996). Because there is little upstream or stream-
to-stream migration of benthic macroinvertebrates, once headwater populations are eliminated,
there is little hope for restoring a functioning aquatic community. In addition to
macroinvertebrates, these streams support diverse populations of plants and animals that face
similar problems if streams are disturbed. Headwater streams are able to provide these important
ecosystem services due to their unique locations, distinctive flow patterns, and small drainage
areas.

Because of the small size of headwater streams, they are often overlooked during land use
activities that impact water quality. All landowners can participate in the protection of
headwaters by keeping small tributaries in mind when making land use management decisions
on the areas they control. This includes activities such as retaining vegetated stream buffers,
minimizing stream channel alterations, and excluding cattle from streams. Local rural and urban
planning initiatives should also consider impacts to headwater streams when land is being
developed. For a more detailed description of watershed hydrology and watershed management,
122 Chapter 12 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality

refer to EPA’s Watershed Academy website at
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/watershedmgt/principle1.html.

12.2.6 Reduce Impacts of Future Development

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 will need to find a balance between
water quality protection, natural resource management and economic development. 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.

Areas adjacent to the high growth areas of the basin are at risk of having Impaired biological
communities. These biological communities are important to maintaining the ecological
integrity in the Roanoke River basin. These streams will be important as sources of benthic
macroinvertebrates and fishes for reestablishment of biological communities in nearby streams
that are recovering from past impacts or are being restored.

To prevent further impairment to aquatic life in streams in developing 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; and
6. develop public outreach programs to educate citizens about stormwater runoff.

Action should 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 (right), 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
public education is also needed in the Roanoke River
basin in order for citizens to understand the value of
urban planning and stormwater management. DWQ
recently developed a booklet that discusses actions
individuals can take to reduce stormwater runoff and
improve stormwater quality entitled Improving Water
Quality In Your Own Backyard. To obtain a free copy,
call [phone], ext. 558. For an example of local
community planning, visit the website at
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. http://www.charmeck.org/Home.htm.
Chapter 12 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 123
124 Chapter 12 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality

Chapter 13
Water Quality Stressors

13.1 Stressor and Sources Identification

13.1.1 Introduction - Stressors

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 but
impacted/noted waters. In many cases, 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 potential water quality stressors. It
is important to identify stressors and potential sources of stressors so that the limited resources of
water quality programs can be targeted to address the water quality problems. Specific aquatic
life stressors are defined in Section 13.2 and 13.3.

Most stressors to the biological community are composed of a complex grouping of many
different stressors that individually may not degrade water quality or aquatic habitat, but together
can severely degrade 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 watershed hydrology.

Stressors to recreation use include pathogenic indicators such as fecal coliform bacteria, escheria
coli (E. coli) and enterococci. In the fish consumption category, mercury is typically the noted
stressor. However, other substance may also result in the issuance of a fish consumption
advisory or advice by the NC Division of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) such as dioxin
and selenium.

13.1.2 Introduction - Stressor Sources

As discussed above, sources of stressors most often come from a watershed where the hydrology
is altered enough to allow the stressor to be easily delivered to a stream during a rain event along
with unnaturally large amounts of water. DWQ identifies the source of a stressor as specifically
as possible depending on the amount of information available in a watershed. Most often the
source is based on the predominant land use in a watershed. Stressors sources identified in the
Roanoke River basin during this assessment period include urban or impervious surface areas,
residential and commercial development, road building, agriculture, and forestry/timber
harvesting. Point source discharges are also considered a water quality stressor source.

Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors 125
13.1.3 Overview of Stressors Identified in the Roanoke River Basin

The stressors noted below are summarized from all waters and for all use support categories.
Figure 18 identifies stressors noted for Impaired waters in the Roanoke River basin during the
most recent assessment period. The stressors noted in these figures may not be the sole reason
for an Impaired use support rating. Stressors that are listed due to standards violations may
require TMDL development for waters where these stressors are identified (dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, and fecal coliform bacteria). All waters in the basin are Impaired on an evaluated basis
in the fish consumption category where mercury is the stressor of concern (not depicted in the
graphs; 2,204 freshwater stream miles, 37,543 freshwater acres, and 1,467 saltwater acres).
Figures 19 and 20 identify stressors noted for Impacted waters in the Roanoke River basin during
the most recent assessment period (1999 to 2004). The stressors noted in these figures did not
necessarily result in an Impaired use support rating. However, these could lead to future
Impairment if corrective action is not taken. For specific discussions of stressors to Impaired or
Impacted waters refer to the subbasin chapters 1 through 10. Stressor definitions and impacts are
discussed in the remainder of this chapter.
Sa
l
t
w
a
t
e
r

A
c
r
e
s
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Fr
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r

M
i
l
e
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Freshwater Miles
Low DO Turbidity FecalColiform Dioxin ToxicImpacts HabitatDeg.Dioxin
Saltwater Acres

Figure 18 - Noted Stressors to Impaired Freshwater Streams Miles and Saltwater Acres in the
Roanoke River Basin.

126 Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors

Low DO
Low pH
Turbidity TSS
Ammonia
Nutrient Impacts
Fecal Coliform
Habitat Deg.
Toxic Impacts
Chlorine
Fr
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r

M
i
l
e
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70150160170
Figure 19 - Noted Stressors to Impacted Freshwater Streams/Rivers in the Roanoke River Basin

Turbidity Nutrient Impacts
Ac
r
e
s
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400

Figure 20 - Noted Stressors to Impacted Freshwater Acres in the Roanoke River Basin
Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors 127
13.1.4 Overview of Stressors Sources Identified in the Roanoke River Basin

The sources noted below are summarized for all waters and for all use support categories. Figure
21 and 22 identify sources of stressors noted for waters in the Roanoke River Basin during the
most recent assessment period. Refer to the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 – 10) for a complete
listing and discussion of sources by stream.

WWTP NPDES
Agriculture
Land Clearing
Impervious Surface
Impoundment
Unknown
Fr
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r

M
i
l
e
s
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
Figure 21 - Sources of Stressors Identified in the Roanoke River Basin (Freshwater Stream
Miles)

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) were noted as a potential source to many of the
freshwater stream miles (155) and saltwater acres (1,476) in the Roanoke River basin. WWTPs
are just one of many sources that can contribute excess nutrients that may increase the potential
for algal blooms and cause exceedances of the chlorophyll a standard. This can include all
discharges upstream of the area of Impairment or noted impacts. Most of these impacts were
localized and based on permit violations. Better treatment technology and permit compliance
has greatly decreased the number of stream miles locally impacted by WWTPs.

Agriculture was noted as a potential source of water quality stressors when field observations
and watershed studies noted agriculture as the predominant land cover. In the Roanoke River
basin, the majority of agricultural land is cultivated crop. Impacts to streams from agricultural
activities can include excessive nutrient loading, pesticide and herbicide contamination, bacterial
contamination, and sedimentation. Agriculture was noted as a source of stressors in 23 stream
miles. Agriculture impacts and programs are discussed in more detail in Chapter 16.
128 Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors

Unknown WWTP NPDES
Ac
r
e
s
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Freshwater Acres
Saltwater Acres

Figure 22 - Sources of Stressors Identified in the Roanoke River Basin (Fresh and Saltwater
Acres)

Land clearing activities for residential and commercial development, for road/highway
construction as well as for timber harvest/clear cutting were noted as potential sources of water
quality stressors to 44 stream miles. Streams where land clearing is a noted source are likely to
be more heavily impacted in the future by increased development and impervious surfaces.
Impervious surface accounted for an additional 37 stream miles with noted impacts in the
Roanoke River basin. Refer to Chapter 12 for more information related to population growth
and land cover changes and its potential impacts on water quality.

In the Roanoke River basin there are 11 major impoundments. These are used as water supply
reservoirs as well as for flood control and hydropower production. Impacts to water quality can
also be magnified by the presence of a reservoir. Dams significantly slow the flow of water and
create conditions not present in riverine systems. These conditions increase nutrient availability
and give algae more time to grow. In theory, a reservoir may suffer the symptoms of excessive
nutrient and sediment inputs, while a river receiving the same level of pollutants may not. The
way in which these reservoirs/lakes are managed influence the quality of the water in the basin.
For example, the amount of water released into the lower Roanoke River influences the
extensive floodplain. As water is released from the floodplain back into the Roanoke River
mainstem it carries low dissolved oxygen water as well as a high BOD material. This can result
in dissolved oxygen sags, which impacts the water quality and aquatic health (i.e., fish kills) in
the river.

Stressor sources could not be identified for 225 stream miles in the Roanoke River basin. These
stream segments may be in areas where sources could not be identified during field observations,
but the streams had noted impacts (e.g., habitat degradation). DWQ and the local agencies will
work to identify potential sources for these stream segments during the next basinwide cycle.

Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors 129
13.2 Aquatic Life Stressors - Habitat Degradation

13.2.1 Introduction and Overview

Instream habitat degradation is identified as a notable reduction in habitat diversity or a negative
change in habitat. This term may include sedimentation, lack of organic (woody and leaf)
habitats and channelization. These stressors to aquatic insect and fish communities can be
caused by many different land use activities and less often by discharges of treated wastewater.
In the Roanoke River basin, 60 stream miles are
Impaired where at least one form of habitat
degradation has been identified as the stressor.
There is an additional 163 stream miles where
habitat degradation is a noted impact to water
quality. Many of the stressors discussed below
are either directly caused by or are a symptom of
altered watershed hydrology. The altered
hydrology increases both sources of stressors and
delivery of stressors to receiving waters. Refer to
the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1-10) for more
information on the types of habitat degradation
noted at sample locations and in watershed
studies.

Good instream habitat is necessary for aquatic life
to survive and reproduce. Streams that typically
show signs of habitat degradation are in
watersheds that have a large amount of land-
disturbing activities (construction, mining, timber
harvest and agricultural activities) or a large
percentage of impervious surface area. A watershed in which most of the riparian vegetation has
been removed from streams or channelization has occurred also exhibits instream habitat
degradation. Streams that receive a discharge quantity that is much greater than the natural flow
in the stream often have degraded habitat as well. All of these activities result in altered
watershed hydrology.
Some Best Management Practices

Agriculture
• No till or conservation tillage practices
• Strip cropping and contour farming
• Leaving natural buffer areas around
small streams and rivers

Construction
• Using phased grading/seeding plans
• Limiting time of exposure
• Planting temporary ground cover
• Using sediment basins and traps

Forestry
• Controlling runoff from logging roads
• Replanting vegetation on disturbed areas
• Leaving natural buffer areas around
small streams and rivers
• Avoid stream crossings during forest
operations

Quantifying amounts of habitat degradation is difficult in most cases. To assess instream habitat
degradation in most streams would require extensive technical and monetary resources and even
more resources to restore the stream. Although DWQ and other agencies are starting to address
this issue, local efforts are needed to prevent further instream habitat degradation and to restore
streams that have been Impaired by activities that cause habitat degradation. As point sources
become less of a source of water quality impairment, nonpoint sources that pollute water and
cause habitat degradation need to be addressed to further improve water quality in North
Carolina’s streams and rivers.

130 Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors

13.2.2 Sedimentation

Sedimentation is a natural process that is important to the maintenance of diverse aquatic
habitats. Overloading of sediment in the form of sand, silt and clay particles fills pools and
covers or embeds riffles that are vital aquatic insect and fish habitats. A diversity of these
habitats is important for maintenance of biological integrity. Suspended sediment can decrease
primary productivity (i.e., photosynthesis) by shading sunlight from aquatic plants, affecting the
overall productivity of a stream system. Suspended sediment also has several effects on various
fish species including avoidance and redistribution, reduced feeding efficiency, and therefore,
reduced growth by some species, respiratory problems, reduced tolerance to diseases and
toxicants, and increased physiological stress (Roell, 1999). Sediment filling rivers, streams and
reservoirs also decreases their storage volume and increases the frequency of floods (NCDENR-
DLR, 1998). Suspended sediment also increases the cost of treating municipal drinking water.
Sediment overloading to many streams has reduced biological diversity to the point of the stream
being Impaired for aquatic life.

Sediment is the earthen material that is dislodged and transported from its original location by
the erosive forces of wind, water or ice. The redeposition of the sediment is sedimentation. The
grading and tilling of surfaces for construction of roads and buildings, crop production, livestock
grazing and timber harvesting contribute to accelerated erosion rates by loosening the soils
thereby allowing more soil than usual to become detached and transported by wind or water.

Streambank erosion, caused by very high stormwater flows after rain events, is another source of
sediment overloading. Watersheds with large amounts of impervious surfaces transport water to
streams very rapidly and at higher volumes than occurs in watersheds with little impervious
surfaces. In many urban areas, stormwater is delivered directly by storm sewers. This high
volume and velocity of water after rain events undercuts streambanks causing bank failure and
large amounts of sediment to be deposited directly into the stream. Many urban streams are
adversely impacted by sediment overloading from the watershed as well as from the
streambanks.

Sedimentation can be controlled during most land-disturbing activities by using appropriate
BMPs. Substantial amounts of erosion can be prevented by planning to minimize the amount
and time that land is exposed during land-disturbing activities and by minimizing impervious
surface area and direct stormwater outlets to streams. Refer to chapter 14 for more information
on programs designed to reduce sedimentation.

Land Clearing Activities
Erosion and sedimentation can be controlled during most land-disturbing activities by using
appropriate BMPs. In fact, substantial amounts of erosion can be prevented by planning to
minimize the (1) amount and (2) time the land is exposed. DWQ’s role in sediment control is to
work cooperatively with those agencies that administer sediment control programs in order to
maximize the effectiveness of the programs and to protect water quality. Where programs are
not effective, as evidenced by a violation of instream water quality standards, and where DWQ
can identify a source, then appropriate enforcement action can be taken. Generally, this entails
requiring the landowner or responsible party to install acceptable BMPs.

Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors 131
As a result of new stormwater rules enacted by EPA in 1999, construction or land development
activities that disturb one acre or more are required to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit. An
erosion and sediment control plan must also be developed and approved for these sites under the
state’s Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA) administered by the NC Division of Land
Resources. Site disturbances of less than one acre are required to use BMPs, but an approved
plan is not required.

Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act of 1973 (G.S. Chapter 113A, Article 4 referred to as "SPCA"). However, forestry
operations may be exempted from the permit requirements in the SPCA, if the operations meet
compliance standards outlined in the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A
NCAC 1I .0101-.0209, referred to as "FPGs") and General Statutes regarding stream obstruction
(G.S. 77-13 and G.S. 77-14). More information on forestry in the Roanoke River basin is
available in Chapter 17 and on the Water Quality Section of the Division of Forest Resources
(DFR) website at http://www.dfr.state.nc.us.

For agricultural activities that are not subject to the SPCA, sediment controls are carried out on a
voluntary basis through programs administered by several different agencies (see Appendix VIII
for further information).

Stronger Rules for Sediment Control
The Division of Land Resources (DLR) has the primary responsibility for assuring that erosion is
minimized and sedimentation is reduced during construction activities. In November 2005, the
NC Sedimentation Control Commission adopted significant changes for strengthening the
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program (NCDENR-DLR, November 2005) as follows:

ƒ allows state and local erosion and sediment control programs to require a pre-
construction conference when one is deemed necessary;
ƒ surfaces must be non-erosive and stable within 15 working days or 90 calendar days after
completion of the activity;
ƒ graded slopes must be vegetated or otherwise stabilized within 21 calendar days of
completion of a phase of grading;
ƒ provides that no person may initiate a land-disturbing activity until notifying the agency
that issued the plan approval of the date the activity will begin; and
ƒ allows assessment penalties for significant violations upon initial issuance of a Notice of
Violation (NOV).

Additionally, during its 1999 session, the NC General Assembly passed House Bill 1098 to
strengthen the Sediment Pollution Control Act of 1973 (SPCA). The bill made the following
changes to the Act (NCDENR-DLR, July-September 1999):

ƒ increases the maximum civil penalty for violating the SPCA from $500 to $5000 per day;
ƒ provides that a person may be assessed a civil penalty from the date a violation is
detected if the deadline stated in the Notice of Violation is not met;
ƒ provides that approval of an erosion control plan is conditioned on compliance with
federal and state water quality laws, regulations and rules;
132 Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors

ƒ provides that any erosion control plan that involves using ditches for the purpose of
dewatering or lowering the water table must be forwarded to the Director of DWQ;
ƒ amends the General Statutes governing licensing of general contractors to provide that
the State Licensing Board for General Contractors shall test applicants’ knowledge of
requirements of the SPCA and rules adopted pursuant to the Act; and
ƒ removes a cap on the percentage of administrative costs that may be recovered through
plan review fees.

For information on North Carolina’s Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program or to report
erosion and sedimentation problems, visit the new website at http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/ or
you may call the NC Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section at [phone].

Recent Review of Sediment Control Research
Two of the most commonly used sediment control devices are silt fences and sediment basins.
In 2005, DLR revised the requirements for these and other BMP’s to make them more efficient
at trapping and containing sediment on site. These revisions are based upon research done by
NC State University, NC Department of Transportation, and other professional engineers.

Currently, sediment basins are designed to have a minimum volume of 1,800 cubic feet per acre
of drainage area and a surface area of 325 square feet per cfs of Q10 peak flow. Sediment basins
are designed to temporarily pool runoff water to allow sediment to settle before the water is
discharged. Unfortunately, they are usually not very efficient due to high turbulence, which
takes the runoff quickly to the outlet with little interaction with most of the basin. Per the 2005
revisions, three baffles are now required for a basin of this size. Baffles improve the rate of
sediment retention by distributing the flow and reducing turbulence, allowing the baffles to
capture soil particles 50 percent smaller than those captured without the use of baffles. Baffles
also lower the chances of short-circuiting. To further improve sediment retention, the use of a
skimmer attached at the bottom of a riser pipe is suggested. Skimmers are a dewatering
mechanism that pulls water from the top of the water column. After the runoff has passed
through the baffles, the sediment has had time to drop to the bottom of the water column.
Therefore, the overflow water at the top will have the least amount of sediment particles.

Sediment fences are also used very frequently and are inefficient at capturing sediment before it
leaves the site. This BMP is overused and, in most cases, is installed improperly. For these
reasons DLR has revised the requirements to make it more efficient. For better support, the use
of steel posts in the place of wooden posts is now required. The fence should be anchored by
placing 12 inches of washed stone on the toe of the fence that should be facing uphill. Another
method to anchor the fence is to slice the fabric into the ground. This method uses specially
designed equipment to insert the fabric into a cut sliced in the ground with a disc. By slicing the
fabric into the ground, excavating a trench can be avoided. Sediment fences require that
installation is done properly and regular maintenance is scheduled.

Other new technologies such as applications of flocculants, rolled erosion control products,
hardware cloth and gravel inlet protection, rock pipe inlet protection, and rock doughnut inlet
protection are specified in the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual, which can be found at http://dlr.enr.state.nc.us/pages/manualsandvideos.html.
These technologies can significantly increase efficiency of trapping sediment on land disturbing
Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors 133
sites. Research funded by the Sedimentation Control Commission (SCC) and the NC
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) at NCSU demonstrated that turbidity levels could
approach the current turbidity standard of 50 NTU (for waters not classified Tr) in runoff if these
devices are used. However, the most important factor in reducing sedimentation is timely cover
of cleared land with mulch matting or netting that are adequately tacked. It has been
conclusively proven that use of ground cover (temporary or permanent) dramatically reduces
erosion rates.

13.2.3 Loss of Riparian Vegetation and Organic Aquatic Microhabitats

During the 2004 basinwide sampling, DWQ biologists reported degradation of aquatic
communities at numerous sites throughout the Roanoke River basin in association with narrow
or nonexistent zones of native riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation loss was common in rural
and residential areas as well as in urban areas. The loss of riparian vegetation and subsequent
reduction of organic aquatic habitats is caused by removal of riparian areas most commonly by
land clearing for development, field agriculture, and pastureland as well as forestry and by
grazing animals. Instream organic habitat removal has also been caused by de-snagging
activities.

Removing trees, shrubs and other vegetation to plant grass or place rock (also known as riprap)
along the bank of a river or stream degrades water quality. Removing riparian vegetation
eliminates habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates that are food for trout and other fish. Rocks or
concrete lining a bank absorb the sun’s heat and warm the water. Some fish require cooler water
temperatures as well as the higher levels of dissolved oxygen cooler water provides. Trees,
shrubs and other native vegetation cool the water by shading it. Straightening a stream, clearing
streambank vegetation, and lining the banks with grass or rock severely impact the habitat that
aquatic insects and fish need to survive.

Establishing, conserving and managing streamside vegetation (riparian buffer) is one of the most
economical and efficient BMPs. Forested buffers in particular provide a variety of benefits
including filtering runoff and taking up nutrients, moderating water temperature, preventing
erosion and loss of land, providing flood control and helping to moderate streamflow, and
providing food and habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. To obtain a free copy of
DWQ’s Buffers for Clean Water brochure, call [phone], ext. 558.

Organic microhabitat (leafpacks, sticks and large wood) and edge habitat (root banks and
undercut banks) play very important roles in a stream ecosystem. Organic matter in the form of
leaves, sticks and other materials serve as the base of the food web for small streams.
Additionally, these microhabitats serve as special niches for different species of benthic
macroinvertebrates, providing food and/or habitat. For example, many stoneflies are found
almost exclusively in leafpacks and on small sticks. Some beetle species prefer edge habitat,
such as undercut banks. If these microhabitat types are not present, there is no place for these
specialized macroinvertebrates to live and feed. The absence of these microhabitats in some
streams in the Roanoke River basin is directly related to the absence of riparian vegetation.
Organic microhabitats are critical to headwater streams, the health of which is linked to the
health of the entire downstream watershed.

134 Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors

13.2.4 Channelization

Channelization refers to the physical alteration of
naturally occurring stream and riverbeds.
Channelization is caused by mechanical straightening
of channels or by hydraulic overloading during rain
events. Often streams in urban areas become
channelized as part of the development process in
essence using the stream channels as stormwater
conveyances. Although increased flooding, bank
erosion and channel instability often occur in
downstream areas after channelization has occurred,
flood control, reduced erosion, increased usable land
area, greater navigability and more efficient drainage
are frequently cited as the objectives of
channelization projects (McGarvey, 1996).

Typical Channel Modifications

• Removal of any obstructions,
natural or artificial, that inhibit a
stream’s capacity to convey
water (clearing and snagging).
• Widening, deepening or
straightening of the channel to
maximize conveyance of water.
• Lining the bed or banks with
rock or other resistant materials.

Channelization reduces the sinuosity of streams greatly increasing the velocity of water flowing
down these streams. Direct or immediate biological effects of channelization include injury and
mortality of benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, shellfish/mussels and other wildlife populations, as
well as habitat loss. Indirect biological effects include changes in benthic macroinvertebrate,
fish and wildlife community structures, favoring species that are more tolerant of or better
adapted to the altered habitat (McGarvey, 1996).

Restoration or recovery of channelized streams may occur through processes, both naturally and
artificially induced. In general, streams that have not been excessively stressed by the
channelization process can be expected to return to their original forms. However, streams that
have been extensively altered may establish a new, artificial equilibrium (especially when the
channelized streambed has been hardened). In such cases, the stream may enter a vicious cycle
of erosion and continuous entrenchment. Once the benefits of a channelization project become
outweighed by the costs, both in money and environmental integrity, channel restoration efforts
are likely to be taken (McGarvey, 1996).

Channelization of streams within the continental United States is extensive and promises to
become even more so as urban development continues. Overall estimates of lost or altered
riparian habitats within US streams are as high as 70 percent. Unfortunately, the dynamic nature
of stream ecosystems makes it difficult (if not impossible) to quantitatively predict the effects of
channelization (McGarvey, 1996). Channelization has occurred historically in parts of the
Roanoke River basin and continues to occur in some watersheds, especially in small headwater
streams.

13.2.5 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation

In March 2002, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) sent a letter to the
Sedimentation Control Commission (SCC) outlining seven recommendations for improving
erosion and sedimentation control, based on a comprehensive performance review of the
Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors 135
turbidity standard conducted in 2001 by DWQ staff. Specifically, the recommendations are that
the EMC and SCC:

1. evaluate, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, whether statutory
authority is adequate to mandate temporary ground cover over a percentage of the
uncovered area at a construction site within a specific time after the initial disturbance
of the area. If it is found that statutory authority does not exist, then the EMC and
SCC should prepare resolutions for the General Assembly supporting new legislation
to this effect;

2. prepare resolutions supporting new legislation to increase the maximum penalty
allowed in the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act from $5,000 to $25,000 for the
initial response to a noncompliant site;

3. jointly support a review of the existing Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual by DLR. This review should include, but not be limited to, a redesign
of the minimum specifications for sedimentation basins;

4. evaluate, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, whether the statutory
authority is adequate for effective use of the "Stop Work Order" tool and, if found not
to be adequate, to prepare resolutions for the General Assembly supporting new
legislation that will enable staff to more effectively use the "Stop Work Order" tool;

5. support increased research into and experimentation with the use of polyacrylamides
(PAMs) and other innovative soil stabilization and turbidity reduction techniques;

6. jointly support and encourage the awarding of significant monetary penalties for all
activities found to be in violation of their Stormwater Construction General Permit,
their Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, or the turbidity standard; and

7. hold those individuals who cause serious degradation of the environment through
excessive turbidity and sedimentation ultimately responsible for restoration of the
area.

DWQ will continue to work cooperatively with DLR and local programs that administer
sediment control in order to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and to take appropriate
enforcement action when necessary to protect or restore water quality. However, more voluntary
implementation of BMPs is needed for activities that are not subject to these rules in order to
substantially reduce the amount of widespread sedimentation present in the Roanoke River basin.
Additionally, more public education is needed basinwide to educate landowners about the value
of riparian vegetation along small tributaries and the impacts of sedimentation to aquatic life.

Funding is available through numerous federal and state programs for landowners to restore
and/or protect riparian buffer zones along fields or pastures, develop alternative watering sources
for livestock, and fence animals out of streams (refer to Chapters 11 and 16). EPA’s Catalog of
Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection (Document 841-B-99-003) outlines some of
these and other programs aimed at protecting water quality. A copy may be obtained by calling
136 Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors

the National Center for Environmental Publications and Information at [phone] or by
visiting the website at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/fund.html. Local
contacts for various state and local agencies are listed in Appendix VIII.

13.3 Aquatic Life Stressors – Water Quality Standard Violations

13.3.1 Introduction and Overview

In addition to the habitat stressors discussed in the previous section, the stressors discussed
below are identified by water quality standards. These are usually direct measures of water
quality parameters from ambient water quality monitoring stations. The water quality standards
are designed to protect aquatic life. As with habitat degradation, altered watershed hydrology
greatly increases the sources of these stressors as well as delivery of the stressors to the receiving
waters. The following are water quality standards that were identified for waters with noted
impacts. Refer to the subbasin chapters (Chapter 1 – 10) for more information on the affected
waters.

13.3.2 Low Dissolved Oxygen

Maintaining an adequate amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) is critical to the survival of aquatic
life and to the general health of surface waters. A number of factors influence DO
concentrations including water temperature, depth and turbulence. Additionally, in the Roanoke
River basin, a large floodplain drainage system and flow management from upstream
impoundments also influences DO. Oxygen-consuming wastes such as decomposing organic
matter and some chemicals can reduce DO levels in surface water through biological activity and
chemical reactions. NPDES permits for wastewater discharges set limits on certain parameters
in order to control the effects that oxygen depletion can have in receiving waters.

Waters are Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10 percent of samples collected exceed
the state DO standard and at least 10 samples were collected. The DO water quality standard for
Class C waters is not less than a daily average of 5 mg/l with a minimum instantaneous value of
not less than 4 mg/l. Swamp waters (supplemental Class Sw) may have lower values if caused
by natural conditions. In the Roanoke River basin during this assessment period, there were 39
stream miles that are Impaired where low DO is a stressor. There were also over 30 freshwater
stream miles where low DO is a stressor for waters with noted impacts, although many of these
streams are in swampy areas where low DO levels are likely from natural sources.

13.3.3 Turbidity

The major sources of elevated turbidity are from agriculture and land clearing activities as well
as from urban stormwater. These sources also add other pollutants beside suspended
particulates. Waters are Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10 percent of samples
collected exceed the state turbidity standard and at least 10 samples were collected. The
turbidity water quality standard for Class C waters are not to exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity
Units (NTU). However, trout waters (Tr) are not to exceed 10 NTUs. In the Roanoke River
basin during this assessment period, there were 55 stream miles Impaired where turbidity is a
Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors 137
stressor; of these 11.6 were trout stream miles. There were also 4 freshwater stream miles and
362 freshwater acres that are impacted where turbidity is a stressor.

13.3.4 Toxic Impacts

Toxic impacts are noted as a stressor during biological monitoring or when identified from
NPDES compliance reports. Waters are not impaired due to toxic impacts, but toxic impacts can
be noted as a potential stressor on the system, which can ultimately result in impairment. During
the most recent assessment period, toxic impacts were noted on 25.5 stream miles. Of these, 9.2
miles of the Dan River and 4.5 miles of Marlowe Creek are noted as having toxic impacts due to
WWTP whole effluent toxicity (WET) test failures in the last two years of the assessment period
(Chapter 1 and 5). Toxic impacts were also noted as a stressor for 11.8 miles of the Little Island
Creek due to the watershed being encompassed by a defunct Tungsten mine (Chapter 6).

13.3.5 Other Aquatic Life Stressors

Several noted stressors to aquatic life are identified from WWTP NPDES compliance reports.
Waters are not Impaired due to permit violations, however these violation can be noted as a
potential stressor on the system. In the Roanoke River basin during this assessment period, there
were 59, 11, 4, and 1 stream mile impacted where Total Suspended Solids (TSS), ammonia,
chlorine and pH respectively were the noted stressors.

13.4 Recreation Stressor

13.4.1 Fecal Coliform Bacteria

Water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria are intended to ensure safe use of waters for
recreation (refer to Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2B .0200). The North Carolina
fecal coliform standard for freshwater is 200 colonies/100ml based on the geometric mean of at
least five consecutive samples taken during a 30-day period and not to exceed 400
colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of the samples during the same period. In the Roanoke
River basin, there were 43.3 stream miles where this standard was exceeded. These waters are
Impaired for recreation. An additional 8 stream miles exceeded the fecal coliform bacteria
screening criteria. These waters were not intensively sampled to assess the standard as described
above, but had either a geometric mean above 200 colonies/100ml and/or 20 percent of samples
exceeded 400 colonies/100ml over the five-year assessment period. These waters are discussed
in the subbasin chapters. A total of 230.6 stream miles were monitored for recreation, of these
only 111 stream miles are class B waters.

As stated above, there were 43 stream miles Impaired due to fecal coliform bacteria standard
violations. There were an additional 18 Impaired stream miles that were noted as having fecal
coliform bacteria as a noted stressor and another 26 stream miles for waters with noted impacts.
These come from ambient data as well as from WWTP NPDES compliance reports.

A number of factors beyond the control of any state regulatory agency contribute to elevated
levels of disease-causing bacteria. Therefore, the state does not encourage swimming in surface
waters. To assure that waters are safe for swimming indicates a need to test waters for
138 Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors

pathogenic bacteria. Although fecal coliform standards have been used to indicate the
microbiological quality of surface waters for swimming for more than 50 years, the value of this
indicator is often questioned. Evidence collected during the past several decades suggests that
the coliform group may not adequately indicate the presence of pathogenic viruses or parasites in
water.

Fecal coliform bacteria live in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals (humans as well as
other mammals) and are excreted in their waste. Fecal coliform bacteria generally do not pose a
danger to most people or animals. However, where fecal coliform are present, disease-causing
bacteria may also be present and water that is polluted by
human or animal waste can harbor other pathogens that
may threaten human health.

The presence of disease-causing bacteria tends to affect
humans more than aquatic creatures. High levels of fecal
coliform bacteria can indicate high levels of sewage or
animal wastes that could make water unsafe for human
contact (swimming). Fecal coliform bacteria and other
potential pathogens associated with waste from warm-
blooded animals are not harmful to fish and aquatic
insects. However, high levels of fecal coliform bacteria
may indicate contamination that increases the risk of
contact with harmful pathogens in surface waters.
Pathogens associated with fecal coliform bacteria can
cause diarrhea, dysentery, cholera and typhoid fever in
humans. Some pathogens can also cause infection in open wounds.
Sources of Fecal Coliform
in Surface Waters

• Urban stormwater
• Wild animals and domestic pets
• Improperly designed or managed
animal waste facilities
• Livestock with direct access to
streams
• Improperly treated discharges of
domestic wastewater, including
leaking or failing septic systems
and straight pipes

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.

Reducing fecal coliform bacteria in wastewater requires a disinfection process, which typically
involves the use of chlorine and other disinfectants. Although these materials may kill the fecal
coliform bacteria and other pathogenic disease-causing bacteria, they also kill bacteria essential
to the proper balance of the aquatic environment, and thereby, endanger the survival of species
dependent on those bacteria.

The detection and identification of specific pathogenic bacteria, viruses and parasites such as
Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Shigella are expensive, and results are generally difficult to
reproduce quantitatively. Also, to ensure the water is safe for swimming would require a whole
suite of tests for many organisms, as the presence/absence of one organism would not document
the presence/absence of another. This type of testing program is not possible due to resource
constraints.

Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors 139
13.5 Fish Consumption Stressors

The presence and accumulation of mercury in North Carolina’s aquatic environment are similar
to contamination observed throughout the country. Mercury has a complex life in the
environment, moving from the atmosphere to soil, to surface water, and eventually, to biological
organisms. Mercury circulates in the environment as a result of natural and human
(anthropogenic) activities. A dominant pathway for mercury in the environment is through the
atmosphere. Mercury emitted from industrial and municipal stacks into the ambient air can
circulate around the globe. At any point, mercury may then be deposited onto land and water.
Once in the water, mercury can accumulate in fish tissue and humans. Mercury is also
commonly found in wastewater; however, mercury in wastewater is typically not at levels that
could be solely responsible for elevated fish levels

Fish is part of a healthy diet and an excellent source of protein and other essential nutrients.
However, nearly all fish and shellfish contain trace levels of mercury. The risks from mercury in
fish depend on the amount of fish eaten and the levels of mercury in the fish. In March 2003, the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a
joint consumer advisory for mercury in fish and shellfish. The advice is for women who might
become pregnant, women who are pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children. Aside from
being issued jointly by two federal agencies, this advisory is important because it emphasizes
positive benefits of eating fish and gives examples of commonly eaten fish that are low in
mercury. In the past, the FDA issued an advisory on consumption of commercially caught fish,
while the EPA issued advice on recreationally caught fish.

By following these three recommendations for selecting and eating fish, women and young
children will receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and be confident that they have
reduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury. These recommendations are:

• Do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish. They contain high levels of
mercury.

• Eat up to 12 ounces (two average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are
lower in mercury. Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp,
canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish. Another commonly eaten fish, albacore
(“white”) tuna, has more mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals
of fish, you may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore per week.

• Check local advisories about the safety of fish caught by family and friends in your local
lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. If no advice is available, eat up to 6 ounces (one average
meal) per week of fish you catch from local waters. Don’t consume any other fish during
that week.

For more detailed information, visit EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/ or visit
the FDA at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/seafood1.html. The FDA’s food information toll-free phone
number is 1-888-SAFEFOOD.

140 Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors

The NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) also issues fish consumption
advisories and advice for those fish species and areas at risk for contaminants. NCDHHS
notifies people to either limit consumption or avoid eating certain kinds of fish. While most
freshwater fish in North Carolina contain very low levels of mercury and are safe to eat, several
species have been found to have higher levels. More information regarding use support
assessment methodology related to fish consumption advisories and advice can be found in
Appendix X.

Due to high levels of mercury in seventeen saltwater and five freshwater fish species, the
NCDHHS offers the following health advice (updated March 31, 2006).

Women of childbearing age (15 to 44 years), pregnant women, nursing women, and
children under 15:

• Do not eat the following ocean fish: almaco jack, banded rudderfish, canned
white tuna (albacore tuna), cobia, crevalle jack, greater amberjack, south
Atlantic grouper (gag, scamp, red, and snowy), king mackerel, ladyfish, little
tunny, marlin, orange roughy, shark, Spanish mackerel, swordfish, tilefish, or
tuna (fresh or frozen).
• Do not eat the following freshwater fish: bowfin (blackfish), catfish (caught
wild), chain pickerel (jack fish), or warmouth caught in North Carolina waters
south and east of Interstate 85.
• Do not eat largemouth bass caught in North Carolina waters (statewide).
• Eat up to two meals per week of other fish. A meal is 6 ounces of cooked fish
for adults or 2 ounces of cooked fish for children under 15.

All other people:

ƒ Eat no more than one meal (6 ounces) per week of ocean and/or freshwater fish
listed above. These fish are often high in mercury.
ƒ Eat up to four meals per week of other fish. A meal is 6 ounces of cooked fish
for adults or 2 ounces of cooked fish for children under 15.

For more information and detailed listing of site-specific advisories, visit the NCDHHS website
at http://www.schs.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html or call [phone].

Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors 141
142 Chapter 13 – Water Quality Stressors

Chapter 14
Wastewater and Stormwater Programs

14.1 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 that serve populations greater than
100,000 and stormwater discharges associated with certain industrial activities. Point source
dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program,
which is delegated to DWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The primary pollutants associated
with point source discharges are:

* oxygen-consuming wastes,
* nutrients,
* color, and
* toxic substances including chlorine,
ammonia and metals.

Currently, there are 77 permitted
wastewater discharges in the Roanoke
River basin. Table 14 provides summary
information (by type and subbasin) about
the discharges. Various types of
dischargers listed in the table are described
in the inset box. Facilities are mapped in
each subbasin chapter. For a complete
listing of permitted facilities in the basin,
refer to Appendix VI.
Types of Wastewater Discharges

Major Facilities: Wastewater Treatment Plants with
flows ≥1 MGD (million gallons per day); and some
industrial facilities (depending on flow and potential
impacts to public health and water quality).
Minor Facilities: Facilities not defined as Major.
100% Domestic Waste: Facilities that only treat
domestic-type waste (from toilets, sinks, washers).
Municipal Facilities: Public facilities that serve a
municipality. Can treat waste from homes and
industries.
Nonmunicipal Facilities: Non-public facilities that
provide treatment for domestic, industrial or
commercial wastewater. This category includes
wastewater from industrial processes such as
textiles, mining, seafood processing, glass-making
and power generation, and other facilities such as
schools, subdivisions, nursing homes, groundwater
remediation projects, water treatment plants and
non-process industrial wastewater.

The majority of NPDES permitted
wastewater flow in the Roanoke River
basin is from minor municipal wastewater
treatment plants (WWTP). Nonmunicipal
discharges also contribute substantial
wastewater flow into the Roanoke River
basin. Facilities, large or small, where
recent data show problems with a
discharge are discussed in each subbasin
chapter.
Chapter 14 – Wastewater and Stormwater Programs 143
Table 14 - Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Roanoke River Basin
(as of 04/21/05)
Roanoke River Subbasin
Facility Categories 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Total
Total Facilities 21 10 11 4 7 3 10 0 8 3 77
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 1.29 5.37 20.26 0.66 26.02 6.00 41.69 0.0 85.98 1.30 188.57
Major Discharges 1 1403130 2 116
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.0 4.5 19.2 0.0 26.02 6.0 37.54 0.0 84.5 1.15 178.91
Minor Discharges 20 9 7 4 4 2 7 0 6 2 61
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 1.29 0.87 1.06 0.66 0.01 0.0036 4.15 0.0 1.48 0.15 9.67
100% Domestic Waste 14 3 4 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 26
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.63 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.0036 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.91
Municipal Facilities 2 2221140 4 220
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.6 5.28 14.5 0.63 5.0 6.0 9.77 0.0 3.03 1.3 46.11
Nonmunicipal Facilities 19 8 9 2 6 2 6 0 4 1 57
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.69 0.10 5.76 0.03 21.02 0.0036 31.93 0.0 82.95 0.0 142.48

14.2 DWQ Stormwater Programs

There are several different stormwater programs administered by DWQ and local jurisdictions.
One or more of these programs affects many communities in the Roanoke River basin. The goal
of the DWQ stormwater discharge 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 NPDES Phase I and II, HQW/ORW stormwater
requirements, and requirements associated with the Water Supply Watershed Program. Local
governments that are or may be affected by these programs are presented in Table 15.

14.2.1 NPDES Phase I

Phase I of the EPA stormwater program started with Amendments to the Clean Water Act
(CWA) in 1990. Phase I required NPDES permit coverage to address stormwater runoff from
medium and large stormwater sewer systems serving populations of 100,000 or more. There are
no NPDES Phase I stormwater permits issued to communities in the basin.

Phase I also had requirements for eleven categories of industrial sources to be covered under
stormwater permits. Industrial activities which require permitting are defined in ten categories
ranging from sawmills and landfills to manufacturing plants and hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal facilities. Construction sites disturbing greater than five acres were also
144 Chapter 14 – Wastewater and Stormwater Programs

required to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit under Phase I of the EPA stormwater program.
Excluding construction stormwater general permits, there are 106 general stormwater permits
and 6 individual stormwater permits. Refer to the subbasin chapters for more information on
stormwater programs and permits and a complete listing of individual permits in Appendix VI.

14.2.2 NPDES Phase II

The Phase II stormwater program is an extension of the Phase I program that expands permit
coverage to include smaller municipalities below 100,000 populations. The local governments
permitted under Phase II are required to develop and implement a comprehensive stormwater
management program that includes six minimum measures.

1. Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts;
2. public involvement/participation;
3. illicit discharge detection and elimination;
4. construction site stormwater runoff control;
5. post-construction stormwater management for new development and redevelopment; and
6. pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations.

Construction sites greater than one acre will also be required to obtain an NPDES stormwater
permit under Phase II of the EPA stormwater program in addition to erosion and sedimentation
control approvals.

Those municipalities and counties required to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit under the
Phase II rules are identified using 1990 US Census Designated Urban Areas and the results of the
2000 US Census. Based on federal census data, EPA identified 123 cities, including, and 33
counties in North Carolina that would be required to obtain permits for stormwater management.

The EPA delegated Phase II implementation to each state and then in 1999 the Division of Water
Quality and the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) initiated a rulemaking process.

Stormwater Management Rule Update:

In 2002, the EMC adopted temporary stormwater rules and by 2003 had adopted permanent rules
that were to become effective August 1, 2004. In early 2004, the Rules Review Commission
(RRC) objected to the rules for failure to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act and
lack of statutory authority. The EMC challenged the decision of the RRC in court (EMC v. RRC
04 CVS 3157). A Wake County Superior Court ruled in the EMC’s favor and the RRC
subsequently approved the EMC’s rules. However, while the case was pending the legislature
enacted a separate set of requirements in 2004 that were designed to replace the EMC rules.

These rules include NPDES stormwater rules covering owners and operators of storm sewer
systems and State stormwater rules covering activities in urbanizing areas. The EMC amended
the rules at their November 10, 2005 meeting to address objections raised by the RRC at their
October 2005 meeting. The inconsistency between the legislative requirements and the EMC
rules necessitated consideration of Senate Bill 1566 in the 2006 short session. The legislature
approved Session Law 2006-246, Senate Bill 1566 in 2006.
Chapter 14 – Wastewater and Stormwater Programs 145

Senate bill 1566 provides that development projects in Phase II municipalities and counties that
cumulatively disturb one acre or more of land must comply with the post-construction
stormwater standards set out in the bill. The bill sets out criteria whereby unincorporated areas
of counties will be subject to Phase II requirements. Under these criteria 25 counties are fully
covered, while 8 counties have portions that are subject to the stormwater requirements. The bill
also provides a designation and petition process by which additional local governments and other
entities may be required to obtain a stormwater management permit.

The bill sets out stormwater controls that are based on a project’s level of density and its
proximity to Shellfish Resource Waters. Shellfish Resource Waters are waters classified by the
EMC as Class SA waters (shellfish growing waters) that contain an average concentration of 500
parts per million of natural chloride ion (saltwater).

The Water Quality Committee (WQC) met in November 2006 and directed DWQ Staff to return
in January 2007 WQC meeting with proposed amendments to the State Stormwater Rules.
These rules will extend the coastal post-construction stormwater controls in Session Law 2006-
246 to all 20 Coastal Counties.

Low Density Projects

Development projects that are located within one-half mile of and draining to Shellfish Resource
Waters are considered low density if they contain no more than 12 percent built-upon area. A
project that is not located within one-half mile of Shellfish Resource Waters is a low density
project if it contains no more than 24 percent built-upon area or no more than two dwelling units
per acre. Low density projects must use vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent
practicable to transport stormwater runoff from the project.

High Density Projects

Projects that are located within one-half mile of and draining to Shellfish Resource Waters are
considered high density if they contain more than 12 percent built-upon area. A project that is
not located within one-half mile of Shellfish Resource Waters is a high density project if it
contains more than 24 percent built-upon area or more than two dwelling units per acre. High
density projects must use structural stormwater management systems that will control and treat
runoff from the first one inch of rain unless the project is in a coastal county, in which case the
project must use structural stormwater management systems that will control and treat runoff
from the first one and one-half inches of rain. In addition, projects that are located within one-
half mile and draining to Shellfish Resource Waters must control and treat the difference in the
stormwater runoff from the pre-development and post-development conditions for the one-year
twenty-four hour storm as well as meet certain design standards.

Implementation

The bill provides an implementation schedule that requires regulated entities to apply for an
NPDES stormwater management permit within 18 months of being notified that it is a regulated
entity subject to the requirements of this act. A regulated entity must implement its post-
146 Chapter 14 – Wastewater and Stormwater Programs

construction program no later than 24 months from the date the permit is issued and fully
implement its permitted program within five years of permit issuance. City of Jacksonville and
Onslow County have both submitted applications for Phase II.

The bill authorizes the EMC to adopt Phase II stormwater management rules. If the EMC does
adopt rules, the rules must be substantially identical to the provisions of this act and will be
automatically subject to review by the General Assembly and not subject to review by the RRC.
The bill became effective retroactively to July 1, 2006.

Major Post-Construction Stormwater Controls in SL 2006-246

Shellfish Resource
Waters*
(SA Waters w/ > 500 ppm
chlorides)
SA Designated Waters –
Not Shellfish Resource
Waters*

Coastal County –
Not SA
Designated
Waters
Non – Coastal
County
Low Density
Threshold 12% 24% 24% 24%
Storm Design for
High Density

Difference in pre and post-
development for 1-yr, 24-
hour storm**
Runoff from first 1.5
inches of rain
Runoff from first
1.5 inches of rain
Runoff from first
1 inch of rain
Setback 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet

Other Controls

No new points of s/w
discharge

No increase in rate,
volume, or capacity in
existing conveyances

Infiltration up to
1-yr, 24-hr storm

Diffuse flow in excess of
1-yr, 24-hr storm
No new points of s/w
discharge

No increase in rate,
volume, or capacity in
existing conveyances

Infiltration up to
1-yr, 24-hr storm

Diffuse flow in excess of
1-yr, 24-hr storm

*These controls apply within ½ mile and draining to these waters.
**Amount of Runoff that would need to be controlled in inches for the difference in pre- and post-development conditions for the
1-year, 24-hour storm.

For additional information on stormwater programs please go to http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/

2006 Recommendations
DWQ recommends that the local governments that will be permitted under Phase II develop
programs that go beyond the six minimum measures. Implementation of Phase II, as well as the
other stormwater programs, should help to reduce future impacts to streams in the basin. Local
governments, to the extent possible, should identify sites for preservation or restoration. DWQ
and other NCDENR agencies will continue to provide information on funding sources and
technical assistance to support local government stormwater programs.

14.2.3 State Stormwater Program

The State Stormwater Management Program was established in the late 1980s under the
authority of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and North
Carolina General Statute 143-214.7. This program, codified in 15A NCAC 2H .1000, affects
development activities that require either an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (for disturbances
Chapter 14 – Wastewater and Stormwater Programs 147
of one or more acres) or a CAMA major permit within one of the 20 coastal counties and/or
development draining to Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or High Quality Waters (HQW).

The State Stormwater Management Program requires new developments to protect these
sensitive waters by maintaining a low density of impervious surfaces, maintaining vegetative
setbacks, and transporting runoff through vegetative conveyances. Low-density development
thresholds vary from 12-30 percent built-upon area (impervious surface) depending on the
classification of the receiving stream. If low-density design criteria cannot be met, then high-
density development requires the installation of structural best management practices (BMPs) to
collect and treat stormwater runoff from the project. High density BMPs must control the runoff
from the 1 or 1.5-inch storm event (depending on the receiving stream classification) and remove
85 percent or 90 percent of the total suspended solids.

Current Status
Table 15 shows the communities in the Roanoke River basin where permits may be required
under the state stormwater management program. All development in the three coastal counties
requiring an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (for disturbances of one or more acres) or
requiring a CAMA major permit must obtain a stormwater permit.

2006 Recommendations
DWQ will continue implementing the state stormwater program with the other NCDENR
agencies and local governments. Local governments should develop local land use plans that
minimize impervious surfaces in sensitive areas. Communities should integrate state stormwater
program requirements, to the extent possible, with other stormwater programs in order to be
more efficient and gain the most water quality benefits for protection of public health and aquatic
life.

14.3 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules

Current Status
The purpose of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program is to provide a proactive
drinking water supply protection program for communities. Local governments administer the
program based on state minimum requirements. There are restrictions on wastewater discharges,
development, landfills and residual application sites to control the impacts of point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. The program attempts to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff by
utilizing low-density development or stormwater treatment in high-density areas.

All communities in the Roanoke River basin in water supply watersheds have EMC approved
water supply watershed protection ordinances.

2006 Recommendations
DWQ recommends continued implementation of local water supply protection ordinances to
ensure safe and economical treatment of drinking water. Communities should also integrate
water supply protection ordinances with other stormwater programs, to the extent possible, in
order to be more efficient and gain the most water quality benefits for both drinking water and
aquatic life.
148 Chapter 14 – Wastewater and Stormwater Programs

Table 15 - Communities in the Roanoke River Basin Subject to Stormwater Requirements
Local Government

NPDES
Phase I and Phase II
State
Stormwater
Program
Water Supply
Watershed Stormwater
Requirements
Municipalities
Askewville X
Aulander
Danbury X
Eden Likely in the Future X
Garysburg
Gaston X
Halifax
Hamilton
Hassell
Henderson
Hobgood X
Jackson
Jamesville X
Kelford X
Kernersville Phase II X
Lewiston Woodville
Littleton
Macon
Madison X
Mayodan X
Middleburg
Milton
Norlina
Oak City
Plymouth X
Reidsville Likely in the Future X
Rich Square
Roanoke Rapids Likely in the Future X
Roxobel X
Roxboro X
Rural Hall Phase II X
Scotland Neck
Stokesdale X
Stoneville X
Chapter 14 – Wastewater and Stormwater Programs 149
Stovall
Walkertown Phase II, has applied for a waiver
from permit requirements X
Walnut Cove X
Weldon
Wentworth
Williamston
Windsor X
Yanceyville X
Counties
Beaufort A coastal county
Bertie A coastal county
Caswell X
Forsyth Phase II, in Process X
Granville X
Guilford Phase II, in Process X
Halifax X
Martin X
Northampton X
Orange Phase II X
Person X
Rockingham X
Stokes Phase II X X
Surry X
Vance X
Warren
Washington A coastal county

150 Chapter 14 – Wastewater and Stormwater Programs

Chapter 15
TMDLs in the Roanoke River Basin

15.1 Introduction to TMDLs

A TMDL or Total Maximum Daily Load 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 be used for the purposes the state had designated. The
calculation must also account for seasonal variation and critical conditions in water quality.

For each water quality limited segment Impaired by a pollutant and identified in the 303(d) list, a
TMDL must be developed. A TMDL includes a water quality assessment that provides the
scientific foundation for an implementation plan. An implementation plan outlines the steps
necessary to reduce pollutant loads in a certain body of water to restore and maintain human uses
or aquatic life. For more information on TMDLs and the 303(d) listing process, refer to
Appendix VII or visit the TMDL website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/.

15.2 Approved TMDLs in the Roanoke River Basin

The Dan River (subbasin 03-02-03) TMDL for turbidity was completed and approved by EPA on
January 11, 2005. A dioxin TMDL for Welch Creek/Roanoke River (subbasin 03-02-09) was
approved in 1996. The Roanoke River (subbasin 03-02-08) TMDL for dissolved oxygen
consuming wastes was approved in 1996. The Cashie River (subbasin 03-02-10) draft TMDL
for Mercury completed the public input process and was submitted to USEPA in 2005 for
finalization.

15.3 Scheduled TMDLs in the Roanoke River Basin

EPA guidance provides a timeline for TMDL development of 8 to 13 years. Thus, the elapsed
time between 303(d) listing and TMDL development should not exceed 8 to 13 years. If the
pace of TMDL development does not comply with this schedule, EPA may elect to develop
TMDLs in order to meet this timeline. Waterbodies that were listed in 1998 should have
TMDLs developed by 2006 to 2011.

15.4 TMDL Implementation Efforts

Point source (i.e., wastewater) implementation plans are included in TMDLs per EPA guidance.
Thus, any point source discharging to an Impaired water will receive an explicit allocation within
the TMDL. In some cases, the allocation may be equal to existing permit limits; thus, no action
is needed by the wastewater permittee. In other cases, the allocation may be associated with a
reduction in loading. Where applicable, the point source allocation may include provisions for
bubble permits and point-to-point trading.
Chapter 15 - TMDLs in the Roanoke River Basin 151
Nonpoint source implementation plans are not included in TMDLs, nor are they required by
federal law. Nonpoint source implementation plans can be developed by DWQ, other agencies
within DENR, COGs or local government offices. The Environmental Management
Commission (EMC), the rule-making agency, provides oversight on nonpoint source programs
and adopts rules to implement strategies that protect water quality.

EPA has provided guidance regarding TMDLs and NPDES stormwater permits. As a result,
selected NPDES stormwater permits may contain additional language when subject to a TMDL.
Per EPA, MS4s identified in TMDLs as contributors to impairment may be required to develop a
management plan that includes additional monitoring and BMP installation associated with
pollutants of concern.

15.5 Impaired Waters – 303(d) listing

Waters identified as Impaired during this assessment period will be updated in the 2008 303(d)
list. These waters will be considered Impaired upon EMC approval of this basin plan, scheduled
for September 2006. TMDLs will be scheduled as appropriate depending upon the location of
the waterbody and the identified problem parameters.
152 Chapter 15 - TMDLs in the Roanoke River Basin

Chapter 16
Agriculture and Water Quality

16.1 Animal Operations

In 1992, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted a rule modification (15A
NCAC 2H.0217) establishing procedures for managing and reusing animal wastes from intensive
livestock operations. The rule applies to new, expanding or existing feedlots with animal waste
management systems designed to serve animal populations of at least the following size: 100
head of cattle, 75 horses, 250 swine, 1,000 sheep or 30,000 birds (chickens and turkeys) with a
liquid waste system.

Key Animal Operation Legislation (1995-2003)

1995 Senate Bill 974 requires owners of swine facilities with 250 or more animals to hire a certified operator.
Operators are required to attend a six-hour training course and pass an examination for certification. Senate Bill
1080 established buffer requirements for swine houses, lagoons and land application areas for farms sited after
October 1, 1995.

1996 Senate Bill 1217 required all facilities (above threshold populations) to obtain coverage under a general permit,
beginning in January 1997, for all new and expanding facilities. DWQ was directed to conduct annual
inspections of all animal waste management facilities. Poultry facilities with 30,000+ birds and a liquid waste
management system were required to hire a certified operator by January 1997 and facilities with dry litter
animal waste management systems were required to develop an animal waste management plan by January
1998. The plan must address three specific items: 1) periodic testing of soils where waste is applied; 2)
development of waste utilization plans; and 3) completion and maintenance of records on-site for three years.
Additionally, anyone wishing to construct a new or expand an existing swine farm must notify all adjoining
property owners.

1997 House Bill 515 placed a moratorium on new or existing swine farm operations and allows counties to adopt
zoning ordinances for swine farms with a design capacity of 600,000 pounds (SSLW) or more. In addition,
owners of potential new and expanding operations are required to notify the county (manager or chair of
commission) and local health department, as well as adjoining landowners. NCDENR was required to develop
and adopt economically feasible odor control standards by March 1, 1999.

1998 House Bill 1480 extended the moratorium on construction or expansion of swine farms. The bill also requires
owners of swine operations to register with DWQ any contractual relationship with an integrator.

1999 House Bill 1160 extended (again) the moratorium on new construction or expansion of swine farms, required
NCDENR to develop an inventory of inactive lagoons. The Bill requires owners/operators of an animal waste
treatment system to notify the public in the event of a discharge to surface waters of the state of 1,000 gallons or
more of untreated wastewater.

2000 Attorney General Easley reached a landmark agreement with Smithfield Foods, Inc. to phase out hog lagoons
and implement new technologies that will substantially reduce pollutants from hog farms. The agreement
commits Smithfield to phase out all anaerobic lagoon systems on 276 company-owned farms. Legislation will
be required to phase out the remaining systems statewide within a 5-year period (State of Environment Report
2000).

2001 House Bill 1216 extended (again) the moratorium on new construction or expansion of swine farms.
153 Chapter 16 – Agriculture and Water Quality
Table 16 and Figure 23 summarize, by subbasin, the number of registered livestock operations,
total number of animals, number of facilities, and total steady state live weight (SSLW) as of
January 2005. These numbers reflect only operations required by law to be registered, and
therefore, do not represent the total number of animals in each subbasin.

Table 16 - Registered Animal Operations in the Roanoke River Basin (as of 01/28/05)
Cattle Poultry Swine
Total Total Total
Subbasin No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State
Facilities Animals Live Weight*Facilities Animals Live Weight*Facilities Animals Live Weight*
03-02-01 2 365 511,000 0 0 0 1 800 417,600
03-02-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,205 521,765
03-02-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,800 243,000
03-02-04 2 400 560,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
03-02-05 1 200 280,000 0 0 0 4 500 708,500
03-02-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2,506 1,940,810
03-02-07 3 700 980,000 0 0 0 4 5,750 2,349,250
03-02-08 4 1,205 1,192,000 1 60,000 240,000 11 31,575 6,692,065
03-02-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 14,488 2,252,480
03-02-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6,360 2,426,080
Totals 12 2,870 3,523,000 1 60,000 240,000 33 64,984 17,551,550
* 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
guidelines. Since the amount of waste produced varies by hog size, this is the best way to compare the sizes of the farms.

16.2 Impacted Streams in Agricultural Areas

In the Roanoke River basin, the majority of agricultural land is cultivated crop. Impacts to
streams from agricultural activities can include excessive nutrient loading, pesticide and
herbicide contamination, bacterial contamination, and sedimentation.

Based on the most recent information from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) National Resources Inventory (NRI), agricultural land use in the Roanoke River basin
has decreased. Cultivated cropland decreased by 20.4 percent (9,700 acres) and uncultivated
crop increased by 89.5 percent (22,200 acres), respectively. Pasture use decreased by 21.5
percent (2,400 acres). This same data also shows that urban and built-up areas increased by
136.1 percent (74,700 acres) (USDA-NRCS, 2001). Refer to Appendix III for more information
related to land use changes in the Roanoke River basin.

2006 Recommendations
DWQ will identify streams where agricultural land use may be impacting water quality and
aquatic habitat. Local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and NRCS staff should
investigate these streams to assess agricultural impacts and recommend best management
154 Chapter 16 – Agriculture and Water Quality
#*!(!(
!(#*
#*#*
#*!(#*!(#*#*#*
#*
#*
Dan

R
i
v
e
r
Hyco
Lake
Mayo
Reservoir
Kerr
Reservoir
STOKES
FORSYTH
ROCKINGHAM CASWELL
PERSON GRANVILLE
VANCE
D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
03-02-01
Belews
Lake
M
a
y
o

R
i
v
e
r
Winston-Salem
Eden
Reidsville
Roxboro
Madison Henderson
King
Yanceyville
Walnut Cove
Rural Hall
Stoneville
Danbury
Stovall
Kernersville
Milton
Middleburg
03-02-01 03-02-03 03-02-05 03-02-0603-02-0403-02-02
®
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 30, 2006
#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*!(#*#*
#*#*!(
")
#*#*#*!(
!(!(#*#*!(#*#*#*!(#*#*#*
R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
C
a
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r
Lake
Gaston
03-02-09
03-02-08
03-02-10
03-02-07
BERTIE
HALIFAX
MARTIN
WARREN
NORTHAMPTON
Windsor
Gaston
Roanoke Rapids
Weldon
Roxobel
Jackson
Williamston Plymouth
Hobgood
Norlina
Rich Square
Littleton
Askewville
Jamesville
Lewiston-
Woodville
Oak City
Scotland
Neck
Macon
Hamilton
Halifax
Hassell
Aulander
0 102030405
Miles
Legend
Animal Operations
!(Cattle
")Poultry
#*Swine
Muncipalities
Subbasins
Hydrography
Counties
Figure 23 Anima l Operations in the Roanoke River Basin
practices (BMPs) to reduce the impacts. DWQ recommends that funding and technical support
for agricultural BMPs continue and increase. Refer to Appendix VIII for agricultural nonpoint
source agency contact information.

16.3 Agricultural Best Management Practices Funding Opportunities

16.3.1 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives 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.
The program provides assistance to farmers in complying with federal and state environmental
laws and encourages environmental enhancement. The purposes of the program are achieved
through the implementation of a conservation plan that includes structural, vegetative and land
management practices on eligible land. Two to ten-year contracts are made with eligible
producers. Cost share payments may be made to implement one or more eligible structural or
vegetative practices, such as animal waste management facilities, composters, filter strips,
livestock exclusion and permanent wildlife habitat. Incentive payments can be made to
implement one or more land management practices, such as nutrient management, pest
management, grazing land management and long-term conservation tillage.

Sixty percent of the funding available for this program is targeted at natural resource concerns
relating to livestock production. The program is carried out at the county level with base funding
levels made available to each county. In North Carolina, EQIP was funded at approximately
$14.0 million for 2005.

NRCS district contacts for the Roanoke River basin are provided in Appendix VIII or visit the
website at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/ for more information.

16.3.2 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. 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 divides the approved BMPs into five main purposes or categories.

ƒ 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 to improve water quality. Practices include:
critical area planting, cropland conversion, water diversion, long-term no-till, pastureland
conversion, sod-based rotation, strip cropping, terraces, and Christmas tree conservation
cover.

156 Chapter 16 – Agriculture and Water Quality

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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 (e.g., fencing), spring development, stream crossings, trough or watering tanks,
wells, and livestock feeding areas.

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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
is completed, inspected and certified to be installed according to NCACSP standards. The
annual statewide budget for BMP cost sharing is approximately $5.2 million, and another $2.1
million is provided for technical assistance for local soil and water conservation district staff.
From September 1, 2000 to August 31, 2004, $3,0396,686 was implemented for projects in the
Roanoke River basin. Table 17 summaries the cost and total BMPs implemented (i.e., acres,
units, and linear feet) throughout the Roanoke River basin.

County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) contacts for the Roanoke River basin are
included in Appendix VIII. BMP definitions and DSWC contact information can be found
online at www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/agcostshareprogram.html.

Chapter 16 – Agriculture and Water Quality 157
Table 17 – NC Agriculture Cost Share Programs Contributions, BMPs Implemented and
Potential Loadings Saved within the Roanoke River Basin
Purpose of BMP
Erosion Reduction1 Sediment Reduction2 Stream Protection3 Animal Waste4
Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($)Total
Cost ($)
165.74 acres 48,319 5.51 acres 11,805 372 units 73,942 2 unit 18,905 Subbasin
03-02-01 15,785 ft.11,958 164,929
405.9 acres 69,521 19.93 acres 28,916 377 units 81,347 4 units 31,613 Subbasin
03-02-02 2,445 ft. 2,459 16,105 ft.12,650 226,506
448.36 acres 49,035 25.86 acres 33,017 10 units 21,515 Subbasin
03-02-03 1,938 ft. 2,107 1 unit 955 18,785 ft.11,746 118,375
770.66 acres 93,275 37.67 acres 50,489 7 units 13,688 Subbasin
03-02-04 10,913 ft. 11,050 943 ft.637 169,139
263.62 acres 32,997 101.19 acres 148,482 2 units 3,728 2 units 9,082 Subbasin
03-02-05 18,493 ft. 19,523 4 units 3,849 12,742 ft.13,315 230,976
2852.46 acres 301,314 251.44 acres 313,996 403 units 132,687 6 units 40,695 Subbasin
03-02-06 49,462 ft. 48,771 5 units 4,804 50,136 ft.39,402 881,669
629.02 acres 91,126 34.89 acres 35,497 6 units 10,609 Subbasin
03-02-07 8,320.3 ft. 7,710 144,942
1978.68 acres 226,707 104.2 acres 128,146 26 units 34,738 5 units 60,139 Subbasin
03-02-08 17,343 ft. 15,498 2 units 1,465 1 ton 6,000 472,693
1053.18 acres 71,023 78.55 acres 155,916 19 units 203,025 Subbasin
03-02-09 0.5 ft. 1,120 1 gallon 6,000
5 tons 24,000 461,084
676.6 acres 32,607 37 acres 43,219 13 units 111,547 Subbasin
03-02-10 3 tons 12,000 199,373
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
Subbasin
Soil Saved
(tons)
(N)itrogen
Saved
(lb.)
(P)hosph-
orous
Saved
(lb.)
Waste-N
Saved
(lb.)
Waste-P
Saved
(lb.)
03-02-01 4,871 8,849 1,610 61,457 38,571
03-02-02 9,045 22,325 2,363 75,907 47,530
03-02-03 7,638 33,382 1,449 193 188
03-02-04 8,600 92,650 1,607
03-02-05 9,783 82,887 1,588 40,316 21,358
03-02-06 47,300 301,830 15,276 116,628 69,112
03-02-07 28,599 22,038 9,026
03-02-08 32,523 94,312 39,321 115,570 97,500
03-02-09 11,457 54,711 25,015 266,082 101,934
03-02-10 2,259 20,545 2,355 128,256 72,086

158 Chapter 16 – Agriculture and Water Quality

16.3.3 Agricultural Sediment Initiative

In 2000, the NC Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the NC Soil and
Water Conservation Commission initiated an effort to assess stream channels and watersheds of
streams on the state’s 2000 303(d) list due to sediment where agriculture was included as a
potential source. The primary objective of the Agricultural Sediment Initiative was to evaluate
303(d) listed waters in order to assess the severity of sedimentation associated with agricultural
activities within the watershed and to develop local strategies for addressing sedimentation. The
initiative involved 47 Impaired stream segments in 34 counties and 11 river basins.

Within the Roanoke River Basin, Smith Creek in subbasin 03-02-07 (Chapter 7) was targeted
through this initiative. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation and the Warren Soil and
Water Conservation District have obtained two section 319 grants, totaling $178,803 to fund best
management practices and water quality education efforts in this watershed.

16.3.4 Conservation Security Program

The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is a voluntary conservation program that identifies
and rewards farmers who are meeting the highest standards of conservation and environmental
management on their operations. In addition, CSP creates powerful incentives for other
producers to meet those same standards of conservation performance. CSP is administered by
USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The Lower Roanoke watershed was
selected as a CSP watershed in 2005, which includes Northampton, Bertie, Halifax, Washington
and Martin counties. Approximately 701 farms in this watershed are eligible to join the
program. For more information on the CSP program visit the NRCS website at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/2005_CSP_WS/.

Chapter 16 – Agriculture and Water Quality 159
160 Chapter 16 – Agriculture and Water Quality

Chapter 17
Forestry in the Roanoke River Basin

17.1 Forestland Ownership

Approximately 80 percent of timberland in the Roanoke River basin is privately-owned by
individual landowners (Figure 24). This ownership estimate comes from the most recent 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).

It is estimated that forest industry owns nearly 10 percent of the timberland in the basin, while
the remaining 10 percent is divided among other corporate ownership and public ownership.
While there are no State Forests, Educational State Forests, or National Forest lands within the
basin, there are large tracts of timberlands dedicated as State or National wildlife refuges and
gamelands.

10% Industrial
Forest
Landowners
80% Private –
Individual
Landowners
10% Corporate/Public
Ownership

Figure 24 - Ownership of Forestland in the Roanoke River Basin

17.2 Forestry Water Quality Regulations in North Carolina

17.2.1 Forest Practices Guidelines for Water Quality (FPGs)

Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act (SPCA) of 1973 (reference NCGS Ch.113A Art.4). However, forestry operations
may be exempted 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
(referred to as “FPGs”, reference 15A NCAC 1I .0101 - .0209) and N.C. General Statutes
regarding stream obstruction (G.S.77-13 & G.S.77-14).

The FPGs are nine standards that are, in essence, codified performance-based practices that are
required on forestry-related, site-disturbing activities. While the specific use of Best
Chapter 17 – Forestry in the Roanoke River Basin 161
Management Practices (BMPs) is voluntary, measures must be taken to comply with the
standards defined in the FPGs.

The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (DFR) is delegated the authority to monitor
and evaluate forestry operations for compliance with these aforementioned laws and/or rules. In
addition, the DFR works to resolve identified FPG compliance questions brought to its attention
through citizen complaints. Violations of the FPG performance standards that cannot be
resolved by the DFR are referred to the appropriate State agency for enforcement action.

During the period September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2004 the Division of Forest Resources
conducted 1,697 FPG inspections of forestry-related activities in the Roanoke River basin; 93
percent of the sites inspected were in compliance.

17.2.2 Other Forestry Related Water Quality Regulations

In addition to the State regulations noted above, DFR monitors the implementation of the
following Federal rules relating to water quality and forestry operations:
y the Section 404 Dredge and Fill exemption under the Clean Water Act;
y the US Army Corps of Engineers 15 mandatory BMPs related to road construction in
wetlands; and
y the US Army Corps of Engineers mandatory BMPs for mechanical site preparation activities
for the establishment of pine plantations in the southeast.

17.2.3 Water Quality Foresters

Water Quality Foresters conduct FPG inspections, survey BMP implementation, develop pre-
harvest plans, and provide training opportunities for landowners, loggers, and the public
regarding water quality issues related to forestry. They also participate in DFR-supported aerial
reconnaissance flights to help locate potential water quality problems, as schedules and aircraft
availability allows.

The DFR has an assigned Water Quality Forester in each of its Districts that cover the entire
Roanoke River basin. The four foresters are based in the DFR's Lexington, Hillsborough, Rocky
Mount, and Elizabeth City District Offices. The Lexington and Elizabeth City positions were
added in 2005 as a result of new appropriations.

The DFR currently has a Water Quality Forester located in ten of its thirteen Districts across the
State. Assistant District Foresters or Service Foresters handle water quality issues in the
remaining Districts, along with other forest management and fire control responsibilities. See
Appendix VIII for contact names and telephone numbers.

17.2.4 Forestry Best Management Practices

While using BMPs for forestry operations are voluntary in North Carolina, their usage is strongly
encouraged in order to efficiently and effectively protect our water resources. It is interesting to
note that while the state laws do not require using BMPs, several forestry and timber companies
require BMPs to be used when timber is harvested to supply their manufacturing mills. This
162 Chapter 17 – Forestry in the Roanoke River Basin

requirement is typically a component of the forest certification program(s) adopted by the forest
products company.

The North Carolina Forestry Best Management Practices Manual describes recommended
techniques that can be used to help comply with the State’s forestry laws and help protect water
quality. This manual is currently undergoing its first revision since adoption in 1989. This
revision, led by the DENR-appointed Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has undertaken over
three years’ of effort.

BMP Surveys
From March 2000 through March 2003, the DFR conducted a statewide BMP Implementation
Survey to evaluate Forestry BMPs on active harvest operations for forest management purposes.

This survey evaluated 34 sites in the basin, which amounts to six percent (6 percent) of the total
number of surveys conducted. The BMP implementation rate was 90 percent, placing these sites
within the upper quartile from across the state during this survey.

The problems most often cited from the survey results across the state relate to stream crossings,
skid trails, and site rehabilitation. This BMP survey, and additional periodic 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.

Bridgemat Loan Project
To help address some of these issues, the DFR has been providing bridgemats on loan out to
loggers for establishing temporary stream crossings during harvest activities. Temporary bridges
are usually the best solution for stream or ditch crossings, instead of culverts, hard-surfaced
‘fords’, or pole-timber crossings. Bridgemats have been available for use in the middle portion of
the Roanoke River basin for three years.

Additional mats are being purchased by DFR for the lower Roanoke basin, to be based in Martin
and Bertie counties. Bridgemats have been funded through US-EPA Section 319 Grants and
from the Albemarle-Pamilco National Estuary Program (APNEP). More information about using
bridgemats, and the above noted BMP survey, is available on the ‘Water Quality’ section of the
DFR’s website http://www.dfr.state.nc.us./.

Hurricane Isabel
In September 2003, Hurricane Isabel damaged several thousand acres of timberland across the
lower Roanoke basin and elsewhere, with an estimated 186,000 acres impacted in Bertie County
alone, which accounts for over one-quarter of all Isabel timber damage.

A short period of widespread salvage logging operations occurred after the storm in an effort to
salvage damaged timber. The DFR sent foresters from outside the region to the impacted area to
perform the additional FPG inspections warranted by this increased level of timber harvesting
activities.

Chapter 17 – Forestry in the Roanoke River Basin 163
17.3 Forest Resources

17.3.1 Forest Products Industry

The economic value of the forest industry is evident across the Roanoke River basin. Twenty-
eight (28) different businesses in the basin are considered “Primary Processors” of forest
products raw material, which represents twelve percent (12 percent) of the total number of
primary processors located in the state.

Two of the five pulp & paper mills that operate in North Carolina are located within the Roanoke
basin. Other examples of primary processors in the basin include sawmills, pallet mills, and
engineered lumber mills.

These forest product manufacturing facilities are foundations of the economy across the basin
and its surrounding counties by providing not only direct employment, but also ancillary
employment from service sectors, forestry occupations, and manufacturing support industries.

In addition to their employment value, all primary processors in North Carolina pay an
assessment to the state, which is then combined with legislative appropriations, to fund the
“Forest Development Program - FDP”, which provides cost-shared reforestation assistance for
forest landowners.

17.3.2 Forest Management

Some of the best-quality hardwood sawtimber in the eastern United States grows within the
lower sections of the Roanoke River, which has been an important source of renewable timber
resources for over two centuries.

In order to provide the raw materials used by the forest industry, the management of working
forests is a vital component of the basin’s landscape. This is evident from DFR records that
indicate at least 54,000 acres of land were established or regenerated with forest trees across the
basin from September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2004. Almost 70 percent of these reforested
acres were partially funded through the FDP.

During this same time period the DFR provided over 2,600 individual forest management plans
for forest landowners that encompassed nearly 154,000 acres in the basin.

17.3.3 Urban and Community Forestry

While the Roanoke River basin in North Carolina is relatively rural when compared to other
river basins in the state, there are still opportunities for smaller communities to undertake Urban
& Community Forestry projects that provide value for its citizens.

Two such towns, Eden and Yanceyville, are recognized as a “Tree City USA” by DFR’s Urban
& Community Forestry Program. Since 2001, seven Urban & Community Forestry Program
Grants have been awarded to various groups in the basin, amounting to over $53,000 in project
funding.
164 Chapter 17 – Forestry in the Roanoke River Basin

Urban forestry grant projects may include tree inventories, ornamental and streetscape tree
planting, or the development of educational and training resources. Urban forestry, and an
associated field known as Agroforestry are becoming increasingly important components in
reducing NPS runoff by integrating ‘working green space’ into urbanized areas.

17.3.4 Forestry Accomplishments

Since the previous basinwide plan was produced, the DFR accomplished the following tasks in
an ongoing effort to improve compliance with forest regulations and, in turn, minimize nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution from forestry activities:

1. provided bridgemats for loaning to loggers for the first time across the western and central
portions of the Roanoke River, and are purchasing additional bridgemats for the lower
Roanoke section;
2. established a Forestry NPS Unit that develops and oversees projects throughout the state that
involves protection, restoration and education on forestry NPS issues;
3. revised and produced 10,000 copies of a pocket field guide outlining the requirements of the
FPGs and suggested BMPs to implement;
4. created and published 15,000 copies of a new informational brochure for landowners entitled
“Call Before You Cut” promoting pre-harvest planning to insure water quality issues are
addressed prior to undertaking timber harvesting; and
5. continued to assist with workshops in cooperation with the N.C. Forestry Association’s
“ProLogger” logger training program. As of 2005, this program requires at least 6 credit
hours of continuing education every 3 years focused exclusively on water quality topics.

DFR continues its efforts to protect water quality through various protection, restoration, and
education projects statewide. This includes monitoring studies, stream restoration, in-woods
exhibits, and integration of NPS topics through the DFR’s network of Educational State Forests
as well as other public venues. One notable example included the first-ever “Forestry Festival”
hosted in part by the DFR at Plymouth, NC in May 2005.

Progress reports and summaries are posted in the ‘Water Quality’ section of the DFR’s Web site
http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/ as they are completed.

Chapter 17 – Forestry in the Roanoke River Basin 165
166 Chapter 17 – Forestry in the Roanoke River Basin

Chapter 18
Water Resources

18.1 River Basin Hydrologic Units

Under the federal system, the Roanoke River basin is made up of hydrologic areas referred to as
cataloging units (USGS 8-digit hydrologic units). The Roanoke River basin is made up of five
whole cataloging units: Dan River (NC portion), County Line Creek and Hyco Reservoir, Kerr
Reservoir and Tributaries, Lake Gaston and Smith Creek and Cashie River and Roanoke River.
Cataloging units are further divided into smaller watershed units (14-digit hydrologic units or
local watersheds) that are used for smaller scale planning like that done by NCEEP. There are
123 local watershed units in the basin. Table 18 compares the three systems. A map identifying
the hydrologic units and subbasins can be found in Appendix I.

Table 18 - Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Roanoke River Basin
Watershed Name
and
Major Tributaries
DWQ
Subbasin
6-Digit
Codes
USGS
8-Digit
Hydrologic
Units
USGS
14-Digit Hydrologic Units
Local Watersheds*
Dan River (NC Portion)
Town Fork Creek, Snow Creek, Wolf
Island Creek, Big Beaver Island,
Belews Lake, Mayo River, Smith
River
03-02-01
03-02-02
03-02-03

03010103 170010, 170020, 170030, 180010, 170050,
170040, 180020, 190010, 180030, 190020,
180050, 180040, 210100, 210150, 210200,
220020, 220010, 220030, 220050, 220040,
230010, 230020, 250030, 230040,
Country Line Creek and Hyco Reservoir
Hogans Creek, Country Line Creek,
Hyco Creek, Marlowe Creek, Hyco
River, Mayo Reservoir
03-02-03
03-02-04
03-02-05
03-02-06
03010104 021010, 021020, 021030, 021040, 021050,
021060, 021070, 021080, 032010, 032020,
032030, 040040, 061010, 061020, 061030,
061040, 061050, 061060, 061070, 061080,
061090, 062010, 062020, 063010, 065010
Kerr Reservoir and Tributaries
Grassy Creek, Island Creek, Nutbush
Creek
03-02-06 03010102 161010, 161020, 161030, 161040, 170010,
170020, 170030, 170040, 180010
Lake Gaston and Smith Creek
Sixpound Creek, Deep Creek,
Roanoke Rapids Lake
03-02-07
03-02-08
03010106 031010, 041010, 041020, 041030, 041040,
041050, 041060, 041070, 041080, 041090,
041100
Cashie River and Roanoke River
Roquist Creek, Conoho Creek,
Hardison Mill Creek, Quankey Creek,
Conconnara Swamp, Connaritsa
Swamp, Kehukee Swamp
03-02-08
03-02-09
03-02-10

03010107 080010, 080020, 080040, 080030, 070010,
070030, 070020, 080050, 090020, 070040,
110010, 090010, 090030, 160010, 160011,
160020, 100020, 110020, 100010, 160012,
160050, 160030, 130010, 160040, 160070,
110030, 120010, 160060, 120020, 160071,
160090, 130020, 160110, 160080, 120050,
160130, 120040, 160115, 160120, 160081,
120030, 170020, 130030, 120070, 130040,
150020, 170010, 120060, 140050, 150030,
140040, 150010, 140020, 140030, 140010
* Numbers from the 8-digit and 14-digit column make the full 14-digit HU.
Chapter 18 – Water Resources 167
18.2 Minimum Streamflow

One of the purposes of the Dam Safety Law is to ensure maintenance of minimum streamflows
below dams. Conditions may be placed on dam operations specifying mandatory minimum
releases in order to maintain adequate quantity and quality of water in the length of a stream
affected by an impoundment. The Division of Water Resources, in conjunction with the Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC), recommends conditions relating to release of flows to satisfy
minimum instream flow requirements. The Division of Land Resources (DLR) issues the
permits. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses all dams associated with
hydropower.

Hydroelectric Dams
There are three operational dams in the Roanoke River basin, which are all located on the
Roanoke River (subbasin 03-02-07, 03-02-08). Information on these three dams is presented
below. In addition, there are two dam projects that are under development both of which are
located on the Mayo River (subbasin 03-02-02).

J.H. Kerr Dam is owned and operated by the U.S Army Corp of Engineers and covers 48,900
acres at an elevation of 300 feet. John H. Kerr project is authorized for recreation, flood control,
hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, and water supply. John H. Kerr is not
regulated for low flow augmentation since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
assigned that requirement to the two Virginia Power Company projects located downstream.
Kerr Reservoir extends into Mecklenburg, Charlotte and Halifax counties in Virginia and
Granville, Vance and Warren counties in North Carolina.

Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Dam is owned and operated by Dominion North Carolina Power.
These projects are regulated by FERC and have minimum flow requirements per FERC license
number P-2009. The life of the license is forty years and was issued on March 31, 2004 and re-
issued as ‘revised’ on March 4, 2005. Several license requirements are listed in the articles
below:

Article 407. Roanoke River Bypassed Reach Flows.
Notwithstanding, the minimum flow in the bypass shall not be less than 325 cfs.

Article 409. Roanoke Rapids Flow Operating Restrictions.
From December 1 through January 15, the licensee shall maintain a minimum flow of 2,000
cubic feet per second (cfs) if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) weekly flow
declaration for the Kerr dam is less than 6,000 cfs, or the daily mean of the weekly declaration
(as defined in Settlement Agreement Article GP2), whichever is less. Notwithstanding, the
licensee shall only release flows less than 2000 cfs pursuant to the provisions of article 405 of
this license and settlement agreement article FL2, Section 4.2. If the Corps’ weekly flow
declaration for the Kerr dam is equal to, or greater than, 6,000 cfs, the licensee shall maintain a
minimum flow of 2,500 cfs.

From January 16 through the end of February, the licensee shall maintain a minimum flow of
2,500 cfs if the Corps’ weekly flow declaration for the Kerr dam is less than 6,000 cfs, or the
daily mean of the weekly declaration (as defined in Settlement Agreement Article GP2),
168 Chapter 18 – Water Resources

whichever is less. Notwithstanding, the licensee shall only release flows less than 2000 cfs
pursuant to the provisions of article 405 of this license and settlement agreement article FL2,
Section 4.2. If the Corps’ weekly flow declaration for the Kerr dam is equal to, or greater than,
6,000 cfs, the licensee shall maintain a minimum flow of 3,000 cfs.

From March 1 through March 31, the licensee shall be afforded up to five days with which to
operate in a peaking mode, provided that peaking operations occur only subject to all of the
following conditions: (1) for no more than three consecutive days; (2) for no more than three
days in any 7-day period; (3) during no more than two weeks during the month of March; (4) for
no more than two days from March 25 through March 31; and (5) provided further that the
Corps’ weekly declaration flow is greater than 3,500 cfs. During peaking operations, the
licensee shall maintain a minimum flow of 3,500 cfs, and maintain an 8,500-cfs flow for 1 hour
as flows are increased from the minimum flow to the generation flow and decreased from the
generation flow to the minimum flow. At all other times, the licensee shall maintain a
continuous flow equal to the daily mean of the Corps’ weekly declaration flow for Kerr Dam (as
defined in Settlement Agreement Article GP2).

From April 1 through June 15, the licensee shall maintain, at all times, a continuous minimum
flow equal to the Corps’ weekly declaration flow for the Kerr dam (as defined in Settlement
Agreement Article GP2), and no change in weekly flow shall exceed 5,000 cfs per hour.

From June 16 through November 30, the licensee shall maintain the following minimum flows:
Time Period Discharge (cfs)
June 16 – June 30 2,800
July 1 – September 15 2,000
September 16 – November 15 1,500
November 16 – November 30 2,000

Under drought conditions, as determined by the Corps’, the licensee shall maintain, between
January 1 and August 31, a minimum flow of 2,000 cfs; and between September 1 and
November 30, a minimum flow of 1,500 cfs; and between December 1 and December 31, a
minimum flow of 2,000 cfs.

For complete license, go to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) e-Library,
Advanced Search Page at: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercadvsearch.asp and enter
“20050304-3070” in “Accession Number” field.

18.3 Interbasin Transfers

In addition to water withdrawals (discussed above), water users in North Carolina are also
required to register surface water transfers with the Division of Water Resources (DWR) if the
amount is 100,000 gallons per day or more. In addition, persons wishing to transfer two million
gallons per day (MGD) or more, or increase an existing transfer by 25 percent or more, must first
obtain a certificate from the Environmental Management Commission (G.S. 143-215.22I). The
river basin boundaries that apply to these requirements are designated on a map entitled Major
River Basins and Sub-Basins in North Carolina, on file in the Office of the Secretary of State.
These boundaries differ from the 17 major river basins delineated by DWQ.
Chapter 18 – Water Resources 169
In determining whether a certificate should be issued, the state must determine that the overall
benefits of a transfer outweigh the potential impacts. Factors used to determine whether a
certificate should be issued include:

• the necessity, reasonableness and beneficial effects of the transfer;
• the detrimental effects on the source and receiving basins, including effects on water supply
needs, wastewater assimilation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, hydroelectric power
generation, navigation and recreation;
• the cumulative effect of existing transfers or water uses in the source basin;
• reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer; and
• any other facts and circumstances necessary to evaluate the transfer request.

A provision of the interbasin transfer law requires that an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement be prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Policy
Act as supporting documentation for a transfer petition.

In the Roanoke River basin, the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS) is a public water
system serving portions of Vance, Granville, Franklin and Warren counties. The System serves
three bulk customers—the City of Henderson, City of Oxford, and Warren County—which
currently supply water to the Town of Kittrell, Town of Norlina, Town of Warrenton, Town of
Middleburg, Franklin County and the City of Louisburg.

In June 2003, KLRWS submitted an Environmental Assessment (EA) to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) for the Kerr Lake Water System
Expansion to increase their existing water treatment plant capacity from 10 MGD to 20 MGD.
This EA was granted a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on June 19, 2003. The
treatment plant has been approved for a higher filter rating, allowing the plant to operate under
special circumstances at 15 MGD or potentially operate at 25 MGD after plant expansion.

A meeting was held at NCDENRs office in Raleigh, NC on February 24, 2004 to review and
prepare the scoping document for the KLRWS Interbasin Transfer petition. The compilation of
key environmental issues and relevant agency comments at this meeting revealed greater clarity
as to the requirements for this petition. Since the magnitude of the impacts from this proposed
project is uncertain at this time, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was chosen as the initial
document format. If, however, the EA concludes that the environmental impacts will be
significant and cannot be fully mitigated, an EIS will be prepared. A determination that an EIS
is required may be made at any time during the EA review process.

For more information on interbasin transfers, visit the website at http://www.ncwater.org or call
DWR at [phone].

18.4 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.
170 Chapter 18 – Water Resources

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
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 that may not be as extreme as future droughts.
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 decreased flow conditions create linger retention times and allow algae to take full
advantage of the nutrients present resulting in algal blooms. During the daylight hours, algae
greatly increase the amount 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.

18.5 Source Water Assessment of Public Water Supplies

18.5.1 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:

ƒ delineate source water assessment areas;
Chapter 18 – Water Resources 171
ƒ inventory potential contaminants in these areas; and
ƒ 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
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.

18.5.2 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.

18.5.3 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.
172 Chapter 18 – Water Resources

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
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 (e.g., turbidity and total coliform) and watershed
characteristics (e.g., 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.

18.5.4 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:

ƒ fact sheets outlining sources of funding and other resources for local SWP efforts;
ƒ success stories describing local SWP efforts in North Carolina; and
ƒ 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.
Chapter 18 – Water Resources 173
18.5.5 Public Water Supply Susceptibility Determinations in the Roanoke 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
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 Roanoke River Basin, 456 public water supply sources were identified. Thirteen are
surface water sources and 443 are groundwater sources. Of the 443 groundwater sources, 15
have a Higher susceptibility rating, 403 have a Moderate susceptibility rating and 25 have a
Lower susceptibility rating. Table 19 identifies the thirteen surface water sources and the 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 19 - SWAP Results for Surface Water Sources in the Roanoke River Basin

PWS ID Number Inherent Vulnerability Rating
Contaminant Rating Overall Susceptibility Rating
Name of Surface Water Source Public Water Supply Name
0217010 M L M Fullers Creek Town of Yanceyville
0217010 M L M Farmer Lake Town of Yanceyville
0273010 M L M Lake Roxboro City of Roxboro
0273409 M L M Hyco Lake Roxboro Steam Plant
0273427 M L M Mayo Lake CP&L-Mayo Elec Gen Plant
0273010 M L M City Lake City of Roxboro
0279010 H H H Dan River Town of Eden
0279025 H L M Mayo River Town of Mayodan
0279030 H M H Dan River Town of Madison
0291010 M L M Kerr Lake
Henderson-Kerr Lake
Regional Water
0442010 M L M Roanoke Rapids Lake
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary
District
0442010 H L M Roanoke River
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary
District
0442020 H L M Roanoke River Weldon Water System
H – higher; M – moderate; L – lower.

174 Chapter 18 – Water Resources
03010103
03010104
03010102
03010106 03010107
03-02-09
03-02-08
03-02-01
03-02-03 03-02-05 03-02-06
03-02-10
03-02-04
03-02-02
03-02-07
®Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 15, 2006
0 2040608010
Miles
Figure 25 8-Digit Hydrologic Units in the Roanoke River Basin
176 Chapter 18 – Water Resources

Chapter 19
Natural Resources

19.1 Ecological Significance of the Roanoke River Basin

The Roanoke River basin is ecologically significant and diverse in numerous ways, and contains
habitat for over 140 rare plant and animal species. The character of the basin is somewhat
montane as it enters North Carolina, where some natural communities are often associated with
mountains, including Canada Hemlock Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Low Elevation Rocky Summit,
Spray Cliff and Carolina Hemlock Bluff. The Roanoke then flows about 100 miles through the
Piedmont and the Coastal Plain. In the Piedmont, it provides habitat for a number of rare fish
and mussels, as well as small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera), a species only
known to Stokes County and adjacent Hentry County, Virginia. This endemic plant requires
small or intermittent streams and seepage areas and is found in the wet soil and rocks along small
stream banks, and in hardwood forest with intact forest cover. This species had been presumed
extinct however it was rediscovered in 1985, nearly 30 years after it had last been seen. The
Coastal Plain section of the Roanoke River contains high-quality examples of wetland
communities such as Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods and Cypress-Gum Swamps. Some of
these natural communities are extensive, and the large blocks of habitat are excellent for wildlife.
Finally, the Roanoke River is the major contributor of freshwater to Albemarle Sound.

19.2 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species

Table 20 lists the rare fish, mollusks, insects, amphibians, and reptiles found throughout the
Roanoke River basin. For information on any of the species listed in Table 20, visit the NC
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) website at www.ncnhp.org.

Rare Species Listing Criteria
E = Endangered (those species in danger of becoming extinct)
T = Threatened (considered likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future)
SR = Significantly Rare (those whose numbers are small and whose populations need monitoring)
SC = Species of Special Concern
FSC = Federal Species of Concern (those under consideration for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act)
T(S/A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance
EX = Extirpated
(PSC) = Proposed Species of Concern (This is a proposed status, not yet adopted by Wildlife Resource Commission)
Chapter 19 – Natural Resources 177
Table 20 - Rare aquatic animal species in the Roanoke River Basin (Source: NC Natural
Heritage Program, July 2005)
Scientific Name Major
Group Common Name State
Status
Federal
Status
Lasmigona subviridis Mollusk Green floater E FSC
Ligumia nasuta Mollusk Eastern pondmussel T
Strophitus undulatus Mollusk Creeper T
Alasmidonta undulata Mollusk Triangle floater T
Leptodea ochracea Mollusk Tidewater mucket T
Pleurobema collina Mollusk James spinymussel SR E
Fusconaia masoni Mollusk Atlantic pigtoe E FSC
Lampsilis radiata Mollusk Eastern lampmussel T
Anodonta implicata Mollusk Alewife floater T
Elliptio roanokensis Mollusk Roanoke slabshell T
Alasmidonta varicosa Mollusk Brook floater E FSC
Orconectes virginiensis Crustacean Chowanoke crayfish SC FSC
Etheostoma collis pop. 2 Fish Carolina darter - Eastern Piedmont population SC FSC
Etheostoma podostemone Fish Riverweed darter SC
Acipenser brevirostrum Fish Shortnose sturgeon E E
Noturus gilberti Fish Orangefin madtom E FSC
Hypentelium roanokense Fish Roanoke hog sucker SR
Exoglossum maxillingua Fish Cutlips minnow E (PSC)
Cottus caeruleomentum Fish Blue ridge sculpin SR (PSC)
Thoburnia hamiltoni Fish Rustyside sucker E FSC
Scartomyzon ariommus Fish Bigeye jumprock T
Diplectrona metaqui Insect A diplectronan caddisfly SR
Micrasema sprulesi Insect A caddisfly SR
Ceraclea mentiea Insect A caddisfly SR
Ephemerella berneri Insect A mayfly SR
Ceraclea cancellata Insect A caddisfly SR
Hemidactylium scutatum Amphibian Four-toed salamander SC
Ambystoma talpoideum Amphibian Mole salamander SC
Glyptemys muhlenbergii Reptile Bog turtle T T(S/A)
178 Chapter 19 – Natural Resources

19.3 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Roanoke River Basin

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) compiles a list of Significant Natural
Heritage Areas as required by the Nature Preserves Act. 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
special animal habitats. 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. 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.

Figure 26 is a map of the Significant Natural Heritage Areas of the Roanoke River Basin. Sites
that directly contribute to the maintenance of water quality in the Roanoke River basin are
highlighted on the map and in the following text. The Natural Heritage Program has identified
over 145 individual natural areas in the Roanoke River Basin. Because of this large number a
some of the more important are discussed below:

Hanging Rock State Park is situated among the Sauratown Mountains, an isolated group of low
mountains. The most prominent feature of the park is its series of steep, quartzite-capped ridges
dissected by Cascades and Indian Creeks. Among the several rare plant species in the park are
Greenland sandwort (Minuartia groenlandica), Bradley's spleenwort (Asplenium bradleyi), and a
substantial population of bear oak (Quercus ilicifolia) on xeric slopes of Cooks Wall and Moores
Knob.

Several important aquatic habitats are located in the Roanoke River Basin. Many of these are
discussed below, but two of the more notable are the Dan River in Stokes County and the Mayo
River. The Dan River Aquatic Habitat (Stokes County) is considered of national significance.
As the Dan and Little Dan Rivers flow from Virginia, the waters maintain several fish species
found nowhere else in North Carolina. The rarest of these fish is orangefin madtom, found in
North Carolina only in these two waterways. This section of the river also contains populations
of the federally endangered James River spinymussel. Other rare species that the Stokes County
stretch of the Dan River provides habitat for include rare fish (Blue Ridge sculpin, cutlips
minnow, Roanoke hog sucker, rustyside sucker, bigeye jumprock, and riverweed darter), mussels
(James spinymussel, green floater, notched rainbow), and one rare plant, the Federally
Endangered small-anthered bittercress. The Mayo River Aquatic Habitat is also nationally
significant, and contains one of the best populations in the nation of James River spinymussel.
Other rare species known from the Mayo include green floater, notched rainbow, riverweed
darter, Roanoke hog sucker, bigeye jumprock, and three insects: Ceraclea mentiea (a caddisfly),
Ephemerella berneri (a mayfly), Micrasema sprulesi (a caddisfly).

Jessups Mill/Georges Mill Corridor (Dan River) is a large, forested area of slopes along the Dan
River, with examples of Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest,
Piedmont/Coastal Plain Heath Bluff, Rocky Bar and Shore, and Sand and Mud Bar communities.
Four intermittent tributaries support populations of small-anthered bittercress, one of which is
the largest known in the state. The site surrounds a portion of the nationally significant Dan
River Aquatic Habitat (Stokes Section).
Chapter 19 – Natural Resources 179
Dan

R
i
v
e
r
Hyco
Lake
Mayo
Reservoir
Kerr
Reservoir
STOKES
FORSYTH
ROCKINGHAM CASWELL
PERSON GRANVILLE
VANCE
D
a
n

R
i
v
e
r
03-02-01
Belews
Lake
M
a
y
o

R
i
v
e
r
03-02-01 03-02-03 03-02-05 03-02-0603-02-0403-02-02
®
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 30, 2006
R
o
a
n
o
k
e

R
i
v
e
r
C
a
s
h
i
e

R
i
v
e
r
Lake
Gaston
03-02-09
03-02-08
03-02-10
03-02-07
BERTIE
HALIFAX
MARTIN
WARREN
NORTHAMPTON
Managed Lands
Natural Heritage Areas
Legend
Counties
Subbasin Boundary
Hydrography
0 102030405
Miles
Figure 26 Roanoke River Basin Managed Lands and Significant Heritage Areas

The Caswell Game Land protects much of the one of the most extensive and high quality tracts
of mature Piedmont second-growth upland hardwood forest in the state. Oak and hickory
dominate the upper slopes. Also found here are beech slopes, successional pine stands, narrow
zones of alluvial hardwoods. Flowing through part of the game lands is Country Line Creek, a
significant aquatic habitat discussed below.

The Nationally Significant Goshen Gabbro Forest contains many rare plant species, one of which
is the Federally Endangered smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). Yet most significant are
the high quality examples of rare natural communities, including an outstanding Basic Oak--
Hickory Forest, plus Xeric Hardpan Forest, and Upland Depression Swamp Forest. In addition,
these high quality and rare communities are adjacent to each other in a 3-square-mile continuous
block of forest. Thus, the site should provide important breeding and feeding habitat for
amphibians that lay eggs in the pools and wander overland for the remainder of the year. The
topography is flatter than typical Piedmont topography, due to the gabbro, which underlies the
site. This rock is also associated with many of the rare plants and natural communities, through
its influence on soil chemistry.

The lower Roanoke River floodplain contains perhaps some of the best remaining brownwater
river floodplain communities known in the southeastern United States. The floodplain extends
along about 130 miles along the lower Roanoke River and varies in width from three to five
miles. In 1990, the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission
began acquiring property within the floodplain. Together, the Roanoke River National Wildlife
Refuge and the Roanoke River Wetlands Game Land now protect over 32,000 acres. In addition,
The Nature Conservancy, a private conservation group, has a cooperative agreement to manage
and protect about 21,000 acres of land within the floodplain owned by Georgia-Pacific.

The privately-owned Occoneechee Neck Floodplain Forest, contains some of the best remaining
examples of mature floodplain forest along the upper Roanoke River valley. Particularly notable
are the 10-15 pairs of nesting cerulean warblers, a disjunct breeding population over 200 km
from the nearest mountain population. This area also contains several large beaver ponds, some
of the oldest in the Roanoke floodplain, and excellent examples of this community type.

Camassia Slopes is nationally significant for outstanding cluster of elements, including one of
the best examples of a Basic Mesic Forest (Alluvial Terrace Slope Variant) in the State. It also
contains one of only two wild hyacinth (Camassia scilloides) populations in the state – a species
disjunct from midwestern slopes and prairies. These disjunct species are probable remnants from
the Pleistocene glaciation period. Part of the natural area is a Dedicated Nature Preserve
belonging to The Nature Conservancy, with the remaining portion on Odum Correctional
Institution land.

Partly within the Roanoke River Wetland Game Land, the Buzzard Point/Ventosa Plantation
natural area is a large expanse of river floodplain with some of the best examples of the typical
bottomland and swamp communities in the Roanoke system, including levee forests,
backswamps, alluvial flats, sloughs, low and high ridges, and beaver ponds. Diverse, abundant
wildlife includes breeding populations of Mississippi kite, cerulean warbler, black vulture, and
red-shouldered hawk, as well as wild turkeys, turkey vultures, wood ducks, and other more
common game and nongame species.
Chapter 19 – Natural Resources 181
Part of the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge, Broadneck Swamp contains one of best
mature natural levee forest communities in the Roanoke floodplain. A rare disjunct population
of Virginia bluebells (Mertensia virginica) is located on the levee. The natural area also contains
the largest swamp forest in the upper and middle portions of the floodplain of the Roanoke
River. The swamp supports the second largest inland heron rookery in North Carolina, and
provides important nesting and wintering habitat for ducks.

Conoho Neck Swamp is located along the lower reaches of Conoho Creek within the floodplain
of the Roanoke River, and is protected as part of the Roanoke River Wetland Game Land. It is a
classic example of a "backswamp," a swamp formed by the natural levees along the main
channel of the river, which act as berms or dams, impeding drainage and holding water in the
backswamps during the winter and spring months. The deeply flooded cypress-gum swamp
forest is the dominant natural community on this site and is influenced by both the blackwater
Conoho Creek and brownwater Roanoke River. Also found here is a fine example of a “yazoo”
tributary, formed when a tributary is deflected by the levee bordering the main river and is forced
to run parallel to the main trunk river for some distance.

Devil’s Gut, a Nature Conservancy preserve, contains some of the best examples of old-growth
alluvial forest communities in North Carolina. Located in the lower floodplain of the Roanoke
River, it contains diverse alluvial features: filled river channels, point bars, and natural levees.
Long, narrow sand or loamy ridges with levee forests of laurel oak, swamp chestnut oak, willow
oak, and water oak alternate with parallel bands of bald cypress-water tupelo sloughs, forming a
ridge and swale topography. On slightly higher terraces along Devil's Gut, an alluvial hardwood
community containing green ash, sycamore, and silver maple. An old-growth (up to 160-year-
old trees) loblolly pine/American beech community located on higher slopes in the southeastern
section of this site support the only known stand of American beech in the North Carolina coastal
Plain.

Jamesville Island is a large, contiguous Cypress--Gum Swamp Forest located on a bend in the
lower Roanoke River floodplain. The site contains the largest expanse of contiguous cypress-
water tupelo swamp forest in the Roanoke River floodplain and likely in North Carolina. It also
supports extensive river frontage and several distributary streams, cypress-gum flats, and tidally
influenced blackwater stream/bayou natural communities. The site is considered of national
significance, as one of the most extensive and mature Brownwater Subtype Cypress--Gum
Swamps in the nation. A portion of the natural area is within the Roanoke River National
Wildlife Refuge, and another portion is protected by The Nature Conservancy.

Roanoke River Delta Islands contains a series of islands and distributary channels at river mouth.
An extensive tract of mature bald cypress-water tupelo-Carolina water ash swamp forest is
second in size only to the nearby Broad Creek Neck. It supports a high diversity of wildlife,
including bear refuge, waterfowl, and nesting neo-tropical songbirds. It also protects important
aquatic habitat for a diversity of fish. Much of the natural area is within the Roanoke River
National Wildlife Refuge.

A large example of the rare Nonriverine Swamp Forest natural community is found in the
Roanoke River basin at a site known as Roquist Pocosin. The canopy is mature to old, with trees
averaging 17 inches in diameter and trees 24-30 inches in diameter are common. Much of this
182 Chapter 19 – Natural Resources

area has been degraded by logging. On the north side is a small but very mature and excellent
quality Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest, dominated by swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak,
and laurel oak. This natural community is also globally rare, and many of the other known
examples have been degraded. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program has acquired much of
the natural area as mitigation.

19.4 Significant Aquatic Habitats in the Roanoke River Basin

The NHP also collaborates with other agencies and organizations to identify Significant Aquatic
Habitats in North Carolina. These habitat areas often include stream segments or other bodies of
water that contain significant natural resources, such as a high diversity of rare aquatic animal
species. The impact from lands adjacent to and upstream of these stream reaches determines
their water quality and the viability of their aquatic species. The identification of a natural area
conveys no protection; these lands are the responsibility of the landowner. Significant Aquatic
Habitats in the Roanoke River basin are described below and are shown on Figure 26.

Mayo River Aquatic Habitat is ranked nationally significant. See page 171.

Lower Roanoke River Aquatic Habitat is state significant, and provides habitat for rare species
such as alewife floater, Tidewater mucket, Chowanoke crayfish, and the rare caddisfly, Ceraclea
cancellata.

Dan River (Rockingham) Aquatic Habitat is considered of state significance and provides habitat
for several species, including three rare fish (Roanoke hog sucker, bigeye jumprock, and
riverweed darter), as well as one mussel, the green floater.

Country Line Creek Aquatic Habitat is regionally significant as habitat for several mussels,
including triangle floater, Atlantic pigtoe, and creeper, as well as the riverweed darter.

Middle Roanoke River Aquatic Habitat is regionally significant and contains populations of the
rare species such as Roanoke slabshell and Chowanoke crayfish.

Cascade Creek/Indian Creek (Hanging Rock) Aquatic Habitat is regionally significant, and
incorporates limited segments of Cascade Creek, Indian Creek and other significant tributaries in
the vicinity of Hanging Rock State Park. A rare diplectronan caddisfly (Diplectrona metaqui) is
known from these waters.

Dan River (Stokes) Aquatic Habitat is ranked nationally significant. See above for description.

Little Dan River Aquatic Habitat is considered regionally significant. This south-flowing river
provides habitat for at least four rare species of fishes in North Carolina -- rustyside sucker,
orangefin madtom, riverweed darter, and Blue Ridge sculpin.

Roanoke River Fall Zone Aquatic Habitat is state significant and contains an assemblage of
seven rare mollusk species, including triangle floater, Alewife floater, Roanoke slabshell,
Atlantic pigtoe, Eastern lampmussl, green Floater, and Tidewater mucket.

Chapter 19 – Natural Resources 183
Aarons Creek Aquatic Habitat is regionally significant, and provides habitat for four rare
mussels: brook floater, Atlantic pigtoe, creeper, and notched rainbow.

There are a number of Upland, Riparian and Wetland Significant Natural Heritage Areas not
listed here that contribute to Roanoke River Water Quality. Please contact the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) to obtain information about these natural areas, or visit the NHP
website at www.ncnhp.org.

19.5 Public Conservation Lands

Figure 26 also shows the land protected by public ownership in the Roanoke River basin. A
number of significant natural areas, including some already mentioned, are located on public
land (Hanging Rock State Park, Caswell Game Lands, Roanoke River Wetlands Game Land,
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge). North Carolina State University’s Sertoma 4-H
Education Center is also in the Roanoke River basin, and a portion of it is the Moores Spring
Dedicated Nature Preserve. These public lands are ecologically significant and provide water
quality protection. Also on the map are some preserves or conservation easements held by
private conservation organizations, many of which provide these same benefits, such as The
Nature Conservancy’s Camassia Slopes, Larkspur Ridge, and Roanoke River Preserves, and the
Piedmont Land Conservancy’s Dan River preserve near Hanging Rock State Park.

Some of the other lands noted on the map are important but not necessarily protected. Caledonia
Correctional Institution and Odum Correctional Institution are large facilities (almost 9,000 acres
combined) with about 13 miles of frontage on the Roanoke River. Portions of these facilities
also provide important habitat for plants and animals, and qualify for Dedication as State Nature
Preserves. There are numerous other conservation opportunities for partners to look at in the
Roanoke River basin.

The contribution of private organizations to conservation in the Roanoke River basin has been
irreplaceable. Although only partially shown on the map, these organizations have achieved
significant protection in the Roanoke River basin. As noted, The Nature Conservancy owns and
manages a number of Nationally Significant natural areas, and the Piedmont Land Conservancy
and other local land trusts have also been working to protect the landscape of the Roanoke River
basin from further fragmentation, benefiting wildlife and water quality. One of the more exciting
projects involving a public private partnership is the Piedmont Land Conservancy’s work with
the Division of Park and Recreation’s new Mayo River State Park. The Nature Conservancy
works in a similar manner with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission on Roanoke River
Wetlands Game Land. Using innovative tools such as conservation easements, these
organizations work with private landowners as well, in a number of ways to protect important
natural areas and water quality, as well as the “open space” of agricultural lands. The work that
they do is helping to improve the quality of life for residents of the Roanoke River basin.

.

184 Chapter 19 – Natural Resources

Chapter 20
Water Quality Initiatives

20.1 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. Information about
local efforts particular to a watershed or subbasin is included in Chapters 1-10. 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
including: state government budgets, staff resources, lack of regulations for nonpoint sources,
the rule-making 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.

The collaboration of these local efforts is 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 (Table 21) are highlighted to share their efforts
towards water quality improvement. Specific projects are described in the subbasin chapters
(Chapters 1–10).

DWQ applauds the foresight and proactive response to potential water quality problems acted
upon by these local efforts. Federal and state government agencies are interested in assisting
local governments and citizen groups in developing their water quality management programs.
The distribution of several grantors is discussed in the following sections.

Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives 185
Table 21 - Local Water Quality Initiatives
Roanoke River Basin Association
Office Location: Henderson, North Carolina

A non government organization consisting of private citizens, other non government environmental organizations
and citizens groups that have a specific interest in the ecological, social and economic well being and integrity of
the entire Roanoke River Basin. The mission of RRBA is to work with local, state and federal agencies, regional
leaders, and the community to foster desirable economic, social and ecological conditions in the region. RRBA is
especially concerned about issues relating to the inter-basin transfer of water between watersheds. For more
information, contact:
Harrel B. Johnson
Executive Director
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

http://www.rrba.org/
Current and Continuing Projects:
ƒ Participation in the Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee.
ƒ Participation in the USACOE Kerr 216 study.
ƒ Participating in the current American Electric Power relicensing study at Smith Mountain Lake in Va.
ƒ Participating in The Stakeholders Board for the control of nuisance aquatic plants in Lake Gaston.
ƒ Supporter of the Citizens opposed to the Off site landing field in Washington Co. NC

The Nature Conservancy
Office Locations: Arlington, Virginia (Home Office); Durham, North Carolina (NC Chapter Office); Roanoke
Rapids, NC (Roanoke River Project Office)
The Nature Conservancy is a leading international, nonprofit organization dedicated to the following mission: to
preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the
lands and waters they need to survive. Founded in 1951, The Nature Conservancy works in all 50 United States
and 27 countries, and working with public and private partners, has protected more than 117 million acres of land
and 5,000 miles of river around the world. The Nature Conservancy has about 1 million members and supporters,
including more than 1,500 dedicated volunteers. The Nature Conservancy has 3,200 employees, 720 of whom are
scientists. The Nature Conservancy has had a Lower Roanoke River Conservation Project since 1981.
The Nature Conservancy envisions that the Lower Roanoke River will be managed so that conservation of natural
resources and native ecosystems, recreation, flood control, economic development, and hydropower production are
balanced in ecologically and economically sustainable ways.
For more information on the Roanoke River project of The Nature Conservancy, contact:
Sam Pearsall Phone: [phone] http://nature.org
Roanoke River Project Director
and NC Science Director
Email: [e-mail]
Current and continuing projects on the Roanoke River:

• Comprehensive conservation planning for the entire river valley below Roanoke Rapids Dam.
• Land protection and conservation – working closely with US Fish and Wildlife Service, NC Wildlife
Resources Commission, and many other partners, by late 2005 we have helped to protect about 61,000
acres in the floodplain.
• Participation in the development of the settlement and final license for Dominion Resources at Lake
Gaston and Roanoke Rapids and continuing active participation in the Cooperative Management Team for
adaptive management of river flows.
• Active participation in the USACE Section 216 Study, with the goal of establishing modified flows to
better support downstream ecosystems while stabilizing lake levels upstream.
• Support for the development of the Roanoke River paddle trail and other support for the development of
ecotourism in the project area.
186 Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives

Piedmont Land Conservancy
Office Location: Greensboro, North Carolina

Piedmont Land Conservancy is a non-profit, grassroots land trust in nine North Carolina Counties: Alamance,
Caswell, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, and Yadkin. Their mission is to protect natural
and scenic lands, farms, and open space in piedmont North Carolina to enrich the quality of life for our
communities and for future generations. PLC serves as the only local land trust serving the Piedmont Triad region
of North Carolina. PLC has protected more than 11,000 acres of land including farmland, parks, forestland,
wetlands, rivers, gardens, greenways, and historical areas that provide multiple benefits such as wildlife habitat,
water quality protection, recreational areas, and outdoor education to the current generation as well as future
generations.

For more information contact:

Charles Brummitt Phone: [phone]
Executive Directior email: [e-mail]
http:// www.piedmontland.org

Dan River Basin Association (DRBA)
Office Location: Madison, North Carolina and Martinsville, Virginia

A nonprofit association dedicated to maintaining and improving the water quality of the Dan River and its
watershed in both North Carolina and Virginia. DRBA focuses on river access, citizen watershed awareness and
river recreation. DRBA conducts a variety of voluntary initiatives including educational programs, riparian
greenways, river history, StreamWatch monitoring, river clean-up work sessions, and guided outings. DRBA is
funded by contributions from members, grants and donations. DRBA is guided by a Board of directors with
representatives from across the watershed, local agencies as well as many volunteers from a variety of backgrounds
and expertise. DRBA and its partner organizations have collaborated on several successful grant applications,
providing funding for programs, a museum exhibit, a working recreation of an 18th century river bateau and for
watershed projects in the fifteen counties of the Dan River Basin. DRBA has just received a major grant to hire a
Program Director for activities in Virginia. We hope to be hiring staff to work on the North Carolina portion of the
watershed soon. For more information, contact:

Ken Bridle
DRBA Stewardship Chair
Office Phone: [phone]
Cell Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
www.danriver.org

Current and Continuing Projects:
ƒ Our core belief is that citizens will protect the water resources what they understand and value. To foster
this understanding we organize an outing on or around the river the first Saturday of each month. These
activities are free and available to all interested.
ƒ Educational activities related to watershed awareness and water quality. We regularly have a display and
information at several local festivals and participated in the establishment of a River Festival in Eden, NC.
ƒ We publish a monthly newsletter and distribute newspaper inserts and press releases related to the Dan
River watershed and water quality issues throughout the watershed.
ƒ We are actively working to integrate the parts of the watershed that occur across state lines. This boundary
is an important regulatory, administrative and psychological barrier that divides the basin.
ƒ We work with partner organizations to conserve riparian land, develop river walks, a historical river
exhibit and canoe access sites.
ƒ We were instrumental in the establishment of the new Mayo River State Park and conducted the land use
study that guides the acquisition of land for this new park.
ƒ DRBA is the designated StreamWatch coordinator for the basin and is actively recruiting and training
StreamWatch volunteers to monitor their local waters.

Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives 187
20.2 Federal Initiatives

20.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration and
restoration projects. Approximately $1 million is available annually through base funding for
demonstration and education projects across the state. An additional $2 million is available
annually through incremental funding for restoration projects on impaired waters. All projects
must provide non-federal 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. 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.

There is one current project in the Roanoke River basin that has been funded through the Section
319 Program between 1999 and 2004. The project, ‘Watershed Quality Improvement and
Restoration Demonstration’, is located in Warren County. This project was funded in fiscal year
1999 to the NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation for funding BMPs that will reduce
sediment delivery to impaired waters. The BMPs are also designed to improve stream bank
stability and prevent the off-site movement of pesticides, phosphorus, nitrogen, and fecal
coliform.

Descriptions of projects and general Section 319 Program information are available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/Section_319_Grant_Program.htm.

20.2.2 National Estuary Program

Congress established the National Estuary Program and the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds as an
“Estuary of National Significance” in 1987. Section 320 of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to
develop plans for attaining or maintaining water quality in the estuaries of national importance.
This includes protection of public water supplies and the protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allows recreational activities,
in and on water, requires that control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution to supplement
existing controls of pollution.

Today, Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP) is implementing a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that was developed by numerous
stakeholders to meet the goals of Section 320. The CCMP was ratified by the NC Governor and
accepted by the US EPA in 1994. Additional information is available online at
http://www.apnep.org

20.2.3 National Wildlife Refuge System

The Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is one of more than 540 National
Wildlife Refuges found in the United States and its territories. The Refuge was established
August 10, 1989 to protect and enhance wooded wetlands consisting of bottomland hardwoods
and swamps with high waterfowl value along the Roanoke River. Administered by the U.S. Fish
188 Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives

and Wildlife Service, management emphasis is placed on federal trust species such as migratory
birds, migratory fish and federally listed endangered and threatened species and their habitats.
Presently, the Refuge consists of 20,978 acres. Refuge lands are located in Bertie County and
begin in the vicinity of Hamilton, NC and extend to the mouth of the river in five separate tracts
of land.

The Refuge staff has been involved with projects and activities designed to protect, conserve and
restore the integrity of the plant, fish and wildlife communities found within the coastal plain
reach of the Roanoke River Basin. Some of the studies and monitoring activities being carried
out on refuge lands include: annual avian point surveys, monitoring wood duck productivity via
wood duck boxes, wood duck banding, water quality monitoring, forest regeneration studies,
forest health studies, Swainson’s warbler productivity study and when warranted anadromous
fish surveys.

A fifteen year Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement has been
completed for the Refuge and can be found online at:
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/FinalDocs.htm. The plan outlines management
programs and activities for the Refuge for the next fifteen years.

20.3 State Initiatives

20.3.1 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan

Recognizing the need to both protect habitat and prevent over fishing, the North Carolina
General Assembly passed the Fisheries Reform Act in 1997. The law contains the directive to
protect and enhance habitats supporting coastal fisheries. The law requires cooperation among
three rule-making commissions: Environmental Management Commission (EMC), Coastal
Resources Commission (CRC), and Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC). Because the
commissions must work together to develop, adopt, and implement plans to protect and restore
fisheries habitats, the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) was developed by the Division of
Marine Fisheries and adopted in early 2005. The Coastal Habitat Protection Plan was developed
to:
1. document the ecological role and function of aquatic habitats for coastal fisheries;
2. provide status and trends information on the quality and quantity of coastal fish habitat.
3. describe and document threats to coastal fish habitat, including threats from both human
activities and natural events;
4. describe the current rules concerning each habitat;
5. identify management needs; and
6. develop options for management action using the above information.

For more information regarding the CHPPs document visit:
http://www.ncfisheries.net/habitat/index.html

20.3.2 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program

The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is a nonregulatory program
responsible for implementing wetland and stream restoration projects as part of a statewide effort
Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives 189
to provide more ecologically effective compensatory mitigation. The focus of the program is to
restore, enhance and protect key watershed functions in the 17 river basins across the state
through the implementation of wetlands, streams and riparian buffer projects within selected
local watersheds in advance of permitted impacts. These vital watershed functions include water
quality protection, floodwater conveyance & storage, fisheries & wildlife habitat, and
recreational opportunities. The NCEEP is not a grant program. Instead, the program funds local
mitigation projects directly through its various in-lieu fee receipts.

Through the development of River Basin Restoration Priorities (formerly called Watershed
Restoration Plans), the NCEEP identifies local watersheds (14-digit Hydrologic Units) with the
greatest need & opportunity for watershed mitigation projects. The RBRPs are developed, in
part, using information compiled in DWQ's Basinwide Water Quality Plans and Basinwide
Assessment Reports. Additional local resource data and locations of existing or planned
watershed projects are considered in the selection of "Targeted Local Watersheds", which are
identified and mapped within the RBRPs. Targeted Local Watersheds represent those areas
within a given river basin where NCEEP resources can be most efficiently focused for maximum
benefit to local watershed functions. The NCEEP River Basin Restoration Priorities are
periodically updated and presented on the NCEEP website: http://www.nceep.net.

The NCEEP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs
or environmental groups. For example, the NCEEP’s 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,
hydrologic and habitat benefits of the project.

The NCEEP is also working to develop comprehensive Local Watershed Plans, often within
Targeted Local Watersheds identified in the River Basin Restoration Priorities. Through the
Local Watershed Planning process, EEP conducts comprehensive watershed assessments to
identify causes and sources of major functional problems in local watersheds, and then
coordinates with local resource professionals and local governments to identify & implement
watershed projects and management strategies designed to address these problems. NCEEP
Local Watershed Plans identify and prioritize wetland areas, stream reaches, riparian buffer areas
and best management practices that will provide water quality improvement, habitat protection
and other environmental benefits to the local watershed. There are currently no active local
watershed planning efforts in the Roanoke River basin.

EEP has also acquired several preservation tracts and is in the process implementing four
restoration projects in the Roanoke basin. A substantial amount of wetland and stream
preservation was obtained through EEP’s High Quality Preservation initiative that took place
during the program’s transition period.

For more information about the NCEEP and its Watershed Restoration Plans, visit the NCEEP
website at http://www.nceep.net/.

190 Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives

20.3.3 Clean Water Management Trust Fund

The 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 Roanoke River basin, 22 projects have been funded for a
total of $13,553,100 (Table 22) for 1997A-2005A. For more information on the CWMTF or
these grants, call [phone] or visit the website at www.cwmtf.net.

Table 22 - Projects in the Roanoke River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management Trust
Fund (as of August 2005)
Project
Number Application Name Proposed Project Description Amount
Funded CWMTF Region Subbasin
1997B-515
Stovall- Wastewater
Collection System
and Land Application
Construct wastewater collection &
treatment system, will consist of
pressure sewer collection system
with spray irrigation treatment
plant. $800,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-06
1998A-501
Stoneville- WWTP
Elimination and
Regionalization/May
o River
Install pumping station to reroute
wastewater from Town of
Stoneville's WWTP to Town of
Mayodan's facility. Decommission
Stoneville WWTP. $643,000 Western Piedmont 03-02-02
1998B-009
Piedmont Land
Conservancy- Acq/
Dan River Bends
Acquire through fee simple 393 ac
along Dan River; includes
additional permanent easements
along 1.8 miles of the Dan River. $642,000 Western Piedmont 03-02-01
1998B-704
Plymouth-
Constructed
Wetlands/ Roanoke
River
Construct 2 stormwater wetlands
to treat runoff from 57 ac of
heavily developed land. Develop
urban greenway and berm/buffer
system along 1200 ft on the Water
Front Alley which would vary
from 50 to 100 ft. Berm to route
runoff to wetlands. $835,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-09
2000A-011
NC Wildlife
Resources
Commission -
Pollocks Ferry Acq/
Roanoke R
Acquire through fee simple 2,588
ac along the Roanoke River and
Conocannara Swamp; acquire
1136 acres of riparian buffers. $1,650,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-08
2000B-016
Piedmont Land
Conservancy- Dan
River Acq
Acquire 18.8 ac tract under
conservation easement and
reforest. $75,100 Western Piedmont 03-02-01
2000B-409
Roanoke Rs-
Restoration Design &
Restoration/Roanoke
River Tributary
Design/construct natural channel
stream restoration project along
1,400 feet of Lions Watch Ck. $617,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-08
Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives 191
2000B-601
Askewville- Sewage
Collection System
Construction
Design/construct sewer collection
system for 120 units (failing septic
systems of straight pipes).
Convey collected wastewater to
Windsor's permitted WWTP. $705,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-10
2000M-002
Piedmont Land
Conservancy- Moretz
Acq Minigrant
Minigrant for preacquisition costs
for 18.8 acres. $25,000 Western Piedmont 03-02-01
2001A-512
Roxboro- Infiltration
and Inflow & Sewer
Line Upgrade
Replace 6,700 LF of gravity sewer
to eliminate infiltration/ inflow
along Marlowe Creek and
develop/adopt ordinance(s) to
nonpoint source pollution, and
buffer protection. $708,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-05
2001B-037
NC Wildlife
Resources
Commission -
Acquisition/ Johnson
Tract/ Caswell
Gamelands/ South
Country Line Creek
Acquire through fee simple 71
acres along South Country Creek. $57,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-04
2001B-703
Gaston - Stormwater
Design/ Lee Creek
Provide funds to design settling
ponds and covered drain culverts
to reduce erosion and stormwater
runoff into Lee Creek. $20,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-08
2002A-801
Concerned Citizens
of Tillery -
Landowner Outreach/
Roanoke R.
Conduct a planning project to
identify appropriate lands for
protection along Conconnara
Swamp. $42,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-08
2002B-803
Piedmont Land
Conservancy-
Planning/Upper Dan
R.
Establish sediment monitoring
stations on 30 sites in portions of
the Dan River drainage; protect
285 riparian areas along tribs
through donated easements.
Develop a watershed plan. $160,000 Western Piedmont 03-02-01
2003A-604
NCSU - Septic
Tanks/ Sertoma 4-H
Center, Vade Mecum
Creek
Design, permit and construct on-
site wastewater treatment and
disposal system to replace failing
system. Includes donated
easement on 142 riparian acres. $232,000 Western Piedmont 03-02-01
2003M-003
Piedmont Land
Conservancy-
Minigrant - Len's
Knob
Minigrant to pay for transactional
costs for fee simple of 2240 acres
in Surry County on the Upper
Mitchell River. $25,000 Western Piedmont 03-02-01
2004B-042
NC Widlife
Resources
Commission-Acq/
Cashie River Tracts
Protect through fee simple 1,475
floodplain acres along the Cashie
River. $440,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-10
192 Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives

Table 22 continued
2004B-044 NC Wildlife
Resources
Commission-Acq/
Hodges/Barker Tract,
Country Line Creek
Protect through fee simple 255
acres along Country Line Creek.
CWMTF funds to purchase the
riparian 95 acres. $193,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-04
2004B-507
Halifax, Town of -
WW/
Regionalization,
Collection
Rehabilitation,
Quankey Creek
Decommission Town's WWTP and
eliminate 50,000 gpd discharge to
Quankey Creek. Waste routed to
Town of Weldon's WWTP.
Project includes replacement or
repair of 18,609 LF of collection
lines and rehabilitation of a pump
station. $2,297,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-08
2004B-512
Littleton, Town of -
WW/ Collection
System and Pump
Station
Rehabilitation, Little
Stonehouse Creek
Rehabilitate Littleton's existing
wastewater collection system
(34,000 LF), replace 1,500 LF,
repair 118 manholes, and construct
2 new pump stations. Will reduce
contamination of Little Stone
House Creek, Lake Gaston,
Butterwood Br and Little Fishing
Ck. $2,738,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-07
2005A-004
Fishing Creek SWC
District - Acq/ Iles
Farm, Roanoke
Rapids Lake
Protect through working forest
easement a 183-acre dairy farm on
tributaries to Roanoke Rapids
Lake. CWMTF funds to purchase
easement on 71 riparian acres. The
USDA Farmland and Ranchland
Preservation Program to provide
matching funds. $208,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-07
2005A-027
Piedmont Land
Conservancy - Acq/
Berry Tract, Hyco
Lake
Protect 321 acres, including 168
riparian acres, along Hyco Lake
and tributaries through purchase of
a conservation easement. $441,000
Eastern
Piedmont/Central
Coastal Plain 03-02-05
Notes:
(1) The total funded amount excludes funded projects that were subsequently withdrawn by the applicant.
(2) Two regional and statewide projects were funded in areas that include the Roanoke Basin. These projects include riparian
corridor planning and implementation activities and a freshwater mussel relocation program..

20.3.4 NC Construction Grants and Loans Programs

The NC Construction Grants and Loans Section provides grants and loans to local government
agencies for the construction, upgrades and expansion of wastewater collection and treatment
systems. As a financial resource, the section administers five major programs that assist local
governments. Of these, two are federally funded programs administered by the state, the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program and the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG).
The STAG is a direct congressional appropriations for a specific “special needs” project within
NC. The High Unit Cost Grant (SRG) Program, the State Emergency Loan (SEL) Program and
the State Revolving Loan (SRL) Program are state funded programs, with the later two being
below market revolving loan money. In the Roanoke River basin, 9 applicants received a total of
$29,478,672 in grants and loans from these programs (Table 23).

Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives 193
As a technical resource, the Construction Grants and Loan Section, in conjunction with the
Environmental Protection Agency, has initiated the Municipal Compliance Initiative Program. It
is a free technical assistance program to identify wastewater treatment facilities that are declining
but not yet out of compliance. A team of engineers, operations experts and managers from the
section work with local officials to analyze the facility’s design and operation. For more
information, visit the website at http://www.nccgl.net/. You may also call (919)-715-6212 or
email [e-mail].

Table 23 - NC Construction Grants and Loans Programs disseminated within the Roanoke River
Basin
Program Applicant Project # Offer
Date Project Description Loan/Grant
Offered ($)
SRF1 Henderson CS370410-04 6/19/92 WWTP improvements, including phosphorus
removal 2,500,000
SRF1 Williamston CS370435-04 8/5/99 Upgrade and expansion to 2.4 MGD 7,000,000
SRF1 Mayodan CS370466-04 11/19/02 Mayodan expansion 3.0 to 4.5 MGD,
Regional facility for Madison and Stoneville 5,500,000
SRF1 Plymouth CS370500-04 5/6/98 WWTP upgrades 1,968,500
SRF1 Rockingham
County CS370793-01 10/20/98 Construction of gravity sewer, force mains
and pumping stations 4,302,532
SRF1 Stokes County CS370813-01 8/3/94 New package WWTP and collection system 1,200,000

STAG 2 Henderson XP-97440302 5/18/04 Sewer extension to the Mills River area 2,884,700

SEL3 Roxboro E-SEL-T-00-0033 5/23/01 Sewer rehabilitation 400,000

SRL4 Rich Square E-SRL-T-95-0030 1/18/96 WWTP improvements 500,000

SRG5 Granville
County E-SRG-T-00-0103 3/6/02 New Sewer to Stovall 223,000
SRG5 Rich Square E-SRG-T-02-0126 4/14/04 Sewer rehabilitation and spray irrigation
system 2,999,940
1 - SRF – Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program
2 - STAG – State and Tribal Assistance Grants
3 - SEL – State Emergency Loan Program
4 - SRL – State Revolving Loan Program
5 - SRG – High Unit Cost Grant Program

20.3.5 Clean Water Bonds – NC Rural Center

Outdated wastewater collection systems, some more than 70 years old, allow millions of gallons
of untreated or partially treated wastewater to spill into the state’s rivers and streams. The NC
Rural Economic Development Center, Inc. (Rural Center) has taken the lead role in designing
public policy initiatives to assist rural communities in developing and expanding local water and
sewer infrastructure. The Rural Center is a private, nonprofit organization. The Rural Center’s
mission is to develop sound, economic strategies that improve the quality of life in North
Carolina, while focusing on people with low to moderate incomes and communities with limited
resources.

194 Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives

To support local economic development and ensure a reliable supply of clean water, the Rural
Center administers three Water and Sewer Grant Programs to help rural communities develop
water and sewer systems. The Supplemental Grants Program allows local governments and
qualified nonprofit corporations to improve local water and sewer systems by addressing critical
needs for public health, environmental protection and/or economic development. The maximum
grant amount is $400,000 and must be used to match other project funds. The Capacity Building
Grants Program provides funding for local governments to undertake planning efforts to support
strategic investment in water and sewer facilities. Projects typically include preliminary
engineering reports, master water/sewer plans, capital improvement plans, feasibility studies, and
rate studies. The maximum grant amount is $400,000. The Unsewered Communities Grants
Program funds the planning and construction of new central, publicly owned sewer systems.
This grant is designed to cover 90 percent of the total cost of a project, not to exceed $3 million.
Qualifying communities for this program must not be served by an existing wastewater
collection or treatment system. For each grant program, priority is given to projects from
economically distressed counties of the state as determined by the NC Department of Commerce
(www.nccommerce.com).

The water and sewer grants listed above are made possible through appropriations from the NC
General Assembly and through proceeds from the Clean Water Bonds. In 1998, North Carolina
voters approved an $800 million clean water bond referendum that provided $330 million to state
grants to help local governments repair and improve water supply systems and wastewater
collection and treatment. The grants also address water conservation and water reuse projects.
Another $300 million was made available as clean water loans.

Since the program’s beginning, the Rural Center has awarded nearly 500 communities and
counties more than $64 million to plan, install, expand, and improve their water and sewer
systems. As a result, these communities have served new residential and business customers,
created and preserved thousands of jobs, and leveraged millions of dollars in other water and
sewer funds. Table 24 lists the grants that were awarded in the Roanoke River Basin between
1999 and 2005. For more information on the Water and Sewer Grants administered by the Rural
Center visit www.ncruralcenter.org/grants/water.htm.

20.3.6 Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee (VRRBAC) and the Roanoke
River Basin Bi-State Commission

The Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee (VRRBAC) was established in the
executive branch of state government as an advisory committee to the Virginia delegation to the
Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission. The Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission
was established and composed of members from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of
North Carolina. The purpose of the Commission in short is to safeguard the Roanoke River
Basin’s natural resources for the citizens of the Roanoke River Basin. This duty includes
providing guidance, making recommendations, identifying problems, disseminating information,
and promoting communication, coordination, and education among stakeholders. NC has passed
similar legislation. The advisory committees of both States assist the Roanoke River Basin Bi-
State Commission fulfilling its responsibility.

Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives 195
Table 24 - Clean Water Bonds Awarded in the Roanoke River Basin

County Recipient Grant
Amount
Grant
Type
Year
Awarded
Halifax Roanoke Rapids Sanitary Dis. $40,000 Capacity August 2004
Rockingham City of Eden $40,000 Capacity February 2004
Bertie Town of Kelford $31,000 Capacity August 2002
Halifax Town of Halifax $40,000 Capacity August 2002
Rockingham City of Eden $40,000 Capacity August 2002
Martin Town of Williamston $40,000 Capacity March 2002
Rockingham City of Eden $40,000 Capacity March 2002
Bertie Town of Windsor $40,000 Capacity August 2001
Caswell Town of Yanceyville $21,000 Capacity August 2001
Rockingham Town of Stoneville $40,000 Capacity August 2001
Washington Town of Plymouth $40,000 Capacity February 2001
Bertie Town of Askewville $36,400 Capacity December 1999
Rockingham Town of Mayodan $20,000 Capacity December 1999
Bertie Town of Windsor $400,000 Supplemental February 2004
Halifax Town of Weldon $400,000 Supplemental February 2004
Granville Town of Stovall $400,000 Supplemental June 2003
Martin Town of Jamesville $200,000 Supplemental August 2001
Rockingham Town of Madison $400,000 Supplemental August 2001
Washington Town of Plymouth $400,000 Supplemental February 2001
Martin Hamilton $198,560 Supplemental August 2000
Halifax Roanoke Rapids $150,000 Supplemental April 2000
Caswell Yanceyville $200,000 Supplemental February 2000
Rockingham Mayodan $200,000 Supplemental February 2000
Bertie Town of Windsor $185,396 Supplemental December 1999
Halifax Town of Halifax $64,135 Supplemental December 1999
Bertie Askewville $2,739,500 Unsewered August 2000
Caswell Milton $1,307,000 Unsewered August 2000

A goal of VRRBAC is to open channels of communication. The Committee meets throughout
the Roanoke basin in an effort to be available to all basin constituents. It is important that
dialogue take place, which is representative of all areas of the basin. There must be rural and
urban cooperation on water issues. Speakers representing various groups, State Agencies, Local
Governments, different geographic areas, and interests have addressed VRRBAC. Localities and
State entities have provided meeting facilities for the meetings. Such participation demonstrates
that VRRBAC has strong partnerships in the region, which helps in carrying out the work of the
Committee. Broad public support of policy and regional consensus is the best way to bring
about positive change associated with environmental and related health issues. Better efficiency
of protection efforts will result as all partners, public, private, federal, state, and local officials,
can share and leverage resources. Such coordination and consensus building in the entire basin
196 Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives

on watershed management issues is essential to sound watershed decision making and
management. Sub-committees have been given direction to promote such an effort using broad-
based input consolidated from as many interested parties as possible.

The sub-committees formed are Agriculture and Forestry, Lake Interests, Municipal Interests and
Permit Holders, River Interests, and Water. The sub-committees are to prepare position papers
on important issues and bring them back to the full Committee for adoption. An effort is being
made to bring the most knowledgeable people possible to the table, where the work must take
place. The objective is to obtain membership that will represent stakeholders throughout the
basin and maintain a geographical and urban/rural balance.

Since the inaugural meeting of VRRBAC certain characteristics and issues of the basin have
become evident. The importance of natural resources to the economic vitality of the Basin is
apparent. People reside in and come to the Roanoke River Basin area to pursue various interests
including vacation, lifestyle, esthetics, boating, fishing, etc. These activities and personal values
help drive the economic engine of the local and regional area. In addition, agriculture is vital to
the region’s lifestyle and economy. Clean water and ample flow and supply are recognized as
essential to existing beneficial uses and future economic development. There are
interrelationships within the basin involving flow, as events in one section of the basin can
impact other parts. Environmental, ecosystem, human health, power generation, aquatic life, and
economic needs of the basin must be balanced. The generally good water quality of the Roanoke
basin is valued and must be preserved. Issues and topics which are crucial to the well-being of
the basin people include 1.) inter-basin transfer of water, 2.) water withdrawals, 3.) regulation of
flow and storage, 4.) invasive species, 5.) recreation and fishing, 6.) water quality and 7.) lake
vitality.

VRRBAC has adopted several positions regarding the Basin’s natural resources. It supports the
implementation of BMPs and other strategies such as Low Impact Development (LID) and
Nutrient Management Plans to correct pollution problems. VRRBAC favored the development
of a Virginia State-wide Water Policy, but only one that mandated local stakeholder input and
was against the inter-basin transfer of water that is detrimental to the people of the basin.
VRRBAC is opposed to any new water withdrawal until such time that the real and potential
needs for the foreseeable future are determined. For more information please see the VRRBAC
website. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/vrrbac/
Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives 197
198 Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives

References

Bales, J.D., A.G. Strickland and R.G. Garrett. 1993. An interim report on flows in the lower
Roanoke River, and water quality and hydrodynamics of Albermarle Sound, North
Carolina, October 1989 - April 1991. US Geological Survey (USGS) Albemarle-
Pamlico Study Report no. 92-12. Raleigh, NC

Brown, Mark. January 2004. Forest Statistics for North Carolina. Southern Research Station
Resource Bulletin SRS-88. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Forest Service:
Asheville, NC.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 1999. Monitoring, Research, and Assessment Components for
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities. Sacramento, CA.

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.

Erman, N.A. 1996. Status of Aquatic Invertebrates in: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project:
Final Report to Congress, Vol II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management
Options. University of California. Davis Centers for Water and Wildlife Resources.

Haupt, M., J. Jurek, L. Hobbs, J. Guidry, C. Smith and R. Ferrell. 2002. A Preliminary Analysis
of Stream Restoration Costs in the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program. Paper
presented at the conference Setting the Agenda for Water Resources Research. April 9,
2002. Raleigh, NC.

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.

McGarvey, Daniel J. 1996. Stream Channelization. Bibliography of Environmental Literature.
Wittenberg University. Environmental Geology. Springfield, Ohio.

Meyer, J.M., L.A. Kaplan, D. Newbold, D.L. Strayer, C.J. Woltemade, J.B. Zedler, R. Beilfuss,
Q. Carpenter, R. Semlitsch, M.C. Watzin and P.H. Zedler. September 2003. Where
Rivers are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands.
American Rivers and Sierra Club. Washington, DC.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of
Land Resources (DLR). Land Quality Section. July-September 1999. Sediments:
Newsletter of the North Carolina Sediment Control Commission. Vol. 6 No. 3. Raleigh,
NC. http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/.

____. DLR. Land Quality Section. 1998. What is Erosion and Sedimentation? Raleigh, NC.

____. DLR. Center for Geographic Information Analysis (CGIA). 1997. Raleigh, NC.
Reference 199

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface
Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A
NCA 2B .0200. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. August 2004. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface
Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A
NCA 2B .0313. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. February 2004. Buffers for Clean Water. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. Environmental Science Section. Biological Assessment Unit. April 2005.
Basinwide Assessment Report: Roanoke River Basin. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Office of
Conservation and Community Affairs, NC Natural Heritage Program. 2004. Natural
Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina
http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/Other Publications/2004 Rare Animal List.pdf.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of
Waste Management (DWM). October 2003. Report to the North Carolina General
Assembly on the Inactive Hazardous Sites Program.
http://www.enr.state.nc.us/docs/AnnualReport-2.doc

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD).
Division of Forest Resources (DFR). September 1989. Forestry Best Management
Practices Manual. Raleigh, NC. www.dfr.state.nc.us.

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

Roell, Michael J. June 1999. Sand and Gravel Mining in Missouri Stream Systems: Aquatic
Resource Effects and Management Alternatives. Missouri Department of Conservation.
Conservation Research Center. Columbia, MO.

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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Watershed Academy Website:
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). January 2004. Bacteria TMDL for
South Mayo River, Patrick County, Virginia. Roanoke, VA.
200 References

Weinkam, C., R. Shea, C. Shea, C. Lein and D. Harper. October 2001. Urban Stream
Restoration Programs of Two Counties in the Baltimore-Washington DC Area. Paper
presented at the Fourth Annual North Carolina Stream Restoration Conference, Stream
Repair and Restoration: A Focus on the Urban Environment. Raleigh, NC.

Chapter 20 - Water Quality Initiatives 201
202 References

Appendix I

Population and Growth Trends
in the
Roanoke River Basin

Appendix I – Population and Growth Trends 203
204 Appendix I – Population and Growth Trends

Population and Growth Trends

Below are three different ways of presenting population data for the Roanoke River basin.
Population data presented by county allow for analysis of projected growth trends in the basin
based on Office of State Planning information (April and May 2001). Data presented by
municipality summarizes information on past growth of large urban areas in the basin. The data
presented by subbasin allow for 2000 population data to be presented by subbasin. While the
three different sets of information cannot be directly compared, general conclusions are apparent
by looking at the information. Counties with the highest expected growth are associated with the
largest municipal areas and the most densely populated subbasins in the basin.

County Population and Growth Trends

The following Table and map show the projected population for 2020 and the change in growth
between 1990 and 2020 for counties that are wholly or partly contained within the basin. Since
river basin boundaries do not coincide with county boundaries, these numbers are not directly
applicable to the Roanoke River basin. This information is intended to present an estimate of
expected population growth in counties that have some land area in the Roanoke River basin.
For more information on past, current and projected population estimates, contact the Office of
State Planning at [phone] or visit their website at http://demog.state.nc.us/.

County
Percent of
County in
Basin ♦
1990
Population
2000
Population
Estimated %
Growth
1990-2000
Estimated
Population
2020
Estimated %
Growth
2000-2020
Bertie 70 20,388 19,773 -3.1 18,347 -7.8
Caswell 90 20,662 23,501 12.1 27,918 15.8
Forsyth 21 265,855 306,067 13.1 385,079 20.5
Granville 33 38,341 48,498 20.9 68,600 29.3
Halifax 40 55,516 57,370 3.2 58,988 2.7
Martin 75 25,078 25,593 2.0 25,736 0.6
Northampton 35 21,004 22,086 4.9 23,507 6.0
Orange 2 93,662 118,227 20.8 166,971 29.2
Person 60 30,180 35,623 15.3 45,510 21.7
Rockingham 81 86,064 91,928 6.4 100,414 8.5
Stokes 85 37,224 44,711 16.7 58,515 23.6
Surry 3 61,704 71,219 13.4 88,596 19.6
Vance 52 38,892 42,954 9.5 51,151 16.0
Warren 38 17,265 19,972 13.6 24,183 17.4
Washington 13 13,997 13,723 -2.0 12,823 -7.0
Subtotals 825,832 941,245 12.3 1,156,338 18.6
♦ Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA), 1997.
Note: The numbers reported reflect county population; however, these counties are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for counties located wholly or partially within the basin.
Appendix I – Population and Growth Trends 205
BERTIE
-7.8%
HALIFAX
2.7%
MARTIN
0.6%
STOKES
23.6%WARREN
17.4%
PERSON
21.7%CASWELL
15.8%
FORSYTH
20.5%
ROCKINGHAM
8.5%
VANCE
16.0%
NORTHAMPTON
6.0%
WASHINGTON
-7.0%
GRANVILLE
29.3%
Projected Population Growth (2000-2020) by County
for the Roanoke River Basin in North Carolina
®
0 20 40 60 8010
Miles
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
December 11, 2006

Municipal Population and Growth Trends

The Table below presents population data from Office of State Planning for municipalities with
populations greater than 2,000 persons, located wholly or partly within the basin. These data
represent 17 of the 42 municipalities in the basin.

Municipality County 1980
Population
1990
Population
2000
Population
Percent Change
(1980-90)
Percent Change
(1990-2000)
Eden Rockingham 15,672 15,238 15,908 -2.8 4.4
Henderson ● Vance 13,522 15,655 16,095 15.8 2.8
Kernersville ● Forsyth, Guilford 5,875 10,899 17,126 85.5 57.1
Madison Rockingham 2,806 2,371 2,262 -15.5 -4.6
Mayodan Rockingham 2,627 2,471 2,417 -5.9 -2.2
Plymouth Washington 4,571 4,328 4,107 -5.3 -5.1
Reidsville ● Rockingham 12,492 12,183 14,485 -2.5 18.9
Roanoke Rapids Halifax 14,702 15,722 16,957 6.9 7.9
Roxboro ● Person 7,532 7,332 8,696 -2.7 18.6
Rural Hall ● Forsyth 1,336 1,652 2,464 23.7 49.2
Scotland Neck ● Halifax 2,834 2,575 2,362 -9.1 -8.3
Stokesdale ● Guilford 1,973 2,134 3,267 8.2 53.1
Walkertown ● Forsyth 1,321 1,200 4,009 -9.2 234.1
Wentworth Rockingham ---- 1,989 2,779 ---- 39.7
Williamston Martin 6,159 5,503 5,843 -10.7 6.2
Windsor Bertie 2,126 2,209 2,283 3.9 3.3
Yanceyville Caswell 1,869 1,973 2,091 5.6 6.0
• - The numbers reported reflect municipality population; however, these municipalities are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for municipalities located wholly or partially within the basin.

Basin Population and Population Density

Information on population density at a watershed scale is useful in determining what streams are
likely to have the most impacts as a result of population growth. This information is also useful
in identifying stream segments that have good opportunities for preservation or restoration. This
information is presented to estimate population and population density by each subbasin and for
the entire basin. It is assumed that county populations are distributed evenly throughout each
county; therefore, subbasins that are within counties with large urban areas may overestimate the
actual population in that portion of the basin. The overall population of the basin based on 2000
Census data is 344,638 with approximately 98 persons/square mile. Population density
estimated by subbasin is presented in the following map.
Appendix I – Population and Growth Trends 207

208 Appendix I – Population and Growth Trends

Appendix II

Local Governments and
Planning Jurisdictions
in the
Roanoke River Basin
Appendix II - Local Government and Planning Jurisdictions 209

210 Appendix II - Local Government and Planning Jurisdictions

The Roanoke River basin encompasses all or portions of 15 counties and 42 municipalities. The
following Table provides a listing of these local governments, along with the regional planning
jurisdiction (Council of Governments). There are 17 municipalities located in more than one
major river basin.

County Region Municipalities
Bertie Q Askewville, Aulander *, Kelford, Lewiston Woodville, Roxobel, Windsor
Caswell G Milton, Yanceyville
Forsyth I Kernersville * ♦, Rural Hall *, Walkertown *
Granville K Stovall
Guilford G Kernersville * ♦, Stokesdale *
Halifax L Halifax, Hobgood *, Littleton *, Roanoke Rapids, Scotland Neck *, Weldon
Martin Q Hamilton, Hassell, Jamesville, Oak City, Williamston
Northampton L Garysburg, Gaston *, Jackson *, Rich Square *
Orange J None
Person K Roxboro *
Rockingham G Eden, Madison, Mayodan, Reidsville *, Stoneville, Wentworth
Stokes I Danbury, Walnut Cove
Surry I None
Vance K Henderson *, Middleburg *
Warren K Macon *, Norlina *
Washington R Plymouth
G Piedmont Triad COG
I Northwest Piedmont COG
J Triangle J COG
K Kerr-Tar Regional COG
L Upper Coastal Plain COG
Q Mid-East Commission
R Albemarle Commission
* Located in more than one major river basin.
♦ Located in more than one county.
Note: Counties adjacent to and sharing a border with a river basin are not included as part of that basin if only a trace amount of
the county (<2 percent) is located in that basin, unless a municipality is located in that county. (Note: Guilford County is
only included because of the municipality, Kernersville.)
Appendix II - Local Government and Planning Jurisdictions 211

212 Appendix II - Local Government and Planning Jurisdictions

Appendix III

Land Cover
in the
Roanoke River Basin
Appendix III – Land Cover 213

214 Appendix III – Land Cover

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. The
information below describes two different ways of presenting land cover in the Roanoke River
basin.

Land cover information from the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis (CGIA) is useful in providing a snapshot of land cover in the basin from 1993 to 1995.
This information is also available in a GIS format so it can be manipulated to present amounts of
the different land covers by subbasin or at the watershed scale. Land cover information from the
National Resources Inventory (NRI) published by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) is presented only at a larger scale (8-digit hydrologic unit), but the collection methods
allow for between year comparisons. The two datasets cannot be compared to evaluate land
cover data. This information is presented to provide a picture of the different land covers and
some idea of change in land cover over time. In the future, it is hoped that land cover
information like the GIS formatted dataset will be developed to make more meaningful
assessments of the effects of land use changes on water quality. This dataset would also be
useful in providing reliable and small-scale information on land cover changes that can be used
in water quality monitoring, modeling and restoration efforts.

Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA) Land Cover

The North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database contains land cover information for the
Roanoke River basin based on satellite imagery from 1993-1995. CGIA developed 24 categories
of statewide land cover information. For the purposes of this report, those categories have been
condensed into five broader categories as described in the Table below. The following chart
provides an illustration of the relative amount of land area that falls into each major cover type
for the Roanoke River basin.

Land Cover Type Land Cover Description
Urban Greater than 50 percent coverage by synthetic land cover (built-upon area)
and municipal areas.
Cultivated Cropland Areas that are covered by crops that are cultivated in a distinguishable pattern.
Pasture/Managed Herbaceous Areas used for the production of grass and other forage crops and other
managed areas such as golf courses and cemeteries. Also includes upland
herbaceous areas not characteristic of riverine and estuarine environments.
Forest/Wetland Includes salt and freshwater marshes, hardwood swamps, shrublands and all
kinds of forested areas (such as needleleaf evergreens, deciduous hardwoods).
Water Areas of open surface water, areas of exposed rock, and areas of sand or silt
adjacent to tidal waters and lakes.

Appendix III – Land Cover 215

12 % Cultivated Crop
11 % Pasture/Managed
Herbaceous Land Cover
3 % Water
1% Urban/
Built-Up Areas
73 % Forest/Wetland
Percentages within Major Land Cover Categories in the Roanoke River Basin

National Resources Inventory (NRI) Land Cover Trends

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
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.

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 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. Definitions of the different land cover types are also
presented.

216 Appendix III – Land Cover

%
change
Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres % of Acres % of since
LAND COVER (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) TOTAL (1000s) TOTAL 1982
Cult. Crop 81.6 14.7 58.1 12.2 22.1 11.3 21.0 13.1 198.2 24.3 381.0 17.3 478.7 21.6 -20.4
Uncult. Crop 29.3 5.3 10.1 2.1 2.1 1.1 5.5 3.4 0.0 0.0 47.0 2.1 24.8 1.1 89.5
Pasture 28.5 5.1 27.8 5.8 15.0 7.7 4.9 3.1 11.6 1.4 87.8 4.0 111.8 5.0 -21.5
Forest 318.5 57.2 329.8 69.3 110.9 56.7 90.6 56.4 520.3 63.8 1370.1 62.1 1377.4 62.1 -0.5
Urban & Built-Up 55.0 9.9 18.6 3.9 8.2 4.2 14.4 9.0 33.4 4.1 129.6 5.9 54.9 2.5 136.1
Federal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.8 20.2 0.9 14.8 0.7 36.5
Other 43.9 7.9 31.4 6.6 23.4 12.0 24.2 15.1 46.3 5.7 169.2 7.7 154.2 7.0 9.7
Totals 556.8 100.0 475.8 100.0 195.7 100.0 160.6 100.0 816.0 100.0 2204.9 100.0 2216.6 100.0
% of Total Basin 25.3 21.6 8.9 7.3 37.0 100.0
SUBBASINS 03-02-01 03-02-02 03-02-03 03-02-04 03-02-08 03-02-09
03-02-05 03-02-06
8-Digit
Hydraulic Units
Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service - 1982 and 1997 NRI
* = Watershed areas as defined by the 8-Digit Hydraulic Units do not necessarily coincide with subbasin titles used by DWQ.
03010103 03010104 03010106 03010107
Upper Dan Lower Dan Middle Roanoke
MAJOR WATERSHED AREAS
Roanoke Rapids Lower Roanoke
1997 TOTALSRiver 1982 TOTALSRiverRiverRiverRiver
03-02-03
03-02-07
03-02-08 03-02-10
03-02-06

03010102

Type Description
Cultivated Cropland Harvestable crops including row crops, small-grain and hay crops, nursery and orchard crops, and
other specialty crops.
Uncultivated Cropland Summer fallow or other cropland not planted.
Pastureland Includes land that has a vegetative cover of grasses, legumes and/or forbs, regardless of whether or
not it is being grazed by livestock.
Forestland At least 10 percent stocked (a canopy cover of leaves and branches of 25 percent or greater) by
single-stemmed trees of any size which will be at least 4 meters at maturity, and land bearing
evidence of natural regeneration of tree cover. The minimum area for classification of forestland is
1 acre, and the area must be at least 1,000 feet wide.
Urban and
Built-up Areas
Includes airports, playgrounds with permanent structures, cemeteries, public administration sites,
commercial sites, railroad yards, construction sites, residences, golf courses, sanitary landfills,
industrial sites, sewage treatment plants, institutional sites, water control structure spillways and
parking lots. Includes highways, railroads and other transportation facilities if surrounded by other
urban and built-up areas. Tracts of less than 10 acres that are completely surrounded by urban and
built-up lands.
Other Rural Transportation: Consists of all highways, roads, railroads and associated rights-of-way
outside urban and built-up areas; private roads to farmsteads; logging roads; and other private roads
(but not field lanes).
Small Water Areas: Waterbodies less than 40 acres; streams less than 0.5 mile wide.
Census Water: Large waterbodies consisting of lakes and estuaries greater than 40 acres and rivers
greater than 0.5 mile in width.
Minor Land: Lands that do not fall into one of the other categories.
Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service - 1982 and 1997 NRI
Appendix III – Land Cover 217
Data from 1982 are also provided for a comparison of change over 15 years. During this period,
urban and built-up land cover increased by 74,700 acres. Uncultivated croplands increased by
22,200 acres while cultivated cropland decreased by 97,700 acres. Forest and pastureland cover
significantly decreased by 7,000 and 24,000 acres, respectively. Most land cover change is
accounted for in the Lower Roanoke River hydrologic unit that includes rapidly growing areas in
Warren County. Below is a graph that presents changes in land cover between 1982 and 1997.

Source: USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001
Land Cover Type
Cult. Crop Uncult. Crop Pasture Forest Urban & Built-up Federal Other
La
n
d

C
o
v
e
r

C
h
a
n
g
e

(
%
)
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
-20.4
89.5
-21.5
-0.5
136.1
36.5
9.7
218 Appendix III – Land Cover

Appendix IV

DWQ Water Quality
Monitoring Programs
in the
Roanoke River Basin
Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs 219

220 Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs

DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Roanoke River Basin

Staff in the Environmental Sciences Branch (ESB) 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 Roanoke 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 Roanoke River basin, available from the Environmental
Sciences Branch website at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or
by calling [phone].
Roanoke River Basin include:

• Benthic Macroinvertebrates
• Fish Assessments
• Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
• Lake Assessment
• Ambient Monitoring System

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 (except for swam streams): Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair and Poor.

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. Swamp stream
bioclassifications fall into three categories: Natural, Moderate and Severe.

Overview of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data

Based on benthic macroinvertebrate data, water quality in the Roanoke River basin is Good near
the headwaters (subbasins 01-04), while in the lower reaches (subbasins 05-10) overall water
quality is generally Good-Fair. Benthic macroinvertebrate basinwide samples resulted in the
following bioclassifications: Excellent-1, Good-9, Good-Fair-6, Fair-3, Natural-11, and
Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs 221
Moderate-6. Comparisons of benthos data from 1999 to 2004 between repeat sites reveal that
Dan River at NC 704 improved from Good to Excellent, North Double Creek and Country Line
Creek improved from Good-Fair to Good, Marlowes Creek improved from Fair to Good-Fair,
while two swamp sites (Hoggard Mill and Conoconnara Swamp) declined from Natural to
Moderate. All remaining sites maintained the same bioclassification from 1999 to 2004. Overall,
water quality in this basin has improved slightly since 1999, based on benthos data.

The following table lists the bioclassifications (by subbasin) for all benthos sites in the Roanoke
River basin. Benthos sampling may slightly overestimate the proportion of Fair, Poor and
Severe stress sites, as DWQ special studies often have the greatest sampling intensity (number of
sites/stream) in areas where it is believed that water quality problems exist.

Benthic macroinvertebrate basinwide monitoring data collected in the Roanoke River basin,
1999-2004. Current basin sites are in bold.

Subbasin/
Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI
EPT
BI BioClass
30201
Dan R NC 704 Stokes 22-(1) 7/7/04 91 45 3.89 3.42 Excellent
Stokes 22-(1) 8/23/99 85 41 4.20 3.31 Good
Stokes 22-(1) 8/16/99 74 32 4.16 3.19 Good
Dan R SR 1695 Stokes 22-(8) 7/7/04 87 43 4.80 4.07 Good
Stokes 22-(8) 8/23/99 72 37 4.58 3.96 Good
N Double Cr SR 1504 Stokes 22-10 6/28/04 31 31 -- 3.42 Good
Stokes 22-10 8/23/99 25 25 -- 3.95 Good-Fair
Snow Cr SR 1673 Stokes 22-20 7/7/04 31 31 -- 4.33 Good
Stokes 22-20 9/13/00 29 29 -- 4.10 Good
Stokes 22-20 8/23/99 18 18 -- 4.37 Fair
Town Fork Cr SR 1998 Stokes 22-25 5/18/04 87 35 4.84 3.86 Good-Fair
Town Fork Cr SR 1961 Stokes 22-25 5/25/04 67 26 5.10 4.69 Good-Fair
Town Fork Cr SR 1917 Stokes 22-25 5/25/04 80 35 5.30 4.84 Good
Brushy Fk SR 1998 Stokes 22-25-1 5/18/04 86 37 5.10 4.06 Good-Fair
30202
Mayo R SR 1358 Rockingham 22-30-(1) 7/8/04 77 33 4.71 4.13 Good
Rockingham 22-30-(1) 8/23/99 70 32 4.26 3.44 Good
Mayo R SR 2177 Rockingham 22-30-(10) 8/24/99 52 21 5.23 4.26 Good-Fair
30203
Rock House Cr SR 2127 Rockingham 22-34-(2) 4/12/01 81 23 5.00 3.80 Good-Fair
Smith R NC 14 Rockingham 22-40-(3) 9/13/99 51 18 5.24 3.68 Fair
30204
Dan R NC 57 Caswell 22-(39) 8/24/99 66 32 5.42 4.52 Good
Country Line Cr SR 1129 Caswell 22-56-(1) 7/1/04 24 24 -- 4.89 Good
Country Line Cr NC 57 Caswell 22-56-(3.7) 7/1/04 24 24 -- 4.82 Good
30205
Marlowes Cr SR 1351 Person 22-58-12-6 6/30/04 66 14 6.67 5.87 Fair
Marlowes Cr SR 1322 Person 22-58-12-6 6/30/04 56 13 6.43 5.93 Good-Fair
Person 22-58-12-6 8/25/99 53 9 6.34 5.74 Fair
30206
Grassy Cr SR 1436 Granville 23-2-(1) 6/30/04 13 13 -- 5.05 Not Rated
Mountain Cr SR 1300 Granville 23-2-3 7/2/04 13 13 -- 5.40 Not Rated
Island Cr SR 1445 Granville 23-4 6/29/04 17 17 -- 5.48 Good-Fair
Granville 23-4 8/24/94 17 17 -- 5.11 Good-Fair
Nutbush Cr NC 39 Vance 23-8-(1) 6/29/04 70 12 7.34 6.84 Fair
Nutbush SR 1317 Vance 23-8-(1) 6/29/04 63 9 7.00 6.70 Fair
Vance 23-8-(1) 8/25/99 41 8 6.73 6.76 Fair
30207
Smith Cr SR 1217 Warren 23-10 4/26/04 69 18 6.29 5.09 Fair
Smith Cr SR 1208 Warren 23-10 4/26/04 87 22 6.03 4.87 Good-Fair
Smith Cr US 1 Warren 23-10 4/26/04 50 10 6.43 5.13 Fair
Smith Cr US 1 Warren 23-10 7/16/99 59 12 6.56 5.52 Fair
Newmans Cr SR 1218 Warren 23-10-2 4/27/04 76 15 6.30 5.32 Fair
Sixpound Cr SR 1306 Warren 23-13 6/29/04 62 15 6.43 5.44 Good-Fair
Warren 23-13 7/16/99 54 14 5.50 5.05 Good-Fair
222 Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs

Subbasin/
Waterbody
Location

County

Index No.

Date

ST

EPT

BI
EPT
BI

BioClass
30208
Deep Cr US 158 Halifax 23-24(1) 2/23/04 62 23 5.28 4.10 Natural
7/15/99 58 11 6.41 5.17 Not Rated
Chockoyotte Cr Country
Club Rd
Halifax 23-29 2/23/04 52 11 6.72 5.40 Moderate
Quankey Cr NC 903 Halifax 23-30 2/23/04 53 17 5.82 4.05 Natural
2/16/99 40 9 6.66 5.93 Natural
Quankey Cr NC 561 Halifax 23-30 9/1/99 9 5.51 Fair
L Quankey Cr NC 903 Halifax 23-30-1 2/23/04 46 17 5.65 4.49 Moderate
Oconeechee Cr SR 1126 Northhampto
n
23-31 2/16/99 22 4 6.48 6.88 Natural
Conoconnara Swp NC 561 Halifax 23-33 2/24/04 30 3 7.22 7.26 Moderate
2/16/99 31 5 6.45 6.81 Natural
Kehukee Swp SR 1804 Halifax 23-42 2/24/04 46 7 7.03 5.89 Moderate
9/2/99 6 6 6.19 6.19 Not Rated
2/11/99 59 8 7.11 6.64 Moderate
30209
Conoho Cr NC 11/42 Martin 23-49 2/4/04 31 4 7.64 7.10 Moderate
Conoho Cr NC 125/903 Martin 23-49 2/1/99 29 3 7.29 7.58
Conoho Cr SR 1417 Martin 23-49 2/4/04 38 6 6.68 5.40 Natural
2/1/99 39 5 6.27 4.80
Hardison Mill Cr SR 1528 Martin 23-50-3 2/4/04 36 2 7.49 5.20 Moderate
2/1/99 27 3 7.29 7.67 Moderate
30210
Cashie R SR 1219, be
WWTP
Bertie 24-2-(1) 2/23/04 29 3 7.47 7.03 Moderate
Bertie 24-2-(1) 2/11/99 41 6 7.51 7.24 Natural
Cashie R SR 1257 Bertie 24-2-(1) 2/24/04 35 7 6.51 4.90 Natural
SR 1257 Bertie 24-2-(1) 2/15/99 34 7 6.80 6.09 Natural
Hoggard Mill Cr SR 1301 Bertie 24-2-6 2/23/04 30 3 7.13 5.65 Moderate
Bertie 24-2-6 2/15/99 46 7 6.81 6.38 Natural
Roquist Swp US 13/17 Bertie 24-2-8 2/24/04 38 4 7.01 6.46 Natural
US 13/17 Bertie 24-2-8 2/11/99 31 4 6.99 5.50 Natural
Wading Place Cr NC 308 Bertie 24-2-8 3/8/99 35 3 7.31 7.45 Moderate

Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities in Small Streams

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 small
reference streams in different ecoregions is being developed with the goal of finding a way to
evaluate water quality conditions in such small streams.

DWQ will use this monitoring information to identify potential impacts to these waters even
though a use support rating is not assigned. DWQ will continue to develop criteria to assess
water quality in small streams.

Fish Assessments

Historical studies of fish communities in the Roanoke River basin were conducted primarily by
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) in the 1960s and late 1970s.
Several streams were sampled by DWQ during the last basinwide planning cycle (1994).
Twenty-three of the 30 sites sampled in 2004 had not been sampled previously. Scores are
assigned to these samples using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI). The
NCIBI uses a cumulative assessment of twelve parameters or metrics. Each metric is designed to
contribute unique information to the overall assessment. The scores for all metrics are then
summed to obtain the overall NCIBI score.
Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs 223
Overview of Fish Community Data

In 2004, fish community assessments were performed at 30 sites in the basin, 29 in the Piedmont
and 1 in the Coastal Plain. Chockoyotte Creek was not rated because metrics and criteria have
yet to be developed for Coastal Plain streams. The Piedmont NCIBI ratings ranged from Poor to
Excellent with the scores ranging from 22 to 54. The two streams rated Excellent were Archies
and Peters Creeks. Based upon the fish community ratings, degraded streams (bioclassifications
of Fair or Poor) included North Hyco, Little Island, Nutbush, and Smith Creeks. Fish
community sampling resulted in the following bioclassifications: Excellent-2, Good-18, Good-
Fair-5, Fair-2, and Poor-2. The following table lists the most recent ratings since 1990, by
subbasin, for all fish community sites.

Fish community data collected from the Roanoke River basin, 1990 - 2004. Current basinwide
sites are in bold font.

Subbasin/Waterbody Location County Index No. Date NCIBI Score NCIBI Rating
030201
Dan R SR 1416 Stokes 22-(1) 04/19/04 52 Good
Archies Cr SR 1415 Stokes 22-2 04/19/04 54 Excellent
Elk Cr SR 1433 Stokes 22-5 04/20/04 44 Good-Fair
Peters Cr SR 1497 Stokes 22-6 04/21/04 54 Excellent
Big Cr SR 1471 Stokes 22-9 04/20/04 48 Good
N Double Cr SR 1504 Stokes 22-10 04/20/04 42 Good-Fair
S Double Cr SR 1483 Stokes 22-11 04/20/04 46 Good
Snow Cr SR 1652 Stokes 22-20 04/21/04 46 Good
Town Fork Cr SR 1955 Stokes 22-25 04/21/04 48 Good
030202
Big Beaver Island Cr US 311 Rockingham 22-29 04/22/04 52 Good
Pawpaw Cr SR 1360 Rockingham 22-30-6-(1) 04/22/04 44 Good-Fair
08/03/90 48 Good
Hogans Cr NC 704 Rockingham 22-31 04/22/04 48 Good
Jacobs Cr NC 704 Rockingham 22-32-(0.5) 04/22/04 50 Good
030203
Rock House Cr SR 2127 Rockingham 22-34-(2) 04/23/04 48 Good
Matrimony Cr NC 770 Rockingham 22-38 04/23/04 52 Good
Wolf Island Cr SR 1767 Rockingham 22-48 04/23/04 50 Good
Wolf Island Cr NC 700 Caswell 22-48 10/05/94 54 Excellent
Hogans Cr SR 1330 Caswell 22-50 05/25/04 52 Good
Jones Cr SR 2571 Rockingham 22-50-3 06/08/04 48 Good
030204
Moon Cr SR 1511 Caswell 22-51 04/30/04 46 Good
09/07/94 44 Good-Fair
Rattlesnake Cr SR 1523 Caswell 22-52 05/25/04 48 Good
Cane Cr SR 1527 Caswell 22-54 05/25/04 46 Good
10/05/94 46 Good
Country Line Cr NC 57 Caswell 22-56-(3.7) 09/07/94 48 Good
030205
N Hyco Cr US 158 Caswell 22-58-1 04/30/04 30 Poor
S Hyco Cr US 158 Person 22-58-4-(3) 04/30/04 52 Good
Marlowe Cr SR 1322 Person 22-58-12-9 04/28/04 42 Good-Fair
09/07/94 40 Good-Fair
030206
Aarons Cr SR 1400 Granville 22-59 04/28/04 46 Good
Grassy Cr SR 1300 Granville 23-2-(1) 06/09/99 46 Good
Grassy Cr SR 1436 Granville 23-2-(1) 06/02/94 50 Good
Johnson Cr SR 1440 Granville 23-2-7-(1) 04/28/04 44 Good-Fair
Island Cr SR 1445 Granville 23-4 06/09/99 54 Excellent
06/02/94 50 Good
Little Island Cr SR 1348 Vance 23-4-3 04/29/04 30 Poor
224 Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs

Subbasin/Waterbody Location County Index No. Date NCIBI Score NCIBI Rating
Nutbush Cr SR 1317 Vance 23-8-(1) 04/29/04 38 Fair
10/04/94 44 Good-Fair
030207
Smith Cr US 1 Warren 23-10 04/29/04 38 Fair
05/12/94 42 Good-Fair
Sixpound Cr SR 1306 Warren 23-13 05/12/94 42 Good-Fair
030208
Deep Cr US 158 Halifax 23-24-(1) 05/26/04 46 Good
09/21/94 50 Good
Chockoyotte Cr US 158 Halifax 23-29 05/26/04 --- Not Rated
Quankey Cr SR 1619 Halifax 23-30 09/21/94 38 Fair
Conoconnara Swp NC 561 Halifax 23-33 09/21/94 --- Not Rated
Kehukee Swp SR 1804 Halifax 23-42 10/27/94 --- Not Rated
030210
Cashie R SR 1257 Bertie 24-2-(1) 10/26/94 --- Not Rated

In 2004, 61 different species were collected during NC DWQ's fish community monitoring
program. The most commonly collected species were the bluehead chub and the redbreast
sunfish (collected at 28 of the 30 sites). The most abundant species was the bluehead chub,
which constituted almost one-quarter of all the fish collected. It was also the numerically
dominant species at 15 of the 30 sites.

Overview of Fish Tissue Sampling

The Division conducted fish tissue surveys at four stations within the Roanoke Basin from 1999
to 2004. These surveys were conducted as part of the mercury contaminant assessments in the
eastern part of the state and during statewide pesticide and PCB assessments.

Tissue samples collected during the period contained PCB and organic contaminants at
undetectable levels or at levels less than the US EPA, US FDA, and State of North Carolina
criteria.

Elevated mercury concentrations were, however, measured in fish samples collected from the
Cashie River near Windsor (Subbasin 03-02-10). Elevated levels were most often detected in
largemouth bass, a species at the top of the food chain and most often associated with mercury
bioaccumulation in North Carolina. Largemouth bass, yellow perch and redear sunfish (10 of 23
samples) collected from the Cashie River contained mercury concentrations exceeding the state
criteria of 0.4 ppm. Presently, there are no site-specific consumption advisories for mercury
contaminated fish in the Roanoke River basin; however, an advice for the consumption of shark,
Swordfish, Tilefish, King mackerel, Spanish mackerel, Albacore tuna, Largemouth bass,
Bowfin/Blackfish, and Chain pickerel/Jack fish east of Interstate 85 was issued by NCDHHS in
2002. For more information on NCDHHS consumption advice and advisories in North Carolina,
refer to http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html.

There is a NCDHHS site specific fish consumption advisory due to dioxin contamination in the
Roanoke River from Williamston to the mouth including Welch Creek and the western part of
Albemarle Sound (Chapter 8). Dioxin concentrations, however, have been declining since 1994.
Annual monitoring by the mill has indicated that dioxin concentrations in most fish species are
gradually decreasing since the mill initiated dioxin reduction and management programs in the
early 1990s. In October 2001 NCDHHS lifted gamefish from the advisory after consecutive
Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs 225
sampling years showed dioxin levels in gamefish dropped below the NC criteria of 4 pg/g. The
advisory remains in place for catfish and carp species.

Roanoke River Basin Fish Kills

DWQ has systematically tracked reported fish kill events across the state since 1996. From
September 1,1999 to August 31,2004, DWQ field investigators reported 3 fish kill events in the
Roanoke River basin.

The two largest fish kills in this basin occurred after hurricane Isabel in 2003. The fish kills
occurred due to low dissolved oxygen levels in the river as a result from an influx of low DO
swamp water and organic matter flowing into the mainstem of the river following the hurricane.
The following table lists the details of the Roanoke River Basin fish kills. For more information
on fish kills in North Carolina, refer to http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Fishkill/fishkillmain.htm

Detailed Fish Kill Information for the Roanoke River Basin from September 1, 1999-August 31,
2004.

Date County Waterbody Location Kill # Kill
Area
Duration Cause Mortality Fish species Comments
Subbasin 03-02-09
9/23/03 Martin Roanoke
River
Jamesesville,
Plymouth
WA03021 18
miles
2 days Low DO 93,500

Juvenile
fish are
not
reflected
in totals.
Catfish,
Sunfish,
Suckers,
Shad,
Largemouth
bass, Eels,
Minnows,
Flounder,
Perch,
Striped bass
Kill resulted from the
flushing of swamp water
into the river following
Hurricane Isabel, and the
subsequent drop in DO
levels. Kill zone stretched
from Devils Gut above
Jamesville to the river
mouth. All DO readings
were < 0.5 mg/L. Fish
were seen at the surface
gasping for air.
Subbasin 03-02-10
9/25/03 Bertie Cashie
River
Windsor WA03022 17.7
miles
4 days Low DO 22,243 Sunfish,
Catfish,
Crappie,
Minnows
Kill caused by low DO
levels resulting from an
influx of swamp water and
organic matter following
Hurricane Isabel. Dead
fish found from Windsor
to the mouth of the river.
All DO readings were
< 0.5 mg/L.
Subbasin 03-02-05
3/29/04 Person Mayo
Creek
Below
Reservoir
Spillway
RA04001 1 mile 1 day Unknown 60 Carp,
Bluehead chub
Observed ~60 dead carp in
various stages of decay
within 500 meters of the
spillway. About 50% of
the live carp in the area
had sores on top of their
head and body. Many carp
and Bluehead chub were
very lethargic and
unresponsive.

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
226 Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs

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.

Thirty NPDES permits in the Roanoke River basin currently require WET testing. Twenty-seven
permits have a WET limit; the other three facilities permits specify monitoring but do not have a
limit. 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 1998, the compliance rate has stabilized
at approximately 90-95 percent. The following graph summaries WET monitoring compliance
in the Roanoke River basin from 1987 to 2004. Facilities with toxicity problems during the most
recent two-year review period are discussed in subbasin chapters.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
198
7
198
9
199
1
199
3
199
5
199
7
199
9
200
1
200
3
Year
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
No. Facilities % Meeting Permit Limit

NPDES facility whole effluent toxicity compliance in the Roanoke River basin,
1987-2004. The compliance values were calculated by determining whether
facilities with WET limits were meeting their ultimate permit limits during the
given time period, regardless of any SOCs in force.
Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs 227
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 currently has 365 water chemistry monitoring stations statewide, including 22 stations
in the Roanoke River basin. Between 23 and 32 parameters are collected monthly at each
station. These locations were chosen to characterize the effects of point source dischargers and
nonpoint sources such as agriculture, animal operations, and urbanization within watersheds.
The locations of these stations are listed in the following table and shown on individual subbasin
maps. Notable ambient water quality parameters are discussed in the subbasin chapters. Refer
to 2005Roanoke River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html for
more detailed analysis of ambient water quality monitoring data.

Ambient Monitoring Stations in the Roanoke River Basin by Subbasin, 1999-2004.

Subbasin Station Location Class County
01
N0150000 Dan River at NC 704 near Francisco C Tr Stokes
02
N1400000 Mayo River at SR 1358 near Price WS-V Rockingham
03
N2300000 Dan River at SR 2150 near Wentworth WS-IV Rockingham
N24300001 Smith River at SR 1714 near Eden WS-IV Rockingham
N24500002 Smith River at NC 14 at Eden WS-IV Rockingham
N3000000 Dan River at SR 1761 near Mayfield C Rockingham
04
N3500000 Dan River at NC 57 at VA Line at Milton C Caswell
05
N41100003 Hyco Creek at US 158 near Leasburg C Caswell
N4250000 Hyco River Below Afterbay Dam near Mcghees Mill C Person
N44000004 Marlowe Creek at SR 1322 near Woodsdale C Person
N4510000 Hyco River at US 501 near Denniston VA III NT Halifax
N4590000 Mayo Creek at SR 1501 near Bethel Hill C Person
06
N5000000 Nutbush Creek at SR 1317 near Henderson C Vance
07
N6400000 Smith Creek at US 1 near Paschall C Warren
08
N7300000 Roanoke River at NC 48 at Roanoke Rapids WS-IV CA Halifax
N8200000 Roanoke River at US 258 near Scotland Neck C Halifax
N8300000 Roanoke River at NC 11 near Lewiston C Martin
09
N8550000 Roanoke River at US 13 And US 17 at Williamston C Martin
N9250000 Roanoke River 1.3 Mi Ups Welch Creek near Plymouth C Sw Martin
N9600000 Roanoke River at NC 45 at Sans Souci C Sw Bertie
N9700000 Albemarle Sound at Batchelor Bay near Black Walnut B Sw Bertie
10
N8950000 Cashie River at SR 1219 near Lewiston C Sw Bertie
1Sample collection at station N2430000 began on 7/24/00. 2Sample collection at station N2450000 ceased on 6/21/00.
3Sample collection at station N4110000 ceased on 6/21/00.
4Sample collection at station N4400000 was temporarily suspended on 10/7/03.

228 Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs

Lakes Assessment Program

Eleven Roanoke River Basin lakes were sampled in June through September of 2004. Generally,
lake conditions were similar to previous years. Farmer Lake and Lake Roxboro had elevated
chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen concentrations; however, all other parameters were normal.
While blue-green algae dominated the phytoplankton assemblages in Farmer Lake, Lake
Roxboro had a diverse assemblage including species that may cause taste and odor problems in
drinking water. Lakes with noted water quality impacts are discussed in the appropriate subbasin
chapters. See the table below for a list of the lakes and their characteristic information.

Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs 229
230 Appendix IV – Water Quality Monitoring Programs
Lakes Assessment – Roanoke River Basin

RATING KEY: S = Supporting; R = Not Rated; I = Impaired
KEY Water Quality Standards: NCE = No Criteria Exceeded; E = Criteria exceeded in less than 10% of the measurements OR criteria exceeded but number of sampling trips less than 10; CE =
Criteria Exceeded – parameter is problematic, highly productive, or exceeds the standard in >10% of samples; ND = No Data – samples not taken for this parameter.
KEY Other Data: N = Indicates that the parameter is within the target or has not occurred per available information; Y = Exceeds target or has occurred; ND = No Data – samples not taken for this
parameter
Subbasin 030201 030204 030205 030206 030207 030208

Lakes Ambient Program Name Hanging Rock Lake Kernersville Reservoir Belews Lake Farmer Lake Lake Roxboro
Roxboro City Lake (Lake Isaac Walton)
Mayo Reservoir Hyco Lake Kerr Reservoir Lake Gaston Roanoke Rapids Lake
Trophic Status (NC TSI) Oligotrophic Eutrophic Oligotrophic Eutrophic Eutrophic Eutrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Oligotrophic
Mean Depth (meters) 1 5 15 5.5 6 3.5 9 6.1 10.7 6 5
Volume (106m3) 0.003 0.4 228 6.5 11 0.3 105 99 448 512 96
Watershed Area (mi2) 0.8 3.5 46.3 48.3 23.9 196.1 51.4 188 7610.8 8293.4 8294.2

Assessment Unit Name Cascade Creek Belews Cr (Kernersville Reservoir)
Belews Cr. (including Belews Lake below elev. 725) & West Belews Cr. (W. Belews Cr. Arm of Belews Lake below elevation 725)
County Line Creek (Farmer Lake)
South Hyco Creek (Lake Roxboro)
Storys Creek [Roxboro City Lake (Lake Issac Walton)]
Mayo Cr (Maho Cr) (Mayo Res)
Hyco R., including Hyco Lake below elevation 410)
Nutbush Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir (below normal pool elevation 300 ft MSL…)
Roanoke River (Lake Gaston below normal full power pool elevation 200 MSL)
Roanoke River (Lake Gaston below normal ….)
Classification B WS IV C WS-IV WS-IV WS- II, HQW WS-II, B, HQW WS-II, HWQ WS-V WS-V, B B WS-V, B WS-IV, B W- IV, B, CA
Assessment Unit 22-12-(2) 22-27-(1.5) 22-27-(7) 22-27-9-(4) 22-27-(7.5)22-56-(3.5) 22-58-4-(1.4) 22-58-12-(1.5)22-58-15-(0.5)22-58-(0.5) 23-8-(2) 23-(12) 23-(20.2)23-(22.5)
Stations in Assessment Unit ROA003A ROA0092A ROA009J ROA009G ROA009E, 009H ROA027J, 027L, 027G
ROA0303DA, 0303DC, 0303DE
ROA031C, 031E, 031H ROA0343A, 0342A, 0341A
ROA030C, 030E, 030F, 030G
ROA037A, 037E, 037I, 0371J ROA038A, 039 ROA039B ROA039C, 039D, O39E
NL1 NL2 NL6 NL4 NL3, NL5 NL7-NL9 NL11-NL13 NL17-NL19 NL20-NL22 NL10, NL14-NL16 NL23-NL26 NL27-NL28 NL29 NL30-NL32
Number of Sampling Trips 12 8 11 11 11 12 11 4 3 3 6 5 5 3

Water Quality Standards
Chlorophyll a >40 ug/L NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE
Dissolved Oxygen <4.0 mg/L NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE
pH <6 s.u. or > 9 s.u. NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE
Turbidity >25 mg/L NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE E (9%) NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE
Temperature >32°C Lower Piedmont & Coastal Plain NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE NCE E (33%) NCE NCE NCE NCE
Metals (excluding copper, iron & zinc) 15A NCAC 2B .0211 ND NCE ND ND ND NCE NCE NCE NCE ND ND NCE NCE ND

Other Data
% Saturation DO >120% N N N N Y (9%) Y (8%) Y (9%) N N N N N N N
Algae Documented blooms during 2 or more sampling events in 1 year with historic blooms N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Fish Kills related to eutrophication N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Chemically/Biologically Treated For algal or macrophyte control - either chemicals or biologically by fish, etc. N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N
Macrophytes Limiting access to public ramps, docks, swimming areas; reducing access by fish and other aquatic life to habitat N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y
Sediments
Clogging intakes – dredging program
necessary; Frequent public/agency complaints -
visual
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Rating: S NR S S S NR S NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Appendix V

Other Water Quality Data
in the
Roanoke River Basin
Appendix V – Other Water Quality Data 231

232 Appendix V – Other Water Quality Data

Other Water Quality Research

North Carolina actively solicits "existing and
readily available" data and information for each
basin as part of the basinwide planning process.
Data meeting DWQ quality assurance objectives are
used in making use support determinations. Data
and information indicating possible water quality
problems are investigated further. Both quantitative
and qualitative information are accepted during the
solicitation period.

High levels of confidence must be present in order
for outside quantitative information to carry the
same weight as information collected from within
DWQ. This is particularly the case when
considering waters for the Impaired categories in
the Integrated Report (303(d) list). Methodology
for soliciting and evaluating outside data is
presented in North Carolina’s 2002 Integrated
Report http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/Docs_303/2002/2002%20Integrated%20Rept.pdf
(Appendix I). The next data solicitation period for the Roanoke River Basin is planned for fall
2008.
DWQ data solicitation includes
the following:

• Information, letters and photographs
regarding the uses of surface waters for
boating, drinking water, swimming,
aesthetics and fishing.
• Raw data submitted electronically and
accompanied by documentation of
quality assurance methods used to collect
and analyze the samples. Maps showing
sampling locations must also be included.
• Summary reports and memos, including
distribution statistics and accompanied
by documentation of quality assurance
methods used to collect and analyze the
data.
Contact information must accompany all
data and information submitted.

Any data submitted to DWQ from other water sampling programs conducted in the Roanoke
River basin have been reviewed. Data that meet quality and accessibility requirements were
considered for use support assessments and the 303(d) list. These data are also used by DWQ to
adjust the location of biological and chemical monitoring sites.

In particular, DWQ use data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at five sites in the
lower Roanoke River. USGS used a continuous monitoring (15-minute intervals) in situ
multiparameter water-quality sensor connected to a data logger to collected specific conductance,
pH, water temperature, and DO concentration. DWQ also used NC Department of Health and
Human Services fish consumption advisories and advice. For more information regarding fish
consumption advisories, call [phone] or visit the NC DHHS Division of Public Health
website at http://www.schs.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html. These data were used by DWQ to assign use
support ratings.

Subbasin Station
Number
AU
Number
Sampling
Location
Data
Source
03-02-08 NA23 23-(26)a Roanoke River at Halifax, NC USGS
03-02-08 NA24 23-(26)b1 Roanoke River at Oak City, NC USGS
03-02-09 NA25 23-(26)b2 Roanoke River at SR1100 near Grabtown, NC USGS
03-02-09 NA27 23-(26)b3 Roanoke River at Jamesville, NC USGS
03-02-09 NA26 23-(53) Roanoke River at NC 45 near Westover, NC USGS
Appendix V – Other Water Quality Data 233

234 Appendix V – Other Water Quality Data

Appendix VI

NPDES Discharges
and
Individual Stormwater Permits
in the
Roanoke River Basin
Appendix VI – NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits 235

236 Appendix VI – NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits
NPDES Dischargers in the Roanoke River Basin (as of April 21, 2005)
Owner Permit Facility County Region Type Class MGD Sub-basin Receiving Stream
R J Reynolds Tobacco Co - Brook Cove NC0003492 R J Reynolds Tobacco Company Stokes Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.02 03-02-01 Voss Creek (Sandy Branch)
Industrial Process & Commercial NC0003441 JPS Elastomerics Corp JPS Elastomerics Corp-Caro Plt Stokes Winston-Salem Minor 0.015 03-02-01 Little Dan River
West Belews Creek Industrial Process &
Commercial not limited 03-02-01 NC0024406 Duke Energy Corporation Belews Creek Steam Station Stokes Winston-Salem Major (Little Belews Creek)
NC0025526 Town of Walnut Cove Walnut Cove WWTP Stokes Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.5 03-02-01 Town Fork Creek
NC0028746 Aqua North Carolina, Inc Briarwood Subdivision WWTP Stokes Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.05 03-02-01 Brushy Fork Creek
NC0029777 Stokes County Stokes Correctional Center WWTP Stokes Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0132 03-02-01 Flat Shoals Creek
NC0035173 KobeWieland Copper Products LLC
Kobewireland Copper Products
Incorporated Stokes Winston-Salem
Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor 0.025 03-02-01 DAN RIVER
NC0037311 Pierce Management Group Creekside Manor Rest Home Forsyth Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-02-01
Belews Creek (including Belews
Lake below elevation 725) (1)
NC0043290 Town of Danbury Danbury WTP Stokes Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-02-01 Scott Creek (Steadmans Creek)
NC0044954 Stokes County Schools South Stokes High School Stokes Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0173 03-02-01 Little Neatman Creek
NC0044962 Stokes County Schools North Stokes High School Stokes Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0115 03-02-01 DAN RIVER
NC0056791 Horizons Residential Care Ctr Horizons Residential Care Ctr Forsyth Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-02-01 Buffalo Creek
NC0057720 John Henry Spainhour Twin Lakes Mobile Home Park Stokes Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.04 03-02-01 Timmons Creek
NC0060461
Carolina Water Service, Incorporated
of N.C. Abington WWTP Forsyth Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.2 03-02-01
Belews Creek (including Belews
Lake below elevation 725) (1)
NC0067091 Aqua North Carolina, Inc Mikkola Downs Subdivision WWTP Forsyth Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.072 03-02-01 East Belews Creek
NC0075027 Cains Way Homeowners Association Cains Way Mobile Home Park Forsyth Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0432 03-02-01 Ader Creek
NC0078115 Aqua North Carolina, Inc Greystone Subdivision WWTP Forsyth Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.032 03-02-01 Belews Creek
NC0079049 R H Johnson Construction Company R.H. Johnson Construction WWTP Forsyth Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.06 03-02-01 Rough Fork
NC0082384 Stokes County Danbury WWTP Stokes Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.1 03-02-01 DAN RIVER
NC0083933 Heater Utilities Inc Salem Quarters WWTP Forsyth Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.06 03-02-01 Belews Creek
NC0087980 Stokes County Schools Pine Hall Elementary School WWTP Stokes Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.004 03-02-01 Eurins Creek

NC0037001
Rockingham County Board of
Education Bethany Elementary School Rockingham Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0037 03-02-02 Huffines Mill Creek
NC0086665
Dynegy, Inc. / Rockingham Power
LLC
Rockingham Power Combustion
Turbine Facility Rockingham Winston-Salem
Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor not limited 03-02-02 Jacobs Creek
Appendix VI – NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits 237
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Sub-basin Receiving Stream
NC0021075 Town of Madison Madison WWTP Rockingham Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.775 03-02-02 DAN RIVER
NC0021873 Town of Mayodan Mayodan WWTP Rockingham Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 4.5 03-02-02 Mayo River
NC0044750 Britthaven Of Madison Britthaven Of Madison Rockingham Winston-Salem Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor 0.025 03-02-02 Hogans Creek
NC0046302 Town of Mayodan Mayodan WTP Rockingham Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-02-02 Mayo River
NC0060542 Gold Hill Mobile Home Park Gold Hill Mobile Home Park Rockingham Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0176 03-02-02 Hogans Creek
NC0085022 Michael R Hodgin 220 Mobile Home Park Rockingham Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-02-02 Hogans Creek
NC0085626 Town of Madison Madison WTP Rockingham Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-02-02 Big Beaver Island Creek
NC0059251 Lee Simaan Quail Acres Mobile Home Park Rockingham Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.05 03-02-02 Hogans Creek
NC0002828 Diakon Molding Inc Diakon Molding Rockingham Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.005 03-02-03 Lick Fork Creek
NC0001643 Hollingsworth GP Pillowtex/Hollingsworth GP Rockingham Winston-Salem Industrial Process &
Commercial Major 0.5 03-02-03 DAN RIVER
NC0003468 Duke Energy Corporation Dan River Steam Station Rockingham Winston-Salem
Industrial Process &
Commercial Major not limited 03-02-03 DAN RIVER (NC portion)
NC0025071 City of Eden Mebane Bridge WWTP Rockingham Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 13.5 03-02-03 DAN RIVER
NC0025151 City of Eden Dry Creek WWTP Rockingham Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 1.0 03-02-03 DAN RIVER
NC0027987 Vulcan Construction Materials LP Stoneville Quarry Rockingham Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-02-03 Buffalo Creek
NC0029980 Miller Breweries East Inc Miller Breweries East Inc. Rockingham Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Major 5.2 03-02-03 DAN RIVER
NC0060623 Sterling A Weaver Stone Highway Mobile Home Park Rockingham Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-02-03 Buffalo Creek
NC0077135 Curl Modular Homes Hidden Valley WWTP Rockingham Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.022 03-02-03 Lick Fork Creek
NC0078271 Betsy Jeff Penn 4H Education Betsy Jeff Penn 4H Education Rockingham Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0084 03-02-03 Carroll Creek (Lake Hazel)
NC0085189 Virginia H Doyle Jose's Restaurant-Sand Filter Rockingham Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 03-02-03 Buffalo Creek
NC0007323 Town of Yanceyville Yanceyville WTP Caswell Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor 0.015 03-02-04 Fullers Creek
NC0030180 NC Department of Correction Blanch Youth Center WWTP Caswell Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.018 03-02-04 Country Line Creek
NC0040011 Town of Yanceyville Yanceyville WWTP Caswell Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.6 03-02-04 Country Line Creek
NC0087645 Town of Milton Milton WWTP Caswell Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.025 03-02-04 Country Line Creek
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Sub-basin Receiving Stream
238 Appendix VI – NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits
NPDES Dischargers in the Roanoke River Basin (as of April 21, 2005)
NC0038377 Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Mayo Steam Electric Plant Person Raleigh Industrial Process & Commercial Major 21.0 03-02-05 Mayo Creek (Maho Creek)
NC0003042 City of Roxboro Roxboro WTP Person Raleigh Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-02-05 Marlowe Creek
NC0003425 Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. Roxboro Steam Electric Power Plant Person Raleigh
Industrial Process &
Commercial Major 0.015 03-02-05
South Hyco Creek
(Lake Roxboro)
NC0036536 Person County Schools Woodland Elementary School Person Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.006 03-02-05 South Hyco Creek
NC0086983 Caswell County Schools South Elementary WTP Caswell Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-02-05
Hyco Creek
(North Hyco Creek)
NC0021024 City of Roxboro City of Roxboro WWTP Person Raleigh Municipal, Large Major 5.0 03-02-05 Marlowe Creek
NC0065081 Cogentrix Energy Inc Roxboro Cogen plant Person Raleigh
Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor not limited 03-02-05 Mitchell Creek
NC0020559 City of Henderson Henderson WRF Vance Raleigh Municipal, Large Major 6.0 03-02-06
Nutbush Creek (Including
Nutbush Creek Arm of
John H. Kerr Reservoir below normal pool elevation)
NC0035491 Vance County Schools E.O. Young, Jr. Elementary School Vance Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0036 03-02-06
Mill Creek (Including Mill Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir
below normal pool elevation)
NC0083101 City of Henderson Kerr Lake Regional WTP Vance Raleigh Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-02-06
Anderson Swamp Creek
(Including Anderson Swamp
Creek Arm of John H. Kerr
Reservoir below normal pool elevation)

NC0000752 International Paper Company Roanoke Rapids Mill Halifax Raleigh
Industrial Process &
Commercial Major 28.0 03-02-08 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0024201 Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District Roanoke Rapids WWTP Halifax Raleigh Municipal, Large Major 8.34 03-02-08 Chockoytte Creek
NC0025437 Town of Rich Square Rich Square WWTP Northampton Raleigh Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.15 03-02-08 Bridgers Creek
NC0027626 NC Department of Correction Caledonia WWTP Halifax Raleigh
Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor 0.8 03-02-08 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0027642 NC Department of Correction Odom Correctional Institute WWTP Northampton Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.12 03-02-08 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0038636 Halifax County Schools Bakers Elementary School WWTP Halifax Raleigh 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0073 03-02-08
Kehukee Swamp
(White Millpond)
NC0066192 Town of Halifax Halifax WWTP Halifax Raleigh Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.075 03-02-08 Quankey Creek
NC0025721 Town of Weldon Weldon WWTP Halifax Raleigh Municipal, Large Major 1.2 03-02-08 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0028835 Perdue Farms Inc Lewiston MIll Bertie Washington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 3.0 03-02-08 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0079014 Panda Rosemary L P Panda Rosemary L P Halifax Raleigh Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-02-08 Chockoytte Creek
Appendix VI – NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits 239

Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Sub-basin Receiving Stream
NC0000680 Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth Mill Martin Washington
Industrial Process &
Commercial Major 82.5 03-02-09 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0002313 Town of Plymouth Plymouth WTP Washington Washington Water Treatment Plant Minor not limited 03-02-09 Conaby Creek
NC0020028 Town of Plymouth Plymouth WWTP Washington Washington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.8 03-02-09 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0020044 Town of Williamston Williamston WWTP Martin Washington Municipal, Large Major 2.0 03-02-09 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0023710 McMurray Fabrics Jamesville Inc McMurray Fabrics Jamesville Inc Martin Washington
Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor 0.45 03-02-09 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0035858 Town of Jamesville Jamesville WWTP Martin Washington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.15 03-02-09 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0044776 Town of Hamilton Hamilton WWTP Martin Washington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.08 03-02-09 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0068187 United Organics Corporation United Organics Corporation Martin Washington
Industrial Process &
Commercial Minor not limited 03-02-09 ROANOKE RIVER
NC0023116 Town of Lewiston-Woodville Lewiston-Woodville WWTP Bertie Washington Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.15 03-02-10 Cashie River
NC0026751 Town of Windsor Windsor WWTP Bertie Washington Municipal, Large Major 1.15 03-02-10 Cashie River
NC0086215 Williford Logging Inc Williford Logging Bertie Washington Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-02-10 Cashie River
240 Appendix VI – NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits

NPDES Individual Stormwater Permits in the Roanoke River Basin (as of May 10, 2005)

Permit # Facility
Name
Receiving
Stream Subbasin County
NCS000106 Roanoke Rapids Mill Roanoke River 03-02-08 Halifax
NCS000197 Rosemary Power Station Roanoke River 03-02-08 Halifax
NCS000229 Roanoke Valley Energy Facility Roanoke River 03-02-08 Halifax
NCS000289 Shenandoah Wood Preservers In Kehukee Swamp (White Millpond) 03-02-08 Halifax
NCS000325 Myers Industries-Patch Rubber Roanoke River 03-02-08 Halifax
NCS000189 Weyerhaeuser/ Martin Roanoke River 03-02-09 Martin

Appendix VI – NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits 241

242 Appendix VI – NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits

Appendix VII

303(d) Listing
and
Reporting Methodology
Appendix VII – 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methododology 243

244 Appendix VII – 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methododology

Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report Summary

The North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List is an integrated report
that includes both the 305(b) and 303(d) reports of previous years. The 305(b) Report is
compiled biennially to update the assessment of water quality in North Carolina and to meet the
Section 305(b) reporting requirement of the Clean Water Act. The 305(b) reports present how
well waters support designated uses (e.g., swimming, aquatic life support, water supply), as well
as likely causes (e.g., sediment, nutrients) and potential sources of impairment. The term "Use
Support" refers to the process mandated by 305(b). The 303(d) List is a comprehensive public
accounting of all Impaired waterbodies that is derived from the 305(b) Report/Use Support. An
Impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality uses, such as water supply, fishing or
propagation of aquatic life. Best professional judgment along with numeric and narrative
standards criteria and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131 is considered when
evaluating the ability of a waterbody to serve its uses.

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) which Congress enacted in 1972 required
States, Territories and authorized Tribes to identify and establish a priority ranking for
waterbodies for which technology-based effluent limitations required by Section 301 are not
stringent enough to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards, establish total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the pollutants causing impairment in those waterbodies, and
submit, from time to time, the list of Impaired waterbodies and TMDLs to the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Current federal rules require states to submit 303(d) lists biennially,
by April 1st of every even numbered year. EPA is required to approve or disapprove the state-
developed 303(d) list within 30 days. For each water quality limited segment Impaired by a
pollutant and identified in the 303(d) list, a Total Maximum Daily Load (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 (e.g., dams).

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:

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
Appendix VII – 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methododology 245
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.

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 (e.g., 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.

246 Appendix VII – 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methododology

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.

For this integrated list, Categories 1 and 2 are considered fully supporting any assessed uses.
This portion of the integrated list is extensive (thousands of segments); thus, a printed copy is not
provided. 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). Categories 5, 6 and 7 constitute the 2004
North Carolina 303(d) List for the State of North Carolina.

Delisting Waters

In general, waters will move from Categories 5, 6 or 7 when data show that uses are fully
supported or when a TMDL has been approved by EPA. In some cases, mistakes have been
discovered in the original listing decision and the mistakes are being corrected. Waters
appearing on the previously approved Impaired waters list will be moved to Categories 1, 2, 3 or
4 under the following circumstances:

ƒ an updated 305(b) use support rating of Supporting, as described in the basinwide
management plans;
Appendix VII – 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methododology 247
ƒ 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;
ƒ 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);
ƒ a water quality variance has been issued for a specific standard (e.g., chloride);
ƒ removal of fish consumption advisories or modification of fish eating advice;
ƒ typographic listing mistakes (i.e., the wrong water was identified); and
ƒ EPA has approved a TMDL.

Scheduling TMDLs

Category 5 waters, those for which a TMDL is needed, are at many different stages on the path
to an approved TMDL. Some require additional data collection to adequately define the problem
in TMDL terms. 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.

North Carolina has prioritized TMDL development for waters Impaired due to bacteria or
turbidity. The approach of prioritizing TMDL development based on pollutant has been
successfully used in other states. Limited resources are used more effectively with a focus on a
particular pollutant. Waters Impaired by other pollutants (i.e., not bacteria) are not excluded
from the schedule. However, the majority of waters prioritized for the next few years are
associated with bacterial contamination. Compliance with TMDL development schedules
provided in the Integrated Report depends upon DWQ and EPA resources.

North Carolina uses biological data to place the majority of waterbody assessment units on the
303(d) list. Additional consideration and data collection are necessary if the establishment of a
TMDL for waters on Category 6 is to be expected. It is important to understand that the
identification of waters in Category 6 does not mean that they are low priority waters. The
assessment of these waters is a high priority for the State of North Carolina. However, it may
take significant resources and time to determine the environmental stressors and potentially a
cause of impairment. Assigning waters to Category 6 is a declaration of the need for more data
and time to adequately define the problems and whether pollution, pollutants or a combination
affects waters.

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 10 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:

ƒ 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;
248 Appendix VII – 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methododology

ƒ 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;
ƒ 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; and
ƒ basinwide Planning Schedule (Applicable to Category 6 AUs only). The basinwide
schedule is utilized to establish priority for stressor studies.)

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:

ƒ 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;
ƒ 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;
ƒ 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; and
ƒ 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.
Appendix VII – 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methododology 249

250 Appendix VII – 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methododology

Appendix VIII

Roanoke River Basin
Nonpoint Source Program
Description and Contacts
Appendix VIII – Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts 251

252 Appendix VIII – Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts

Agriculture
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Part of the US Department of Agriculture, 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. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
Area 2 Conservationist Jacquie Simon 704-637-8077 530 West Innes Street, Salisbury, NC 28144
Area 3 Conservationist William Harrell 919-751-0976 208 Mallory Street, Goldsboro, NC 27534
County Contact Person Phone Address
Alamance Rick Bailey 336-228-1753 209 N. Graham-Hopedale Road, Burlington NC 27217
Beaufort Rodney Woolard 252-946-4989 155C Airport Road, Washington, NC 27889
Bertie Paula Ashley 252-794-5305 106 Dundee Street, PO Box 566, Windsor, NC 27983
Caswell Warren Mincey 336-694-4581 Main Street, PO Box 96, Yanceyville, NC 27379
Forsyth Randy Blackwood 336-767-0720 1450 Fairchild Road, Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Granville Diana Lewis 919-693-4603 146 Main Street, PO Box 10, Oxford, NC 27565
Guilford Gary Cox 336-375-5401 3309 Burlington Road, Greensboro, NC 27405
Halifax Wayne Short 252-583-3481 359 Ferrell Lane, PO Box 8, Halifax, NC 27839
Martin Rupert Hasty 252-792-4350 104 Kehukee Park Road, Williamston, NC 27892
Northampton Tony Short 252-534-2591 John W. Faison Building, PO Box 218, Jackson, NC
27845
Orange Brent Bogue 919-644-1079 306D Revere Road, PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC
27278
Person Jim Huey 336-597-2973 304 S Morgan Street, Roxboro, NC 27573
Rockingham Harvey Campbell 336-342-0460 525 NC 65, Suite 100, Reidsville, NC 27320
Stokes Dede DeBruhl 336-593-2846 501 N Main Street, PO Box 98, Danbury, NC 27016
Surry Richard Everhart 336-386-8751 220 Cooper Street, PO Box 218, Dobson, NC 27017
Vance Diana Lewis 252-438-5727 305 Young Street, Henderson, NC 27536
Warren Robert Brown 252-257-3836 820 Highway 158 Business West, Warrenton, NC 27589
Washington Rufus Croom 252-793-4561 128 East Water Street, Plymouth, NC 27962
Soil & 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. http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/
County Phone Address
Alamance 336-228-1753 209 N. Graham-Hopedale Road, Burlington NC 27217
Beaufort 252-946-4989 155C Airport Road, Washington, NC 27889
Bertie 252-794-5305 106 Dundee Street, PO Box 566, Windsor, NC 27983
Caswell 336-694-4581 Main Street, PO Box 96, Yanceyville, NC 27379
Edgecombe 252-823-8187 201 Andrew Street, Tarboro, NC 27886
Forsyth 336-767-0720 1450 Fairchild Road, Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Granville 919-693-4603 146 Main Street, PO Box 10, Oxford, NC 27565
Guilford 336-375-5401 3309 Burlington Road, Greensboro, NC 27405
Halifax (Fishing Creek) 252-583-3481 359 Ferrell Lane, PO Box 8, Halifax, NC 27839
Martin 252-792-4350 104 Kehukee Park Road, Williamston, NC 27892
Appendix VIII – Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts 253
Agriculture (continued)
County Phone Address
Northampton 252-534-2591 John W. Faison Building, PO Box 218, Jackson, NC 27845
Orange 919-732-8181 306D Revere Road, PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Person 336-597-2973 304 S Morgan Street, Roxboro, NC 27573
Rockingham 336-342-0460 525 NC 65, Suite 100, Reidsville, NC 27320
Stokes 336-593-2846 501 N Main Street, PO Box 98, Danbury, NC 27016
Surry 336-386-8751 220 Cooper Street, PO Box 218, Dobson, NC 27017
Vance 252-438-5727 305 Young Street, Henderson, NC 27536
Warren 252-257-1753 820 Highway 158 Business West, Warrenton, NC 27589
Washington 252-793-4561 128 East Water Street, Plymouth, NC 27962
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, and provides administrative and technical assistance related to soil science and
engineering. Distributes Wetlands Inventory maps for a small fee. http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/
Central Office – ACSP Teresa Furr 919-715-6101 1614 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27604
Central Office - NPS David Williams 919-715-6103 1614 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27604
Raleigh Region* Steve Bennett 919-791-4200 1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699
Washington Region* David Cash 252-946-6481 919 Washington Mall, Washington, NC 27889
Winston-Salem Region* Michelle Lovejoy 336-771-5000 585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107
NCDA Regional Agronomists:
The NC Department of Agriculture 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.
http://www.ncagr.com/agronomi/index.htm
Central Office J. Kent Messick 919-733-2655 4300b Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607
Region 1 Wayne Nixon 252-426-7210
Region 2 Kent Yarborough 252-793-4118 207 Research Station Rd., Plymonth, NC 27962
Region 6 Charles Mitchell 919-562-7700 1040 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699
Region 8 Robin Watson 336-570-6850 1709 Fairview St., Burlington, NC 27215
Education
NC Cooperative Extension Service:
Provides practical, research-based information and programs to help individuals, families, farms, businesses and communities.
Extension service wedsite: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/index.php?page=home
County Contact Person Phone Address
Alamance Rett Davis 336-570-6740 209-C N Graham-Hopedale Rd., Burlington, NC 27217
Beaufort Ann Darkow 252-946-0111, Ext.23 155-A Airport Rd., Washington, NC 27889
Bertie Richard Rhodes 252-794-5317,
Ext.6171 106 Dundee St., Windsor, NC 27983
Caswell Joey Knight 336-694-4158 126 Court Square, Agriculture Building, Yanceyville, NC
27379
Forsyth Mark Tucker 336-767-8213 1450 Fairchild Rd., Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Granville Johnsie Cunningham 919-603-1350 208 Wall St., Oxford, NC 27565
Guilford Margaret Farrow 336-375-5876 3309 Burlington Rd., Greensboro, NC 27405
Halifax Zoann Parker 252-583-5161 359 Ferrell Lane, Halifax, NC 27839
Martin J.B. Coltrain 252-792-1621 205 E Main St., Williamston, NC 27892
Northampton Rose Massey 252-534-2711 9495 NC 305 Hwy, Jackson, NC 27845
Orange Fletcher Barber 919-245-2051 306-E Revere Rd., Hillsborough, NC 27278
254 Appendix VIII – Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts

Education (continued)
County Contact Person Phone Address
Person Derek Day 336-599-1195 304 S Morgan St., Room 123, Roxboro, NC 27573
Rockingham Scott Shoulars 336-342-8230 525 NC Hwy 65, Suite 200, Reidsville, NC 27320-8861
Stokes Jack Loudermilk 336-679-2061 700 N Main St., Danbury, NC 27016-0460
Surry Brenda Rose 336-401-8025 210 N Main St., Dobson, NC 27017
Vance Harold Thompson 252-438-8188, Ext. 20 305 Young St., Henderson, NC 27536
Warren Peter Hight 252-257-3640 158 Rafters Lane, Warrenton, NC 27589
Washington Frank Winslow 252-793-2163 128 E Water St., Plymouth, NC 27962
Forestry
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. DFR website: http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/
Central Office Bill Swartley -
Forest Hydrologist &
NPS Unit Leader
919-733-2162 ext. 206 1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1616

Sean Brogan -
Water Quality &
Wetlands Staff
Forester
919-553-6178 ext. 230 2411 Old US 70 West, Clayton, NC 27520
District Water Quality Foresters
District 5 Counties – Edgecome, Franklin, Greene, Halifax, Nash, Northampton, Warren, Wayne, Wilson
District 5 Gail Bledsoe 252-442-1626 737 Smokey Road, Rocky Mount, NC 27804-2002
District 7 Counties – Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Gates, Hertford, Martin, Pasquotank, Perquimans
District 7 Doug Wassum 252-331-4781 861 Berea Church Road, Elizabeth City NC 27909-7303
District 10 Counties – Davidson, Davie, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, Rockingham, Rowan, Stokes, Surry, Yadkin
District 10 Keith Money 336 956-2111 304 Old Hargrave Road, Lexington NC 27295-7594
District 11 Counties – Alamance, Caswell, Durham, Granville, Orange, Person, Vance, Wake
District 11 Jen Johnson 919-732-8105 3314 NC Hwy 86 South, Hillsborough NC 27278-8711
Construction/Mining
DENR Division of Land Resources:
Administers the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program for construction and mining operations. Conducts land surveys and
studies, produces maps, and protects the state's land and mineral resources. Website: http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/
Central Office Mel Nevils 919-733-4574 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27626
Central Office -
Sedimentation Gray Hauser 919-733-4574 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27626
Central Office -Mining Floyd Williams 919-733-4574 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27626
Raleigh Region* John Holley 919-791-4200 3800 Barrett Dr., Raleigh, NC 27609
Washington Region* Pat McClain 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889
Winston-Salem Region* Matthew Gantt 336-771-5000 585 Waughtown St., Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Local Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinances:
Several local governments in the basin have qualified to administer their own erosion and sedimentation control ordinances.
Guilford County Earl Davis 336-641-3803 PO Box 3427,Greensboro, NC 27402
City of Henderson Frank Frazier 252-431-6026 PO Box 1434, Henderson, NC 27536
Orange County Reynolds Ivins 919-254-2586 PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Winston-Salem /
Forsyth County Jeff Kopf 336-727-2388 100 E. First St., Suite 328, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Appendix VIII – Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts 255
General Water Quality
DENR DWQ Planning Section:
Coordinate the numerous nonpoint source programs carried out by many agencies; coordinate the Neuse River and Tar-Pamlico River
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategies; administer the Section 319 grants program statewide; model water quality; prepares basinwide
water quality assessment plans and conduct water quality classifications and standards activities.
DWQ Planning website: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/pb/index.html
Planning Section Chief Alan Clark 919-733-5083 x570 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Basinwide Planning Darlene Kucken 919-733-5083 x354 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
NPS Planning Rich Gannon 919-733-5083 x356 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Modeling/TMDL Michelle Woolfolk 919-733-5083 x505 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Classifications & Standards Jeff Manning 919-733-5083 x557 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Groundwater Planning Carl Bailey 919-733-5083 x522 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
DENR DWQ Surface Water Protection Section:
Conduct permitting and compliance in accordance with the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); Regulate
sewage collection systems; control and document discharge of wastewater; oversight of the wetlands 401 certification program; nonpoint
source compliance; and stormwater permitting. DWQ Surface Water Protection Website: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/swps/

Point Source Dave Goodrich 919-733-5083 x517 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
NPDES (Western) Susan Wilson 919-733-5083 x510 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
NPDES (Eastern) Gil Vinzani 919-733-5083 x540 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
PERCS Supervisor Jeff Poupart 919-733-5083 x527 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699

Wetlands & Stormwater Tom Reeder 919-733-5083 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Program & Policy
Development John Dortey 919-733-9646 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Transportation Permitting John Hennessy 919-733-5694 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
401 Oversight/Express
Permitting Cynthia Karoly 919-733-9721 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
NPS Compliance Stephen Smith 919-733-5083 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Stormwater Permitting Tilman Bennett 919-733-5083 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
DENR DWQ Aquifer Protection Section:
Oversight of animal waste systems; characterizes the state’s groundwater aquifers; investigates contamination cases; prevents and
investigates groundwater contamination; conducts remediation permitting; oversees nondischarge wastewater treatment and recycle
systems. DWQ Aquifer Protection Website: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/aps/

Animal Operations Paul Sherman 919-715-6697 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Groundwater Protection Debra Watts 919-715-6699 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Groundwater Investigation Tim Hill 1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Land Application Kim Colson 919-715-6165 1636 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
Raleigh Region* 919-791-4200 3800 Barrett Dr., Raleigh, NC 27609
Washington Region* 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889
Winston-Salem Region* 336-771-5000 585 Waughtown St., Winston-Salem, NC 27107
256 Appendix VIII – Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts

General Water Quality (continued)
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. http://www.ncwildlife.org/
Central Office Wildlife
Management 919-707-0050 1722 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699
US 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.
Raleigh Field Office Jean Manuele 919-876-8441 6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd., Suite 120, Raleigh, NC
27615
Washington Office David Lekson 252-975-1616 PO Box 1000, Washington, NC 27889
Wilmington Office Keith Harris 910-251-4511 69 Darlington Ave., Wilmington, NC 27889
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 919-733-0692 401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150, Raleigh NC 27605
Raleigh Region* Robert Davies 919-791-4200 3800 Barrett Dr., Raleigh, NC 27609
Washington Region* James Scott Bullock 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889
Winston-Salem Region* Brent Rockett 336-771-5090 585 Waughtown St., Winston-Salem, NC 27107
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. http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/
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.
• Technical assistance to local health departments, other state agencies, and industry on soil suitability and other site considerations
for on-site wastewater systems.
Central Office Andy Adams 919-715-3274 2728 Capital Boulevard, Raleigh NC 27604
Raleigh Region* 919-791-4200 3800 Barrett Dr., Raleigh, NC 27609
Washington Region* Bob Uebler 252-946-6481 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC
27889
Winston-Salem Region* Kevin Neal 336-462-0052 585 Waughtown St., Winston-Salem, NC 27107
County Primary Contact Phone Address
Bertie Jerry Parks [phone] PO Box 189, Elizabeth City, NC 27907-0189
Caldwell Denise Michaud [phone] 1966-B Morganton Blvd., SW, Lenoir, NC 28645
Forsyth Time Monroe [phone] 799 Highland Ave., PO Box 686, Winston-Salem,
NC 27102
Granville/Vance W. Rodwell Drake, Jr. MD [phone] 101 Hunt Dr., PO Box 367, Oxford, NC 27565
Halifax Lynda Smith [phone] 19 Dobbs St., PO Box 10, Halifax, NC 27839
Martin/Tyrrell Keith Patton 1-888-388-9208 210 West Liberty St, Williamston, NC 27892
Appendix VIII – Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts 257
On-Site Wastewater Treatment (Continued)
County Primary Contact Phone Address
Washington Keith Patton 1-888-388-9208 198 NC Hwy 45 North, Plymouth, NC 27962
Northampton Sue Gay [phone] 9495 NC 305 HWY, PO Box 635, Jackson, NC
27845
Person Janet Clayton [phone] 355-A South Madison Blvd, Roxboro, NC 27573
Rockingham Glenn Martin [phone] PO Box 204, Wentworth, NC 27375
Stokes Don Moore [phone] 1009 N. Main St., PO Box 187, Danbury, NC 27016
Warren Kaye Hall Interim [phone] 544 West Ridgeway St., Warrenton, NC 27589

* DENR Raleigh Region Office covers the following counties: Chatham, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Halifax,
Johnston, Lee, Nash, Northampton, Orange, Person, Vance, Wake, Warren and Wilson.
* DENR Washington Region 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.
* DENR Winston-Salem Region Office covers the following counties: Alamance, Alleghany, Ashe, Caswell, Davidson,
Davie, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, Watauga, Wilkes and Yadkin.
258 Appendix VIII – Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts

Appendix IX

Use Support Methodology
Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology 259
260 Appendix IX – 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
Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology 261
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
262 Appendix IX – 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.
Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology 263

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,
264 Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology

loss of woody habitat, loss of pools or riffles, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation,
streambed scour and bank erosion).

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, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (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.
Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology 265
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.
1 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.
2 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:
266 Appendix IX – 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

Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology 267
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
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. In areas with
continous 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
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
268 Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology

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.
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.
Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology 269
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
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.
270 Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology

DEH
Classification
DEH
Criteria
Approved Fecal Coliform Standard for Systematic Random Sampling:
(APP) 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
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. (CAO)
Conditionally
Approved-Closed
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. (CAC)
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.

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
Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology 271
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
Supporting Closed ≤10% of data window Portion of CAO closed ≤10% of data window
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)
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
272 Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology

georeferenced areas and monitoring sites, DEH will be able to report the number of days each
rea was closed excluding closures related to large or named storms. a 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.

Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology 273
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
274 Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology

• Fish kill reports
• 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.
Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology 275

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.
Minor and infrequent excursions of temperature standards due to anthropogenic
activity. No impairment of species evident. Temperature
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.
Documented sheens, discoloration, etc. - written complaint and follow-up by a state
agency. Aesthetics Complaints
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
Limiting access to public ramps, docks, swimming areas; reducing access by fish
and other aquatic life to habitat; clogging intakes. Macrophytes
Taste and Odor Public complaints; Potential based on algal spp
Sediments Clogging intakes - dredging program necessary.

276 Appendix IX – 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.
Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology 277
278 Appendix IX – Use Support Methodology

Appendix X

Glossary
Appendix X – Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 279

280 Appendix X – Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Glossary

7Q10 The annual minimum 7-day consecutive low flow, which on average will be exceeded in 9
out of 10 years.
ACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers.
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.
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.
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 over enrichment 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).
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.
Appendix X – Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 281
DEH Division of Environmental Health
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services.
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 (EEP)
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.
FDA Unites States Food and Drug Administration.
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
282 Appendix X – Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

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.
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 is not meeting the designated use criteria.
impervious Incapable of being penetrated by water; non-porous.
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.
NOV Notices of Violation. An NOV serve to alert the permittee of permit infractions and request
that whatever caused the violation be corrected immediately. Many times these will not
include a fine. Depending upon the severity of the violation, the permittee may receive a
Notice of Violation and Assessment of a Civil Penalty, which will include a fine.
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.
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.
Appendix X – Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 283
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.
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls. PCBs are man-made chemicals that persist in the environment.
There are a number of adverse health effect associated with exposure to PCBs.
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.
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).
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).
284 Appendix X – Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

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.
SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District
TMDL Total maximum daily load. The amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can
assimilate and maintain its uses and water quality standards.
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.
USGS United States Geological Survey
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.
WTP Water treatment plant.
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant.

Appendix X – Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 285