Bu. Co. Hominy Creek

Division of Water Quality
Biological Assessment Unit
March 26, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Jimmie Overton
Through:. Trish F. MacPherson
From: -Bryn H. Tracy
Subject: South Hominy Creek Watershed Fish Community Assessment Study, November 2603
(Buncombe County, French Broad River Basin, Subbasin 02,.Index Nos. 6-76-5, 6-76-5-
3, 6-76-5-4, and 6-76-5-8).
INTRODUCTION
At the request.of the Wetlands.Restoration Program (Summer 2003), four sites in the -South Hominy
Creek watershed,were sampled in November 2003 for the purpose of evaluating the fish communities.
This memorandum summarizes the results from this monitoring.
WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
This study was conducted at four sites.in the South Hominy Creek watershed in the extreme southwest
corner of Buncombe County (Figure 1). Site No. 5 was sampled as part of the 1997 and 2002 French
Broad Rive basinwide assessment.. All thestreams in the. South Hominy -Creek watershed; except for
Ballard Creek (a tributary.to Glady Creek) and Turkey Branch (a tributary to Ballard'Creek) are
supplementally classified as trout waters (Tr). There is only one NPDES discharger in the watershed.
(Laurelwood Mobile Home Park, QW = 0.002 to Beaverdam Creek). The discharge is approximately 2.5
miles above the monitoring site on Beaverdam Creek.
..HISTORICAL DATA. 1
Fish community monitoring in the South Hominy Creek watershed has -been limited to surveys conducted
in 1962 and 1979.bythe North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and by.the Biological
Assessment.Unit in 1997 and 2002. In August 1962, Beaverdam Creek at SR 3467 (about two miles
above the 2004 site (see forward - Site Locations and Descriptions section) was sampled by the NCWRC
(Richardson et al. 1963). It was the only tributary in the Hominy Creek watershed with a naturalized
population -of rainbow trout. Rainbow trout, saffron shiner, warpaint shiner,-blacknose dace, northern-.
hogsucker, and mottled sculpin were collected, blacknose dace was. the most -abundant species. It was
noted at that time.that the lower part. of the,watershed was.intensivelyfarmed. In August 1979, .
Beaverdam Creek was sampled again, but this time in its headwaters area off SR 3468 near the NCWRC.
gamelands. Rainbow trout, longnose dace, blacknose dace, and mottled sculpin were collected;
blacknose dace and mottled sculpin were the most abundant species. Brook trout were anecdotally
reported to be present in the headwaters. Even in the upper part of the watershed, heavy silt from roads
and a lack of cover Were believed.to limit the trout populations (Bonner 1983).
In August 1962, Stony Fork at SR 1109 (about two miles below the_ 2004 site (see forward.= Site.
Locations and Descriptions section) was sampled by the NCWRC (Richardson et al: 1963). [Note: in
Richardson et al. (1963) the site was incorrectly listed as South Hominy Creek.] -Central stoneroller, .
blacknose dace; mirror shiner, and Swannanoa darter were collected.. Although no trout were collected,
the stream met the requirements as manageable trout waters. In August 1979, Stony Fork was sampled
again but this time in a high gradient, headwaters area off SR 1100 near the NCWRC gamelands. An
unidentified trout, blacknose dace, and mottled sculpin were collected; blacknose dace and mottled
sculpin were the most abundant.species (Bonner 1983). The upper headwater streams to Stony Fork
continue to be managed as hatchery supported water(hftp://www.ndwildlife.org/fs_index-03—fishing.ht.m).

Figure 1. Location of monitoring sites in the South Hominy Creek watershed, Buncombe
County, November 12 and 14, 2003 (Site Nos. 1 — 4) and during the 1997 and 2002.
basinwide monitoring (Site No. 5).
The fish community in South Hominy Creek (at NC 151 and SR 3449) just upstream from its confluence
with Hominy Creek was sampled during the 1997 and 2002 French Broad River basinwide assessments-
(NCDENR 1998, 2003). It was rated Good in both years (NCIBI = 48 and 50, respectively). The diverse
community (16 species in 1997 and 19 species in 2002) was dominated by mottled sculpin and saffron
shiner in 1997 and by river chub and warpaint shiner in 2002.
- 2

METHODS
Samples were collected on November 12 and 14, 2003 from. South Hominy Creek at SR 1103,
Beaverdam Creek at SR 3446, Warren Creek off NC 151.(above its confluence with South Hominy Creek)
and Stony Fork at NC 151;(Site Nos. 1-4, respectively) (Figure.1). At each site; a 600 ft. section of
stream was delineated and measured. The fish within each 600 ft. reach were then sampled with two
backpack units with each unit accompanied by, two persons dip netting. A seine was also used'
extensively, in the riffles at Site No. 2. After collection, all identifiable fish were examined for sores,
lesions
, -fin damage; and skeletal anomalies, measured (total length.(TQ to the,nearest 1 mm)- and then
released. Once the first 50 specimens of each species were measured, the remaining fish of each
particular species.were just counted and released. -.Those fish that were. not readily"identifiable: in the field_
were preserved in 1.0% formalin and returned to the laboratory for identification, examination, and total
length.measurement...Those.fish were then deposited as'voucher specimensmith the North Carolina.
State -Museum of Natural Science. All young -of -year fish were'excluded from all'analyses and no attempt
was made to collect all of.them.-
SITE. LOCATIONS, DESCRIPTIONS, and HABITAT ASSESSMENTS
Site No. 1-, South Hominy -Creek at SR 1103
Site No. 1 was located at SR 1;103, beginning'at the bridge and extending 600 ft. upstream. The stream_
was primarily runs with small side snag pools. The instre.am. habitats included a diverse .substrate that
was ;less .than 20 percent'embedded, diverse habitats ,(primarily rocksand: coarse woody debris, but also...
undercut banks, snags, logs, -and Podostemum), and frequent riffles. Two artificial trout' pools had been. -
constructed by altering the flow with. large boulders and cobble. The riparian zones, absent along the left
bank and narrow on the right bank, were primarily active pastures and residential areas. In places the
banks were deeply incised; vertical, and stabilized with-, rip -rap and cemented. stone retaining -walls to
protect personal property (Figure 2A).. Residential debris.(such as used tires and yard junk) cluttered the
left bank (Figure- 26). The overall habitat score was 77 (Table 1).XV
'
" a j
]]...r
Figure 2. Narrow (Figure A) and -degraded riparian zones (Figure B) along.South Hominy
Creek at SR 11.03, Buncombe County:
3-

Site No. 2, Beaverdam Creek at SR 3446
Site No. 2 was located at SR 3446, beginning at the bridge and extending 600 ft. upstream. The strearri
was a -fairly straight riffle -run. sequence of uniform depth;. pools were infrequent and also of uniform depth
(Figure 3A). There was a, berm along the left bank which hinted that the channel may have been altered.
years ago. The instream habitats included primarily rocks (slick with periphyton), sticks; and _leafpacks.
The riffles were more embedded than at Site No. 1 and the canopy was also more open. The riparian
zone on the left was a harrow row of shrubs and small trees along the berm; the right shoreline was
slightly wider, vegetated with shrubs and trees, and paralleled the road. The visible landuse was active
row crops (strawberries) andresidential areas (Figure 3B). The overall habitat score'was 60'(Table 1).
uz
Figure 3. Beaverdam Creek at SR 3446, Buncombe County. Figure A shows_ uniform riffles
and runs and Figure B shows an upstream view of landuse. .
Site No., 3, Warren Creek, off NC 151
Site No. 3 was located off NC 151, beginning about 20 feet upstream of the'confluence of Warren Creek
with'South Hominy Creek. The stream was primarily a riffle -run sequence of uniform depth; pools were
infrequent and also of uniform depth (Figure 4A). The stream was. incised with straight banks which- were
unstable and severely eroding -in places; especially -at the end of the 600 ft. sampling reach,(Figure 4B).
4

Head -cutting of the channel was occurring at two places. The instream habitats_ were diverse as at Site
No. 1, but again the riffles were fairly embedded. The canopy was sparse and. open; the riparian zones
were very narrow and overgrown with weed species such as multifloral rose, oriental bittersweet, and
privet. The visible landuse was active pasture and residential areas. The overall habitat score was 60
(Table 1).
Figure 4..- - Warren Creek off NC 151, Buncombe County. Figure A shows a typical riffle -run
channel bordered by herbaceous vegetation and. Figure B shows vertical, eroding
banks.
Site No. 4, Stony Fork,. NC 151
Site No. 4 was located at NC 151, beginning just below the mouth of Chestnut Branch and extending 600
ft. downstream. Beyond the residential area at the beginning of the reach (an old youth or church camp),.
the stream is a fairly typical Southern Appalachian trout stream with banks lined with Eastern hemlock
and Rhododendron (Figure 5A). The.instream habitats were diverse and included riffles and.pools of
varied,depths and sizes. Except for the left bank at the beginning which .was stabilized with a concrete
retaining wall to protect personal property, the riparian zones were wide and provided good canopy for . - the stream. The visible landuse was forest and residential areas. The overall habitat score was 83
(Table.1)
Figure 5.
Stony fork, NC 151, Buncombe County. Figure A shows Eastern hemlock- and
Rhododendron -lined banks and Figure B shows the concrete retaining wall at the
beginning of the sampling reach.
5

Overall, instream and riparian habitat quality were of the highest quality at Stony Fork and South Hominy
Creek (habitat scores = 83 and 77, respectively) and of lower.quality at Beaverdam and Warren Creeks
(habitat scores = 60 at both sites). Beaverdam and Warren Creeks suffer from altered riparian areas,
sparse canopies, embedded riffles, and filled -in, shallow pools. South Hominy and Stony Fork also had
at least one bank in need of restoration.
Physical and Water.Quality Characteristics
The drainage areas of the three sites ranged from 3.0 to 7.7 square miles and the elevations from 2,180
to 2,664 ft. (Table 2). The water temperatures decreased substantially between November 12th and
November 14th.because'of the passage of a strong cold front. Conductivities were lower in the more
forested watersheds of South Hominy Creek and Stony Fork than in the more agricultural watersheds of
Beaverdam and Warren Creeks. The conductivity in South Hominy Creek at the basinwide site (at NC
151 and SR 3449) in 1997 and 2002 was 2-3 times that of the measurement made at Site No. 1. At all
sites the dissolved oxygen saturations were approximately 90 percent; the pHs were unremarkable; and
the water was clear. There are no flow gauges on these four streams; the closest USGS gauge is on the
Swannanoa River at Biltmore. During the sampling period, the daily median flows for the Swannanoa
River (-70 cfs) were about 20 - 30 cfs greater than the historical flows. Thus, it was assumed that the
flow in these four streams was slightly greater than normal.
Table 2. Physical and water quality characteristics at four sites in the South Hominy Creek
watershed, Buncombe County, November 12 and 14, 2003.
Site No.
Waterbody
Location
County
Date
1
S Hominy Cr
SR 1103
Buncombe
11/12/2003
2
Beaverdam Cr
SR 3446
Buncombe
11/14/2003
3
Warren Cr
off NC 151
Buncombe
11/12/2003
4
Stony Fk
NC 151
Buncombe
11/14/2003
Physical and water quality
characteristics
Elevation (ft)
2,500
2,180
2,300
2,664
Drainage area (miZ)
3.1
7.7
3.7
3.0
Temperature (°C)
12.2
5.5
15.3
7.2
Conductivity (pmhos/cm)
11'
29
33
12
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
9.9
11.5
9.0
10.9
Dissolved oxygen saturation (%)
92.3
91.3
89.9
90.3
pH (s.u.)-
6.3
6.4
6.2
6.7
Average width (m)
4
5
4
4
Average depth (m)
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
Water clarity
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Substrate
Cobble, gravel,
Cobble, gravel
Cobble, gravel, sand, detritus
Cobble, boulder
Fish Community
Eighteen species were collected from the four sites (Table 3). The number of species per site ranged
from 4 to 13 (Table 4). The. numerically dominant species at all sites was the mottled sculpin, a species
that prefers cool -cold, clear, swiftly flowing moderate and high gradient streams. Four species (whitetail
shiner, bluegill, redbreast sunfish, and green sunfish) were found at the basinwide site in 1997 or 2002
but not at any of these headwater sites in 2003. The only species not found at the basinwide site that
was found at one of these four sites was the black redhorse (one juvenile specimen collected at
Beaverdam Creek). The catch rates (No. of fish collected/100 seconds shocking time) were greatest at
Beaverdam and Warren Creeks and least at Stony Fork.

Table 3. Tolerance ratings, adult trophic guild assignments, and the abundances of the
individual fish species at four sites in the South Hominy Creek watershed,
Buncombe County, November 12 and 14, 2003.
S
Common Name
Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout
Salmo trutta -.Brown trout .
Campostoma anomaluin
Central stoneroller
Luxilus coccogenis
Warpaint shiner
Nocomis micropogon
River chub
Notropis rubricroceus
Saffron shiner
Notropis spectrunculus
Mirror shiner
Rhinichthys atratulus
Blacknose dace
Rhinichthys cataractae
Longnose dace
Semotilus atromaculatus ..
Creek chub
Catostomus commersoni
White sucker
Hypentelium nigricans
Northern hogsucker
Moxostoma duquesnei .
Black redhorse
Ambloplites rupestris
Rock bass
Etheostoma flabellare
Fantail darter
Etheostoma swannanoa
Swannanoa darter
Cottus bairdf
Mottled sculpin .
Tolerance Adult Trophic
Ratina Status
Intolerant Insectivore
Intermediate Piscivore
Intermediate
Herbivore
Intermediate
Insectivore
Intermediate
Omnivore
Intermediate
Insectivore
Intermediate
Insectivore
Intermediate
Insectivore
Intermediate
Insectivore
Tolerant
Insectivore
Tolerant
Omnivore
Intermediate
Insectivore
Intermediate ..
Insectivore
Intolerant Piscivore
Intermediate Insectivore
Intermediate Insectivore
Intermediate . Insectivore
15
6
5
83
22
5
3
2 3 4
5
5 6
4
27
6
6
50
64
2
29
2
21
1
9
7
24
36
134 _ 20
36
1
.2 .
13
3-
8
114
352
145
92
Fish communities in high gradient, high elevation, Southern Appalachian trout streams.such as South .
Hominy Creek (Site No. 1) and Stony Fork (Site No. 4) are currently not rated within the-NCIBI (NCDENR
2002) (Table 4). [Note: the metrics which are used to rate other streams in the Western and Northern .
Mountains are listed for comparative purposes]. An unimpacted stream at these elevations (�2,500.-
2,600.ft.) should be high gradient with plunge pools, Rhododendron- and Eastern hemlock -lined within a
-forested watershed, have cold water with low conductivity, have a naturally low fish species diversity
(usually brook trout, rainbow trout, or brown trout, blacknose dace, and mottled sculpin), have few tolerant
fish; and support a reproducing population of one or more species of trout. Stony Fork.met all of these
criteria and'seemed to be functioning like a natural system..The South.Hominy Creek site met most.of
these criteria, except for lacking sustaining trout populations and having a high percentage of tolerant
fish. Large creek chubs (�95 - 200 mm TL) were common at this site. This tolerant species can be
abundant in small, headwater streams.
The fish communities at Beaverdam and Warren Creeks, at slightly lower elevations than South Hominy
Creek and Stony Fork, were also not rated: Both these streams historically. were probably typical, lower
elevation Southern Appalachian trout streams. However, due to long-term human modifications and
alterations, the streams no longer functions as such and the fish communities are. also not functioning like
those of.lower elevation streams in the French Broad River -basin.- Both communities seemed .to be
degraded.by instream and riparian habitat alterations rather_than water -quality._
Almost all -the streams in the South Hominy Creek watershed are supplementally classified as trout
waters (Tr). In November 2003, trout were collected at three of the four sites (Table 3). At the South
Hominy Creek site, all brown trout and rainbow trout were representative of the same year class (-105-
145 mm TL) (Figure 6) which indicated -that multiple ages may not be present in -the stream. Young -of -
year rainbow trout were collected which did indicate that some reproduction was occurring at this site.
One unusually large (500 mm TL) rainbow troutwas collected from theartificially constructed pool at this
site. At Beaverdam Creek and Stony Fork the rainbow trout and brown trout (only at Stony Fork) were
represented by multiple age classes (Figure 6), indicative of reproducing. and surviving multiple age class
populations. Young -of -year rainbow trout and brown trout were collected from Stony Fork. .

Table 4. Electroshocking data, NCIBI scores and ratings at four sites in the South Hominy
Creek watershed, Buncombe County, November 12 and 14, 2003.
Site No.
1
2
3
4
Waterbody
S Hominy Cr
Beaverdam Cr
Warren Cr
Stony Fk
Location
SR 1103
SR 3446
off NC 151
NC 151
County
Buncombe
Buncombe
Buncombe
Buncombe
Date
11 /12/2003
11 /14/2003
11 /12/2003
11 /14/2003
Shocking duration (seconds)
6,625
5,715
5,633
4,350
No. fish/100 seconds shocking time
3.8
9.9
7.5
2.8
Metric value (Metric score within parentheses)
No. of Species
8
13
12
4
No. of Fish
253
568
420
122
No. of Species of Darters
0
1
2
0
No. Rock bass, Smallmouth bass, & Trout species
3
1
0
2
No. of Species of Cyprinids
3
7
6
1
No. of Intolerant Species
2
1
0
1
% Tolerants
9
5
9
0
% Omnivores + Herbivores
2
6
2
0
% Insectivores
94
94
96
97
% Species with Multiple Age Groups
75
69
83
100
Total NCIBI Score
---
---
---
---
NCIBI Class
Not Rated
Not Rated
Not Rated
Not Rated
SUMMARY
The fish communities in the South Hominy Creek watershed have been periodically monitored over the
last 40 years. The watershed is a mixture of forests, agricultural land, and rural residences. Land
alterations in the valleys in the middle portion of the watershed have lead to degraded stream riparian
zones, embedded substrates, a general lack of pools, and open canopies. The fish communities in upper
South Hominy Creek and Stony Fork were least impacted by watershed alterations. At Beaverdam and
Warren Creeks the fish communities were impacted by nearby landuse practices. Nutrients did not seem
to be an issue at any of the sites. Reproducing and multiple age class populations of trout were found in
South Hominy Creek, Beaverdam Creek and Stony Fork. In conclusion, select sites in this watershed
would benefit from restoration efforts to reduce sediment inputs, increase canopy cover and riparian
zones, and return the stream channels to a more functional state.
11

Rainbow trout
8
7
6
5
c
4
`
3
L
2
1
0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310
Total Length Class (mm)
® South Hominy Cr p Beaverdam Cr ❑ Stony Fork
Brown trout
3
2
c
as
rr
LL
1
0
100 115 130 145 160 175 190 205 220 235 250 265 280 295 310
Total Length Class (mm)
m South Hominy Cr g Stony Fork
Figure 6. Length frequency plots for Rainbow trout (top) and Brown trout (bottom) from
three sites in the South Hominy Creek watershed, Buncombe County, November 12
and 14, 2003. A 500 mm TL specimen from South Hominy Creek is not, shown_ . No
attempt was made to collect all young -of -year (< 100 mm TL) trout.
9

REFERENCES
Bonner, W. R. 1983. Survey and classification of state -managed trout streams. District Nine. Mountain
fisheries investigations. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Project F24-S. Final Report. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 1998. Basinwide assessment report. French Broad River Basin. North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality. Water Quality Section.
Environmental Sciences Branch. Raleigh, NC.
2001. Standard operating procedure. Biological monitoring. Stream fish community assessment
and fish tissue. Biological Assessment Unit. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality. Water Quality Section. Environmental Sciences
Branch. Raleigh, NC.
2002. Biological Assessment Unit Memorandum F-020821. Fish community metric recalibration
and biocriteria development for the western and northern mountains (French Broad, Hiwassee,
Little Tennessee, New, and Watauga River Basins). Ibid.
2003. Basinwide assessment report. French Broad River basin. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality. Water Quality Section.
Environmental Sciences Branch. Raleigh, NC.
Richardson, F., Messer, J. B., and H. M. Ratledge. 1963. Survey and classification of the French Broad
River and tributaries, North Carolina. Final Report. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration. Job 1-I,
Project F-14-R. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC.
c: Darlene Kucken (Basinwide and Estuary Planning Unit)
Andrea Leslie (WAT-ARO)
Scott Loftis (NCWRC, District No. 9)
�Forest VNesfall_(NRO)
10