McDowell Co. - Lake James

PACIFIC NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
An Associate Laboratory of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
* GPO-697.032

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES

REPORT
ON
LAKE JNI ES
BURKE AND MCDOWEl l COUNTIES
NORTH CAROLINA
EPA REGION IV
WORKING PAPER N0, 383
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES
AND THE
NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD
JUNE, B75

i
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword
List of North Carolina Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map 'v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
IV. Nutrient Loadings 9
V. Literature Reviewed 14
VI. Appendices 15

ii
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation- _
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to fresh water lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating
comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and state management
practices relating to point -source discharge reduction and non -point.
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey's eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
,LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and water-
shed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin is
documented. The report is formatted to provide state environmental
!agencies with specific information for basin planning [§303(e)], water
!quality criteria/standards review [§303(c)], clean lakes [§314(a,b)],
land water quality monitoring [§106 and 9305(b)] activities mandated
Eby the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

iii
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation's
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the North Carolina Department
of Natural and Economic Resources for professional involvement
and to the North Carolina National Guard for conducting the
tributary sampling phase of the Survey.
Lewis R. Martin, Director of the Division of Environmental
Management; Darwin L. Coburn, Chief of the Water Quality Section;
and Julian R. Taylor, Supervisor of the Monitoring Program Unit;
provided invaluable lake documentation and counsel during the
Survey, reviewed the preliminary reports, and provided critiques
most useful in the preparation of this Working Paper series.
Major General William M. Buck, formerly Adjutant General of
North Carolina, and Project Officer Colonel Arthur J. Bouchard,
who directed the volunteer efforts of the North Carolina National
Guardsmen, are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance
to the Survey.

iv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
I n yr .f n ear
Badin
Blewett Falls
Chatuge
Fontana
Hickory
High Rock
Hiwassee
James
John H. Kerr (Nut Bush Creek)
Junaluska
Lookout Shoals
Mountain Island
Norman
Rhodhiss
Santeetlah
Tillery
Waccamaw
Waterville
Wylie
COUNTY
Montgomery, Stanly
Anson, Richmond
Clay, NC; Towns, GA
Graham, Swain
Alexander, Caldwell,
Catawba
Davidson, Rowan
Cherokee
Burke, McDowell
Granville, Vance, Warren,
NC; Halifax, Mecklenburg,
VA
Haywood
Alexander, Catawba, Iredell
Gaston, Mecklenburg
Catawba, Iredell, Lincoln,
Mecklenburg
Burke, Caldwell
Graham
Montgomery, Stanly
Columbus
Haywood
Gaston, Mecklenburg, NC;
York, SC
S

LAKE JAMES
® Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
Sewage Treatment Facility
_, Drainage Area Boundary
o s 10Km,
5Mi.
Scale
/Spruce Pine
C
.-� tab
fork Ga
n 9 Cr ti
Prmstro
1
35°45 B1
Cr
/ Lake Tahoma rda,,, r
Ca 0 wba
A2 River Cam
Marion /
itreat iq
Old �' z
Forth
Sck Mountain
Gat
CrooKed Map Location
82i15�� -----1 82°00
lent
Pine

LAKE JAMES
STORET NO. 3708
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate Lake James is eutrophic. It ranked
seventh in overall trophic quality when the 16 North Carolina
lakes sampled in 1973 were compared using a combination of
six parameters as an index*. Nine of the lakes had greater
and one had the same median total phosphorus; 11 had greater
and one had the same median dissolved phosphorus; 13 had
greater and one had the same median inorganic nitrogen; and.,
while only three lakes had greater mean Secchi.disc transparency,
only one had greater mean chlorophyll a. Marked depression of
dissolved oxygen with depth occurred at all five sampling stations
in July and September.
During their visits to the lake, Survey limnologists did not
observe any nuisance conditions.
B. Rate -Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate that Lake James was phosphorus
limited at the time the sample was collected (03/24/73). These
results are substantiated by the lake data; i.e., the mean N/P
r ratios at all sampling times were 17/1 or greater.
* See Appendix A.

2
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources --The phosphorus contribution of point
sources amounted to 5.8% of the total load reaching the lake.
The Old Fort wastewater treatment plant contributed 5.4% of
the total load.
Survey data indicate a total phosphorus loading rate of
1.12 g/m2/yr which is slightly above the rate (0.94 g/m2/yr)
proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon, 1974) as a
eutrophic loading rate (see page 13). Therefore, every effort
should be made to minimize phosphorus inputs to the lake.
2. Non -point sources--Non-point sources accounted for
94.2% of the total phosphorus input to the lake during the
sampling year. The Catawba River accounted for 45.6%, and
the North Fork Catawba River accounted for 38.5% of this total.
The North Fork Catawba River had a phosphorus export rate
of 51 kg/km2/yr, which is much higher than the rates of the
other Lake James tributaries (see page 12). This may have
been due to unknown and unsampled point sources impacting this
river or its tributaries; e.g., wastes from North Cove, Ashland,
or other communities upstream. If such phosphorus sources
exist and are controllable, a reduction of the North Fork
export rate to the same level as the Catawba River rate (29
kg/km2/yr) would result in lowering the lake loading rate to
i
well below the eutrophic rate and should result in improved
water quality. The phosphorus load to downstream Rhodhiss Lake
(Working Paper No. 388) would be reduced as well.

3
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometrytt:
1. Surface area: 26.35 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 13.5 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 43 meters.
4. Volume: 356 x 106 M3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 208 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage
Mean flow
Name
area km2 *
m3/sec
Catawba River
463.6
9.5
North'Fork, Catawba River
221.7
3.5
Paddy Creek
16.3
0.3
Linville River
174.0
4.0
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage -
84.8
2.5
Totals
960.4
19.8
2. Outlet -
Catawba River 986.8** 19.8**
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 155.7 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 129.0 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions --Appendix B.
tt Park, 1975.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Includes area of lake; outflow adjusted to equal sum of inflows.
*** See Working Paper No. 175.

4
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake James was sampled three times during the open -water season
of 1973 by means of a pontoon -equipped Huey helicopter. Each time,
j samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected from
five stations on the lake and from a number of depths at each station
i (see map, page v). During each visit, a single depth -integrated
(4.6 m to surface) sample was composited from the five stations for
phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and during the first
:visit, a single 18.9-liter depth -integrated sample was composited for
algal assays. Also each time, a depth -integrated sample was collected
,from each of the stations for chlorophyll a analysis. The maximum
depths sampled were 30.5 meters at station 1, 15.2 meters at station 2,
-36.6 meters at station 3, 35.1 meters at station 4, and 16.8 meters
'at station 5.
The lake sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and
i
are summarized in the following table.

A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR
LAKE JAMES
STORET CODE 3708
1ST SAMPLING (
3/24/73)
2ND SAMPLING ( 7/
5/73)
5
SITES
5
SITES
PARAMETER
RANGE
MEAN
MEDIAN
RANGE
MEAN
MEDIAN
TEMP (C)
7.1
- 13.0
10.4
10.4
8.2
- 29.4
21.6
23.4
D1SS UXY (MG/L)
9.2
- 11.5
10.0
9.9
2.1
- 10.5
6.5
5.9
CNDCIVY (MCROMO)
50.
- 65.
57.
58.
50.
- 70.
58.
58.
PH (STAND UNITS)
7.1
- 8.4
7.7
7.8
6.3
- 9.4
7.5
6.6
TOT ALK (MG/L)
10.
- 21.
15.
16.
10.
- 19.
14.
14.
TOT P (MG/L)
0.016
- U.080
0.040
0.031
0.008
- 0.042
0.018
0.016
ORTHO P (MG/L)
0.003
- 0.033
0.O14
0.010
0.002
- 0.030
0.006
0.004
NO2•NO3 (MG/L)
0.030
- 0.320
0.187
0.180
0.040
- 0.460
0.147
0.070
AMMONIA (MG/L)
0.020
- 0.090
0.045
0.040
0.040
- 0.120
0.066
0.060
KJEL N (MG/L)
0.200
- O.600
0.275
0.200
0.200
- 0.900
0.381
0.300
INORG N (MG/L)
0.060
- 0.380
0.233
0.22U
0.080
- 0.520
0.213
0.155
TOTAL N (MG/L)
0.250
- U.690
0.462
0.465
0.240
- 0.960
0.528
0.500
CHLRPYL A (UG/L)
0.7
- 12.9
6.2
5.3
5.3
- 16.1
9.8
9.1
SECCHI (METERS)
O.S
- 1.5
1.1
1.1
1.2
- 2.7
1.9
1.8
3RD SAMPLING ( 9/24/73)
5 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
8.3 - 27.5 21.6 24.9
0.0 - 8.6 3.3 1.6
41. - 86. 59. 55.
6.2 - 8.6 6.6 6.4
10. - 26. 15. 14.
0.012 - 0.038 0.021 0.018
0.004 - 0.015 0.009 0.009
0.020 - 0.420 0.063 0.030
0.020 - 0.660 0.123 0.050
0.200 - 1.100 0.400 0.310
0.050 - 0.700 0.186 0.090
0.220 - 1.140 0.463 0.425
4.2 - 8.8 7.0 7.7
1.9 - 2.7 2.4 2.5

B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Dominant
Algal units
Date
Genera
per ml
03/24/73
1.
Melosira
556
2.
Asterionella
ill
3.
Cyclotella
87
4.
Pennate diatoms
37
5.
Cryptomonas
37
Other genera
137
Total
965
07/05/73
1.
Tabellaria
821
2.
Anabaena
640
3.
Melosira
181
4.
Cryptomonas
85
5.
Flagellates
85
Other genera
84
Total
1,896
09/24/73
1.
Lyngbya
1,528
2.
Chroococcus
1,510
3.
Flagellates
588
4.
Raphidiopsis
549
5.
Anabaena
353
Other genera
1,389
Total
5,917

7
2. Chlorophyll a
-
Sampling
Station
Chlorophyll a
_ Date
Number
(119/1)
03/24/73
01
5.3
02
0.7
03
12.9
04
7.9
05
4.1
07/05/73
01
7.6
02
5.3
03
16.1
04
11.1
05
9.1
09/24/73
01
8.8
02
8.2
03
4.2
04
5.9
05
7.7
C. Limiting Nutrient
Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered,
and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P
Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spike (mg/1)
Conc. (mg/1)
Conc. (mg/1) (mg/1-dry wt.)
Control
0.010
0.164 0.4
0.010 P
0.020
0.164 2.9
0.020 P
0.030
0.164 2.8
0.050 P
0.060
0.164 3.4
0.025 P + 0.5
N 0.035
0.664 10.7
0.050 P + 1.0
N 0.060
1.164 17.8
1.0 N
0.010
1.164 0.4
2. Discussion -
_ The control
yield of the assay
alga, Selenastrum ca ri-
cornutum, indicates
that the potential
primary productivity
of Lake James
was moderate at the
time of sample collection
(03/24/73).

8
The assay data also indicate that James Lake was phos-
phorus limited at that time. Note the increased yields with
the addition of the first orthophosphorus spike but the
lack of a significant increase in yield with the addition of
only nitrogen. The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation
at all sampling times; the mean inorganic nitrogen to ortho-
phosphorus ratios were 17 to 1 or greater, and phosphorus
limitation would be expected.
It should be noted that with the initial addition of
orthophosphorus, the sample became nitrogen limited (N/P
ratio = 8/1). Therefore, no significant increases in yields
resulted from further additions of orthophosphorus.

IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix E for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the North Carolina
National Guard collected monthly near -surface grab samples from each
of the tributary sites indicated on the map (page v), except for the
high runoff months of January and February when two samples were col-
lected. Sampling was begun in March, 1973, and was completed in
February, 1974.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the
year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were provided by
the North Carolina District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for
the tributary sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were calcu-
lated using mean annual concentrations and mean annual flows. Nutrient
It
loads shown are those measured minus point -source loads, if any.
Nutrient loads for unsampled "minor tributaries and immediate
drainage" ("ZZ" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the means of the
nutrient concentrations in Paddy Creek and the Linville River at
stations C-1 and D-1 and the mean annual ZZ flow.
The operator of the Old Fort wastewater treatment plant provided
monthly effluent samples and corresponding flow data.

10
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known muncipal -
Pop.
Name Served Treatment
Old Fort* 1,000 act. sludge
Linville** variable septic tanks
2. Known industrial - None
Mean Flow Receiving
m3 d Water
924.3 Curtis Creek
? Linville River
* Byrd, 1973; more than 25% of the waste load is contributed by industry.
** Wiseman, 1975.

11
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/
% of
Source
y
total
a.
Tributaries (non -point load)
-
Catawba River
13,500
45.6
North Fork, Catawba River
11,390
38.5
Paddy Creek
100
0.3
Linville River
1,505
5.1
b.
Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non -point load) -
925
3.1
c.
Known municipal STP's -
Old Fort
1,600
5.4
Linville (septic tanks)
110
0.4
d.
Septic tanks* -
15
<0.1
e.
Known industrial - None
-
-
f.
Direct precipitation** -
460
1.6
Total
29,605
100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Catawba River 48,705
3. Net annual P loss - 19,100 kg.
* Estimate based on 44 lakeshore dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.

12
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/
% of
Source
yr
total
i
a. Tributaries (non -point load)
-
Catawba River
172,040
40.3 .
North Fork, Catawba River
73,685
17.3
Paddy Creek
4,850
1.1
Linville River
90,270
21.1
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non -point load) -
49,675
11.6
c. Known municipal STP's -
Old Fort
3,820
0.9
Linville (septic tanks)
4,050
0.9
d. Septic tanks* -
470
0.1
e. Known industrial - None
-
-
f. Direct precipitation** -
28,445
6.7
Total
427,305
100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Catawba River
i
375,270
3. Net annual N accumulation - 52,035 kg.
D. Mean Annual Non -point Nutrient Export
by Subdrainage
Area:
Tributary
kg P/km2/yr
kg N/km2/yr
Catawba River
29
371
North Fork, Catawba River
51
332
Paddy Creek
6
298
Linville River
9
519
* Estimate based on 44 lakeshore dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
**';See Working Paper No. 175.

13
E. Yearly Loading Rates:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading
rates are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (Vollen-
weider and Dillon, 1974). Essentially, his "dangerous" rate
is the rate at which the receiving water would become eutrophic
or remain eutrophic; his "permissible" rate is that which would
result in the receiving water remaining oligotrophic or becoming
oligotrophic if morphometry permitted. A mesotrophic rate would
be considered one between "dangerous" and "permissible".
Note that Vollenweider's model may not be applicable to
water bodies with short hydraulic retention times.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Total Accumulated Total Accumulated
grams/m2/yr 1.12 loss* 16.2 2.0
Vollenweider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Lake James:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic rate) 0:94
"Permissible" (oligotrophic rate) 0.47
* There was an apparent loss of phosphorus during the sampling year. This
may have been due to non -representative sampling resulting in an under-
estimation of the phosphorus load (septic tanks in camps and parks,
unknown point sources, etc.) or to hypolimnetic drawdown carrying phos-
phorus solubilized from bottom sediments. The lake data indicate a
slight increase in total phosphorus concentration in the deeper samples
at station 04 (above Linville Dam), especially during the July and
September samplings.

V.
14
LITERATURE.REVIEWED
Byrd, Gilman (operator), 1973. STP questionnaire (Old Fort treatment
facilities). Old Fort.
Park, David, 1974. Personal communication (lake morphometry). NC
Dept. of Nat. & Econ. Resources, Raleigh.
Vollenweider, R. A., and P. J. Dillon, 1974. The application of
the phosphorus loading concept to eutrophication research.
Natl. Res. Council of Canada Publ. No. 13690, Canada Centre
for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
Weiss, Charles M., 1972. A proposal to the Water Resources Research
Institute of the'University of North Carolina. The trophic state
of North Carolina lakes, covering the period July 1, 1972 to
June 30, 1973. U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Wiseman, Robert C. (Avery County Mgr.), 1975. Personal communication
(population estimates of Linville, NC: 3,000 per month for three
summer months, and 200 per month the remainder of the year).
Linville.

U1. APPENDICES
15
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS

- LAKES--RA-NKED BY-- INDEX----NOS:--
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME
1
3719
LAKE WACCAMAW
2
3716
SANTEELAH LAKE
3
3711
MOUNTAIN'ISLAND LAKE
4
3707
HIWASSEE LAKE
5
3704
FONTANA LAKE
6
3713
LAKE NORMAN
7
3708
LAKE JAMES
8
3710
LOOKOUT SHOALS
9
3715
RHODHISS LAKE
10
3705
LAKE HICKORY
11
3717
LAKE TILLERY
12
3709
LAKE JUNALUSKA
13
3702
BLEWETT FALLS LAKE
14
3718
WATERVILLE RESERVOIR
15
3701
BADIN LAKE
16
3706
HIGH ROCK LAKE
INDEX NO
534
446
419
414
392
346
334
327
296
283
246
220
200
140
124
76

PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
MEDIAN
MEDIAN
500-
CODE
LAKE NAME
TOTAL P
INORG
N
MEAN
SEC
3701
BAOIN LAKE
33
( 5)
7
(
1)
27
( 4)
3702
BLEWETT FALLS LAKE
7
( 1)
13
(
2)
7
( 1)
3704
FONTANA LAKE
100
( 15)
33
(
5)
93
( 14)
3705
LAKE HICKORY
27
( 4)
60
(
9)
53
( 8)
3706
HIGH ROCK LAKE
13
( 2)
20
(
3)
0
( 0)
3707
HIWASSEE LAKE
87
( 13)
80
(
12)
87
( 13)
3708
LAKE JAMES
60
( 9)
87
(
13)
80
( 12)
3709
LAKE JUNALUSKA
47
( 7)
27
(
4)
43
( 6)
3710
LOOKOUT SHOALS
53
( 8)
47
(
7)
60
( 9)
3711
MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE
73
( 11)
73
(
11)
43
( 6)
3713
LAKE NORMAN
67
( 10)
53
(
8)
73
( 11)
3715
RHODHISS LAKE
20
( 3)
67
(
10)
33
( 5)
3716
SANTEELAH LAKE
93
( 14)
93
(
14)
100
( 15)
3717
LAKE TILLERY
40
( 6)
40
(
6)
13
( 2)
3718
WATERVILLE RESERVOIR
0
( 0)
0
(
0)
20
( 3)
3719
LAKE WACCAMAW
80
( 12)
100
(
15)
67
( 10)
MEAN
15-
MEDIAN
INDEX
CHLORA
MIN
DO
DISS
ORTHO P
NO
27
( 4)
3 (
0)
27
( 4)
124
73
( 11)
93 (
14)
7
( 1)
200
100
( 15)
3 (
0)
63
( 9)
392
13
( 2)
80 (
12)
50
( 7)
283
0
( 0)
23 (
2)
20
( 3)
76
47
( 7)
50 (
7)
63
( 9)
414
7
( 1)
23 (
2)
77
( 11)
334
20
( 3)
50 (
7)
33
( 5)
220
67
( 10)
60 (
9)
40
( 6)
327
53
( 8)
87 (
13)
90
( 13)
419
40
( 6)
23 (
2)
90
( 13)
346
93
( 14)
70 (
10)
13
( 2)
296
60
( 9)
23 (
2)
77
( 11)
446
33
( 5)
70 (
10)
50
( 7)
246
80
( 12)
40 (
6)
0
( O)
140
87
( 13)
100 (
15)
100
( 15)
534

LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
3701 BADIN LAKE
3702 BLEWETT FALLS LAKE
3704 FONTANA LAKE
3705 LAKE HICKORY
3706 HIGH ROCK LAKE
3707 HIWASSEE LAKE
3708 LAKE JAMES
3709 LAKE JUNALUSKA
3710 LOOKOUT SHOALS
3711 MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE
3713 LAKE NORMAN
3715 RHODHISS LAKE
3716 SANTEELAH LAKE
3717 LAKE TILLERY
3718 WATERVILLE RESERVOIR
3719 LAKE WACCAMAW
MEDIAN
MEDIAN
500-
MEAN,
15-
MEDIAN
TOTAL. P
INORG N
MEAN SEC
-CHLORA
MIN DO
DISS ORTHO P
0.042
0.680
466.750
7.190
14.900
0.012
0.090
0.655
4769889
4.167
10.800
0.034
0.011
0.550
392.650
3.438
14.900
0.007
0.047
0.320
4619000
7.275
13.400
0.008
0.090
0.580
477.454
14.283
14.800
0.017
0.015
0.240
420.555
5.678
14.200
0.007
0.020
0.160
428.866
7.660
14.800
0.006
0.031
0.560
462.000
7.233
14.200
0.009
0.026
0.370
459,167
4.200
13.800
0.008
0.018
0.270
462.000
5.580
12.800
0.005
0.019
0.330
446.667
5.807
14.800
0.005
0.061
0.305
462.111
3.578
13.600
0.019
0.011
0.160
366.400
5.360
14.800
0.006
0.040
0.470
4689600
6.827
13.600
0.008
0.103
0.860
468.333
3.817
14.400
0.041
0.018
0.120
4559667
3.583
9.800
0.004
f� y

APPENDIX B
CONVERSIONS FACTORS

CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10-4 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = lbs/square mile

APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA

TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR NORTH CAROLINA - 10/21/75- -
LAKE CODE 3708 LAKE JAMES
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKES© MI) 381.00
SUB -DRAINAGE NORMALIZED FLOWS(CFS)
TRIBUTARY AREA(SQ MI) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MEAN
3708A1 381.00 846.00 612.00 650.00 579.00 581.00 765.00 691.00 673.00 808.00 730.00 850.00 886.00 723.36
3708A2 179.00 349.00 442.00 485.00 456.00 344.00 294.00 267.00 276.00 272.00 276.00 276.00 313.00 336.78
3708BI 85.60 147.00 162.00 188.00 168.00 116.00 90.00 85.00 110.00 101.00 103.00 102.00 115.00 123.70
3708C1 6.30 12.00 14.00 16.00 15.00 11.00 8.70 8.10 9.10 8.90 9.10 8.90 10.00 10.88
3708D1 67.20 167.00 184.00 212.00 190.00 133.00 103.00 99.00 126.00 114.00 119.00 115.00 132.00 140.93
3708ZZ 42.90 96.00 114.00 128.00 118.00 85.00 69.00 65.00 72.00 70.00 72.00 71.00 81.00 86.58
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 381.00 TOTAL FLOW IN = 8402.79
SUM OF SUB -DRAINAGE AREAS 381.00 TOTAL FLOW OUT = 8673.00
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CFS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW
3708A1 3 73 1830.00 25 1720.00
4 73 1560.00 15 263.00
5 73 1910.00 20 509.00
6 73 1150.00 23 117.00
7 73 1040.00 24 832.00
8 73 .550.00 12 46.00
9 73 11100.00 15 2040.00
10 73 767.00 14 100.00
11 73 664.00 10 540.00
12 73 452.00 8 390.00
1 74 1460.00 6 2110.00 20 114.00
2 74 1220.00 2 664.00 16 1620.00
370BAZ 3 73 9C0.00 25 635.00
4 73 660.00 15 435.00
5 73 760.00 20 370.00
6 73 515.00 23 450.00
7 73 360.00 24 370.00
8 73 365.00 12 415.00
9 73 235.00 15 260.00
10 73 325.00 14 235.00
11 73 300.00 10 155.00
12 73 640.00 8 440.00
1 74 645.00 6 675.00 20 420.00
2 74 620.00 2 635.00 16 515.00
N . D {, .

x 11
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR NORTH CAROLINA
LAKE CODE 3708 LAKE JAMES
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CFS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY
370881
3
73
550.00
25
4
73
380.00
15
5
73
500.00
20
6
73
250.00
23
7
73
78.00
24
8
73
100.00
12
9
73
54.00
15
10
73
95.00
14
11
73
88.00
10
12
73
250.00
8
1
74
350.00
6
2
74
315.00
2
3708C1
3
73
40.00
25
4
73
30.00
15
5
73
30.00
20
6
73
18.00
23
7
73
11.00
24
8
73
12.00
12
9
73
7.20
15
10
73
10.00
14
11
73
26.00
10
12
73
26.00
8
1
74
26.00
6
2
74
22.00
2
3708D1
3
73
450.00
25
4
73
300.00
15
5
73
370.00
20
6
73
135.00
23
7
73
90.00
24
8
73
118.00
12
9
73
67.00
15
10
73
107.00
14
11
73
102.00
10
12
73
267.00
8
1
74
326.00
6
2
74
232.00
2
3708ZZ
3
73
300.00
4
73
190.00
5
73
220.00
6
73
125.00
7
73
70.00
8
73
80.00
9
73
50.00
10
73
70.00
11
73
65.00
12
73
180.00
1
74
150.00
2
74
145.00
FLOW DAY FLOW DAY
280.00
210.00
185.00
210.00
185.00
140.00
200.00
62.00
39.00
180.00
205.00
20
135.00
180.00
16
126.00
22.00
16.00
14.00
16.00
14.00
13.00
12.0.0
7.70
5.00
16.00
22.00
20
14.00
21.00
16
16.00
220.00
16S.00
145.00
165.00
145.00
110.00
160.00
74.00
48.00
202.00
238.00
20
143.00
206.00
16
147.00
10/21/7S
FLOW

APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA

STORET METRIEVAL DATE 75/10/20
SOulu
u0300
00077
OOU94
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
:vATER
DO
TRANSP
CNDUCTVY
FROM
OF
TLMP
SECCHI
FIELD
TO
DAY
FEET
CENT
SIG/L
INCHES
N11CROMHO
73/03/24
15
05
0000
12.4
38
63
15
05
0006
10.3
10.8
60
15
05
0015
10.3
10.0
63
15
05
004S
8.5
9.4
63
15
05
C075
7.3-
9.2
63
15
05
UlOU
7.1
9.2
63
73/07/05
16
10
0000
29.4
48
65
16
10
OOOS
29.4
15.2
60
16
10
O010
2.7.9
9.7
60
16
10
0018
21.8
4.7
70
16
10
OJ35
12.6
5.1
60
16
10
0060
6.6
.3.9
65
16
10
O085
8.2
5.0
68
73/U9/24
15
15
0000
26.2
84
69
15
15
0005
25.2
7.2
65
15
15
0015
23.3
1.0
76
15
15
U025
17.1
0.4
41
15
15
0045
1).2
4.6
15
15
006S
a.6
4.4
15
15
0090
o.3
11.5
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
.370801
35 44
02.0 081
53 31.0
LAKE
JAMES
37111
NORTH
CAROLINA
11EPALES
2111202
3
01U5
FEET DEPTH
O0400
00410
O3610
U0625
00630
00671
PH
T ALK
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
11O26NO3
PHOS-DIS
CACO3
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
OkTrfO
SD
MG/L
M6/L
MG/L
M6/L
MG/L P
7.60
11
0.050
0.300
0.240
0.026
7.50
11
0.050
0.200
0.230
0.024
7.40
12
0.040
0.200K
0.23U
0.027
7.40
11
U.040
0.200K
0.290
0.030
7.20
13
0.040
0.200K
0.310
0.032
7.20
13
0.050
0.200
0.320
0.030
9.40
11
0.070
0.700
0.060
0.004
9.30
11
0.05U
0.300
0.040
0.002
9.2U
14
0.060
0.200
0.040
0.004
6.90
15
0.060
0.200
0.160
0.005
6.7U
10K
0.070
0.200K
0.310
0.007
b.60
19
U.050
0.200K
0.390
0.030
6.60
18
0.050
0.200K
0.430
0.025
7.20
15
U.040
0.400
0.030
0.006
6.90
13
0.030
0.300
0.020
0.009
6.40
18
0.040
U.300
0.036
0.010
6.20
13
0.040
0.300
0.190
0.014
6.20
13
0.050
0.300
0.39U
0.014
6.20
14
0.040
0.200
0.420
0.015
6.3C
26
U.660
1.100
0.040
0.010
o

STOt-,IET kEfFeIFVAL
3221 1
I ')A FE:
- TIMV- ik)Ti drW5-TUT CHLkPHYL
F'Rof-I Or- A
TO 9 A y F i--- c: T wl L P J(-/L
73/1,3/24
7 -3 / ,, 7 / ij L3
13/C 9/ 24
15 05 () 0 01
J
1 U D 75
i'S lili)v
lb 1C 0 ju
10 v00
lb 10 u!!ir3
16 10 3
lb 10 of
10 13 u 0 n S
1171 15 0000
1 15 0005
15 15 c;,) I)
17 15 0 0 ?15
15 15 j 045
15 li U 0 bb
I �i I b (i +) 1) 0
u (-, -3
05t
C. I
G. I
0 ji)
0 3 0
9.036
0.021
?4
u i
0 L+
0
u 36
� . 3
7 . t-
o.3
3 f0du I
Jt:i 44 02.0 0,31 bi 31.0
LArCn JAMES
37111 NOkTri CAROLINA
llt'PALES
-3 '
2111202
0105 FEET DEPTH

STORET KETRIEVAL UAfE 75/10/2U
370802
35 44
46.0 081
57 20.0
LAKE
JAMES
37111
NORTH
CAROLINA
11EPALES
2111202
3
0055
FEET DEPTH
00010
00300
60071
00094
00400
00410
OU610
00625
00630
00671
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
WATER
DO
TRANSP
CNDUCTVY
PH
T ALK
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
NO26NO3
PHOS-DIS
FROM
OF
TEMP
SECCHI
FIELD
CAC03
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
URTHO
TO
DAY
FEET
CENT
MG/L
INCHES
MICROMHO
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
73/03/24
15
40
0000
12.8
18
50K
7.30
10K
0.070
0.400
0.290
0.019
15
40
0003
11.0
10.0
50K
7.30
10K
0.080
0.200
0.300
0.015
15
40
0015
10.5
9.8
50K
7.20
IOK
0.080
0.200
0.290
0.017
15
40
0030
10.2
10.0
55
7.10
10K
0.090
0.200
0.280
0.020
15
40
0050
8.3
9.6
50K
7.10
10
0.070
0.200
0.310
0.033
73/07/05
15
15
0000
28.7
10.5
72
69
9.20
14
0.120
0.600
0.060
0.008
15
15
6004
27.3
10.1
55
8.80
10
0.100
0.600
0.050
0.005
15
15
GO10
24.4
9.2
61
7.70
14
0.060
0.300
0.060
0.004
15
15
0025
19.1
4.0
60
6.60
14
0.080
0.200K
0.290
0.014
15
15
0035
12.9
15
15
0050
9.6
2.1
70
6.40
17
0.060
0.200K
0.460
0.011
73/09/24
14
45
0000
25.8
75
86
8.60
18
0.050
0.700
0.030
0.011
14
45
0005
25.1
K.6
75
7.90
16
0.040
0.500
0.020
0.010
14
45
0015
23.5
5.2
81
6.80
18
0.060
0.300
0.070
0.012
14
45
0025
17.8
0.2
52
6.40
15
0.170
0.400
0.130
0.012
14
45
003S
10.6
0.8
6.30
18
0.250
0.500
0.150
0.008
14
45
0050
9.4
0.7
6.31
23
0.470
0.900
0.020
0.007
K VALUE KNOWN
TO BE
LESS
THAN INDICATED

STORE RET-?1EVAL ,)I'fE 75/I1:,,20
370602
35 44 46. U 081 51 20.0
LAKE JAMES
37111 NURFH CAROLINA
11EPALES
3
6ti663
32211
DATE.
TIME
DEPTH
Nri1i5-Tui
CHLKPHYL
FROM
of
A
TO
JAY
F LE_1
i-IG/L P
UG/L
73/U3/24
15
40
0000
;i.uo7
15
40
0003
k?.06.�3
15
40
0015
:i.080
15
40
0030
2.07i)
15
40
017U
i .(;7�?
73/07/05
15
15
u000
L.026
15
15
0004
0 G,-?7
15
15
10
u.iu
15
15
5
t .C42
15
15
1 0
f?.041i
73/09/24
14
45
!JUJU
.'J34
8 2
14
45
uUQS
U.03v
14
45
0015
;1.038
14
45
6021i
0.037
14
45
0035
14
45
U050
2111202
0055 FEET DEPTH

STURET RETRIEVAL DAIS 75/IU/l_U
370803
35 44
02.0 081
51 02.0
LAKE
JAMES
31623
NOkTH
CAROLINA
11EPALES
2111202
3
0104
FEET DEPTH
00010
U0300
OOU77
00094
00400
00410
00610
00625
00630
00671
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
WATER
DO
TRANSP
CNDUCTVY
PH
T ALK
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
NO2&NO3
PHOS-DIS
FROM
OF
TEMP
SECCHI
FIELD
CAC03
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
URTHO
TO
UAY
FEET
CLNT
MG/L
INCHES
MICROMHO
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
73/03/29
09
45
0000
13.0
56
60
8.40
16
U.050
0.600
0.030
0.003
09
45
0004
12.1
11.5
58
8.20
15
0.02U
0.200
0.050
0.003
09
45
0015
11.7
1U.4
58
8.10
16
0.030
0.300
0.080
0.010
09
45
0045
10.3
9.8
58
7.9U
16
U.040
0.300
0.170
0.016
09
45
U075
8.b
9.9
62
7.80
17
0.040
0.300
0.190
0.011
U9
45
0100
7.8
9.6
62
7.80
18
0.030
0.300
0.190
0.007
73/07/06
09
45
U00U
28.7
Q.1
70
63
9.20
15
0.050
0.900
0.060
0.007
09
45
0007
28.1
9.4
55
9.11)
13
0.040
0.300
0.040
0.005
09
45
0018
24.0
7.6
50K
6.50
16
0.070
0.200
0.050
0.005
09
45
0040
19.1
4.5
55
6.50
15
0.070
0.300
0.080
0.003
09
45
U070
17.2
5.0
58
6.40
16
0.060
0.600
0.230
0.003
09
45
0095
16.1
4.6
60
6.40
16
0.070
0.200K
0.280
0.006
09
45
u120
12.8
2.2
63
6.30
18
0.070
0.200
0.370
0.005
73/09/24
14
00
0000
26.2
108
56
6.90
14
0.050
0.400
0.030
0.009
14
00
0005
26.1
1.8
55
6.7u
14
0.050
0.200
0.020
0.011
14
00
0020
25.8
6.4
54
6.50
12
0.050
0.300
0.020
0.010
14
00
U04U
25.2
1.4
63
6.40
14
0.070
0.200
0.030
0.010
14
00
0060
23.5
0.4
64
6.30
17
0.020K
0.200
0.060
0.010
14
00
0080
21.H
0.4
61
6.30
17
0.120
0.300
0.020
0.009
14
UO
0100
18.0
U.b
55
6.20
16
0.200
0.400
0.030
0.006
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED

f •.
STORET KETNIFVAL UATr 75/10/20
0,ob65
DATE TIME I}EPTH PHOS—TU(
FRUVl OF
TO UA.Y FEET MG/L. N
73/U3/29 U9
45
0000
09
45
0004
09
45
OU15
09
45
UU45
09
45
0075
69
45
U100
73/07/06 U9
45
0000
04
4.5
-0007
-09
45
O'i 18
U9
45
0040
09
45
0071
U9
45
UG45
09
45
U1i�0
73/Oy/24 14
00
u000
14
00
600b
14
C'0
U020
14
o0
004U
14
00
6060
14
0-0
0U80
14
00
0100
U.U37
0.U32
0.02ri
!.037
. 024
O.OIy
iJ.U'G
i.C13
(:.01h
0.010
U.013
J.OI6
il 19
i.G10
i�.01i.
v.014
ri.01 �
0.01 i
v.01S
G.0?G
32217
CrtLRPHYL
A
UG/L
Io.I
4.p
37J803
3S 44 02.0 aril 51 02.0
LAKE jAmt5
37623 NORTH CAROLINA.
11EPALES
3
21112U2
0104 FEET DEPTH

STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/10/2J
00010
0030(1
00077
00094
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
WATER
DO
TRANSN
CNDUCTVY
FROM
OF
TEMP
SECCHI
FIELD
TO
DAY
FEET
CENT
MG/L
INCHES
MICROMHO
73/03/29
10
00
0000
12.5
44
55
10
00
0004
12.4
11.5
55
10
00
GU20
11.2
10.2
55
10
00
0045
10.2
9.8
60
10
00
0080
8.6
9.8
62
10
00
0115
7.l
9.3
65
73/07/Ub
10
55
0000
2d.7
9.1
78
57
10
55
0001
28.7
9.1
55
10
55
0007
28.b
9.3
55
10
55
u020
23.4
5.b
62
10
55
0030
20.8
3.5
53
10
1-,5
u075
16.6
4.9
53
10
55
0110
14.9
3.3
57
73/09/24
16
15
0000
27.1
100
54
16
15
0005
26.2
8.0
53
16
15
U020
25.8
6.2
49
16
15
0040
25.1
1.6
56
lb
15
0065
23.1
1.0
59
16
15
009U
21.0
o.0
55
16
15
O1J5
16.0
0.0
73
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
370804
35 44 42.0 081 50 24.0
LAKE JAMES
37023 NORTH CAROLINA
11EPALES
2111202
.3
0120
FEET DEPTH
00400
00410
00610
00625
00630
00671
PH
T ALK
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
NO2&NO3
PHOS-DIS
CAC03
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
ORTHO
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
8.10
15
0.030
0.500
0.040
0.006
8.30
17
0.020
0.400
0.040
0.006
8.10
19
0.040
0.400
0.110
0.004
7.90
20
0.040
0.300
0.170
0.013
7.96
19
0.040
0.200
0.170
0.005
7.70
21
0.050
0.200
0.180
0.005
9.10
13
0.060
0.700
0.050
0.004
9.00
12
0.050
0.400
0.040
0.003
9.00
15
0.060
0.300
0.060
0.003
6.50
18
0.080
0.300
0.080
0.004
6.50
18
0.070
0.300
0.100
0.003
6.60
16
0.050
0.300
0.250
0.003
6.40
11
U.070
0.300
0.280
0.004
6.711
13
0.050
0.400
0.020
0.005
6.7G
11
0.04u
0.300
0.020
0.005
6.70
10K
0.040
0.300
0.020
0.004
b.40
11
0.080
0.200
0.030
0.005
6.30
14
0.090
0.200
0.030
0.005
6.40
15
0.260
0.500
0.020
0.013
6.60
16
0.640
0.700
0.020
0.008
11 4
.. •

5T-JPET nETk1EV.AL DATE 75/Iu/2U
jC66S
DATE TIMF -DEPTH Nr'Ob-TOT
FROr4 OF'
TO UAY Ftr T HU/L a
73/03/2y lu nO Ovt)0
10 OU 0004
10 00 ilU?!)
10 00 0047
10 00 u0H0
Iii 1,10 0115
73/07/0(1 10 95 0000
10 S5 0001
I 95 Ju17
10 G5 UO2J
10 55 0030
10 55 00 75
10 r-9 O110
73/0141P4 lb 15 J000
16 15 t,0O5
In 15 U0?0
In 15 0 ) 4 0
1 15 0065
16 1`; 0090
16 15 61U5
U.i;31
�.031
J.021
u.016
0 013
u.u11
+.u11
u 011
u.01b
U.Uly
l,.014
t;.01J
:'.u12
u.013
O.J16
(J.t7lr'
iJ.021
.32217
CHLRPHYL
a
dG/L
7.9
5.9
370804
35 44 42.0 081 50 24.0
LAKE JAMES
37623 NORTH CAROLINA
11EPALES
:3
2111202
0120 FEET DEPTH

STORET RETRIEVAL DATE
75/10/20
370805
35 46
23.0 081
51 17.0
LAKE
JAMES
37023
NORTH
CAROLINA
11EPALES
2111202
3
0059
FEET DEPTH
00010
00300
00077
00094
00400
00410
00610
00625
00630
00671
DATE
TIME,DEPTH
WATER
DO
TRANSP
CNOUCTVY
PH
T ALK
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
NO2&NO3
PHOS-DIS
FROM
OF
TEMP
SECCHI
FIELD
CAC03
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL"
ORTHO
TO
DAY
FEET
CENT
MG/L
INCHES
MICHOMHO
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
73/03/29
12
00
0000
12.1
60
50K
7.90
18
0.030
0.400
0.130
0.004
12
00
0004
12.0
10.6
50K
7.80
19
0.030
0.200
0.130
0.003
12
00
0.015
11.4
10.1
50K
7.80
17
0.040
0.200K
0.150
0.005
12
00
0,030
10.7
16.1
50K
7.80
18
0.040
0.200K
0.150
0.006
12
00
0055
9.6
9.8
50K
7.80
17
0.040
0.200
0.180
0.004
73/07/06
13
28
0000.
28.6
8.7
108
55
8..30
12
0.060
0.900
0.050
0.005
13
28
0005
28.2
8.7
50K
8.60
11
0.050
0.400
0.04U
0.002
13
28
0010
27.S
6.9
50K
8.20
10
0.040
0.400
0.040
0.002
13
28
0020
23.4
6.1
50K
6.50
11
0.060
0.400
0.060
0.002
13
28
0035
20.0
2.9
SOK
6.30
12
0.100
0.500
0.090
0.004
13
28
0049
1H.4
3.6
50K
6.30
12
0.100
0.400
0.110
0.004
73/09/24
15
45
0000
27.5
108
45
6.90
11
0.040
0.600
0.02U
0.006
15
45
OuO5
26.4.
8.0
4b
7.00
10
0.040
0.500
0.020
0.005
15
45
0020
2.5.9
6.6_
47
6.80
11
U.030
0.300
0.020
0.005
15
45
u035
25.4
5.4
46
6.50
11
0.050
0.300
0.020
0.005
15
45
0045
24.8
3.0
44
6.30
11
0.080
0.300
0.030
0.005
K VALUE KNOWN TO 8E
LESS THAN INDICATED

0 Is Y 4
STORET RETkIEVAL DATE 75/10/20
370805
35 46 23.0 081 51 17.0
LAKE JAMES
37023 NORTH CAROLINA
11EPALES 2111202
3 0059 FEET DEPTH
0G665
32217
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
MHOS —TOT
CHLRPHYL
FROM
OF
A
TO
UAY
FEET
MG/L P
UG/L
73/03/29
12
00
0000
0.019
4.1
12
00
0004
0.021
12
00
0015
0.019
12
00
0030
0.017
12
00
0055
0.025
73/07/06
13
28
UOOO
,.013
9.1
13
28
0005
d.00d
13
2.8
0010
U.009
13
28
U020
0.014
13
28
0035
O.OIU
13
28
OU49
O.Oi4
73/09/24
15
45
0000
U.014
7.7
15
45
0005
U.015
15
45
0020
0.015
15
45
0035
0.016
15
45
OU45
0.021

APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY and WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA

STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/10/20
0663U
00625
0061O
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
NO26NO3
TOT KJEL
NH3-N
FROM
OF
N-TOTAL
N
TOTAL
TU
DAY
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
73/03/25
11
45
U.250
0.200
0.016
73/04/15
13
35
0.176
0.310
0.048
73/05/20
12
02
0.110
0.605
0.042
73/06/23
12
50
0.170
0.210
0.046
73/07/24
09
30
U.147
0.960
0.033
73/08/12
10
40
0.160
0.480
0.0.38
73/lU/14
14
45
0.130
0.20U
0.023
73/11/10
12
20
0.064
0.400
0.028
73/12/08
U.200
0.300
).016
74/01/06
12
30
0.294
1.UO0
0.072
74/01/2O
11
15
0.232
0.100
0.036
74/02/02
12
00
0.200
0.300
0.025
74/02/16
12
20
0.216
0.400
0.050
3708A1 LS3706AI
35 44 30.6 081 50 O0.0
CATAWBA RIVER
37039 7.5 GLEN ALPINE
0/LAKE JAMES
HD 1223 6RUG .25 DOWNSTREAMLINVILLE DAM
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00671
00665
PROS-DIS
PROS -TOT
URTHO
MG/L P
MG/L P
U.012
0.035
0.019
0.U5U
0.014
0.040
U.021
0.055
0.039
0.090
0.040
0.055
U.054
0.095
0.136
0.180
0.068
0.115
0.028
O.055
U.024
0.035
O0055
0.105
0.066
0.11U

STOkET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/10/20
370OA2
L�3708A2
35 43 OO.0 OH2 00
00.0
CATAwdA RIVER
37 15 MARION
I/LAKE JAMES
S'ECONUARY RU 8RDG
2 MI N OFMARION
IIEPALES
2111204
4
0000 FEET DEPTH
00630
00625
60610
00671
OU665
DATE
TIME DEPTH
NO26NO3
TOT KJEL
NH3-N
PHOS-DIS
PHOS-TOT
FROM
OF
tJ-TOTAL
N
TOTAL
ORTHO
TO
UAY
FEET
M6/L'
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
73/U3/25
10
10
0.168
0.230
0.025
G.009
0.030
73/04/15
12
10
0.154
U.842
0.038
0.018
0.035
73/05/20
13
45
0.176
0.630
0.033
0.013
0.035
73/66/23
10
30
0.220
.0.340
.0.040
0.042
0.110
73/07/24
U7
30
0.189
0.860
U.050
U.013
0.035
73/08/12
13
00
0.198
0.560
5.024
0.062
0.080
73/10/14
12
30
0.098
0.250
0.052
0.026
0.055
73/11/10
13
DO
G.056
0.200
0.040
0.032
0.055
73/12/08
0.2U8
1.U00
0.056
0.040
0.095
74/01/06
13
15
0.144
0.100
0.040
0.008
0.020
74/01/20
12
00
0.208
0.100
0.028
0.032
0.050
74/02/02
13
30
U.208
0.100K
0.005
6.015
0.025
74/02/16
12
45
0.192
0.200
U.025
0.015
0.030
K VALUE KNOWN TO 8E
LESS THAN INDICATED

5T:)RtT RETRIEVAL DATE 75/10/20
3708bI LS3706H1
35 44 3U.0 081 59 J0.0
NORTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER
37 MAP MCOOWELL CO
T/LAKE JAMES
RD 1552 HHUG 5 MI NNE OF MARION
11EPALLS 2111204
4 0000 rEET DEPTH
0063J
00625
00610
00671
00665
GATE
TIME
DEPTH
NO2�NO3
TUT KJEL
NH3-N
PHOS-OIS
PROS -TUT
FRul-t
OF
IN -TOTAL
N
TOTAL
ORTHO
TO
uAY
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
M G/L P
MG/L P
73/03/25
11
30
0.270
U.160
0.030
0.026
0.050
73/04/15
13
15
0.180
0.390
0.110
0.039
0.055
73/05/20
11
15
0.120
0.880
0.022
0.040
0.072
73/06/23
12
00
0.21J
0.32'0
0.026
0.027
0.065
73/UI/24
21
00
0.290
1.540
0.081
0.115
0.260
73/08/12
11
15
0.140
0.115
0.015
0.036
0.045
73/16/14
14
15
O.O,)b
0.700
u.048
0.064
0.105
73/11/10
12
30
0.168
0.400
0.056
0.368
U.,+20
73/12/08
0.21b
1.000
0.052
0.036
0.050
74/U1/06
11
45
0.276
0.100K
0.036
0.008
0.020
74/01/20
11
45
0.20,3
J.IOUK
0.012
U.016
0.05J
74/U2/02
11
20
U.216
0*100K
0.005
0.025
0.040
74/U2/16
11*
45
0.1K4
0.30u
0.010
0.045
0.090
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED

STJREl RETRIEVAL DATE. 713/10/20
3708C1 LS3708CI
35 4b UO.O 081 52 30.0
PADDY CREEK
37 MAP 6URKE Cu
T/LAKE JAMES
H4Y 12b HgO6 .3 MI SW OF LONOTOWN
11EPALES 2111204
4 OUOU FEET DEPTri
00630
00625
0061.0
00671
O06b5
DATE
TIME DEPTH
wU2d1v03
TOT KJEL
NH3-N
PHOS-OIS
PHOS=TOT
FROM
OF
N-TOTAL
N
TOTAL
URTHO
TO
DAY FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
73/03/25
11
00
0.042
0.120
0.036
0.005K
O.U05K
73/J4/15
14
07
6.026
0.140
0.033
0.005K
0.005K
73/05/2U
10
35
0.013
0.270
0.015
OeU05K
O.U05K
73/66/23
13
30
11.023
0.440
J.037
0.O05K
0.010
73/07/24
20
30
U.058
1.760
O.u66
0.007
0.010
7J/U6112
10
00
0.058
0.200
0.035
U.O06
0.015
73/IU/14
13
30
U.029
0.500
C.U69
0.005K
U.005K
73/11/10
LO
00
0.012
U.900
0.032
O.U12
0.060
73/12/0H
O.052
G.r300
0.Ob8
0.005K
U.005K
74/01/06
10
45
O.Oti4
U.500
u.U64
0.005K
U.GJSK
74/01/20
11
00
J.044
0.10uK
0.G16
u.OU5r.
O.U05K
74/02/02
lU
00
0.036
0.100K
0.010
0.005K
0.005K
74/02/16
10
30
0.056
0.300
0.020
0.005K
0.0OSK
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED

STuRE1 RETRIEVAL DATE 75/10/?0
3708ul
LS3708DI
35 47 30.0 081 52
3U.0
LINVILLE RIVER
37 MAP BURKE
CO
T/LAKE JAMES
HwY 126 BRUG 2.5
MI NNE OF LONGTOWN
11EPALES
2111204
4
0000 FEET DEPTH
Oe.b30
00625
00610
0,1671
00663
DATE
TIME
DEATH
iv02b1403
TOT KJEL
NH3-N
PHOS-DIS
PROS -TOT
FROM
OF
V-TOTAL
N
TOTAL
ORFHO
TO
DAY
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
73/03/25
10
35
0.220
0.180
0.029
0.006
0.015
73/04/15
14
20
0.115
0.210
0.058
O.OU5K
0.005K
73/05/2U
10
00
U.044
0.600
0.024
O.OU5K
0.010
73/U6/23
13
45
0.100
3.320
0.030
0.005K
0.015
73/U7/24
20
00
0.120
?.300
0.077
0.005K
0.035
73/08/12
09
35
0.048
2.3G0
0.110
0.008
0.010
73/IU/14
13
05
0.022
0.?00
0.018
0.009
0.025
73/11/1U
U9
20
0.010K
0.200
0.024
0.008
0.010
73/12/08
0.160
0.600
0.04E
0.008
0.U10
74/01/06
10
?5
0.240
0.40J
0.u2w
u.U05K
O.U07
74/G1/20
10
20
J.lbiA
0.100K
J.Ou8
0.005K
0.00SK
74/02/02
14
45
U.176
0.30U
0.020
0.005K
0.005K
74/02/16
10
00
0.168
0.400
U.020
0.005
0.015
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED

V a
STURET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/lU/20
3708KA
AS3708XA P001000*
35 38
43.0 082
09 43.0
OLD FORT
S.T.P.
37039
15 MARION
N.C.
T/LAKE
JAMES
CURTIS
CREEK
11EPALES
2141204
4
0000'FEET DEPTH
00630
00625
00610
00671
06665
50051
50053
DATE
TIME DEPTH
N026NO3
TUT KJEL
NH3-N
NHOS-DIS
PHOS-TOT
FLOW
CONDUIT
FROM
OF
N-TOTAL
N
TOTAL
ORTHO
RATE'
FLOW-MGD
TO
DAY FEET
MG/L.
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P" INST MGD
MONTHLY
73/06/27
11
00
CP(T)-
1.470
6.600
2.500
3.800
4.600
0.1B0
73/U6/27
17
00
73/07/30
11
00
CP•(T)-
0.130
13.8U0
3.000
4.900
10.500
.0.200
0.260
73/07/30
16
00
73/09/06
11
00
CP(T)-
U.029
11.500
3.640
2.200
3.100
0.280
73/09/06
16
00
73/10/15
11
00
CP(T)-
0.720
14.500
3.100
4.400
6.700
0.280
73/10/15
16
00
73/11/18
11
00
CP(T)-
0.44U
15.000
2.940
3.500
4.200
0.280
73/1itf-8
16
00
74/01/31
11
00
CP('T)-
6.040
4.300
0.100
3.000
3..300
0.280
74/01/31
16
00
74/02/25
11
00
CP(T)-
0.60U
9.000
2.450
2.100
3.200
0.200
74/02/25
16
00
74/03/13
UO
00
CP(T)-
3.060
9.000
3.900
3.900
5.000
0.250
0.230
74/03/13
24
00
74/U4/10
00
00
CP(T)-
0.080
5.300
1.300
1.730
2.800
0.230
74/04/10
24
00
74/05/07
00
00
CP(T)-
0.160
11.000
3.750
1.600
4.400 -"
0.230
74/05/07
24
00
74/06/11
00
00
CP(T)-
U.16U
20.000
3.600
3.000
5.500
0.230
74/06/11
24
00
74/07/1U
00
00
CP(T)-
0.176
11.000
1.750
3.100
4.500
0.250
74/07/10
24
00

STORET RETRIEVAi_ DATE 7,i/11)/20
i,L630
DATE T IMr OEP1 H N0210,103
FrcU1.1 OF N— fU f AL
TO DAY FEET MG/L
74/08/07 00 00
CN(T)-
74/08/U7 24 00
3108AA
AS3708AA P001000*
35 38 43'.0 U82
09 43.0
ULD FORT S.T.P.
37U39 15 MARION
N.C.
T/LAKE JAMES
CURTIS CREEK
IIEPALES
2141204
4
0000 FEET DEPTH
0062ui U7610
00671
00665 50051
50053
TOT KJEL NH3—N
PHOS—OIS
PHOS—TOT FLOW
CONDUIT
N TOTAL
UKTHO
RATE
FLOW—MGD
MG/L MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P INST MGD
MONTHLY
0.650
1.100

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS ON THE PROPOSED
RECLASSIFICATION OF ARMSTRONG CREEK IN MCDOWELL COUNTY
(CATAWBA RIVER BASIN) TO HIGH QUALITY WATERS
PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 28,1998
MARION, NORTH CAROLINA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary and Recommendation
Summary
- Background
- Wastewater Discharge Requirements
- Sedimentation/Erosion Control Requirements
- Stormwater Requirements
Public Hearing Process/Comments Received
- Map of the Proposed Reclassification
- Proposed Amendment to 15A NCAC 2B .0308
Recommendation
- Implications of the Recommended Reclassifications
Request for Reclassification
Public Notice
Hearing Officer Designation
List of People Attending the Hearing
Appendix
15A NCAC 2B .0224 High Quality Waters Rule
15A NCAC 2H .1006 Stormwater Requirements for High Quality Waters
Water Quality Standards for Freshwater Classifications
Data
S-1
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-3
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-6
1
3
5
6
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
Background
All surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a primary classification by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) with the intent of protecting their designated best use. The most common
and basic classification for freshwater is Class C, which protects for aquatic life survival, as well
as secondary recreation such as wading and boating. Other primary classifications are assigned to
protect waters for such uses as primary recreation, shellfishing, and drinking water supply.
In addition to primary classifications, surface waters may be assigned a supplemental
classification. The supplemental classifications include HQW (High Quality Waters), OR
(Outstanding Resource Waters), NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters), Tr (Trout Waters) FWS
(Future Water Supply) and SW (Swamp Waters): Most of these have been developed in order to
afford special protection to sensitive or highly valued resource waters. Therefore, while all
surface waters are assigned a primary classification, they may also have one or more
supplemental classifications. For example, many surface waters in the Catawba River Basin are
supplementally classified as Trout (Tr) Waters.
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. In an effort to protect waters that possess such characteristics,
surface waters in the following categories qualify for classification as High Quality Waters: those
waters which are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics
through Division monitoring or special studies; native and special native trout waters designated
by the Wildlife Resources Commission; primary nursery areas designated by the Marine
Fisheries Commission and other functional nursery areas designated by the Wildlife Resources
Commission; critical habitat areas designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission or the
Department of Agriculture; all water supply watersheds which are either classified as WS-I or
WS-II or those for which a formal petition for reclassification as WS-I or WS-II has been received
from the appropriate local government and accepted by the Division of Water Quality; and all
Class SA waters.
McDowell County officials have requested that the Division of Water Quality remove the WS-II
water supply classification from the Armstrong Creek watershed. Armstrong Creek was used by
a local industry, Coats American, as a source for process water and drinking water for its
employees. The company switched to well water in October, 1997 for their drinking water
supply source. In addition to being considered HQW by definition (as it is under Class WS-II),
Armstrong Creek was evaluated by DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch staff and received an
Excellent water quality bioclassification rating. This also qualifies it for classification as HQW.
The Environmental Management Commission is proposing to reclassify Armstrong Creek, and all
tributaries, from Classes WS41, WS-II CA (Critical Area), WS-II Tr, and C Tr to Classes C
S-1

HQW and C Tr HQW. Surrounding communities were asked if they had any interest in using
Armstrong Creek as a water supply source prior to beginning the reclassification process. None
of the local governments indicated that this was the case.
Special HQW protection management strategies are presented in 15A NCAC 2H .1006, and 15A
NCAC 2B .0224. Copies of these rules can be found on pages three and four of the Appendix.
These measures are intended to prevent degradation of water quality below present levels from
both point and nonpoint sources..
Wastewater Discharge Requirements
For waters classified as HQW, new and expanded discharges must provide advanced treatment.
Expanded discharges are those that expand such that they increase their permitted pollutant
loading. If the proposed reclassifications become effective, the following wastewater discharge
requirements will apply to Armstrong Creek and its tributaries:
A. Discharges from new single family homes are prohibited.
B. The following treatment is required of new or expanded discharges:
1) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: BOD = 5 mg/l; NH3-N = 2 mg/l; and DO = 6 mg/l.
2) Total Suspended Solids: 10 mg/1 in trout waters; 20 mg/1 in all other waters.
3) Disinfection: Alternative methods of chlorination will be required for discharges to
trout streams, except that existing single family residences may use chlorination if other
options are not economically feasible.
4) Emergency Requirements: Failsafe treatment designs will be employed, including
stand-by power capability for entire treatment works, dual train design for all
treatment components, or equivalent failsafe treatment designs.
5) Volume: The total volume of treated wastewater for all discharges combined will not
exceed 50 percent of the total instream flow under 7Q 10 conditions.
6) Nutrients: Where nutrient overenrichment is projected to be a concern, appropriate
effluent limitations will be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or both.
7) Toxic Substances: In cases where complex wastes (those containing or potentially
containing toxicants) may be present in a discharge, a safety factor will be applied to
any chemical or whole effluent toxicity allocation. The limit for a specific chemical
constituent will be allocated at one-half of the normal standard at design conditions.
Whole effluent toxicity will be allocated to protect for chronic toxicity at an effluent
concentration equal to twice that which is acceptable under design conditions. In all
instances there may be no acute toxicity in an effluent concentration of 90 percent as
measured by the North Carolina "Pass/Fail Methodology for Determining Acute
Toxicity in a Single Effluent Concentration." Ammonia toxicity will be evaluated
according to EPA guidelines.
S-2

Sedimentation/Erosion Control Requirements
Development activities which require a Sedimentation/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 shall be
required to follow more stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures. Examples include
strict timelines for establishing cover after land -disturbing activities and more stringent design
specifications on sediment basins.
Stormwater Requirements
For High Quality Waters, low density and high density development options are available. The
Low Density Option allows development at 1 dwelling unit (du) per acre, or 12 percent built
upon area, and requires 30 foot buffers along all perennial waters. Under the High Density
Option, no development density limit is specified, but engineered stormwater controls must
control runoff from one inch of rainfall. See 15A NCAC 2H .1006 on Appendix page four and
the section on the implications of the recommended reclassification below for more detailed
information on the stormwater requirements applicable to HQWs.
Public Hearing Process/ Comments Received
In accordance with North Carolina general statutes, a public hearing was held on May 28, 1998.
A public notice of the hearing was published in the May 1, 1998 edition of the North Carolina
Register. In addition to the required notice, publication of an announcement of public hearing was
made in several newspapers. Announcements were also mailed to various individuals across the
state, including local government and state officials, wastewater dischargers in the affected
subbasin, environmental interest groups, and anyone else who has requested to be placed on the'
Water Quality Section's rule -making mailing list. Additionally, a summary of the proposal was
provided to the local media via a press release.
Nineteen people registered at the public hearing. Opening remarks were given by the Hearing
Officer, followed by a slide presentation on the proposed reclassifications by DWQ staff.
Following staffs presentation, the public -was given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed reclassifications.
Six individuals attending the hearing chose to make statements. Rather than directly commenting
on whether they were in favor of, or opposed to, the proposed reclassification, individuals took
the opportunity to ask questions regarding the affects of the reclassification, as well as on the
reclassification process. One person did indicate that they would like to see Armstrong Creek
retain its excellent water quality but wanted to be sure that rules weren't put in place that were
restrictive to the point that landowners lost the benefits of their property. Two of the speakers
commented on the poor water quality they have observed in a downstream areas of the North
Fork Catawba River.
S-3

Proposed Reclassification of Armstrong Creek
N. , Mitchell County_ — _ US 221
—
CAOn4-
Y$"�i i G°un
r
�
/So®
Cox
...�... Creek
Pisgah /
Mnstrong r
0
National /
Forest/
0
�
erg
/
Mamie
Lake
Tahoma
z
m
I
Y Cr
f
Canis Creek
US 70
Mill Creek
Ga��ba
� Swannanoa Creek
1-40
Proposed High
US 70 ®c
�
Gluality Waters
Gs
S-4

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CATAWBA RIVER BASIN
SCHEDULE OF CLASSIFICATIONS AS REFERENCED IN TITLE 15A
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2B .0308
Existing
Description of
Proposed
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Proposed Segment
Class
--------------
Armstrong Creek
-----------
From source to Hickory Botton Creek
--------
WS-II Tr
----------------
Same
--------
C Tr HQW
Bee Rock Creek
From source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II Tr
Same
C Tr HQW
House Branch
From source to Bee Rock Creek
WS-II Tr
Same
C Tr HQW
Cow Creek
From source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II Tr
Same
C Tr HQW
Middle Fork Cow Creek
From source to Cow Creek
WS-II Tr
Same
C Tr HQW
North Fork Cow Creek
From source to Cow Creek
WS-II Tr
Same
C Tr HQW
Pups Branch
From source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II Tr
Same
C Tr HQW
Bad Fork
From source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II Tr
Sarre
C Tr HQW
Roses Creek
From source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II Tr
Same
; ?r HQW
South Fork Roses Creek
From source to Roses Creek
WS-II Tr
Same
C Tr HQW
Rich Branch
From source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
Roaring Fork
From source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II Tr
Same
C Tr HQW
Long Branch
From source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
Three Mile Creek
Fran source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
Buchanan Creek
From source to Three Mile Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
Sycamore Branch
From source to Three Mile Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
O'Dear.Creek
From source to Three Mile Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
Bartlett Creek
From source to O'Dear Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
Caney Branch
From source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
Muddy Branch
From source to Caney Branch
WS-lI
Same
C HQW
Cox Creek
From source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
Rag Creek
From source to Cox Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
Mace Branch
From source to Rag Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
Hickory Bottom Branch
From source to Armstrong Creek
WS-II
Same
C HQW
Armstrong Creek
From Hickory Bottom Creek to American
WS-II CA
Same
C HQW
Thread Company Water Supply Dam
Armstrong Creek
From American Thread Company Water
C Tr
Same
C Tr HQW
Supply Dam to North Fork Catawba
River
S-5

Written comments on the proposed reclassification were accepted until June 28, 1998. There
were no written comments submitted.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the reclassification of Armstrong Creek and
its tributaries, as proposed herein, be approved by the Environmental Management Commission.
In making this recommendation, the Hearing Officer has considered the requirements of General
Statutes 143-214.1, 143-214.7, 143-215, 15013-21.2, 15A NCAC 2B .0224, 15A NCAC 2H
1006, and the verbal and written comments received. In particular, the chemical/physical/
biological properties, character of the watershed and bordering areas, economic considerations,
and past/present/future uses of Armstrong, Creek and its tributaries have been considered. In
taking this action, rule 15A NCAC 2B .0308, which references the Schedule of Classifications for
the Catawba River Basin, will show that the Environmental Management Commission has
revised the Schedule. The proposed effective date is April 1, 1999.
Implications of the Recommended Reclassification:
The proposed reclassification will result in generally less stringent stormwater and wastewater
discharge requirements in the Armstrong Creek watershed. The following chart details the
applicable watershed management requirements and how they are applied now under the WS-II
classification, and how they would be applied under the proposed C HQW classification.
Under the current WS-II classification, only general permit discharges are allowed. If reclassified,
domestic and industrial wastewater dischargers will be allowed (new and expanding wastewater
dischargers to High Quality Waters have additional treatment requirements beyond what is
required for dischargers to Class C waters). New single family residence wastewater discharges to
surface waters would not be allowed. Currently, there are three permitted dischargers in the
Armstrong Creek watershed area proposed for reclassification, none of which are single family
wastewater discharges.
Development density requirements associated with the WS-II classification limit development to
1 du/2 acres in the Critical Area and 1 du/acre in the balance of the watershed under the low
density option. A high density option, which requires the management of runoff from the first
inch of rainfall using engineered stormwater controls, allows development up to 24% built upon
area in the Critical Area and 30% built upon area in the balance of the watershed.
Instead of applying to the entire watershed, as is the case in WS-II watersheds, state land use
development criteria would apply only to land disturbing activities which require a Sedimentation
and Erosion Control Plan and that are within one mile and draining to HQW streams. The HQW
low density option allows development at 1 du/acre, or 12% built upon area. Under the high
density option, 'no development density limit is specified, but engineered stormwater controls
must control runoff from the first inch of rainfall.
S-6

The sedimentation and erosion control requirements and the stream buffer requirements are the
same for both the current WS-II and the proposed HQW classifications, except that the HQW
high density option does not require the use of stream buffers. The additional and more stringent
instream numeric water quality standards for human health that are in place because of the
current WS-II classification would be removed if the streams are reclassified.
The HQW classification will not affect tree farmers or other silvicultural activities, nor will it
have an effect of any kind on agricultural activities. The HQW classification does not prohibit the
use of private land, though large developments (disturbances over one acre) may have to manage
stormwater runoff. Any development in the affected area that disturbs less than one acre of land,
such as an individual building a single family dwelling on their own lot, does not have to comply
with either the low density or the high density options contained in the HQW rule.
Table 1. Summary of Management Requirements for Classes WS4I & HQW
Current WS-II
Proposed High Quality Waters
requirements apply to entire watershed
requirements apply only to areas within
except additional sedimentation and
one mile and draining to High Quality
erosion control measures
Waters
15A NCAC 2B .0214
15A NCAC 2B .0224
Wastewater Dischargers
general permit discharges only
domestic & industrial discharges allowed,
new and expanding discharges have
additional treatment requirements, no new
discharges from single family residences
Development Density
low density option - 1 dwelling unit (du)
low density option- 1 du/acre or 12%
note: the high density option
per 2 acres or 6% built upon area in the
built upon area
requires that the first inch of
Critical Area (CA) and 1 du/acre or 12%
high density option- no limit specified
runoff from a rain event be
built upon area in the balance of the
controlled through the use of
watershed
engineered stormwater controls;
high density option- 6%-24% built
stormwater control systems
upon area in the CA and 12%-30% built
must be designed to remove
upon area in the balance of the watershed
85% of total suspended solids
Additional Sedimentation &
Division of Land Resources
Division of Land Resources
Erosion Control
sedimentation & erosion control
sedimentation & erosion control
Requirements
requirements apply to developments
requirements apply to developments
disturbing one acre or more in areas
disturbing one acre or more in areas
which are within one mile and draining
which are within one mile and draining to
to WS-II streams
W streams
Stream Buffers
low density - 30 feet
density - 30 feet
ffhigwh
high density- 100 feet
densi - none required _
S-7

McD OWELL COUNTY
10 East Court Street • Mar cn- Nortn Carolina 26752 • [phone]
March 3, 1997
Liz Kovasckitz
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleish, N.C. 27626-0535
Dear Ms. Kovasckitz:
This letter is to certify that the public N%-ater supply surface water im_{e that as previousn-
located on Armstrong Creek in McDowell County is no longer in oritation. have D,--n
drilled so that surface water is no lonse- utilized by the . ater syste-- ind the-e _e no rlans to use
surface water in the future. As we disc -used, the WSII designation =e`ds to, :Ve �:ed frcM :he
Armstrons Creek watershed.
It is imperative that this designation be changed as soon as possible. L you ram: an} fL_ 3
assistance or information to help experY,e this process please do non. iesitate :.o : =1.
Sincerely,
Kell_: Pipes
Watershed Administrator
CC: McDowell County Plannirw Boar,
1

McDOWELL COUNTY
10 East Court Street • Marion, North Carolina 28752 • [phone]
September 3, 1993
I
i
Steve Zoufaly
Division of Environmental Management
RED Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 2/626-0535
Dear Steve:
This correspondence serves as a form? request from the
McDowell County Board of Commissioners :_ the -_­ivision of
Environmental Management concerning the Armstrong Creek
Watershed located in the tgortherr: sectic7: of McDowell County.
Attached is a Memorandum from 'Coats rnerican statino that
they have received approval fron NC -,tvR to =-onvert their
existing surface water treatment process to a utilization of
well water. Coats American is c1..-r-rent=y =•roceeding with this
conversion ann the completion is eectecf as soon, as
I
ossible.
The Commissioners directed that this cs^respondence be sent
and that your office be notifies tha: .nis County wishes to
have the Armstrong Creek watershed area removed from those
areas that fall tinder the provis--sns c= `_eing classified as a
I
atershed area to be regulated. This L--,-,nty understands that
Coats American gust first compleie this-rocess and that your
office must review and approve this matter. It is our hope
and intent that the proposed Ord in_rice that has been
dompleted and presented to the Commissioners will have the
Armstrono Creek area r-eRoved fronu the dc_,.ment.
if you require additional information or. if I can answer any
questions please feel free to ca.:l. Your office will receive
a notice from Coats American +--on the completion of this
pro j ect.
incprely,
Charles Pberna`n
hlcDowell Count, ".manager
ec: McDowell C:lunty Faro' of Conn_=s::r.-ems
I
Robert C. .._-:ter, _s-unty F-` ..^ney
Mr. _ i n e 2
� Mr. Wade

PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF ARMSTRONG CREEK:
PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR MAY
The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources on. behalf of the Environmental Management
.Commission (EMC) will conduct a public: hearing in order to receive public comments on the proposed
reclassification of Armstrong Creek in McDowell County (Catawba River Basin) to High Quality Waters
(HQW).
PUBLIC HEARING
Location: McDowell County Courthouse Date:, May 28, 1998
i South Main Street Time: 7:00 p.m.
Marion, NC
The criteria for designation to High Quality Waters includes those waters which are rated as excellent based on
biological and physical/chemical characteristics through Division of Water Quality (DWQ) monitoring or special
studies, native and special native trout waters designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission, primary
nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission and other functional nursery areas designated by
the Wildlife Resources Commission, critical habitat areas designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission or
the Department of Agriculture, all water supply watersheds which are either classified as .WS-I . or WS-II or
those for which a formal petition for reclassification as WS-I or WS-II has been received from the appropriate
local government and accepted by DWQ, and all Class SA waters.
McDowell County officials have
requested that DWQ remove the
WS-II water supply classification
from the Armstrong Creek
watershed. Until October, 1997
the stream had been used by a
local industry as a source for
process water and drinking water
for its employees. In addition to
being considered HQW by
definition (as it is under Class
WS-II), Armstrong Creek was
evaluated by DWQ Environmental
Sciences Branch staff and
received an Excellent water
quality bioclassification rating.
The EMC is proposing to
reclassify Armstrong Creek, and
all tributaries, from Classes WS-
II, WS-II CA, WS-II Tr, and C
Tr to Classes C HQW and .0 Tr
HQW.
Proposed Reclassification of Armstrong Creek
\ Mitchell County_ r _ i US 221
>
C,OU
ry
,Oun .-.. ��0 Cox
DO'
Creek
/-xw ��
Pisgah
/ Armstrong '--',� --�_
o
9�
National
/ T
-
Forest/'c�
a
.001
Lake
m
/
Tahoma
Ma
m
1
Cun1s Creek US 70
baP��e<
.
Mill Ceek
1
Cats*
Swannanoa Creek Proposed High
1- 40
US 70
P`vel Quality Waters
1
Casa
The reclassification would result in generally less stringent requirements being placed on the regulated
community in the Armstrong Creek watershed. The following table highlights some requirements which apply
to the Armstrong, Creek watershed under its current WS-II classification, in comparison to what would apply if
reclassified to HQW. .
3

Proposed Reclassification of Armstrong Creek to HQW
Current WS-II
Proposed High Quality Waters
requirements apply only to areas within
requirements apply to entire watershed
except additional sedimentation and
one mile and draining to High Quality
erosion control measures
Waters
Waste
i ater Dischargers
general permit discharges only
domestic & industrial discharges allowed,
new and expanding discharges have
additional treatment requirements, no new
discharges from single family residences
Development Density
low density option - 1 dwelling unit (du)
low density option- 1 du/acre or 12%
note: the high density option requires that
per 2 acres or 6% built upon area in the
built upon area
the first inch of runoff from a rain event
Critical Area (CA) and 1 du/acre or 12%
high density option- no limit specified
be controlled through the use of
built upon area in the balance of the
engineered stormwater controls;
watershed
stormw1ater control systems must be
high density option- 6%-24% built upon
designed to remove 85% of total
area in the CA and 12%-30% built upon
suspended solids
area in the balance of the watershed
Additional Sedimentation &
Division of Land Resources sedimentation
Division of Land Resources sedimentation
Erosion Control Requirements
& erosion control requirements apply to
& erosion control requirements apply to
developments disturbing one acre or more
developments disturbing one acre or more
in areas which are within one mile and
in areas which are within one mile and
draining to WS-II streams
draining to H W streams
Stream Buffers
low density - 30 feet
low density - 30 feet
high density - 100 feet
high density - none required
How to Submit Comments:
The purpose of this announcement is to encourage those interested in this proposal to provide comments. You
may either attend the public hearing and make relevant verbal comments or submit written comments, data or
other relevant information by June 28, 1998. The Hearing Officer may limit the length of time that you may
speak at the public hearing, if necessary, so that all those who wish to speak may have an opportunity to do so.
We encourage you to submit written comments as well.
The Environmental Management Commission is very interested in all comments pertaining to the proposed
reclassification. All persons interested and potentially affected by the proposal are strongly encouraged to read
this entire announcement and make comments on the proposed reclassification. The EMC may not adopt a rule
that differs substantially from the text of the proposed rule published in the North Carolina Re ig Stier unless the
EMC publishes the text of the proposed different rule and accepts comments on the new text (see General
Statute 150B 21.2 (g)). The proposed effective date for the final rules pursuant to this hearing process is April
1, 1999. Written comments may be submitted to Liz Kovasckitz of the Water Quality Planning Branch at the
For Additional Information:
19
Furthei explanations and details on the proposed reclassification of Armstrong Creek and other classifications
may be obtained by writing or calling:
Liz Kovasckitz
DENR/Division of Water Quality
Planning Branch
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
[phone], extension 572
In the case of inclement weather on the day of the public hearing is scheduled, please contact the above
telephone number for a recorded message on any changes to the location, day or time of the hearing.
4

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
March 30. 1998
NCDENR
- IIORANDUM
- JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR TO: Larry Coble
FROM: Preston Howard ,01--'
WAYNE MCDEVITT SUBJECT: Hearing Officer Desimation
SECRETARY d
By authority vested in rre by the Eavironnenal Commis --on. I am
designating you as the Hearing O'scer for the vlav =S. 19�-S ublic hearnng in
A. PRESTON HOWARD, vlarion. North Carolina_ The ne=nnQ will x conc_xc:ed :0) P_Ni_ ' the
JR., P.E. -%-IcDowell County Cour-house. The purpose of the 'nearing =L =o public
DIRECTOR comments on the proposed reclassL cation of Armstren_z Cre`k and its = r taries
(Cata«-ba River Basin) from Class sV S-II to C- ss C HOW.
You are requested to Hold this hearing . -d receive all -;_s3nt c_=ents.
Following the close of L-e hearing cord on °une ?S_ 199S. thl� staff s work -
with youindeveloping finding_ recormmendatio::s to Ice cmside by the
EMC.
A coPy of the Public Aivaouncer -- = is enclos: for year :: vie : _ I ap re`-.�-- your
willingness to be a part of this prods. If oc have ary ques`ms- ple`� :onta ct
Liz Kovasckitz.
- Enclosure
vc��izKovasckitz - .�,
P.O- f7[ 29S3S. ta�1Gm. 27626-C.3Z
P-MIWE 91 9-77-:2-3C0-3 Fi:; i' 3-733-95 • 3
AN EQUAL OPPORTUN-'/ / AFFI RYJ-rlrl ACTION =MP -ER - SC% RECYCLazi-S-b MER PA-S:
5

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF
ARMSTRONG CREEK (CATAWBA RIVER BASIN)
May 28, 1998
Hearing Officer
Coble, Water Quality Supervisor, Winston-Salem Regional Office, Division of Water
Participating Division of Water Quality Staff Members
Kovasckitz, Environmental Specialist, Classifications and Standards Unit, Planning Branch
ie Zoufaly, Environmental Supervisor, Classifications and Standards Unit, Planning Branch
.e Parker, Environmental Chemist, Asheville Regional Office
Others in Attendance
e Armstrong, Bis Lynn Lodge, P.O. Box 459, Little Switzerland, NC 28749
Bartleh, 443 L Switsland, Marion, NC 28752
!dy Boyd, 120 Armstrong Creek Road, Marion, NC 28752
-old B. Boyd, 171 Armstrong Creek Road, Marion, NC 28752
c Boyd, Route 3, Box 22, Marion, NC 28752
is Tracy Boyd, Route 3, Box 100, Marion, NC 28752
Brackett, Route 1, Box 341, Marion, NC 28752
d G. Brown, Jr., Route 3, Box 402, Marion, NC 28752
rette Johnson, Route 3, Marion, NC 28752
nny Marc, 621 Coxes Creek Road, Marion, NC 28752
n Marc, Marc Mobile Home Park, 600 Coxes Creek Road, Marion, NC 28752
: McGhee, Box 438 Coxes Creek Road, Marion, NC 28752
:es H. Melton, Landowner, 710 Old Highway 10, Marion, NC 28752
is Smith, 282 Little Switzerland Road, Marion, NC 28752
,io B. Smith, Route 6, Box 712, Marion, NC 28752
ley Washburn, 511 Coxes Creek Road, Marion, NC 28752
:es C. Washburn, 45 Washburn Way, Marion, NC 28752
ry Washburn, 45 Washburn Way, Marion, NC 28752
vita Woody, Route 3, Box 81, Marion, NC 28752
0

APPENDIX
A-1

.0224 HIGH QUALITY WATERS
High Quality Waters (HQW) are a subset of waters with quality higher than the standards and are as described by 15A
NCAC 2B .0101(e)(5). The following procedures shall be implemented in order to implement the requirements of Rule
.0201(d) of this Section.
(1)., New or expanded wastewater discharges in High Quality Waters'shall comply with the following:
(a) . Discharges from new single family residences shall be prohibited. Those existing subsurface systems for
single family residences which fail and must discharge shall install a septic tank, dual or recirculating sand
filters, disinfection and step aeration. .
(b) . All new NPDES wastewater discharges (except single family residences) shall be required to provide the
treatment described below:
(i) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Fluent limitations shall be as follows: BODS= 5 mg/1, NH, N = 2 mg/1 and
DO = 6 mg/l. More stringent limitations shall be set, if necessary, to ensure that the cumulative pollutant .
discharge of oxygen -consuming wastes shall not cause'the DO of the receiving water to drop more than .
0.5 mg/l below background levels, and in no case below the standard. Where background information is
not readily available, evaluations shall assume a percent saturation determined by staff to be generally .
applicable to that hydroenvironment.
(ii) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended -solids (TSS)-shall be limited to effluent
concentrations of 10 mgA for trout waters and PNXs, and to 20 mg/l for all other High Quality Waters.
(iii) Disinfection: Alternative methods to chlorination shall be required for discharges to'trout streams, except
.that single family residences may use chlorination if other options are not economically feasible. Domestic
discharges are prohibited to SA waters.
(iv) Emergency Requirements: Failsafe treatment designs shall be employed, including stand-by power
capability for entire treatment works, dual train design for all treatment components, or equivalent failsafe
treatment designs.
-(v) Volume: The total volume of treated wastewater for all discharges combined shall not exceed 50'percent
of the total,instream flow under 7Q10 conditions..' .
(vi) Nutrients: Where nutrient overenrichment is projected to be a concern, appropriate effluent limitations
shall be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or both.
(vii) Toxic substances: In cases where complex wastes (those containing or potentially containing toxicants)
may be present in a discharge, a safety factor shall be applied to any chemical or whole effluent toxicity
allocation. The limit for a specific chemical constituent shall be allocated at one-half of the normal
standard at design conditions. Whole effluent toxicity shall be allocated to protect for chronic toxicity at an
effluent concentration equal to twice thatwhich is acceptable under design conditions. In all instances
there may be no acute toxicity in an effluent concentration of 90 percent. Ammonia toxicity shall be
evaluated according to EPA guidelines promulgated in "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia -
1984'; EPA document number 440/5-85-001; NTIS number PB85-227114; July 29, 1985 (50 FR 30784)
or Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia (Saltwater)-1989'; EPA document number
440/5-88-004; NTIS number PB89-169825. This material related to ammonia toxicity is hereby
incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments and editions and is available for
inspection at the Department of Environment, Health, and -Natural Resources Library, 512 North Salisbury.
Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies may be obtained from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 at a cost of forty-seven dollars ($47.00).
(c) . All expanded NPDES wastewater discharges in High Quality Waters shall be required to provide the
treatment described in Sub -Item (1)(b) of this Rule, except for those existing discharges which expand with
no increase in permitted pollutant loading.
(2) - Development activities which require an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in accordance with rules
established by the NC Sedimentation Control Commission or local erosion and sedimentation control program
approved in accordance with 15A NCAC 4B .0218, and which drain to and are within one mile of High
Quality Waters (HQW) shall be'required to follow the stormwater management rules as specified in 15A
NCAC 2H .1.000. Stormwater management requirements specific to HQW are described in 15A NCAC-2H.
.1006.
If an applicant objects to the requirements to protect high quality waters and believes degradation is necessary to
accommodate important social and economic development, the applicant may contest these requirements according to
the provisions of G.S.143-215.1(e) and 150B-23.
History Note: AuthorityG.S.143-214.1;143-215.1; 143-215.3(a)(1);
Eff. October 1,1995;
A-3

.1006 STORIVIWATER REQUIREMENTS: HIGH QUALITY WATERS
All development activities which require a stormwater management permit under Rule .1003 of this Section
and are within one mile of and draining to waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) shall manage
stormwater runoff in accordance with the provisions outlined in this Rule. More stringent stormwater
management measures may be required on a case -by -case basis where it is determined that additional measures
arei required to protect water quality and maintain existing and anticipated uses of these waters.
(1) All waters classified as WS-I or WS-II (15A NCAC :13 .0212 and .0214) and all waters located in
the coastal counties (Rule .1005 of this Section) are excluded from the requirements of this Rule
since they already have requirements for stormwater management.
(2) Low Density Option: Development shall be permitted pursuant to Rule .1003(c)(1) of this Section
if the development has:
(a) built -upon area of 12 percent or less or proposes single family residential development on lots of
one acre or greater;
(b) stormwater runoff transported primarily by vegetated conveyances; conveyance system shall not
include a discrete stormwater collection system as defined in Rule .1002 of this Section;
(c) a 30 foot wide vegetative buffer.
(3) High Density Option: Higher density developments shall be permitted pursuant to Rule .1003(c)(2)
j of this Section if stormwater control systems meet the following criteria:
(a) control systems must,. be wet detention ponds or alternative stormwater management systems
designed in accordance with Rule .1008 of this Section;
(b) control systems must be designed to control runoff from all surfaces generated by one inch of
rainfall.
story Note: Statutory Authorizy G. S. 143-214.1; 143-214'. i; 143-215.1; 143-215.3(a);
E, f . September 1, 1995;
Amended Eff. December 1, 1995.
A-4

Water Quality Standards For Freshwater Classifications
April 1, 1997
Standards for All
Freshwater '
Standards to Support Additional Uses
Swamp
Parameters (ua/I unless noted)
Aquatic Life
Human Health'
WS Gassesz
Trout Waters HOW
Waters
Arsenic
50
Barium1000
Benzene
71.4
1.19
Beryllium
6.5
0.117
0.0068
Cadmium
2.0
0.4
Carbon tetrachloride
4.42
0.254
Chloride
230000 (AL)
250000
Chlorinated benzenes
488 (N)
Chlorine, total residual
17 (AL)
17
Chlorophyll a; corrected
40 (N)
15 (N)
Chromium, total
so
Coliform, total (MFTCC/100m1)3
50 (N) 4
Coliform, fecal (MFFCC/100ml)3
200 (N)
Copper, total
7 (AL)
Cyanide
5.0
Dioxin
0.000000014
0.000000013
Dissolved gases
(N)
6.0
(N) s
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
5.05
Fluoride
1800
Hardness, total (mg/I)
100
Hexachlorobutadiene
49.7
0.445
Iron (mgA)
1 (AL)
Lead
25 (N)
Manganese
200
MBAS
500
(Methylene-Blue-ActiveSubstances)
Mercury
0.012
Nickel
88
25
Nitrate nitrogen
10,000
Pesticides
Aldrin
0.002
0.000136
0.000127
Chlordane
0.004
0.000588
0.000575
DDT
0.001
0.000591
0.000588
Demeton
0.1
Dieldrin
0.002
0.000144
0.000135
Endosulfan
0.05
Endrin
0.002
Guthion
0.01
Heptachlor
0.004
0.000214
0.000208
Lindane
0.01
Methoxychlor
0.03
Mirex
0.001
Parathion
0.013
Toxaphene
0.0002
2,4-D
100
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
10
pH (units)
6.0-9.0
(N)s
Phenolic coumpounds
(N)
1.0 (N)
Polychlorinated biphenyls7
0.001
0.000079
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonss
0.0311
0.0026
Radioactive substances
(N)
Selenium
5
Silver
0.06 (AL)
Solids, total dissolved (mgA)
500
Solids, total suspended (mgA)
10 Tr, 20 other
Solids, settleable
(N)
Sulfates
250000
Temperature
(N)
Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2)
10.8
0.172
Tetrachlorethylene
0.8
Toluene
11
0.36
Toxic substances
(N)
(N)
Trialkyltin
0.008
Trichlora ethylene
92.4
3.08
Turbidity (NTU)
50; 25 (N)
10 (N)
Vinyl chloride
525
2.0
Zinc
50 (AL)
These standards apply to all freshwater classifications. For the protection of WS and supplemental classifications, standards listed under Standards to Support
Additional Uses should be used unless standards for aquatic life or human health are listed and are more stringent.
(AL) Values represent action levels as specified in 2B .0211. WS Classes - Water Supply Classifications, same standards for all WS Classes.
(N) See 2B .0211 for narrative description of limits. HOW - High Quality Waters, standards for HOW areas only. Tr - Trout Waters.
1 Human Health standards are based on consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies available. See 2B .0208 for equation.
2 Water Supply standards are based on consumption of fish and water. See 2S .0208 for equation.
3 MFTCC/100ml means membrane filter total coliform count per 100 ml of sample. MFFCC/100ml means membrane filter fecal coliform count per 100 ml of sample.
4 Applies only to unfiltered water supplies.
5 An instantaneous reading may be as low as 4.0 mgA, but the daily average must be 5.0 mgA or more.
6 Designated swamp waters may have a dissolved oxygen less than 5.0 mg/I and a pH as low as 4.3, if due to natural conditions.
7 Applies to total PCBs present and includes PCB 1242, 1254, 1221. 1232. 1248, 1260, and 1016. See 2B .0208 & .0211.
8 Applies to total PAHs present and includes benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and
indeno(1.2,3-cd)pyrene. See 2B .0208, .0212, .0214, .0215, .0216, & .0218.
dmr/ Old WO Standards Tabls:5/1197 9:15 AM A- 5

Division of Environmental Management
Biological Assessment Group
October 24, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Ken Eagleson
Through: Jimmie Overton
Trish Finn MacRherso 'M✓`'
From: Kathy Herring �-4
Subject: HQW Investigations Upper Catawba River Basin Sites, INIcDowell
County, Subbasin 030830
Based on data collected from the Catawba River basinwide assessment conducted in the
summer of 1992, several sites in subbasin 30 were identified as potential HQW areas. An
investigation was conducted in June 1994 to determine the eligibility of these areas for High
Quality Waters reclassification. Six of the eight sites sampled received a bioclassification of
Excellent based on benthic macroinvertebrate data, and therefore are eligible for High Quality
Waters designation. Chemical analysis of water taken from these sites substantiated this
conclusion. It is recommended that the following stream segments be considered for High Quality
Waters designation:
Mill Creek from source to Swannanoa Creek
Swannanoa Creek from source to Mill Creek
Buck Creek above Lake Tahoma
Armstrong Creek from existing HQNV area to Cox Creek
Three Mile Creek from source to Armstrong Creek
Cox Creek from source to Armstrong Creek
Toms Creek from source to SR 1434
Little Buck Creek from source to Lake Tahoma
cc: Steve Ted r
Forest Vjdtall
Greg,Thorpe
BetlYMcGee
Suzanne Hoover
rim

UPPER CATAWBA RIVER BASIN HIGH QUALITY WATERS INVESTIGATION
MCDOWELL COUNTY
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN (030830)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section �1
This report has been approved for release IV4t
n E�Tlu;
s n, Assistant Chief
Water it Section
Date � / I �
A-7

UPPER CATAWBA RIVER BASIN HIGH QUALITY WATERS INVESTIGATION
INTRODUCTION
Several tributary sites of the Upper Catawba River were selected from the 1985 Assessment
Document (NRCD, 1985) and were sampled in February 1992 to identify potential High Quality
(Waters streams (B-920316). Three of the 6 streams sampled were determined to be candidate
streams for reclassification (Mackey, Little Buck, and Toms Creeks). It was recommended, in that
memo, that summer surveys be conducted at these sites. These three streams, along with
Armstrong Creek were sampled again in July 1992, during Catawba basinwide sampling. All
received Excellent bioclassifications.
Armstrong Creek is currently WS-II and therefore HQW by definition. It is no longer used as
a source of drinking water, however, and a use attainability study request for Armstrong Creek
was received from Steve Zoufaly, in May, 1994, to determine whether reclassification to HQW is
appropriate.
A comprehensive study was undertaken in June 1994, which included Armstrong Creek and
other sites in subbasin 30 that may qualify for HQW reclassification. The criteria for designation
to High Quality Waters is given in North Carolina's Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B.0201.
High Ouality Waters Criteria
North Carolina's Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B.0201 as follows:
- "waters which are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical
characteristics through Division monitoring or special studies
- native and special native trout waters (and their tributaries) designated by the' ildlife
Resources Commission,
- primary nursery areas (PNA) designated by the T Marine Fisheries Commission and other
functional nursery areas designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission,
- critical habitat areas designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission or the Department of
Agriculture,
- all water supply watersheds which are either classified as WS-I or WS-H or those for which a
formal petition for reclassification as WS-I or WS-H has been received from the appropriate local,
government and accepted by DEM and
- all Class SA waters"
WATERSHED DESCRIPTION (Figures 1 and 2).
Catawba subbasin 30 contains the headwater reaches of the Catawba River from its source near
Old Fort to near the confluence with Silver Creek in Burke County. This is approximately a 25
river mile reach of the upper Catawba River. Approximately one half of the land use. within this
subbasin is contained within the Pisgah National Forest. This portion of the watershed is,
therefore, protected from most land disturbing activities and has a limited number of point source
discharges. The Catawba River flows generally eastward with major tributaries, such as the North
Fork Catawba and the Linville Rivers, flowing south from mountainous headwaters.
The tributaries of the upper Catawba River flowing south, such as the North Fork Catawba
River and the Linville River, are often swiftly flowing, cold -water streams originating in the steep
terrain of the mountains. The majority of benthic macroinvertebrate investigations within this area
have received Good or Excellent bioclassifications. Several tributary catchments, totaling 20.1
stream miles, flowing south from the Blue Ridge Parkway have been reclassified High Quality
Water (upper Jarrett and Lost Cove Creeks, Mackey Creek and tributaries, Armstrong Creek, and
the Linville River below Linville Falls), based either on an Excellent bioclassification or
designation as native or special native trout waters (NCDEM 1994).

BACKGROUND (Figure 2)
Benthic macroinvertebrate community investigations have been conducted at 35 monitoring
locations within subbasin 30 since 1983 as seen in Figure 2. These investigations were conducted
to assess the effects of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Because of such widespread
coverage of the basin only a few other streams needed to be sampled to provide a complete picture
of the potential for HQW classification in the subbasin.
Presented below are all prior benthos data for the streams sampled during the 1994 HQW
survey:
Site Old/New DEM # Index # Date S/EPT S BIBIEPT Bioclass
_Mill Cr at Graphite ab RR bridge,
McDowell -B30-2 11-7 07/92 85/49 2.39/1.87 Excellent
Curtis Cr be Newberry Cr; McDowell
-/B30-6
11-10-(6)
Curtis Cr ab WWTP, SR 1227, McDowell
1B30-7
11-10-(6)
Curtis Cr be WWTP, McDowell
2B30-8
11-10-(14)
Buck Cr, NC 80 ab LTahoma, McDowell
-B30-11
11-19-(1)
L Buck Cr, SR 1436
-B30-12
11-19-11
Toms Cr, SR 1434, McDowell-/B30-13 11-21-(2)
Armstrong Cr, end of FS Rd, McDowell -B30-24 11-24-14-(1.5)
02/92
-/39
-/1.76
Good
02/92
-/42
-/2.21
Good
04/85
97/44
3.88/2.57
Good
04/85
56/25
6.00/3.24
Fair
02/92
-/42
-/2.30
Good
02/92
-/43
-/2.11
Excellent
07/92
60/37
2.48/2.02
Excellent
07/92
75/37
3.28/2.28
Excellent
02/92
-/49
-/2.38
Excellent
07/92
-/3 8
-/2.11
Excellent
DISCHARGERS
There are 6 permitted dischargers associated with the streams in this investigation (Figure 1.).
Desi--n Flow
A
Pisgah Yarn and Dyeing Co.
Mill Creek
McDowell
0.012
B
Old Fort WWTP
Curtis Creek
McDowell
0.8
C
Metal Industries, Inc.
Mackey Creek
McDowell
0.01
D
Pleasant Gardens Elem. School
UT Buck Creek
McDowell
<0.01
E
Ledbetter Oil Co./K&J Auto
Toms Creek
McDowell
0.014
F
Armstrong Trout Farm
Armstrong Creek
McDowell
0*
`Continuous pass through system
SAMPLING SITES (Figure 1)
Benthic macroinvertebrates and water samples for chemical analysis were collected at the
following locations.
Station 1:
Mill Creek below Graphite - at SR 1400/1407 above confluence with
Swannanoa Cr upstream of Old Fort and Pisgah Yarn and Dye discharge -
Qualitative sample
Station 2:
Swannanoa Creek - entirely within Pisgah National Forest - Picnic area off SR
1400 - EPT sample
Station 3:
Buck Creek - above Lake Tahoma at NC 80 - Qualitative sample
Station 4:
Buck Creek below Lake Tahoma at US 70 - Qualitative sample
Station 5:
Armstrong Creek below Three Mile Cr - at NC 226 upstream of commercial tree
nursery - Qualitative sample
Station 6:
Three Mile Creek - along NC 226A. EPT sample
Station 7:
Cox Creek - at intersection of 226 and 226A. EPT sample
Station 8:
Curtis Creek - at US 70 upstream of bridge. EPT sample
Station 9:
Little Buck Creek - at SR -1436. Chemistry only
Station 10:
Toms Creek - at SR 1433. Chemistry only
A-9

i
I
FIGURE 1. Map of Upper Catawba Riuer Basin HQW Study Rrea Indicating
Curent HOW Areas p
A
A-10 0
0
0
0
� a
o

Figure 2.
Catawba River Basin
030830
B 30-2 BCIP
y R
� 13
�1 B30-1 [3�^c`, 3
B
B30-3 an
n c; B30 4
B
y B
)00001
PAR(WAY
,��`y •�R1DGE �
f X�Op [ 1 Try R
M
1 1330-6
J B30-17,,
1330-7•--'-1• B30- 11 `•,
030-8 ;, I3 13
OBB30-10��
�Q j JCB) 0-13�
B B30-32 Yi
B3
B30-35+j
�• 4
B30-24��
B30-23''
B 1.1.11330-22 cr ,
ncy• ]311330-14
B 13
' 13 L133U-15 � �'"
B _c 3 /
B30-16 B B B30-19'
B B30-17 B30-21
B30-18 `- - B30-20/
b
B 830-29
0-31/
J6'30:\1 /c 1330-_10
B
ry
t u fly
B 30-27
B
'p
13 B 13 1330-25
J
B 30-26 B30-28
Legend
0 nmbicnl. Mollil.orinF7 SMI-ioll
OBCl1Lhic MacroinverLebratc SiLe,
OI Fish TiSSLIC SiLC
O1.1sil COmniulllLy S1Lc

Mackey Creek was not included in this survey because of inaccessibility to the stream between
the current HQW section and US Highway 70. There is a discharger to the stream located at US
70.
Little Buck Creek and Toms Creek are small streams with two samples from each resulting in
'art Excellent bioclassification (1992), and were not resampled for benthos. They are recommended
for HQW reclassification based on existing benthos data. However, chemistry samples were
'collected from these two streams.
,Table 1. Site Descriptions for Upper Catawba Basin HQW Study Sampling Locations, June 1994.
STATION
LOCATION
1
Mill
2
Swann
3
Buck
ab Lake
4
Buck
be Lake
5 6
Armstrong Three Mile
7
Cox
8
Curtis
Mean Depth (m)
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.5
Width (m)
5
3
11
16
13
6
3
8
Current
Swift
ModerateModerate
. Swift
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
lBank Erosion
None
None
None
Moderate
Slight
None
Moderate
None
Canopy
90%
90%
50%
80%
60176
100%
50CIO
90%
]Aufwxhs
Moderate Moderate Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
None
Moderate
Moderate
Substrate (%)
Boulder
50
20
30
20
30
30
15 •
30
Rubble
24
30
35
40
25
35
45
40
Gravel
15
30
10
20
15
10
20
10
Sand
10
20
25
20
30
20
15
20
Silt
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
5
5
Trace
METHODS
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using both DEM's standard qualitative and EPT
sampling techniques. The standard qualitative method consists of two kick net samples (kicks),
three sweep net samples (sweeps), one leaf pack sample, two fine -mesh rock and/or log wash
samples, one sand sample, and visual collections. The EPT method was used to sample Stations
2, 6, 7, and 8. This method consists of one kick, one sweep, one leaf pack, and visuals. The
primary output of both methods is a taxa list indicating the relative abundance (Rare, Common,
Abundant) for each taxon. The taxa richness of certain intolerant taxa (Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera
! + Trichoptera, or "EPT") is one of the metrics used to assign water quality ratings using DEM
criteria. This metric is based on the expected values for summer (June -September) collections.
The EPT value may be adjusted for small high quality mountain streams where data have shown
that taxa richness values are reduced by factors other than water quality. A size correction factor of
x1.25 is suggested for undisturbed streams 3-4 meters in width or with drainage area less than 3.5
square miles. This correction factor was used for Swannanoa Creek and Cox Creek.
The second metric used to assign bioclassifications is the relative tolerance of macroinvertebratz
species, summarized with a Hilsenhoff-type Biotic Index (BI). The Biotic Index for a sample is a
summary measure of the tolerance values (TV) of organisms found in a sample, relative to their
abundance (BI = 7_(TVi)(ni)/l). Both tolerance values for individual species and the Biotic Index
vary from 0 to 10, with the higher numbers indicating more tolerant species or more stressed
conditions. Both metrics, (EPT and BI) are weighted equally in assigning water quality ratings for
standard qualitative (full scale) samples. EPT samples are rated solely on the number of EPT taxa.
Physical water chemistry parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity)
were measured at all sites using Orison and YSI meters.
All physical and chemical samples were collected and preserved in accordance with the
NCDEM SOP Manual (NCDEM 1989) and analyzed for the parameters listed in Table 2.
Laboratory analyses were conducted in accordance with Methods of Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastewater (EPA-600-4-79-20, revised 1989).
A-12

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (Tables 2 and 3, Appendix A and B).
Curtis Creek and Buck Creek below Lake Tahoma were the only sites in this investigation that
did not receive Excellent bioclassifications. Curtis Creek is affected by nonpoint runoff. Buck
Creek at US 70 is being affected by some unknown perturbation. There are no dischargers to
Buck Creek, but there is construction activity near the sample site. The drastic change in water
quality, from Excellent above Lake Tahoma to Good -Fair below, does not seem to be directly
related to the Lake. Included in Appendix B are background data and information concerning Lake
Tahoma. The Lake is oligotrophic, has good water quality and supports all of its designated uses.
The remaining streams were characterized by high EPT values and low Biotic Indices,
reflecting communities dominated by a diversity of pollution intolerant organisms.
All sites exhibited high DO values, low BOD values, and low nutrient levels, indicative of
minimal to no impact from pollution. Conductivity and turbidity values were highest at
Swannanoa Creek, Armstrong Creek, and Cox Creek, possibly a result of some nonpoint input to
these streams. Nutrient concentrations were also elevated at these stations. These values were
well below levels of concern, however, this may warrant consideration of nutrient controls in the
management strategy.
The upper reaches of these streams are located within the Pisgah National Forest and therefore
undisturbed. The sites sampled in this survey are located in the lower reaches of each stream and
are not part of the National Forest.
Outstanding Resource Waters reclassification was considered for these streams, but, they did
not meet the criteria. Only small portions of the streams are located in the National Forest and there
were no outstanding fishery resources.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of this and earlier investigations the following streams received an
Excellent bioclassification and are recommended for reclassification to High Quality Waters as
shown in Figure 1:
Mill Creek from source to Swannanoa Creek
Swannanoa Creek from source to Mill Creek
Buck Creek above Lake Tahoma
Armstrong Creek from existing HQW area to Cox Creek
Three Mile Creek from source to Armstrong Creek
Cox Creek form source to Armstrong Creek
Toms Creek from source to SR 1434
Little Buck Creek from source to Lake Tahoma
REFERENCES
NC NRCD 1985: Assessment of Surface Water Quality in North Carolina. Report No. 85-01.
NC Division of Environmental Management (1994): Basin Assessment Report Catawba River
Basin
NC Division of Environmental Management (1992): Standard Operating Procedures -
Biological Monitoring.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Methods of Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastewater. EPA-600-4-79-20.
A-13

-- -- ---
Ta61c 2. Results of Cficmical Analysis of -Water Sumplcs---Upper--Gutawba-Basin-11QW_Sur_vcy,_June,_192_.-_
STATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mill Cr
Swann. Cr
Buck Cr.
Buck Cr
Armstrong Three Mile
Cox Cr.
Curtis Cr
L Buck Cr
Toms Cr
ab. Lake
be. Lake
PARAMETER
Temperature (oC)
17.4
17.4
18.9
24.3
20.2
17.6
18.1
19.4
18.9
18.7
DO (mg/1)
8.9
9.1
8.8
8.2
9.2
9.2
9.3
8.8
8.9
9.1
Conductivity (umoh)
23
95
21
20
33
35
69
14
17
22
pH
7.4
7.6
7.2
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.7
7.7
BODS
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
Total Residue
62
140
64
42
51
55
84
35
35
42
Suspended Residue
7
66
3
3
7
12
12
7
2
2
Turbidity
1.1
<1
<1
<1
6.9
3.2
4.7
1.8
<1
1
NH3 as N
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.04
<0.01
0.04
0.04
TKN as N
0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
<0.1
NO2 plus NO3 as N'
0.12
0.25
0.03
0.03
0.27
0.20
0.15
0.01
0.05
0.09
P total as P
<0.01
<0.05
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
PO4 as P
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<001
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
t Table 3. Taxa Richness and Statistical Summaries of Major Taxonomic Groups. Upper Catawba HQW Survey, June 1994.
N
.A
STATIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mill Cr. Swann Cr. Buck Cr. Buck Cr. Armstg Cr 3 Mile Cr. Cox Cr. Curtis Cr.
ab Lake be Lake
Ephemeroptera
22
16
17
10
23
18
20
15
Plecoptera
9
8
9
2
9
9
7
7
Trichoptera
12
11
15
8
16
13
10
8
Coleoptcra
2
-
5
4
7
-
-
-
Odonata
3
-
1
2
3
-
Megaloptera
1
-
1
2
2
-
-
-
Diptera: Chironomidae
19
-
16
22
26
-
-
-
Misc. Diptera
8
-
6
3
7
-
-
-
Oligochacta
1
-
1
1
2
-
-
-
Crustacea
1
-
1
0
1
-
-
-
Mollusca
0
-
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
Total Taxa Richness
0
80
-
1
75
1
58
1
99
-
-
-
-
-
EPT Richness
43
44*
41
20
48
40
37
30
EPT Abundance
183
143
217
52
247
199
159
154
Biotic Index
3.26
-
3.11
4.56
3.31
-
-
-
EPT Biotic Index
2.17
1.90
2.33
3.28
2.49
2.17
2.99
2.65
BioclassiicaLion
Excellent
Excellent
L•xcellent
Good/fair
Excellent
Excellent
lixcellent
Good
*Adjusted using small stream criteria

Appendix A. Relative,Abundance of Individual Tana, by.Station. Upper Catawba Basin HQW Survey, June 1994. A=Abundant,
C--Common, R=Rate.
STATION
1
Mill Cr.
2
Swann
3
Buck
ab Lake
4
Buck,
be Lake
5
Armstrg
6
3 Mile
7
Cox
8
Curtis
EPHEMEROPTERA
BAETIS "FLAVLSTRIGA
C
C
R
BAETIS FRONDALIS
R
C
C
BAETIS INTERCALARIS
C
R
C
R
C
C
C
R
BAETIS PLUTO
C
C
R
R
R
R
BAETIS PROPINQUUS
R
C
BAETIS TRICAUDATUS
A
BRACHYCERCUS SPP
C
R
C
CA US SPP
R
C
CENTROPTILUM SPP
R
R
DANNELLA SIMPLEX
C
A-
A
A
A"
DRUNELLA CORNUTELLA
A
A
A
EPHEMERELLA CATAWBA
R
R
C
C
C
EPEORUS SPP
C
C
EPEORUS DISPAR
A
C
A
A
A
C
A
EPEORUS RUBIDUS
A
C
A
EPIMAERE I e SPP
R
EPHEMERA SPP
R
R
R
R
EPHEMERA BLANDA
R
EPHEMERA GUTTALATA
R
C
EURYLOPHELLA SPP
EURYLOPHELLA BICOLOR
A
C
R
A
EURYLOPHELLA TEMPORALIS
A
C.
R
EURYLOPHELLA VERISIMILIS
R
HABROPHLEBIA VMRANS
R
HEPTAGENIA SPP
R
C
C
HEPTAGENIA MARGINALIS
C
R
R
A
A
A
ISONYCHIA SPP
C
R
C
A
A
C.
A
A
A
A
C
A
LEUCROCUTA SPP
A
A
A
R
PARALEPTOPHLE13IA SPP
C
C
A
A
A
PSEUDOCLOEON SPP
A
A
A
A
A
RHTTHROGENA SPP
C
C
C
'R
RHTTHROGENA EXILIS
A
R
R
RB=OG�tA FUSCIiRONS
'
C,
C
A
STENONEMA MODESTUM
C
R
A
C :,
A
STENONEMA PUDICUM
R
R
DEFICILNS
R
-A
A
C' ,
_SERRATELLA
SERRATELLA SERRATA
C
SERRATELLA SERRATOIDES
R
R
STENACRON DrMPUNCTAM- f
R
R
STENACRON PALLIDUM
C
R
A
R
C
R
C
R
PLECOPTERA
ACRONEURIA ABNORNHS
A
-A
C
A.
A
R
A
ALL OCAPNIA SPP :
A
C
A
C
C.
C-
R
DIPLOPERLA DUPLICATA
C.
R
ISOPERLA HOLOCHLORA
A
C
A
C
C
R.
C
PARAGNETINA IMMARGINATA
C
R
A
A
A
R
A
PERLESTA SPP
R
A
PERLESTA PLACIDA "
C`
A
C
C
A
A
PERLINELLA DRYMO
C -
R
C
C
C
C
PTERONARCYS SPP
A
A
A
A
A
,"
REMENUS BILOBATUS
C
C
SUWALLIA SPP
R
SWELTSA SPP
TALLAPERLA SPP
A
A
A
R
A,
A
C
A
TRICHOP MRA
AGAPETUS SPP
R
C
BRACHYCENTRUS SPINAE
.A
C
A
C
CHEUMATOPSYCHE SPP
C
R
C
A-
R
CHRAARRA SPP
C
C
DIPLECTRONA MODESTA
R
A
R
A
A
DOLOPHIL ODES SPP
A
A
A
R
-A
A
A.
C
R
GLOSSOSOMA SPP
R
A
R
C
R
GOERA SPP
R
R
C
HYDROPSYCHE DEMORA
R
HEL ICOPSYCHE BOREALIS
C
R
LEPIDOSTOMA SPP
C
R
LYPE DIVERSA
R
R
MICRASEMA WATAGA
C
A
C
R
A
A,
A
C
N'EOPHYLAX OLIGIUS
NYCTIOPHYLAX SPP
R
NYCTIOPHYL.AX CELTA
C
A-15

j NYCTIOPHYLAX NEPHOPMUS
OECEM SPP
I POLYCENTROPUS SPP
PSYCHOMYIA NOMADA
j PYCNOPSYCHE SPP
RHYACOPBILA CAROLINA
RHYACOPHILA FUSCULA'
SYMPHITOPSYCHE BRONTA
SYMPHPTOPSYCHE MOROSA
SYMPHTTOPSYCHE SPARNA
TRIAENODES TARDUS
COLEOPTERA
DINEUTTS SPP
DUBIRAPHIA SPP
HELICHUS SP
HYDROPORUS SPP
MACRONYCHUS GLABRATUS
OPTIOSERVUS SPP
PROMORESIA SPP
PROMORESIA ELEGANS
PROMORESIA TARDELLA
PSEPHENUS HERRICKI
STENELMIS SPP
TROPISTERNUS SPP
ODONATA
ARGIA SPP
BOYERIA GRAFIANA
BOYERIA VINOSA
CALOPTERYX SPP
LANTHUSPARVULUS
OPHIOGOMPHUS SPP
MEGALOPTERA
CORYDALUS CORNUTUS
NIGRONIA SERRICORNIS
SIALIS SPP
DIPTERA: CHIRONOMIDAE
ABLABESMYIA MALLOCHI
BRILLIA SPP
ORTHOCLADIUS (EUORTHOCLADIUS): C/O SP3
CRICOTOPUS VARIPES GR: C/O SP6
CARDIOCLADIUS SPP
CE RONOMUS SPP
CLADOTANYTARSUSSP2
CLADOTANYTARSUSSP6
CONCHAPELOPIA GROUP
CORYNONEURA SPP
CRYPTOCHIRONOMUS SPP
CRYPTOCHIRONOMUS FULVUS
DEMICRYPTOCERONOMUS SPP
TVETENIA BAVARICA GR (E SPI)
EUKIEFFERIELLA DEVONICA GR (E SP2)
TVETENIA DLSCOLORIPES GR (E SP3)
LIPRGELLA SPP
MICROTENDIPES SPP
MICROTENDIPES SP2
MICROTENDIPES SP3
NANOCLADIUS SPP
NMOTANYPUS SPP
POLYPEDILUM AVICEPS
POLYPEDILUM CONVICTLI. d
POLYPEDU UM FALLAX
POLYPEDILUM HALTERALE
POLYPEDILUM ILLINOMrSE
POLYPEDILUM SCALAMnLW
PARACLADOPELMA SPP
PARALAUTERBORNIELLA NIGROHALTERALIS
PARAMETRIOCNEMUS LUNDBECKI
PHAENOPSECTRA SP2
POTTHASTIA SPP
RHEOCRICOTOPUS ROBACKI
RHEOTANYTARSUSSPP
ROBACKIA CLAVIGER
ROBACKIA DEMEUEREI
SYNORTHOCLADIUS SPP
TANYTARSUS SP10
TANYTARSUS SP2
TANYTARSUS SP3
R
A R
A
R
R R
R
R R
R
C R
C
R
R
C
C R
A
F1
R
R
R
C
A
C
C
R
C
R
R
R
C
A
R
R
R
R
C
R
R
R
A R
C
R C
M
R
R
R
C
A
C
C
C
A
R
A
R
R R
R
R R
R
R
A-16
R
R
C
R
C
A
A
R
C
R
C
C
R
R
R
C
C
C
R
C
R
C
R
R C
C R
C
R R
R
C R
R C
C
A
R
C C
A R
C
C
A
R
C
A
R
R
A
R
R
R
C
C
C
R
R
A
C
R
R
C
C
R
R
R
R
A
R
R
C
R
R
C
C
C
R

TANYTARSUS SP6
SPP
TRIBELOS SPP
MISC. DIPTERA
ANTOCHA SPP
ATHERD{LANTHA
ATRICHOPOGON SPP
BLEPHARICERA SPP
DICRANOTA SPP
DDCA SPP
HEXATOMA SPP
PAI20MYIA (COMPLEX)
SIMULIUM SPP
TTPULA SPP
OLIGOCHAETA
LUMBRICULIDAE
NAIS SPP
SLAVINA APPENDICULATA
CRUSTACEA
CA VSARUS SPP
GASTROPODA
ELIWA SP
FERRISSIA SPP
PHYSELLA SPP
OTHER
CURA FOREMANIL
HYDRACARINA
R
A
R
C
R
C
A
C
A
R
I1
C
A
C
R
C R
C
C C
R
R
A
C
A C
C
R A
R
C A
C C
R
R R
R
R
A
A
R
R
C
A
C
R
R
R
A
A
R
A-17

s
COUNTY:
SURFACE AREA:
CLASS:
McDowell
65 hectares (161 acres)
B-Tr
LATEST NCTSI: 4.1
S 4-NOLTNG DATE: August 2,1990
cPr,r,ur nFP-ru• 6.65 m
BASIN:
USGS TOPO:
LAKE TYPE:
Catawba
Marion West, N.C.
Reservoir
TROPHIC STATE: Oligotrophic
ADDITIONAL COVERAGE: None
CONDUCTIVITY:
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS: 0.015 mg/1 DISSOLVED OXYGENT:
TOTAL ORGANICINTITROGEN: 0.14 mg/1 TEMPER.ATLJRE:
CHLOROPHYLL -A: 7 µg/l pH:
i
Lake Tahoma was built in the 1920's to
produce hydroelectric power, but it is now
used for recreation. It is owned by Lake
Tahoma, Incorporated - a corporation of
property owners living around the lake.
Secchi readings at Lake Tahoma were
among the highest ever measured in North
Carolina. The water column was stratified
and slightly acidic. Some musk grass (chara)
and water lilies (n%-mphaea) were found
along the shoreline. Nutrients and
j chlorophyll -a were low.
Algal biovolumes and densities in Lake
Tahoma were also low. Crypt6phytes were
25- 26 µmhos/cm2
7.8-82mg/l
26.0 - 26.1 °C
5.4 - 6.2 s.u.
dominant at both stations, while Peridinium
»sconsinense, a common dinoflagellate, and
chrysoph}-'es common to oligotrophic «,aters
(Dinobrva- species, Mallomonas species and
Ochromonas species) were prevalent at the
upper station (CTBLT1). Gonvostomum
semen, a large chloromonadophyte, accounted
for more than 50% of the algal biovolume at
downstream station, (CTBLT2).
A TSI oi.-4.1 indicates that Lake Tahoma is
oligotropl: c. No violations of water quality
standards were noted and uses were fully
supported at the time of assessment.

.l
13
°'o BIOVOLUME BY CLASS
1QCC0nnI OTi ER
60
CRY
4G ..-..
i
20 Y v
Y .;<.V Y'A a,
CTBLTI
:TAT )O\ CTBLTl
TEMP. VC)
i0 20 30 40
0 i 1
I
2
I
I
4 I
_ 1
6 i /
1:1
12 I •
0 10 i5 20,
DO (mg/1)
I
CTBLT2
STATION CTBL1
TEIrT- (`C)
0 10 20 'O
0
2 I
1
4 I
6
= 5 I
f
10
12
14
0
DO (mg/1)
A-19
82

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH
October 11, 1994
Lei '•
TO: Kathy Herring
FROM: Debra Owen/�
SUBJECT: Information Concerning Lake Tahoma
Lake Tahoma was sampled by DEM in 1990 and 1992. Attached is a table presenting this
collected data by sampling station and lakewide mean for each year. In 1992 the North
Carolina Trophic State Index (NCTSI) score of -5.6 indicated that the lake was oligotrophic.
The lake was also oligotrophic in 1990 (NCTSI = -4.1), however a DEM water quality
violation for pH was observed in the lake, most notably at the upstream station, CTBLTL The
pH values at this sampling station ranged from 5.4 s.u. at the surface to 5,7 s.0 at the bottom.
These readings were below the water quality standard limit of 6.0 s.u. Low pH values at the
lake's surface were not observed in 1992.
Lakewide mean Secchi depth decreased from 6.7 meters in 1990 to 4.2 meters in 1992.
Reduced light penetration during sampling in 1992 due to cloud coverage of approximately 50 -
75% (as reported in field notes) may have contributed to the decreased Secchi depth readings.
Both turbidity and chlorophyll a (an indirect measurement of phytoplankton density) were
lower in 1992 than in 1990 and do not appear to be contributing factors in the lowering of
Secchi depth readings in 1992.
Field notes describe the lake's shoreline as forested and residential with approximately 25% to
50% of the shoreline developed. Water lilies « heae odorata occur along a portion of the
shoreline but do not present a problem. The lake is classified B-Tr (suitable for swimming and
for the survival and propagation of trout).
This lake appears supports all of its designated uses.
Encl.
cc: Jay Sauber
Forrest Westall
A-20,

Lake Tahoma
DATE TROPHIC SECC" CHLa Corr NH3
TKN NO2NO3 TON TP NCTSI
LAKE NAME
STATION #
SAMPLED
CLASS
STATUS
(m)
(µg/I)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
Score
Lake Tahoma
CTBLTI
920727
B-Tr
Oligotrophic
4.3
4.0
0.03
0.20
<0.01
0.17
0.01
-4.3
Lake Tahoma
CTBLT2
920727
B-Tr
oll$otrophlc.......................'
: °..........................
:03.........................2-.M.................
<oA1..................
:2?...............
<0 01.................:�:4..........
. .......................................................................................... . ..............
Lake Tahoma Lake Ave. 920727 B-Tr
Oligotrophic
4.2
..........................
2.5
0.03
0.15
<0.01
Effmomm
0.12
0.01
-5.6
Lake Tahoma
CTBLTI
900802-
B-Tr
Oligotrophic
7.0
6.0
0.05
0.20
0.01
•0.15
0.01
-4.7
Lake Tahoma
CTBLT2
900802
B .Tr
Oligotrophic
6.3 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................•........
8.0
0.07
0.20
0.01
0.13
0.02
-3.8
......................
Lake Tahoma Lake Ave. 900802 B-Tr Oligotrophic
6.7
7.0
0.06
0.20
0.01
0.14
0.02
-4.1
DATE
SURFACE
SURFACE
SURFACECOND.
SURFACE
FECALCOLIFORMS
TURBIDITY
LAKE NAME
STATION #
SAMPLED
pH (s.u.)
WATER TEMP (°C)
(µmhos/cm2)
DO (mg/I)
(colonies/100m1)
(NTU)
Lake Tahoma
CTBLTI
920727
7.0
27.0
17
7.8
<10
1.4
Lake Tahoma
CTBLT2
920727
7.3
27.6
...................................................................................................................................................
9
7.6
<10
<1.0
................................................................................................
Lake Tahoma
Lake Ave.
920727
7.2
27.3
13
7.7
<10
mummimm
0.7
OEM
5.4
26.0
25
7.8
<10
<1.0
Lake Tahoma
CTBLTI
900802
Tahoma
CTBLT2
900802
6.2
26.1 ..............................................................................................................................................
26
8.2
<10
1.6
-Lake .......................................................................................
Lake Tahoma
Lake Ave.
900802
5.8
26.1
26
8.0
<10
0.8
N
I

WATER QUALITY STUDY
SUB -BASIN 03-08-30
OCTOBER 1982
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
WATER QUALITY OPERATIONS
MONITORING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

10
Summary
In the fall of 1982 the 'Technical Services group of the Division
of Environmental Management performed a water quality survey on the
headwaters of the Catawba River above Lake James and the North Fork
Catawba River. Eight sites were sampled on the headwaters of the
Catawba River and five sites were sampled on the North Fork Catawba
River. Chemical and physicalmeasurements along with benthic macroinverte-
brate sampling were performed at -each site.
Water quality throughout the entire study area shows a considerable
improvement when compared with the historical data. Two headwater stations
had elevated.fecal coliform levels; these stations were located directly
downstream of major dischargers. Elevated residue values that were
obtained during the study may be related to the large amount of _ -
construction being performed in the area. One headwater station was
found to have elevated metals values but these particular values were
not unusual for Upper Piedmont streams. Pesticides and organics samples
were collected on two headwater sites and detectable limits of 2, 45-TP
(Silvex), a woody plant herbicide, were found. Chemical findings
throughout this study indicates that the quality of the water meets the
criteria established for respective stream classifications. The water
quality of the study area varies from excellent tributaries to good/fair
river segments and has shown an improvement based on historical data.
From the biological work performed it is evident that most of the river
sites sampled displayed some degree of stress expecially around the
Old Fort area. This problem is likely a combination of point source
and/or non -point source run-off.

CAT'AWBA RIVER —/—�s rues Pine��_�
DRAINAGE \� , .--R _
221
BASIN
NORTH---FORK
_M, ITCHELI = \pe�`'�
- ��.�'`��`` \ ^ � - • � `` Ali / _ � � j -.., _
.� -1'rIL FDT E
lo
;y 1Sr "LA KE
coMANAGEMEN REA L_. —
\7-cr 11 ran? u
���� ` c
Marion
v
=' WFort _ V
WEy' TARS
c'y ' 221

a,
INTRODUCTION
The Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division
of Environmental Management, has agreed to assist the Soil Conservation
Service with the assessment of water quality conditions involving the
headwaters of the Catawba River above Lake James and the North Fork Catawba
River.
The objective of this study is to determine the present water quality
of the headwaters of the Catawba River above Lake James and the North Fork
Catawba River. Thirteen stations (eight headwater stations, five North
Fork stations) were sampled at low flow conditions. Eight stream flow
measurements were performed (four measurements taken on the headwaters, four
measurements performed on North Fork.) Chemical and physical parameters
along with benthic macroinvertebrate sampling provide the necessary informa-
tion for the assessment.
Description of Study Area
The headwaters of the Catawba River above Lake James and the North
Fork Catawba River are located in McDowell County in the Catawba River basin.
The headwaters begin at the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains and
flow east approximately 18 miles to Lake James. The North Fork Catawba
River begins in the northern section of McDowell County and flows south
approximately 16 miles to Lake James.
Stream Classifications (See Figures 1 and 2)
The Catawba River is a mountain stream in addition to being the head-
waters of a major piedmont River. Under North Carolina regulations, the
headwaters of the Catawba River (Figure .1) are classified "AII Trout"
from the source to the Old Fort Finishing Plant water supply intake. After
the intake, the river is defined as "Class C" waters. The creeks flowing
into the headwaters also receive a classification of either AI Tr, AII Tr,
B Tr, C, or C Tr. The North Fork is classified "C Tr" (Figure 2) from the
source to Armstrong Creek and from Armstrong Creek to Lake James it is classified
"C" waters. The creeks flowing into the North Fork receives a classification
of either AII, AII Tr, C or C Tr.

A -I waters are defined as a source of water supply for drinking,
culinary, or food processing purposes after treatment by approved disinfection
only, and any other usage requiring waters of lower quality. A -II waters
are defined as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes after approved treatment equal to coagulation, sedimenta-
tion, filtration, and disinfection, etc., and any other usage specified
by the "C" classification. .Class C waters are those which are deemed
suitable for fish and wildlife propogation, secondary recreation, agriculture
and other usesrequiring waters of lower quality. Those streams that are
suitable for the propogation of natural trout and those suitable for the
maintenance of trout are designated by the letters "Tr".
Discharges (See Figures 3, Table 1 and Figure 4)
Nine point source discharges are located on the headwaters of the
Catawba River above Lake James (Figure 3, Table 1). The Town of Old Fort
(#2, Figure 3) has one wastewater treatment plant and two industries
discharging directly to the plant. It is a 0.2 million gallons per day
(MGD) design capacity industrial treatment plant that discharges into the
receiving waters of Curtis Creek north of Old Fort. The Old Fort Finishing
Plant (#1, Figure 3) is a 4.2 MGD design capacity plant with industrial
effluent discharging into the Catawba River. C.E. Preheater Company
(#3, Figure 3) has a design capacity of 0.016 MGD and discharges domestic
wastewater into the receiving waters of an unnamed tributary to the
Catawba River. McDowell County Senior High School (#5, Figure 3) discharges
domestic waste into the Catawba River and has a design capacity of .05 MGD.
Marion Plaza Shopping Center (#6, Figures 3) has temporarily ceased discharging'
due to a problem with the disinfection system. They have a design capacity
of .05 MGD and they discharge domestic wastewater into.Garden Creek.
Westwood Chateau Apartments (#8, Figure 3) discharges a domestic wastewater
into Garden Creek and has a .008 MGD design capacity. Columbia Carolina
Corporation (#4, Figure 3) is a plywood manufacturing facility with a design
capacity of .024 MGD. It has an industrial discharge that flows into the
Catawba River. Quick As A Wink car wash (#9, Figure 3) discharges domestic
wastewater into Garden Creek with a design capacity of .0012 MGD.

The North Fork Catawba River has three point source discharges located
on it (Figure 4). Travenol Labs.is a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals and
intravenous solutions which discharges industrial waste• iDto the North Fork.
Chalet Motor Lodge discharges a domestic waste into an unnamed tributary
to Buchanan Creek and they have a design capacity of 0.013 MGD..
Hydrology of the Headwaters of the Catawba River and North Catawba River
( See .Table 2 )
The drainage area for the Catawba River above Lake James (headwaters)
is 172 square miles with an average discharge of 348 cubic feet per second
(cfs), and a 7Q10 of 50 cfs. The North Fork Catawba River has a drainage
area of 85.6 square miles with a 7910 of'17 cfs. A 7Q10 is defined as the
lowest average flow which occurs over seven consecutive days and has a -
reoccurrence interval of once every ten years.
Historical Information (See Figure 5, Table 3, Figure 6 Table 4)
Twelve historical stations are located on the headwaters of the Catawba
River. Ten stations are inactive and the remaining two stations are
currently active for ambient monitoring performed monthly. From the
historical data that is available for the headwaters of the Catawba River
several parameters appear to be worth noting. Approximately one-third of
the values reported for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) were considerably
higher than one might expect. These elevated values occurred especially
around the Old Fort study area. Dissolved oxygen (DO) data and conductivity
data showed no apparent problems as these values were within acceptable
limits. The data collected on pH indicated no problem although there were
a few high values.
In 1979 and 1980 the Division of Environmental Management conducted a
study to acquire a data base on the headwaters of the Catawba River and to
establish a better understanding of the chemical and biological effects
of the discharges in the river near Old Fort, North Carolina. From the

interpretation of the data collected, the study area showed a noted
improvement in water quality conditions with the exception of a few high
values for fecal coliform.
Nine historical stations are located on the North Fork Catawba River
and all nine stations are inactive. From the historical data available
for the North Fork Catawba River several parameters are noteworthy.
Approximately one-third of all BOD data collected appeared slightly
elevated. One-half of the total coliform and fecal coliform values were
above acceptable limits. The"data on dissolved oxygen,pH and conductivity
values indicate no problems. Phenol data appeared to be high with one-third
of all values being above acceptable limits. Although the data on mercury
concentrations is very limited, there appears to be no problem as none
of the mercury values were above acceptable limits.
A brief survey was performed on the North Fork by the Biological
Monitoring Group in April of 1982. Benthic macroinvertebrates were
collected and results of the data can be found in the Biological Assessment,
Benthos action.

UPPER CATAWBA
CLASSIFICATION
FIGURE
1
HEADWATERS
ca
�P
P�
W
M
OLD FORT
- % i®i®i®i®i�
o-
"CalD
PaE
�A�D,� S
v ®ff f®
�f®f
FLOW
A 1 T r
....... A1.1Tr LAKE JAMES
BTr
®i®iv C
I T

Q
NORTH FORK CATAWBA
FIGUF
HO
NFY
CVT
T
C,q
'ro
�s •p
- ,O
s
O
.gRMSlQ_..w •�' '�
C,p
►-+- All
A11Tr
i®sue-. C
® C Tr
'1 _1t!
LAKE JAMES
F LOW,

G Y, VER KNOB
dl—
it orse
Utl( K. (REEK GAP
Wool)w. 13il
C,
A
55;
G
WD MT14.
'—y V.I,( .3 14 if
Y'r
1577
0.1
113,
'Fifl.1 FmI
'tIll
MITCHEII ,, I GARDE . CREEK
�,Aj' '
W11 DLIFE POP, 1, 161
G (upor,c,J)
17 r,
IAArKEY
s
10 1
!MWA.I-FMENT fAREA —
j"
t.1
EAST MAMON
POP. 1.831
cqk
1135
1414.7.
7 14�lt17
t,
MA JON C .3.681
71
—f .4 11-6
1229
.,?]1 -6 fk.
1716 t245 WEST MAR
IO"
230 rop. I.3Q6
— 1716 1Mcl
J"i -,, * 0
12 1.,
j 249,� 1. \q "1 .1-11 1
100
%
-:k-.l 276
OVID 1`091 12E 1>
-LUZ 12a3
12
786
c,
4-1 .111 1.
Provident -0 , /
< 0.,
124
1212 Ile, b Im, )
1293
r I, -
HEADWATERS
Illy
4141 1129 OF THE
12,17 113
X .0911
C A ®® BA
MIN..
1135
1133
1123
V I 1 90 DISCHARGERS
1.1p T11
o)y, Mw 1137 1001 FIGURE 3
3
\dc"

Major Dischargers - Headwaters of the Catawba
Table 1
Map #
Discharger
'Receiving -Stream
'Latitude
Longitude
1.
Old Fort Finishing
Catawba River
35037153"
82010118".
NC0005002
(McDowell Co.)
2.
Old Fort WIVTP
Curtis Creek
35038143"
82009132.51'
NCO021229
(McDowell Co.)
3.
C E Air Preheater Co.
UT to Catawba River
35040'59"
82003155.S"
NCO039934
(McDowell Co.)
4.
Columbia Carolina Corp.
Catawba River
35039138"
82005117"
NCO048842
(McDowell Co.)
S.
McDowell Co. Sr. High
Catawba River
35041152"
82002150.5"
NCO03481
(McDowell Co.)
6.
Marion Plaza Shopping
Garden Creek
35041144.5"
82001131.5"
Center
NCO030911
(McDowell Co.)
7.
Burger Boy Drive In
Garden - Creek
35041129"
82001119.5"
NCO044415
(McDowell Co.)
8.
Westwood Chateau Apts.
Garden Creek
35041141"
82001129.5"
NCO039322
(McDowell Co.)
9.
Quick as a brink Car Wash
Garden Creek
3SO42100.5"
82001133"
NCO047660 -
(McDowell Co.)

a'
o D
• £ :twill. Fulh 1e3
O /
<
NORTH FORK CATAWBAlk
- DANIEL BOONE
D I .S C H A RG E R S P o f �nuMPaAcx U _ WILDLIFE
MTK
FIGURE 4 3s°ss `�La __ 35•55'
TAM coot ;tom ` MANAGEMENT
MTK V
,s]I
AREA
.2 -
GAP 'o
(�, L JACKSCr< KN08 A hfwd
O f (/ 2b ` El". 1n3 B
G I570 I560 "Y
vy 21 MTK
0 ` n
GXLESm 226
N GAPLEE
llkle FAS :«, 2' 1? .1 J li�C iC
C' Svritzerla�d 226 _ 1.0
226 ^�•
•�• f `� I.uE J v n 35'50' _ ...
� � ^ FiorMs Cc.o m
e Fde 4
1 7Q A. i
2,D 5
��P NETTiE PATCH �' ti tsar Im
f FAS/7 A 1 TRAVENOL LABS
.5 U E NC 0006564
A j3 A C)tvk 226 15 21D06SON KNO°
S7 2 AMNRICAN THREAD
C000 243
2.0 �\ 3 CHALET MOTOR LD(
a Ar�,st , t ram
N C 0030996
P S. f *4cx ? WeodlQ. e 2 \
3 _
/ DUCK CREfA G•• O 226 s 11
WOOD r ? lul O 1
\ • � X Q SC \ 1.zi1 _
z:
J
r � S1 11 •-
OA1D MTN.
e %r- Late =-� Isn;: IA C% ✓��1 k / ~
JA Tahoma
7 721
Nebo
so GARDEN CREEK \ tty 1? 1j .,y
1 — x r POP 1,161
lisle
ram: •1�C\:�. (q \ ''i � sousMev+
EAST IWX�
?.< - FOP. 1,65.
1/�!Si1Q %oasalc 1;rT�1 a. °,i flYmA \ 1".
ri
alb I :.:•f 1 ��... � !�, �+`(/ l\ 1)SC
T � a
L •�,, d � � 121. ( /�� til?.J21 _.Y .: � r y�i �, `, 1 1
--,`•r�`� ._.- .E '_� yt`f>i,` •�}., 1Y�1`, J irso r\i.)

Hydrological Table of.USGS Stations Located on Headwaters of the Catawba River and North
Fork Cataw a River Table
Station
Number
Station Location
Drainage Average 7Q10 Low
Area (m12) Discharge (cfs) Flow (cfs)
1365.0
Catawba River @ Old Fort @ SR1103
13.9
2.9
1366.3333
Jarrett Cr, @ Reservoir nr.
3.3
0.8
Old Fort
1374.60
Curtis Cr, near Old Fort
17.0
3.1
1375.30
Crooked Crk near Old Fort
35
14
1376.015
Mackey Crk nr. Chestnutwood Mtn.
3.1
7.8
0.4
1376.74
Mackey Cr @ mouth nr. Old Fort
8.49
1.1
1377.0510
Clear Crk nr. Sunny Vale, N.C.
0.9
2.2
0.2
1377.1888
Clear Crk @ mouth @ Pleasant Garden
5.17
1.3
1377.9050
Catawba River above Buck Crk
128
240
42'
1378.14
Buck Cr @ Lk Tehoma Dam
23
44
6.7
1378.500
Buck Crk @ mouth nr. Marion
26
49
8
1378.84
Nicks Crk nr Marion @ SR 1214
6.39
3.4
1378.9010
Nicks Crk @ mouth nr Marion
6.9
12
4
1379.8010
Tom Crk @ mouth nr marion
10
19
2.4
1380.34
North Fork Catawba River @Ashford
125
28
1.4
1380.3610
North Fork Catawba nr North Cove
20
44
2.4
1380.3810
North Fork Catawba @ North Cove
25
55
3.0
1380.51
North -Fork Catawba @ Sevier
44
87
5.3.
1380.6565
Armstrong Crk @ N.C. Hwy 226 @Sevier
29
62
8.6
1380.81
North Fork Catawba River
78.1
148
16
1381.34
North Fork Catawba nr Marion
85.6
17

W—dl." Z ­/l
10
L"IffIllo
Po' BUCK CREEK GAP 1.3 276
, I 13j3! woon 1411
J.c
00
A
4�1
.3
G
BALD MTN.
71 p 1113 r
Al)FIL IJ3
MIN,
113,
.31377 3
kns it
2 1
SIG CRAGG
F;.I
4 Z. h ii Of
N1.
1133
Mr. MiTcliEl.t. r ao Ts aT5'
I " -z' GARD N CRE
1411- G.P WII.DLIFE �,16)✓ 1 EK
G POP. A,
op 11) NC.
so
70
MACKEY
IF// r FMENI 11 AREA
POP. 1,051
GPI.e,,; I, n IC JU"*4(:)
"T
XAII
IF, A I.P., . , .1 i P.IIW"' 748
RfO
,
FA,,.
G711
-
I, jo I\
WEST AMION
S.11.7 1191 rOP..1,596 tr
Ii 12,9
. . . . . . I.—- 1
.21
Zrj I 6�t T, �k1265 I_L"_ , b
12.8 23 - — i--f 41f) 10911
OID FORT
'POP, 757 Y
.7 A.5 U0
il 3A 1706
vi 17
1716
Provid-
133, 12�q
�',, �FAI
1743
40 121,
1 1.2
2 11.5
> 11288 1135 % S
"3 'HEADWATER'
IF
-0
.113.1
.... .... OF
m."." THE
Hill
001
1- 11 5
Ill"IS MIN... C)
z" I CATAWBA
1135 13
'It
Hill
I IF, QQ'
.6 H ISTORICAL,.
6 STATION
cvc`l� !-PRESENTLY ACTIVE
1901
LOCATIONS

0
Historical
Stations - Headwaters of the
Catawba River.
Table 3
Map #
Station #
Station type
County
Location
1
02136500
primary
McDowell
Catawba River @ SR.1103
CIB001
secondary
2
CTB002
secondary
—McDowell
Trib. to Catawba River
@ SR 1235
3
CTBO02A
secondary
McDowell
Catawba River nr. SR 1234
4
CTB003
secondary
McDowell
Curtis Cr. at U.S. Hwy 70
5
CTB004
secondary
McDowell
Catawba River at I-40
*6
CTB005
secondary
McDowell
Catawba River at I-40
7
CTB006
secondary
McDowell
Jake Cr. at_SR 1214
8
CTB007
secondary
McDowell
Jake Cr. nr. SR 1214
*g
CTB008
secondary
McDowell
Catawba River at SR 1221
10
02138000
USGS
McDowell
Catawba River at N.C. 221
11
CTBO08A
secondary
McDowell
Catawba River at.SR 1501
12
CTB008B
secondary
McDowell
Catawba River (Lk. -James)
at Clinchfield RR
* - Presently active

NORTH FORK CATAWBA
HISTORICAL STATION
LOCATIONS
FIGURE 6
n
3;
DANIEL BOONE
J nu,uawa WILDLIFE
O MTMK
- v
CAP . O o
L.«soN *+OB
223
G
k/ _o . DOCK LACK C
11
GAP
.."I [/
L u _ IPA
�p Citric-q F/S
C' Swir—iond 776 .t 1.0130
t
35'50' r f\ v ` 15+4) n North ca 0550' m ..
4s D P rn 9
L- PF 1421 a
�� 2-0 . nEmE PATCH 3 .
I
F� PAS
RIDGE �� 2 / 3 L22 OIS
y 21 DON KNOB
A 7�. w Cmk .s,
2.0
ia� Ar ,c o 3 6 7 Povm \
? A`P KNOB C1 ^ Woodl— Z \ ro o
Harso
/, O
a BUa CRPfY. GAP \ WOOD IASI v lii�
dC t
g0 a 7
P _ / v m
C 9 S]
1 4 1 Il
En1.D MM
s,—Y vole/ n sa != .y 1ssTr F,Q } lf44
FAS
Lakc
'0° l i C 4 139 Tahona Haan
IUZ
% , "Shifkl Fie 1, „p
GARDEN CREEK
POP. 1. 161
�` .Z 1l2: �.• 1 `E r - `'1v (UN-C.) wtm+
M CKEY Char �• e \ 70' (, / sou*
�% ate ♦3
.`..1 1 (.: %� Te•I .� % LAST WJDO:N
Pol.,/ Lle rlu" 1 I Pl�eaat� v � u.} .� • P. 1.a51
czy a U' fir:: .y- i0NN0 �\
- .s.•F., .__�''N'. '. - a:Lr.:1��/,;: I, ..."b.w P,V. J.6F. f.. — i ��1-__

Historical Stations - North
Fork Catawba
Table 4
Map #
Station #
Station type
County
Location
1
CTB009
secondary
McDowell
North Fork Catawba @SR 1S60
2
CTBO09A
secondary
McDowell
Junction of N.C. Hwy. 226 and 306P
3
C7BO09B
secondary
McDowell
Armstrong Crk. nr. SR 1556
4
CTBO10
secondary
McDowell
Armstrong Crk @ SR 1556
5
CTB011
secondary
McDowell
Linekiln Crk nr. SR 15S6
6
CTBO12
secondary
McDowell
Limekiln Crk @ SR 1559
'7
CTB013
secondary
McDowell
North Fork @ SR 1559 - -
8
CTB013A
secondary
McDowell
North Fork @ SR 15S2
9
CTBO13B
secondary
McDowell
Lake James

STATION- 0CAT`1ONS AND DESCRIPTIONS 'FOR' HEAD14ATERS OF=CATAWBA- RIVER
(6�s_e Figure 7)
SO{�=CR"I . Catawba River near SR1274
The river at this location is -approximately 10 feet wide and has -an
average depth of 1 foot. The sampling station is just below a bridge
th4t is located on a dirt road. A. sloping bank - is- pres.ent and the -.river` -
bol-tom consists of very fine sand and hasa rocky substrate. A dense to
h6oCvy canopy is present at this station. Good -riffle areas for sampling
ba.11thic macroinvertebrates is present.
SC2'-CR2 Catawba River @ SR 1234
The river at this location is approximately 65 feet wide and has an
avF,rage depth of 1 foot. The river bed consists of fine sand and large
ruk%le. that appeared to be covered with some organic matter. The canopy
at this station appeared to be affected by urban run-off as this is very
apysarent in a high fecal coliform value. Good areas for sampling benthic
ma�'toinvertebrates were noted both upstream and downstream.
SC.;-CR3 Catawba River @ SR 1501
This is the final station on the headwaters before it flows into
Laklb James. The river at this station is approximately 150 feet wide
an4A has an average depth of 2 to 3 feet. The river bottom consisted of
a !Muddy substrate with a small amount of rock. The water at this station
isextremely-turbid and a dense canopy is present.
SC 'SC1 Swannanoa Crk. @ SR 1400
The creek at this station is approximately 40 feet wide and has an
avk�'.age depth of 3 feet. A dense canopy- is present. The creek has a
roc:`ky substrate with a fine sand coverage. The stream is characterized
by s riffle pool sequence. A good sampling area for benthic macroinverte-
br�k:es was observed upstream.

u
SCS-CC1 Curtis Crk. @ SR 1227
This sampling station is located approximately 2 miles upstream above
the -discharge of Old Fort Wastewater Treatment Plant. The creek is approx-
imately 35 feet wide and has an average depth of 2 feet. An outfall
pipe was located in the study area and a distinct sewage odor was detected.
A steep bank.is present and the creek bottom consist of a rocky substrate
which was covered by organic matter. Riffle areas were noted thus creating -
a good sampling site for benthic macroinvertebrates. A dense to heavy
canopy is present.
SCS-CrC1 Crooked Crk. @ I-40
The creek at this location is approximately 35 .feet wide and has an
average depth of 2 feet. The stream bed consists of fine sand with a
very small amount of rock. A heavy canopy is present at the station. The
water at this station is turbid and appears to carry a heavy sediment load.
Riffle areas were noted in the stream. Good sites for benthis macroinvertebrate
sampling was observed both upstream and downstream.
SCS BC1 Buck Crk. # Hwy 70
The creek at this location is approximately 35 feet wide and has an
average depth of 1 foot. There are several houses adjacent to the station.
A sloping bank is present and the creek bottom consists of a sand and rubble
substrate. The water at this station is turbid and appears to carry a
heavy sediment load. The canopy is dense to heavy. Good riffle areas
for sampling benthic macroinvertebrates is present.
SCS-NC1 Nicks Crk. @SR 1214
The creek at this station is approximately 30 feet wide and 1 to 2
feet deep. A dense to heavy canopy is present. A sloping bank is present
with a creek bottom consisting of fine sand and large rubble. Riffle areas
were noted in the stream and good sites for sampling benthic macroinvertebrates
are present.

STATION LOCATIONS
O
80 BUCK CREEK GAP is 1f�9 716
WOOD +'� 1451
'Zb ^ H''�ti Gtaek ,3 d
HEADWATERS OF THE CATAWBA "
!� t 00 c A
FIGURE 7
1471 , } .� I A •� a BALD MTN. 3 f {•
BIG
GAP URFL y- a LAUREL S Iy Vale AQ 1193 ,D 13i7 t
MTN. �d •[. 1.1 y PAS
143A n 311T1 f54Q., /:.
.L 14 Tahana
7o �\•. ?\ — L41L r , 271 Ma km. 1 li
•(y,� 17B BIG CRAGGY;/
[E 1
GREEN KNOP J� N �Shifl Fi el `\
MTN. ir.• 0A _6r (•P 7• ;✓'
of 1 f� J+93
I ^_' MT. MITCHELL P 'N so t
WILDLIFE t GARDEN CREEK
E I DEEP GAP G h _ OL POP. I,IdI
HIGH PINNACLE 1 JA72 G Q' {%/j'•/ (UNINC.I
3.b +, � MACKEY L6 �� 'Y Y? sOU1HBW `\
\ —`
is
7 Car � U I� '
4 u4 ..2
ROCK
�e `(MANAGEMENT AREA c., 1. " Z tFs
KNOB
F \ ~(b ryv 1•' .. t.. ' ' � y �jp :: �� .� EAST MARION
jjjjjj 3.J (f ldlfl Pla n1 7 POP. 1.1151
GREYBEARD L�`I12, 1p.. Gar c ,�\ n ,° . �'\ IUNMCI \
MTK
L41 It
wk
\ '6oe J1L47 15SQ • ;7 •.+•..s-.4` •..' , �� t a.a __
BA 1214
35'd0' 12y ;Creek L•lli 7 .7 I1N �p4P RION
__ v 1S 11P1 :(� POP.3,684 ,,
Graphite � 1i117 !J � '..5 171� 't. e %✓u ,. / w �
1 b0p �` .� q 1 Greenlec p•• �• K �
J50 .? 197 vir ?"` II 1 •6 12�5•' 1
WEST MARION
s Vn Iz<7 17.9 1141 L �, 101, 1.116
Can 012.E 1 a. ,P� 3 /`\I_26f 11P9 1144 116. (UNMCI 71 �0 11n
0 1a �._ ::?.:; I76 2 1• :� o 114e .g ? 130 9 ID7 b .)
" CS SC1 t 114: _ _
8 Ita 1901 1774.
( /�"q�' 7�''1 OLD fORi K: b •y .114I Izdl 131 -1 ? o J7gr
`'�: LE4Z L400 liOZ C} �`--�J roP 7S7 '.b b ..s F,y 17 c, \O —. 7 FBI7 10 �1 �'L • Ixel t� 3
a.0 17 tT• V a0 ,� IT,oe .7 F .� 7. I7vs OS .. Cr. / 177. iuk CA "/ 17E6
B 1]I� •7 — S — (' (` ZI]1 •r �Q7 b % f!.11b a 10 i
.'q r0 'y 75C 2 SCS— 1' <, 1P LJ n� r 'LJ 116e ,s 1 j79/ `h 17p6
SWANNANOA P b' n / '� V
GAP } S s 't127s 12.0 12u Providence !r :0
L S.0 FAI I]sb / a0 12�1 tau ? 1 T
Ie6
—TO ASHEVLUE 40 T 70 :!"• •0 `7 Glay'F.0 L '� 11l3 1153 •D
I xjt a (L 1
1162 b J99 i.6 Glenvrood J
N1110
1279 I all 11351.
•p laB 1, -0
SCS-CR1 Jill 3IL 13I7 J 76 17.
k JSN53 •l Il0] 179B Il7i •I 1122 3'�
KNOB J" `•-- : Moffitt ilo b blj 1170 •V. J
i
jeep e � ,iFiil' nxy� _11xs to �ti � 7.
t 17e7 a L IM �O e ll4,1
^^�P \ li_4 ry 7 a KC 1 5. 1ffiL N
—35'35' ,\ V ••�1"� J126 1 ' G 7 •,1 .� L24 S,. HA.RRIS MTN. 4 1790,., IS
ljev�
1jJ �j eG. ••11]5 t1 1LLs
�- 5J.L96.��'•'.jlo. `ilzv 172 J» SuOar •-'Y D
1107
.,A�: 'p • ! .177. d Hill 1 i o � f
- / 1
1 �QQ 1106 '6 u 11P3 •8 B Cr IWI. 1E6 6 h'l VER T;,
G 2� 6 Alois 1t77 ,.7 I lu d h a
1144 LiR y _ 17e2
J1311.a ..1 .611u 1u7 1.5 1117 ''� •Q Y
CROSS MTN. Lill_ T.
1101. 1122 1901 a
1145
1
DUTCHMAN RIDGE ir,� Oq• I Ci _ \ Vein MIn
LLIYr 6 1267 /•/� t` °14U]

1 1 11 :11 1 i 11 li ll� i lip :�i; •
(See Figure 8)
SCS-NFC1 North Fork Catawba River @ SR 1-566 -
This sampling station is located below the bridge leading into Travenol
Labs. The river is approximately 38 feet wide and has an average depth
of 1.5 feet. The stream bed consists of fine silt, sand, and rocks and, is
characterized by a riffle pool sequence. A dense canopy is present. Good
sites for benthic ma croinvertebrate sampling were noted.
SCS-NFC2 North_ Fork Catawba River @ SR 1560
The river at this station is approximately 85 feet wide and has an
average depth of 1 foot. A dense to heavy canopy is present although
there is no canopy directly covering the sampling site. Well defined banks
are present with a creek bottom consisting of mostly sand and large
boulders. Small amounts of organic matter is present on the stream bed
and banks. A riffle area for sampling benthic macroinvertebrates was
present upstream.
SCS-NFC3 North Fork Catawba River @ SR 1552
The sampling site -is the final station on the North Fork Catawba
River before it enters into Lake James. The river -here is approximately
120 feet in width and has an average depth of 2 feet. A steep bank is
present with the river bed consisting of very fine sand and silt. Large
boulders are present throughout the stream creating many riffle areas. A
high bridge is present at the station. Good areas for sampling benthic
macroinvertebrates were noted both upstream and downstream. A dense
to heavy canopy is present.
SCS-AC1 Armstrong Crk. @ SR 1443
The creek at this station is approximately 6 feet wide and has an
average depth of 1/2 foot. A steep slope is present with a creek bed
consisting of rock and sand. The stream is characterized by a riffle
pool sequence. Good sampling sites for benthic macro invertebrates were noted.

SCS-AC2 Armstrong Crk. @ SR 1556
The creek is approximately 40 feet wide.and.has an average depth
of one foot. A sloping bank -is present and the creek bottom consists
of a sand and rocky substrate. Organic build=up was noted on the banks
and a dense canopy was present. A good riffle.area.for sampling benthic
macroinvertebrates is present both upstream and downstream.

i
o
y Ur ule Fdh
D
STATION LOCATIONS x /
;
\ tr
NORTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER � � \ DANIEL BOONE
FIGURE 8 AMA WILDLIFE
P0 e
75'35'
TABLE COCK� c.! MANAGEMENT _
MTN j
's71 AREA
„
V � J
CL-
GAP
�J Jdw O
p
IAMSON .i KN08-
f • Ad tad
Q L• HEY. 7223
e
n no IMO
"DOG BACK C
21 .±, MTN.
0 0 .1/1 / __- n. _
GLLE5pm 226 /T 70
^.uW �. `FAS -.>.: 1566 .1 1 T7 S ?
iii ! $v/I�YGl�ond �t �1 0
76
75'30' lse+) a Noro Cave 3530' m
PF--
'lt •i ? m !
2•0
- NEFTlE PATQ1 �31t _ S 1.., �• .
SCS-A a
r FAS ?
,e+oGE ..1 21 C S— N FG..
I n 1 N1• 226 Ni )0, KNC19
�` 23 Sorior � .
1 31 •°� ��7 \
_.° / C S-AC 2 -�
, P vD
1P SIVER : . NOR ^ Wcedk— Z
� o
o A
i 1 6U01 C:E9C GAP 11` L9 226
OIre1 p
� w000 >'� o
\\O\,so
lA�� LAID MTN. 1.
B.1c 0 7D fLk,
\ �`-i
,y�:/ C -� y I.J6 TcJnnu, Nonkir. 1
/ L•1L y ep 1 7 l • 21
so p :
GARDEN CREEK
POP. 1, 161
lu
lu.Ncl
MACKEY
wA. t �,
`-emu• ^\y,-' ,T \ I 1 ` i.� � ali�i70N
. - .._ = - -_ - -.. . - - .�..� .'ice ! �.. :F�•..,e. �, �--

PHYSICAUCHEMICAL ASSESSMENT
Methods
Physical.parameters were collected at each station using a h.ydrolab
digital 4041 which is capable of.measuring temperature, pH, conductivity
and dissolved oxygen. Flow measurements were taken where possible for the
purpose of estimating sediment loading. - This was accomplished via methods
outlined by the U.S. Geological Survey. Chemical parameters were collected
and analyzed according to methodology outlined in Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater and Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes, U.S. EPA. The residue series, total and suspended,
were taken using a DH-48 flow rated sampler. Physical and chemical
results for the headwaters of the Catawba River and North Fork Catawba
River are found on Tables 5 and 6 respectively.
Discussion of Parametric Data
Oxygen Demanding Substances (See Table 5 and 6)
There appeared to be no problems with oxygen demanding substances
within either of the two study areas. Biochemical Oxygen Demand values
(BOD5) were within normal detection levels everywhere. Chemical Oxygen
Demand levels (COD) were also within normal levels at every sampling site.
pH ( See Tables 5 and 6 )
Field and laboratory measurements of pH often differ due to biological
activity in the aquatic system. In both measurements there were no
apparent problems with pH levels in the headwaters or the North Fork
study sites.
Conductivity (See Tables 5 and 6)
Eight sampling sites were located on the headwaters of the Catawba
River. Conductivity readings were performed at every site and only one

value appeared high (SCS-CR2). The justification for this elevated
value seemed to be a result of the dischargers located in the Old Fort area.
Five sampling sites were sampled on the North Fork Catawba River with
only one conductivity value appearing high (SCS-NFC3). This elevated value
is due to the result of two major dischargers (American Thread, Travenol
Labs) that are located directly upstream of the station.
Turbidity (See Tables 6 and 6)
Turbidity values throughout the entire study area (headwaters and
North Fork) remained quite low. One exception occurred on the headwaters
at the Buck Creek station (SCS-BC1). The turbidity value attained
at the station was 15 NTU and the North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15, `
Chapter 2, Subchapter 2B, Section Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina states "the turbidity in the
receiving water due to a discharge shall not exceed 50 NTU in streams
not disignated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes, or reservoirs
designated as trout waters".
The water in Buck Creek is classified C Trout and appeared quite
turbid. Sediment loads were calculated for Buck Creek and a total solids
value of 1983.37 lb/day was attained.
Fecal Coliform .(See Tables 5 and 6 )
Fecal coliform levels were generally low in the entire study area
(headwaters and North Fork). Two exceptions occurred however, on the
headwaters of the Catawba River. Stations SCS-CR2 and SCS-CR3 had fecal
counts of 41,0(D and 1100 fecal coliform per 100 ml respectively. Both
of these high values are explainable in that station SCS-CR2 is located
downstream of Old Fort Wastewater Treatment Plant and station SCS-CR3 is
directly downstream of four major dischargers. They discharge domestic
wastewater into Garden Creek which flows into the Catawba River at the
sampling site. The other stations did not have elevated fecal values indicating
that the treatment plants were treating the bacteria efficiently.

Phenolic Compounds (See Tables 5 and 6)
Two headwater stations SCS-CR2 and SCS-CR3 and one Nor•.th Fork station
SCS-NFC3 were sampled for phenolic compounds. Levels were found to be
below detection limits in all cases.
Residue -( See Table 5 , Table 6 and Table 7 ) -- -
A residue sample was collected at each of the eight sampling sites
on the headwaters of the Catawba River. Total concentrations of residue
increased below treatment plants and run-off areas. Stations SCS-CR2 and
SCS-CR3 (Table 5) had the highest concentrations of total residue-89 mg/1
and 160 mg/1 respectively and total suppended values of 3 mg/l and 78 mg/l
respectively. Station SCS-CR2 is located downstream of Old Fort (Old -
Fort Finishing) and Old Fort Wastewater Treatment Plant. This explains
the total .residue value of 89 mg/l with the ratio of inorganic material
to organic material being about the same. The total suspended value
was quite low. The ratio of organic to inorganic material found at
station SCS-CR3 showed a considerable larger amount of inorganic residue
in both total and suspended solids. This is somewhat surprising because
this station is located downstream of four domestic dischargers. However,
this higher inorganic value could also be explained by the fact of erosion
and dirt roads (inorganic run-off) observed in the study area.
On the North Fork Catawba River one elevated residue value was
attained. Station SCS-NFC3 (Table 6) had a total residue value of :1:50 mg/l
with 60 mg/1 of that value being organic material and 92 mg/1 being
inorganic material. This value is justifiable because construction was
in progress in that area. Gross loading values of solids for the headwaters
and the North Fork stations are found in Table 7.
Nutrients (See Table 5 and Table 6)
Nutrient samples were collected and analyzed throughout the entire
study area (headwaters and North Fork). There appears to be no significant

a
problems with any of the nitrogen and phosphorus. levels. However, further
reference -to nutrients is made in the .Biological.Assessment.
Metals (See Table 5 and Table 6)
- On the headwaters of the Catawba River one station (SCS-CR3) was
found to have significantly elevated 'metals values of aluminum (200 ug/1)
iron (1100 ug/1), manganese (70-ug/l)-and lead (200 ug/1). However,
these values are not unusual for Upper Piedmont streams.
All reported metals values for North Fork Catawba River were found to
be below detection limits.
Pesticides and Organics (See Table 5 and Table 6 )
Pesticides and organics samples were collected on two headwater sites.
In both cases, detectable limits of 2,45-TP (silvex), a woody plant
herbicide were found. Stations SCS-CR2 and SCS-CR3 had values of .33 ug/l
and .11 ug/1 respectively. Asheville Regional Office was notified about
these results and will monitor the situation more closely.
A pesticide and organics sample was taken on one North Fork station
(SCS-NFC3) and laboratory results indicated no pesticides or organics
detected by Electron Capture or Flame Photometric Detector methods.

Table 5
Parametric Coverage - Headwaters of the Catawba River (Water'Column)
a
Fecal
D.O. Temp pH pH Alk Cond Turb BOD5 COD Coliform Flow
Station # Date Time (mg/1) (°C) (Lab) (Field) (mg/1) (umhos/cm) (NTU) (mg/1) (mg/1) (#/100ml) (cfs) Phenols
SCS-CR1
10-19-82
1100
11.5
9.0
7.0
6.5
13
22
<1
0.4
<5
<10
SCS-SC1
10-19-82
1000
11.8
8.7
7.0
6.1
11
14
<1
0.4
< 5
10
SCS-CC1
1 0-1 9-82
1200
1 1 .3
9.9
6.7
5.8
7
7
<1
1.0
<5
10
11.42
SCS-CR2
10-19-82
1330
10.5
11.6
7.2
6.5
27
104
1.8
1.9
8
41,000
39.59
< 5
SCS-CrC110-19-82
1445
10.7
11.2
7.2
6.5
16
16
4.4
0.6
<5
260
27.21
SCS-BC1
10-19-82
1530
9.6
15.8
6.9
5.7
9
11
15
0.9
5
600
17.43
SCS-NC1
10-19-82
1600
12.3
7.2
6.2
19
10.7
6.2
0..6
< 5
30
SCS-CR3
0-20-82
1130
9.2
12.8
6.6
6.3
13
40
3.8
1.2
6
.1100
<5
Table 5
Parametric Coverage (continued)
RESIDUE SERIES (mg/1) N SERIES (mg/1) P SERIES (mg/1)
T o t a l S u s p e n d e d NO -N
Station # Date Time Total Volatile Fixed Total Volatile Fixed NH3_ TKN NO2-N+ Tot. P Ortho P
SCS-CR1
1 0-1 9-82
1 100
45
1 3
32
3
3
< 1
< .01
< .1
< .01
.01
.01
3CS-SC1
1 0-19-82
1 000
43
23
20
3
3
< 1
< .01
< .1
.02
.01
< .01
3CS-CC1
1 0-1 9-82
1200
31
20
11
1
1
<1
< .01
< .1
< .01
.01
< .01
3CS-CR2
1 0-19-82
1330
89
42
47
3
3
<1
.03
0.3
A5
.11
.06
3CS-CrC1
10-19-82
•1445
45
16
29
3
1
2
.01
0.1
.10
.04
.01
3CS-BC1
1 0-19-82
1530
21
8
13
< 1
< 1
<1
< .01
0.2
.14
.02
< .01
3CS-NC1
1 0-19-82
1600
53
18
35
2
2
< 1
< .01
< .1
.10
.02
< .0 T.
3CS-CR3
10-20-83
1130
160
44
110
78
14
64
.02
0.2
.13
.05
.01

Table 5
Parametric Coverage (continued)
Metals - All Values Reported as ug/l Unless Otherwise Noted
Station # Date Time Tot Cr Cd Cu Fe Pb Mn Ni Zn Mg(mg/1) Al. Hg As
SCS-CR1
10-19-82
1100
<50
<20
<20
<1 00
100
<50
<1 00
<20
1.0
<1 00
<0.2
<10
SCS-SC1
10-19-82
1000
<50
<20
<20
100
100
<50
<1 00
<20
1.0
100
<0.2
<10
SCS-CC1
1 0-19-82
1200
<50
<20
<20
<1 00
200
<50
<1 00
<20
.50
<1 00
<0 .2
< 10
SCS-CR2
1 0-19-82
1 330
<50
<20
<20
200
200
<50
<1 00
<20
1 .2
<1 00
<0.2
< 10
SCS-CRC1
1 0-1 9-82
1445
<50
<20
!
<20
400
100
<50
<1 00
<20
1 .0
200
.<0.2
< 10
SCS-BC1
1 0-1 9-82
1 530
<50
<20
<20
500
200
60
<1 00
<20
.70
<1 00
<0 .2
< 10
SCS-NC1
10-19-82
1600
<50
<20
<20
400
<1 00
<50
<1 00
<20
1 .4
<100
<0.2
< 10
SCS-CR3
10-20-82
1130
<50
<20
<20
1100
200
70
<1 00
20
1 .4
200
<0.2
< 10

Table 6
Parametric Coverage - North Fork Catawba River (Water Column).
Fecal
D.O. Temp pH pH Alk Cond Turb BODS5 COD Coliform Flow
Station # Date Time (mgil) (°C) (Lab) (Field) (mg/1) (umhos/cm) (NTU) (mg/i) (mg/1) (#/100ml) (cfs) Phenols
SCS-NFC1
10-18-82
1530
11.4
12.8
7.7
7.1
34
56
< 1
0.4
< 5
40
8.23
SCS-NFC-2
10-18-821640
11.3
12.7
7.7
7.5
40
65
< 1
0.4
< 5
10
26.04
SCS-AC1
0-18-82
350
12.3
11.2
7.2
6.3
13
1-8
< 1
0.5
< 5
60
3.8
SCS-AC2
0-18-82
1730
10.6
12.1
7.1
6.7
13
16
< 1
0:5
< 5
60
16.24
SCS-NFC3
0-20-82
1215
10.5
13.9
7.4
7.7
36
192
1.7
0.3
< 5
20
< 5

Table 6
Parametric Coverage (continued)
RESIDUE SERIES (mg/1) N SERIES (mg/1)
T o t a l S u s p e n d e d NO -N
Station # Date Time 'Total Volatile Fixed Total Volatile Fixed NH3
3-N TKN NO2-N+
P SERIES (mg/1)
Tot. P Ortho P
SCS-NFC1 10-18-82
1530
61
17
44
2
2
< 1
.02
< .1
.05
.01
< .01
SCS-NFC2 10-18-82
1640
63
15
48
< 1
< 1
< 1
< .01
< .1
.07
.01
< .01
SCS-AC1 10-18-82
1350
68
18
50
< 1
< 1
< 1
< .01
< .1
.08
.01
< .01
SCS-AC2 10-18-82
1730
39
5
34
< 1
< 1
< 1
< .01
<.1
.11
.02
.01
SCS-NFC3 10-20-82
1215
150
60
92
3
3
< 1
.02
0.2
F
.74
.50
.46

Table 6
Parametric Coverage (continued)
Metals - All Values Reported as ug/l Unless Otherwise Noted
Station # Date Time Tot Cr Cd Cu Fe Pb Mn Ni Zn Mg(mg/1) Al Hg As
SCS-NFC1
10-18-82
1530
< 50
< 20
< 20
100
<100
< 50 '
< 100
80
3.8
< 100
< 0.2
< 10
SCS-NFC2
10-18-82
1640
< 50
< 20
< 20
200
<100
< 50
< 100
140
4.2
< 100
< 0.2
< 10
SCS-AC1
10-18-82
1350
< 50
< 20
< 20
100
<100
< 50
< 100
120
1.2
< 100
0.2
< 10
SCS-AC2
10-18-82
1730
< 50
< 20
< 20
100
<100
< 50
< 100
130
1.2
< 100
< 0.2
< 10
SCS-NFC3
1 0-20-82
1 21 5
< 50
< 20
< 20
200
<100
< 50
< 100
< 20
4'.0
< 100
< 0.2
< 10

Table 7
Estimates of Gross; Loading - of Solids
(all values reported in units :of._lbs/day)
Headwaters of the Catawba River
Station #
Date
Time
Total Solids
Total Suspended Solids
SCS-CC1
10-19-82
1200
1911.54
61.66
SCS-CR2
10-19-82
1 330
1 9027..92
641.39
SCS-CrC1
10-19-82
1445
6611.06
440.74
SCS-BC1
10-19-82
1530
1983:37
94.12
North Fork Catawba River
Station # Date Time Total Solids Total Suspended Solids
SCS-NFC1
.10-18-82
1530
2710.96
88.88
SCS-NFC2
10-18-82
1640
8860.51
140.64
SCS-AC1
10-18-82
1350
1395.36
20.52
SEC-AC2
l
10-18-82
1730
3420.90
87.72

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
WOKWO10
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected at each station using a "kick"
technique. A net is positioned upright on the streambed while an_upstream area
(approximately one square meter) is physically disrupted. Dislodged macroin-
vertebrates are collected on the kick net. A more detailed discussion of
collection methods is given in the "Procedures Manual" (DEM, 1982). Two samples
were collected at each site.
Two parameters have been emphasized in data analysis: Total taxa richness
(ST) and Average density/sample (N). Total taxa richness (the number of different
kinds of organisms) is directly proportional to water quality. As the level of
stress increases, fewer and fewer macroinvertebrate species will be found.
Density may decrease with either sedimentation or toxicity. This parameter may
increase with enrichment (addition of nutrients or particulate organic carbon).
Taxa richness has also been tabulated for groups of generally intolerent
organisms: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies) and Trichoptera
(caddisflies). This parameter is abbreviated as "SEPT". SEPT values can be
used to assign water quality ratings of Excellent, Good, Good -Fair, Fair and Poor.
Ranges for SEPT values are derived, in part, from our ambient .station -sampling.
Data has also been analyzed at the group level. 'The "groups" are defined
taxonomically, usually being orders of aquatic insects. This type of data helps
to define a "balanced, indigenous" population.
Certain species, or species assemblages, are associated.with specific types
of pollution. When these species become abundant, we can make deductions about
the type of pollution present.
PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS
I. Fish. Sources of fisheries data are indicated in Table.8 and findings are
summarized below.

1. N. Fk. Catawba River. The headwater area is designated as Trout Water,
rated as "Good" to the town of Sevier. The regional biologist (Robert
Brown) rates the river as Good -Fair at Sevier and "Fair"ror "Poor" below
Sevier. Industrial pollutants degrade the river below Sevier, and several. .
fish kills have been reported. There are.many problems.in the North Fork
Catawba River.- Sediment is added to the upper -.river (above NFC 1) by ag-
riculture, logging, and_a.-gravel operation.-- H-.& B.Lumber in Sevier has
had "spills'.' into_ the . river and.: 2 industries .discharge ,to the river below
Sevier.
2. Armstrong Creek. This stream is.rated "Good" by the regional biologist,
but Louder (1964) found few game fish, but states "this mountain trout
stream has the potential"of becoming a good rainbow trout stream if it
were reclaimed." "Reclamation" refers to installation of fish barriers,
removal of rough fish and stocking of game fish.
3. Left Prong Catawba River. The river above Old Fort is rated as "Good". -
Below the Old Fort Finishing Plant the river changes to "Poor", recovering
to "Fair" (Louder, 1964) or "Good -Fair" (regional biologist).
4. Buck Creek. All surveys of areas above the DEM station have indicated
good -excellent trout populations.
5. Nicks Creek. This small stream is considered as too small for game fish
by Louder (1963).
6. Swannanoa Creek. The upper portion of this stream is designated Trout
Water. Louder (1963) suggests that sedimentation (below DEM station)
impacts this.stream.
7.' Crooked Creek. This stream was rated as "Good -Fair" by the regional bi---
ologist, although Louder (1963) did not find any game fish.
II. Benthos. DEM biologists have collected benthic macroinvertebrates at 6 sites
on the Catawba River near Old Fort and 2 sites on Curtis Creek. Four sites
are similar to 1982 stations (CR 1, CR 2, CR 3, CC 1). Surber samples and
qualitative samples were collected in April, 1979, July 1979 and August 1980.

Collection and identification procedures differed from those used in the
1982 survey. The most comparable statistic would be SEPT' summarized below:
SEPT, DEM Surveys, 1979-80
Date
CR1
CR2
CR3
CC1
4/79
21
16
16
22
7/79
21
11
16
19
8/80
18
14
14
19
Avg.
20.0
13.6
15.3
20.0
Reduction
--
32
24
This pattern suggests equivalent conditions (presumably good -excellent) at
CR1 and CC1. Maximum stress is seen just below Old Fort with some downstream
recovery.
DEM biologists also have collected benthic macroinvertebrates from the
North Fork of the Catawba River (NFC3). A single qualitative collection was
made on 27 April, 1982. This technique usually collects more taxa than surber
samples or kicks. Total taxa richness was 72 with an SEPT value of 26. This
is substantially lower than values obtained from Jacob Fork (ST= 96, SEPT 39)_,
a nearby site rated as "Excellent". Although a wide variety of intolerant
organisms were present in the North Fork site, none were abundant. This
station was dominated by 2 highly tolerant chironomidae (Cricotopus bicinctus,
C. tremulus gr.). This chironomid assemblage has been associated with toxic
conditions, especially heavy metals. Many of the intolerant taxa may have
"drifted" in from tributary streams with higher water quality. This segment
of the North Fork Catawba River was rated as "Fair".
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
I. Level I Analysis. Level I data (Single -number summaries) are presented in
Table 9. Some degree of stress was evident at most river sites. Only CR1,
the control area, was in excellent condition. The Catawba River near Old
Fort (CR2) was severely stressed (rated as"Poor") with large reductions in
both taxa richness and average density. Intolerant groups are rare at this
site. Some recovery is evident downstream.at CR3, but this segment is only
rated as "Fair". Taxa richness of intolerant groups is still low, but a few

of these species are abundant (see Appendix I).
All North Fork Catawba stations have some degree of stress. The "control"
site had a low taxa richness value (40 taxa at NFCI;VS. 66 taxa at CR1),
suggesting some stress above this site. No permitted point sources exist
about NFC1, suggesting that non -point runoff affects this river segment. A
further decline in taxa richness is seen at NYC2 with this river segment rated
as "Fair". This site is still above the 2 major point sources, but below H & B
Lumber and the town of Sevier. Level I data does not indicate much difference
between NFC2 and NFC3, but this point will be further addressed in Level II
and Level III analysis.
Many tributary streams were rated as good or excellent: Armstrong Creek,
Swannanoa Creek, Crooked Creek and Curtis Creek.. Problems were evident at
Buck Creek (rated as "Fair") and Nicks Creek (rated as "Poor"). Both streams
are effected by non -point runoff. Buck Creek is located in a residential area
and Nicks Creek is located in an agricultural area. The middle and upper -
portions of Buck Creek are in a more protected watershed and are known to
support good trout populations (see Prior Investigations). All streams were
sampled during rainfall; only the Buck Creek site was highly turbid.
II. Level II Analysis. Level II data (by groups) is presented in Tables 10 and
11. Data are given for both taxa richness and density (as a percent of total
density). The latter information helps us to determine variation from the
normal "balanced" population. A normal benthic community is dominated by
Ephemeroptera, with Trichoptera subdominant. A substantial number of
Plecoptera should be present. As the level of stress increases, we see a
shift in community structure, first to Trichoptera and finally to Diptera
and/or oligochaeta.
Dominance by Diptera/Oligochaeta is seen at 2 river sites: CR2 and NFC3.
Both sites are affected by major point sources. An unexpected trend was the
dominance of Mollusca (Gastropoda = snails) at 2 sites: CR3 and NFC1. Snails
are normally limited in North Carolina by low alkalinity and by a combination
of competition and predation. The North Fork Catawba River sites had the
highest alkalinity (34-40 mg/1). The upper portion of the North Fork drains
a limestone region (near Linville Caverns).. This results in naturally high

alkalinity. The higher alkalinity allows (but does not cause) the massive
buildup of snails (Elimia sp) at NFC1 and NFC2. Snails graze on:periphyton,
implying the primary productivity is stimulated at these sites by nutrient
additions. The substrate at NFC1 had a slick slippery appearance characteristic
of high periphyton buildup.
The overabundance of Elimia at NFC1 and NFC2 affects the diversity of
other grazing animals, especially chironomidae. Note the low taxa richness
of chironomids at these sites and the high taxa richness of chironomids at
NFC3 where the snails have been reduced. The "recovery" of total taxa richness
at NFC3 results from this phenomenon, not from any improvement in water quality.
Table 11 suggests that an unbalanced community also existed at some
stream sites. A shift from Ephemeroptera towards Trichoptera was evident at
Crooked Creek and Buck Creek. Crooked Creek and Nicks Creek showed a shift
to tolerant Diptera.
III. Level III Analysis. A list of the taxa collected is given in Appendix I. In-
formation on the habitat preferences of each species can be used to make
inferences about water quality. These data have been examined for species
associated with low Dissolved Oxygen (DO), high particulate organic carbon
(POC), high nutrient levels, sedimentation and toxicity.
A. Low DO. Species associated with low DO were rare or absent at all sites
in the Upper Catawba River drainage. This was true even at CR2, below,
the Old Fort discharge.
B. High POC. Inputs of POC will stimulate filter -feeding benthic macroin-
vertebrates. This pattern was observed only at Crooked Creek (CrCl).
Crooked Creek was the only area where average (about 1000/sample) density
was substantially above the control value. This increase was due to
filter -feeding caddisflies (Cheumatopsyche sp., Hydropsyche venula,
Symphitopsyche sparna), blackflies (Simulium sp) and chironomids
(Rheatanytarsus sp.)
C. High nutrients. As previously discussed (Level II analysis), the high
density of -grazing snails (Elimia) at NFC1/NFC2 suggest inputs of nutrients
which have stimulated periphyton production. The relatively high number

of snails at upper Armstrong Creek also may reflect some nutrient input
from the nearby hatchery.
D. Sediment. Sediment -associated taxa are most evident during low -flow
periods. Our samples were collected at high flow, which may obscur these
trends. Also, sediment effects may be secondary to•tbe effects of point
source discharges. Downstream areas of both the Catawba River (CR3) and
the North Fork (NFC2, NFC3) had a sandy, embedded, substrate. A layer
of silt covered the substrate at NFC3. Both Nicks Creek and Crooked
Creek had sandy substrate, especially the former. Even control sites were
sandier than expected, probably due to erosion from dirt roads.
At Nicks Creek (NC1) most Ephemeroptera were eliminated. Two of the
remaining three species were burrowing species (Ephemera blanda, Hexageria)
adapted to a sand habitat. NC1 was the only site where Stictochironomns
was collected. This chironomid is also associated with sand areas.
Several -of the chironomids collected at NFC3 were also sediment associated:- -
Polypedilum scalaenum, Cladotanytarsus, Thienemaniella).
E. Toxicity_ Recent.investigators have suggested that chironomid assemblages
can be used to infer toxic conditions, especially toxicity associated
with heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Cr, Pb). Chironomids associated with toxic
conditions are marked in Appendix I; particularly characteristic are
Cricotopus bicinctus (C/O sp. 1) and C. tremulus gr. (C/O sp. 5). The
species previously had been found to be dominant at NFC3 in April, 1982.
During the October survey these species were abundant at both station
CR2 and NFC3. Both sites are below major point sources.
SUMMARY (BY STATION)
1. The headwaters of the Catawba River (CR1), Swannanoa Creek (SC1) and portions
of Armstrong Creek (AC2) are rated as "Excellent". The benthic macroinver-
tebrate communities of these streams were characterized by high total taxa
richness (59-66 taxa) with many species in the intolerant groups (30-33 taxa).
Average density was also high. A "balanced" community was present, dominated
by Ephemeroptera-Trichoptera with significant numbers of Plecoptera. These
sites had more sand substrate than expected, probably due to erosion from
dirt roads.

2. Curtis Creek (CC1) and upper Armstrong Creek (AC1) are rated as "Good". A
relatively well-balanced benthic community was present at these sites, although
the high relative abundance of snails at AC1 (22% of total density) may re-
flect some nutrient inputs from the trout hatchery. Taxa richness values at
these sites were slightly lower than expected (ST=54-57, SEPT= 23-29). These
sites also had slight reductions in average density (relative to controls).
3. The upper station on the North Fork Catawba River (NFC1) and Crooked Creek
(CrCl) are rated as "Good -Fair". These sites have slightly depressed SEPT
values (21-25), especially NFC1. The benthic community is unbalanced at both
sites. Snails are abnormally abundant at NFC1, suggesting nutrient inputs.
Crooked Creek has large populations of filter -feeders, suggesting inputs of
particulate organic carbon.
4. Four sites are classified as "Fair": North Fork Catawba River below Sevier
(NFC2, NFC3), the Catawba River just above Lake James (CR3) and Bucks Creek
(BC1). The areas were characterized by low taxa richness.(ST= 37-44, SEPT
10-15) and unbalanced communities.
NFC2 is above all permitted point sources, but it is impacted by non -
point runoff (from Sevier?) and/or unpermitted discharges - spills. The
population is only slightly unbalanced. At NFC3 taxa richness climbs slightly,
but this is due to competitive interactions between snails and chironomids,
not due to any improvement in water quality. The abundance of intolerant
groups is very low at NFC3. A highly skewed benthic community is present,
dominated by tolerant chironomids. The chironomid species assemblage sug-
gests both toxicity and sediment problems. This site is close to a rating of
"Poor".
The Catawba River above Lake James is in a state of partial recovery
(from the effects of Old Fort discharges). One Ephemeroptera (Stenonema
modestum) becomes abundant but the community is highly unbalanced. The dom-
inant organism is a linpet (Ferrissia rivularis).
Buck Creek'is impacted by non -point runoff from a residential area.
Filter -feeding caddisflies are slightly over represented. However, prior
fisheries investigations indicate good -excellent conditions in the middle
and upper portions of.Buck Creek.

5. The Catawba River at Old Fort (CR2) and Nicks Creek are rated as "Poor". -
Intolerant groups are rare at both these sites. Station CR2-had.-a-highly
unbalanced benthic community, dominated by chironomids associated -with toxic
conditions. Water quality at this site has not improved since 1979 survey.
The available evidence suggest a -decline in water quality. (Compare Tables
2 and 3) Nicks Creek is heavily-sedimented. It appear's to be impacted by
agricultural runoff. Other DEM investigations have indicated that poorly
managed agricultural lands -can result in•severe stress in nearby streams.

Table 8. Prior Fish Surveys, Upper Catawba River Drainage
Louder '64
N. Fk. Catawba
Left Prong Catawba R. X
Armstrong Cr. X
Swannanoa Cr. X
Nick Cr. X
Buck Cr. X
Crooked Cr. X
'81 Survey Menhenick '763 Rating
G, G-F, P
X G, G-F, F
X G
X G-F
X G-F
X Ex, G
X G-F
1Ex = Excellent
G = Good
G-F = Good -Fair
F = Fair
P = Poor
2Unpublished DEM survey of all regional fishery biologists
3Unpublished data

Table 9. Level I Data (Single Number Summaries)
Upper Catawba River Drainage, Oct. 1982
A. River Sites
Station
Parameter
Total_ Taxa Richness (ST)
reductionl
Intolerant Taxa Richness (SEPT)
reductionl
Average Density (N)
reductionl
Classification2
B. Stream Sites
Station
Parameter
S
T % reductionl
SEPT
reductionl
N
reductionl
Classification2
CR1
CR2
CR3
NFC1
NFC2
NFC3
66
28
38
40
'35
44
--
58**
42*
39*
47*
33*
33
6
10
21
16
16
--
82
70
36
52
52
1143
150'
338
804
1280
534
--
86**
68**
24
--
49*
Ex
P
F
G-F
F
F
AM
AC2
SC1
CrCl
AC1
NCI
CC1
57
59
65
54
37
36
57
12
9
--
17
43*
45*
12
29
30
32
25
15
8
23
9
6
--
22
53
75
28
585
1081
961
1974
858
311
576
39*
--
--
--
11
68**
40*
G
Ex
Ex
G
F
P
G
*moderate stress according to DEM criteria
**severe stress according to DEM criteria
I Vs. control: CR1 (rivers) or SCl (streams)
2 Based largely on SEPT >30 = Excellent, 23-29 = Good, 17-22.= Good -Fair, 10-16 =
Fair, <9 = Poor

16
Table 10. River Sites, Level II Data (by Group)
Upper Catawba River Drainage, Ocr. 1982
_
A.
Taxa
Richness
B.
Density
(%
of Total)
Group
CR1
CR2
CR3
NFC1
NFC2
NFC3
CR1
CR2
CR3
NFC1
NFC2
NFC3
MRC
Ephemeroptera
12
4
4
9
5
8
36
3
19
12
26
5
47
Plecoptera
7
0
0
2
3
1
5
-
-
-
2
-
8
Trichoptera
14
2
6
10
9
7
41
3
15
8
44
9
26
Coleoptera
4
1
2
2
2
0
9
3
1
1
1
-
6
Odonata
1
1
0
1
2
2
-
1
-
-
-
2
Megaloptera
0
0
1
1
2
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
Diptera: Misc.
7
6
2
3
2
1
5
9
3
1
2
1
12
Diptera: Chiron.
14
7
16
5
3
18
2
45
10
1
2
58
Oligochaeta
2
4
4
2
1
3
1
20
9
1
-
14
Crustacea
1
1
0
1
0
0
-
1
-
-
-
-
Mollusca
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
10
39.
76
22
3
Other
2
1
2
2
3
1
-
5
4
-
1
8
1
Total
66
28
38
40
35
44
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Subtotal (EPT)
33
6
10
21
16
16
1 MRC = Mountain River Control data set

Group
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Coleoptera
Odonata
Megaloptera
Diptera: Mics.
Diptera: Chiro _--_
Oligochaeta
Crustacea
Collusca
Other
Total
Subtotal (EPT)
Table 11. Stream Sites, Level II Data (by Group)
Upper Catawba River Drainage, Oct. 1982
A. Taxa Richness
AC1
AC2
SC1
CrCl
BC1
NCI
CC1
11
12
10
9
8
3
9
6
7
7
3
1
0
5
12
10
15
13
6
5
9
3
4
4
4
1
2
5
0
3
1
0
2
2
0
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
4
3
5
4
3
7
4
11
10
14
11
7
9
13
5
3
4
2
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
3
2
3
57 59 65 54 37 36 57
29 30 32 25 15 8 23
+ Mountain Str2am- Control Data Set
B. Density (% of Total)
AC1
AC2
SCI
CrCl
BC1
NCI
CC1
MSC
24
40
39
16
24
2
43
43
5
3
13
1
-
-
4
.` 14
28
37
23 .
39
61
42
27
18
4
2
6
8
-
5
7
7
-
1
2
3
8
14
5
10
3
13
11
2
7
15
2
28
6
2
-
3
2
2
5
4
22
10
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
-
1
4
5
3
5
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Appendix - Benthic
macroinvertebrates collected
in the
Upper
Catawba River drainage,
26 Oct.
182
,
CR1
CR2
CR3
NF1
NF2
NF3
AC1
AC2
SC1
CrC1
BC1
NC1
CC1
EPHEMEROPTERA S: 20
12
4
4
9
5
8
11
13
10
9
8
3
9
Stenonema modestum
387
6
1i8
31
30
1
146
210
142
232
348
393
S. pudicum
37
3
2
36
Stenacron interpunctatum
1
1
S. pallidum
14
11
12
101
5
Epeorus (Iron) sp.
60
6
62
24
46
12
Heptagenia sp.
4
-
1
Baetis amplus
1
B. flavistriga
1
1
1
9
1
B. intercalaris
3
7
18
2
19
2
12
14
B. pluto
13
1
1
42
5
9
94
42
136
4
2
Pseudocloeon spp.
111
18
2
1
16
8
266
13
10
20
Caenis sp.
1
4
Isonychia spp.
179
9
95
471
5
20
369
176
108
11
41
Ephemerella deficiens
4
2
113
10
106
55
8
29
6
E. catawba
2
4
E. invaria
4
E. bicolor
5
1
4
4
8
Baetisca. carolina
3
.5
8
Hexagenia sp.
13
2
4
Ephemera blanda
2
2
5
?LECOPTERA S: 10
7
-
-
2
3
1
5
7
7
3
1
-
5
Taeniopteryx sp.
58
1
53
4
1
97
3
4
Allocapria sp.
.26
4
.14
107
Sweltsa gr.
8
5
Peltoperlasp.
9
2
5
11
2
2
Acroneuria abnormis
3
4
40
15
8
19
Malirekus hastatus
7
1
Isogenoides subvarians
8
8
28
.Paragnetina immarginata
11
3
4
1
13
Allonarcys sp.
30
1
1
17
3
Pteronarcys dorsata
8

CR1
CR2
CR3
NF1
NF2
NF3
AC1
AC2
SCl
CrC1
BC1
NC1
CC1
6
10
9
7
12
10
15
13
6
5
9
RICHOPTERA S: 27
1a
2
i
Hysrops=; cne nezzemii
H. hageni
1
H. simulans
12
H. venula
1
95
8
1
182
Symphitopsyche bronta
33
1
1
4
14
2
13
S. morosa
1
4
1
32
8
S. sparna
50
73
16
41
30
194
17
64
Parapsyche cardis
4
Glossosoma nigrior
_12
7
4
55•
48
6
4
52
13
4
Hydroptila sp.
6
1
8
Leucotrichia pictipes
8
1
Brachycentrus sp.
2
17
Micrasema watauga
165
.38
Lepidostoma sp.
2
1
1
Apatania incerta
8
12
5
6
Goera sp.
23
1
4
1
3
2
8
101
Hydatophylax argus
2
1
2
Oecetis sp.
3
Chimarra sp.
6
36
1
49
155
1
1
Doliphilodes sp.
48
6
76
51,
Lype diversa
5
4
Psychomyia nomada
2
2
Polycentropus sp.
2
1
21
1
2
1
Rhyacophila carolina
1
2
48
',R. nigrita
41
4
R. fuscula
21
2
11
65
2
3
CR1
CR2
CR3
NF1
NF2
NF3
AC1
AC?.
SC1
Crd
BC1
NC1
CC1
COLEOPTERA S: 7
4
1
2
2
2
-
3
4
4
`A
,; 1
2
5
Optioservus sp.
59
9
3
6
22
31
16
3
10
18
Oulimnius latiusculus
49
8
5
2
23 '
17

a
Appendix -
Benthic
macro invertebrates
collected
in
the
Upper Catawba
River
drainage, 26
Oct.
182
(continued)
CR1
CR2
CR3
NF1
NF2
NF3
AC1
AC2
SC1
CrC1
BC1
NC1
CC1
'-OLEOPTERA (continued)
S:7
4
1
2.
2
2
-
3
4
4
4
1
2
5
Macronychus glabratus
4
Promoresia elegans
4
4
301
2
Psephenus herricki
109
8
19
14
3
46
Ectopria nervosa
2
Helophorus sp. (?)
3
2
ODONATA
S: 5
1
1
-
1
2
2
-
3
1
-
2
2
-
Lanthus parvulus
5
1
4
Gomphus sp.
20
4
Boyeria vinosa
4
1
Argia sp.
2
1
3
16
1
Calopteryx sp.
1
4
2
MEGALOPTERA
S: 3
-
-
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
Corydalus cornutus
2
4
3
17
1
12
3
4
5
Nigronia serricornis
2
8
9
6
Sialis sp.
2
DIPTERA: MICS.
S: 9
7
6
2
3
2
1
4
3
5
4
3
7
4
Empididae
5
20
15
•8
12
27
Antocha sp.
2
1
5
11
4
5
1
16
8
Dicranota sp.
1
4
1
Hexatoma sp.
2
Tipula sp.
22
1
1
1
2
4
1
4
7
Atrichopogon sp.
1
Palpomyia gr.
9
3
8
1
4
Atherix lantha
9
1
1
57
17
Simulium spp_
57
2
5
61
15
52
91
521
73
6
24

Appendix - Benthic
macroinvertebrates
collected
in the
Upper
Catawba River
drainage,
26 Oct.
182
J.
(continued)
CR1 CR2
CR3
NF1
NF2
NF3
AC1
AC2
SC1
CrC1
BC1
NC1
CC1
DIPTERA: CHIRONOMIDAE S: 49
14 7
16
5
3
18
11
10
14
11
7
9
13
Chironomis sp.
6
Cryptochironomus fulvus
1
10
96
1
12
C. blarina
20
Demicryptochironomas sp.
2
2
Microtendipes sp. •
4
3
40
33
2
139
18
Paralauterborniella nigrohalterale
4
Polypedilum aviceps
2
48
2
P. convictum
8
4
P. illinoense
2
P. scalaenum
12
60
Pseudochironomus sp.
8
Phaenopsectra sp.
2
1
Stictochironomas sp.
14
Stenochironomus sp.
1
4
1
Tribelos sp.
1
4
4
Rheotanytarsus sp.
6
8
39
14
6
512
14
1
8
Tanytarsus sp.
2
36
2
1
Micropsectra sp.
1
2
Cladotarytarsus sp. 2
3
1
C. sp. 5
128
Zavrelia sp.
4
1
Diamesa sp.
1
Cardiocladius sp.1
10
25
4
Brilla sp.
2
2
1
4
Carynoneura sp. 1
16
7
. Thienemariella sp. 3
3
6
20
5
24
8
1
1
4
Epoicocladius 2
Genus nr: Nanocladius A
2
3
Nanocladius sp.
20
2
N. downesi
23
2
1

P ,
Appendix - Benthic
macro invertebrates
collected
in the
Upper
Catawba River
drainage,
26 Oct.
182
'
(continued)
CR1
CR2
CR3
NF1
NF2
NF3
AC1
AC2
SC1
CrC1
BC1
NC1
CC1
Cricotopus/Yrthocladius (C/O)
C/O sp. 1
52
3
88
C/O sp. 51
22
5
24
2
C/O sp. 61
8
4
C/O sp. 10
2
C/O sp ..1 3
",
2
1
C/O sp. 46
8
4
4
3
C/O sp. 50
1
2
C/O sp. 54
2
8
4
Eukiefferiella sp. 1
2
1
2
5
20
2
2
1
E sp. 2
2
4
E sp. 11
1
14
E'sp. 12
1
Paraphaenocladius sp. 1
10
14
1
Rheocricotopus robacki
1
1
1
Parachaetodadius sp.
1
11
Parakiefferiella sp.
1
1
Synorthocl,adius sp.
32
Limnophyes sp.
1
Conchapelopia gr. 1
1
22
6
1
53
8
21
Abl_abesmyia ornata
6
IGOCHAETA S: 9
2
4
4
2
1
3
5
3
4
2
2
3
4
Opisthopora
4"
Lumbriculidae
11
4
2
9
4
2
3
6
24
44
30
16
17
Nais sp.
4
44
45
4
24
12
2
60
6
16
20
Pristina sp..
4
2
Slavinia appendiculata
Limnodrilus spp. (immature)
4
2
2
8
2
2
T.- hoffineisteri
4
1
Aulodrilus limnobius
4
128
Cambarinicola sp.
6
1
13
12

�•
Appendix -
Benthic
macro invertebrates
collected
in the
Upper
Catawba River drainage,
26 Oct.
182
CR1
CR2
CR3
NF1
NF2
NF3
AC1
AC2
SC1
CrC1
BC
NC1
CC1
USTACEA
S: 1
1
1
-
1
5
4
1
3
1
6
3
1
6
Cambarus spp.
LLUSCA
S: 3
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
g
1181
552
24
257
208
2
108
7
4
Elimia sp.
5
29
263
46
12
9
2
6
20
26
4
14
Ferrissia.rivularis
1
2
4
Pisidium sp.
'HER
S: 5
2
1
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
3
3
2
3
4
14
27
4
24
80
3
22
28
50
33
25
Prostoma graecens
5
3
4
12
1
2
Dugesia tigrina
5
Dugesia tigrina
1
1
Nematoda
2
1
4
4
4
Hydracarina
1 Chironomid assemblage associated with high levels of metals

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Asheville Regional Office Lab Report / Water Quality
W❑ SAMPLE TYPE
COUNTY
RIVER BASIN: Catawba l
'OrA��AMBIENT PRIORITY QA
X❑ STREAM
EFFLUENT
REPORTTO LYFrost -ARO
COMPLIANCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
❑ LAKE
INFLUENT
Other
0 EMERGENCY
ESTUARY
COLLECTOR(S) LYFrost
VisitlD:�
❑
1
COMMENTS
Point % (2)
Lab Number:
Date Received
Time Received
Received By :
Estimated Boo Range: unk Station Location:! North Forth of the Catawba,at Baxter W WTP.?
Seed: Chlorinated: Remarks: 2
Station # Date Begin (yy/mm/dd) Date End (yy/mmfdd) Time Begin Time End I Depth - DM, DB, DBM Value Type -A, H, L Composite-T, S, B Sample Type
02/08/16 1 1 1100 1 1 1 Grab
BOD 310 mg/L
COD High 340 mg/L
COD Low 335 mg/L
Colifonn: MF Fecal 31616 GRAB #/100 mis
Colifonn: MF Total 31504 #/100 mis
Colifonn: Tube Fecal 31615 9/100 mis
Colifonn: Fecal Strap 31673 #/100 mis
Residue: Total 500 mg/L
Volatile 505 mg/L
Fixed 510 mg/L
Residue: Suspended 530 mg/L
Volatile 535 mg/L
Fixed 540 mg/L
pH 403 units
Acidity to pH 4.5 436 mg/L
Acidity to pH 8.3 435' mg/L
Alkalinity to pH 8.3 415 mg/L
Alkalinityto pH 4.5 410 mg/L
TOC 680- - --- _ _ ___mg/L
XX
Turbidity 82079 5.98 NTU
Coliform Totai Tube 31508 -� '-- _ #/100'mis
Chloride 940 mg/L
Chi a: Tri 32217 pg/L
Chi a: Corr 32209 pg/L
Pheophytin a 32213 pg/L
Color: True 80 C.U.
Color: (pH ) 83 pH= C.U.
Color. pH 7.6 82 C.U.
Cyanide 720 mg/L
Fluoride 951 mg/L
Formaldehyde 71880 mg/L
Grease and Oils 556 mg/L
Hardness Total900 mg/L
Specific Cond. 95 pmhos/cm2
MBAS 38260 mg/L
Phenols 32730 pg/L
Sulfate 945 mg/L
Sulfide 745 mg/L
Boron: Total 1022 pg/L
Tannin & Lignin 32240 pg/L
Hexavalent Chromium 1032 pg/L
NH3 as N 610 mg/L
TKN an N 625 mg/L
NO2 plus NO3 as N 630 mg/L
P: Total as P 665 mg/L
PO4 as P 70507 mg/L
P: Dissolved as P 666 mg/L
K-Potassium mg/L
Cd- Cadmium 1027 pg/L
Cr-Chromium:Total 1034 pg/L
Cu- Copper 1042 pg/L
Ni-Nickel 1067 pg/L
Pb- Lead 1051 pg/L
Zn- Zinc 1092 pg/L
V-Vanadium pg/L
Ag- Silver 1077 pg/L
AI -Aluminum 1105 pg/L
Be- Beryllium 1012 pg/L
Ca- Calcium 916 mg/L
Co- Cobalt 1037 pg/L
Fe- Iron 1045 pg/L
Li -Lithium 1132 ug/L
Mg- Magnesium 927 mg/L
Mn-Manganese 1055 pg/L
Na- Sodium 929 mg/L
Arsenic:Total1002 pg/L
Se- Selenium 1147 pg/L
Hg- Mercury 71900 pg/L
Ba_Barium pg/L
Organochlorine Pesticides
Organophosphoms Pesticides
Base/Neutral&Acid Extractable Organics
TPH Diesel Range
Purgeable Organics (VOA bottle req'd)
TPH Gasoline Range
TPH/BTEX Gasoline Rance
Temp blank at arrival - 2 degrees C LAB USE ONLY
Temperature
on arrival (°C):
Conductance (94) Water Temp-C (10) ID.O. (300) JpH (400) 18.3 Alkalinity (82244) 14.5 Alkalinity (431) 14.5 Acidity (82243) 18.3 Acidity (82242) lAir
8A
Temp-C (20)
Secchidepth m ISalinity ppt (480) IPrecipit-In/day(45) ICloud Cover% (32) IWindDir-Deg(36) IStrmFlow Sev(1351) ITurbiditySeverity(1350) IWindVelocity-mph (35) IMean StrmDepth-ft(64) IStnnWidth-ft(4)

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Asheville Regional Office Lab Report / Water Quality
W❑ SAMPLE TYPE
PRI
��AMBIENTORITY
RIVER BASIN: Cattawbal
QA
STREAM
EFFLUENT
REPORT TO LY Frost -ARO
COMPLIANCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
LAKE
INFLUENT
Other :
EMERGENCY
ESTUARY
COLLECTOR(S) LYFrost
VisitlD:�
Estimated BOD Range: unk Station Location: North Forth of the Catawba atNCSR 1560 Bridge—_-_
Seed: Chlorinated: Remarks:
Station # Date Begin (yy/mm/dd) Date End (yy/mm/dd) Time Begin Time End Depth - DM, DB, DBM Value Type - A, H, L Composite-T, S, B Sample Type
02/08/16 1045 1— 1Grab
BOD 310 mg/L
Chloride 940 mg/L
COD High 340 mg/L
Chi a: Tri 32217 pg/L
COD Low 335 mg/L
Chi a: Corr 32209 pg/L
Coliform: MF Fecal 31616 GRAB #/100 mis
Pheophytin a 32213 pg/L
Coliform: MF Total 31504 #1100 mis
Color: True 80 C.U.
Coliform: Tube Fecal 31615 #1100 mis
Color: (pH ) 83 pH= C.U.
Coliform: Fecal Strep 31673 #/100 mis
Color: pH 7.6 82 C.U.
Residue: Total 500 mg/L
Cyanide 720 mg/L
Volatile 505 mg/L
Fluoride 951 mg/L
Fixed 510 mg/L
Formaldehyde 71880 mg/L
Residue: Suspended 530 mg/L
Grease and Oils 556 mg/L
Volatile 535 mg/L
Hardness Total 900 mg/L
Fixed 540 mg/L
Specific Cond. 95 pmhos/cm2
pH 403 units
MBAS 38260 mg/L
Acidity to pH 4.5 436 mg/L
Phenols 32730 pg/L
Acidity to pH 8.3 435 mg/L
Sulfate 945 mg/L
Alkalinity to pH 8.3 415 mg/L
Sulfide 745 mg/L
Alkalinity to pH 4.5 410 mg/L
Boron: Total 1022 pg/L
TOC 680 mg/L
Tannin & Lignin 32240 pg/L
XX
Turbidity 82079 197 NTU
Hexavalent Chromium 1032 pg/L
Coliform Total Tube 31508 _ ._ ---- #/100 mis
COMMENTS: Temp blank at arrival - 2 degrees C
Sample Point % (2) Conductance (94) Water Temp-C (10) D.O. (300)
Secchi depth m Salinity ppt (480) Precipit-In/day (45) Cloud Cover % (32)
NH3 as N 610 mg/L
TKN an N 625 mg/L
NO2 plus NO3 as N 630 mg/L
P: Total as P 665 mg/L
PO4 as P 70507 mg/L
P: Dissolved as P 666 mg/L
K-Potassium mg/L
Cd- Cadmium 1027 pg/L
Cr-Chromium:Total 1034 pg/L
Cu- Copper 1042 pg/L
Ni-Nickel 1067 pg/L
Pb- Lead 1051 pg/L
Zn- Zinc 1092 pg/L
V-Vanadium pg/L
Ag- Silver 1077 pg/L
Ak Aluminum 1105 pg/L
Be- Beryllium 1012 pg/L
Ca- Calcium 916 mg/L
Co- Cobalt 1037 pg/L
Fe- Iron 1045 pg/L
pH (400) 18.3 Alkalinity (82244) 14.5 Alkalinity (431)
Dir-Deg (36) IStm Flow Sev (1351) 1Turbidity Severity (1350)
Li -Lithium 1132 ug/L
Mg- Magnesium 927 mg/L
Mn-Manganese 1055 pg/L
Na- Sodium 929 mg/L
Arsenic:Total1002 pg/L
Se -Selenium 1147 pg/L
Hg- Mercury 71900 pg/L
Ba_Barium pg/L
Organochlorine Pesticides
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Acid Herbicides
Base/Neutral&Acid Extractable Organics
TPH Diesel Range
Purgeable Organics (VOA bottle req'd)
TPH Gasoline Range
TPH/BTEX Gasoline Rance
LAB USE ONLY
Temperature
on arrival (°C): 8.4
Acidity (82243) 18.3 Acidity (82242) Air Temp-C (20)
Velocity -mph (35) 1Mean Strm Depth-ft (64) IStrm Width-ft (4)

COUNTY MCDOWELL
RIVER BASIN:
REPORTTO ARO Regional Office
Other :
COLLECTOR(S) : L FROST
Estimated BOD Range:
Seed: Chlorinated:
itatlon N Date Begin (yy/mm/dd)
BOD 310 m /L
COD High 340 m /L
COD Low 335 m /L
Coliform: MF Fecal 31616 /100ml
Coliform: MF Total 31504 /100ml
Coliform: tube Fecal 31615 /100ml
Coliform: Fecal Strep 31673 /100ml
Residue: Total 500 m /L
Volatile 505 m /L
Fixed 510 m /L
Residue: Suspended 530 m /L
Volatile 535 m /L
Fixed 540 m /L
H 403 units
Acidity to pH 4.5 436 m /L
Acidity to pH 8.3 435 m /L
Alkalinity to vH 8.3 415 m L
Alkalinity to pH 4.5 410 m /L
TOC 680 m /L
Turbidity 76 NTU
Coliform Total Tube "/ 100 mis
a i)MMEN'IS :
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Chemistry Laboratory Report / Water Quality
PRIORITY
W❑ SAMPLE TYPE
X❑ AMBIENT QA
X� STREAM
EFFLUENT
COMPLIANCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
LAKE
El INFLUENT
Ej EMERGENCY VISIT ID
ESTUARY
Station LOCatlon: NORTH FORTH OF THE CATAWBA AT ASHFORD BRIDGE
Remarks:
Date End (yy/mm/dd)
Time Begin
Time End
Depth - DM, DB, DBM
Value Typ e - A, H, L
1100
Chloride 940 m /L
Chi a 70953 u /L
Color. True 80 c.u.
Color: (H) 83 pH= C.U.
Color. PH 7.6 82 C.U.
Cyanide 720 m /L
Fluoride 951 m /L
Formaldehyde 71880 m L
Grease and Oils 556 m /L
Hardness Total900 m L
Specific Cond. 95 umhos/cm2
MBAS 38260 m /L
Phenols 32730 u /L
Sulfate 945 m /L
Sulfide 745 m L
Boron
Tannin & Li in u /L
Hexavalent Chromium u /L
Bicarbonate m /L
Carbonate m /L
NH3 as N 610 0.15 m /L
TKN an N 625 m /L
NO2 plus NO3 as N 630 m /L
X
P: Total as P 665 0.05 m /L
PO4 as P 70507 m /L
P: Dissolved as P 666 m /L
K-Potassium m /L
Cd-Cadmium 1027u /L
Cr-Chromium:Total 1034 u /L
Cu- Copper 1042 u /L
Ni-Nickel 1067 u /L
Pb- Lead 1051 u /L
Zn- Zinc 1092 u /L
V-Vanadium u /L
A -Silver 1077 u /L
Al -Aluminum 1105 u L
Be- Beryllium 1012 u /L
Ca- Calcium 916 m /L
Co- Cobalt 1037 u /L
Fe- Iron 1045 u /L
Lab Number :
2W5744
Date Received:
8/14/2002
Time Received:
9:20 AM
Received By
HMW
�
Daly Released :
I�U
AR
Date Reported:
8/28/2002
Composite-T, S, B I Sample Type
Li -Lithium 1132 u /L
Mg- Magnesium 927 m L
Mn-Manganese 1055 u /L
Na- Sodium 929 m L
Arsenic:Total 1002 u /L
Se -Selenium 1147 u /L
H - Mercury 71900 u L
Ba Barium u L
Or anochlorine Pesticides
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Acid Herbicides
Base/Neutral&Acid Extractable Organics
TPH Diesel Range
Pur eable Organics (VOA bottle re'd)
TPH Gasoline Range
TPH/BTEX Gasoline Range
Phytoplankton

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Asheville Regional Office Lab Report / Water Quality
Lab Number:
COUNTY McDowell
WD SAMPLE TYPE
PRIORITY
Date Received
RIVER BASIN: Catawba
X❑ AMBIENT QA X❑ STREAM
EFFLUENT
Time Received
Received iv ed
REPORT TO LY Frost -ARO
COMPLIANCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY LAKE
INFLUENT
Other :
EMERGENCY ESTUARY
COLLECTOR(S) LYFrost
VisitlD:�
Data Released:
Date
Reported
Estimated BOD Range: unk
9
Station Location: North Forth of the Catawba at Ashford Bridge
Seed: Chlorinated:
Remarks:
Station #
Date Begin (yy/mm/dd)
Date End (yy/mm/dd)
Time Begin
Time End
Depth - DM, DB, DBM
Value Type -A, H, L
Composite-T, S, B
Sample Type
02/08/12
1100

COUNTY MCDOWELL
RIVER BASIN:
REPORTTO ARO Regional Office
Other :
COLLECCOR(S) : L FROST
Estimated DOD Range:
Seed: Chlorinated:
itation N I Date Begin (yy/mm/dd)
BOD 3I0 m /L
COD High 340 m L
COD Low 335 m L
Coliform: MF Fecal 31616 /100ml
Coliform: MF Total 31504 /loom[
Coliform: tube Fecal 31615 /100ml
Coliform: Fecal Step 31673 / 100ml
Residue: Total 500 m L
Volatile 505 m /L
Fixed 510 m /L
Residue: Suspended 530 m /L
Volatile 535 m /L
Fixed 540 m /L
H 403 units
Acidity to pH 4.5 436 m /L
Acidity to PH 8.3 435 m /L
Alkalinity to pH 8.3 415 m /L
Alkalinity to pH 4.5 410 m /L
TOC 680 m /L
Turbidi 76 NTU
Coliform Total Tube "/ 100 MIS
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Chemistry Laboratory Report / Water Quality
PRIORITY
W❑ SAMPLE TYPE
X❑ AMBIENT QA
XO STREAM
EFFLUENT
COMPLIANCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
LAKE
INFLUENT
EMERGENCY VISIT ID
ESTUARY
Station Location: NORTH FORTH OF THE CATAWBA AT NCSR
1560 BRIDGE
Remarks:
Date End (yy/mm/dd)
Time Begin
Time End
Depth - DM, DB, DBM
Value Type - A,11, L
Chloride 940 m /L
Chi a: Tri 32217 u /L
Chia: Corr32209 u L
Pheophytin a 32213 u /L
Color. True 80 C.U.
Color. (PH) 83 PH= C.U.
Color. PH 7.6 82 C.U.
Cyanide 720 m /L
Fluoride 951 m /L
Formaldehyde 71880 m /L
Grease and Oils 556 m /L
Hardness Total900 m /L
Specific Cond. 95 umhos/cm2
MBAS 38260 m /L
Phenols 32730 u L
Sulfate945 m /L
Sulfide 745 m /L
Boron
Tannin & Li in u /L
Hexavalent Chromium u /L
Bicarbonate m /L
Carbonate m L
NH3 as N 610 0.06 m L
TKN an N 625 m /L
NO2 plus NO3 as N 630 m L
X
P: Total as P 665 0.38 m /L
PO4 as P 70507 m /L
P: Dissolved as P 666 m
K-Potassium m /L
Cd- Cadmium 1027 u L
Cr-Chromium:Total 1034 u /L
Cu- Copper 1042 u /L
Ni-Nickel1067 u /L
Pb- Lead 1051 u /L
Zn- Zinc 1092 u /L
IV -Vanadium u /L
A -Silver 1077 u /L
Al -Aluminum 1105 u /L
Be- Beryllium 1012 u /L
Ca- Calcium 916 m /L
Co- Cobalt 1037 u /L
Fe- Iron 1045 u /L
Lab Number : 2W5745
Date Received: 8/14/2002
Time Received: 9:20 AM
Received By HMW
Da Released . AR "
Date Reported : 8/28/2002
Composite-T, S, B I Sample Type
Li -Lithium 1132 u /L
Mg- Maesium927 m L
Mn-Manganese 1055 u /L
Na- Sodium 929 m /L
Arsenic-.Total1002 u L
Se- Selenium 1147 ' u /L
it - Mercury 71900 u /L
Ba Barium u /L
Organochlorine Pesticides
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Acid Herbicides
Base/Neutral&Acid Extractable Organics
TPH Diesel Range
Pur cable Organics (VOA battle re 'd)
TPH Gasoline Range
TPH/BTEX Gasoline Range
Ph to lankton

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Asheville Regional Office Lab Report / Water Quality
Lab Number:
a] SAMPLE TYPE
Date Received
COUNTY
RIVER BASIN:
McDowell
Catawba
PRIORITY
X❑ AMBIENT QA XO STREAM
EFFLUENT
Time Received
Received By
REPORT TO
LY Frost - ARO
COMPLIANCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY LAKE
El INFLUENT
Other
EMERGENCY ESTUARY
Data
COLLECTOR(S) :
C F
VisitlD
`.
Released:
Date
Reported
Estimated BOD Range:
unk
Station Location: North Forth of the Catawba at NCSR 1560 Bridge
Seed:
Chlorinated:
Remarks:
Station #
Date Begin (yy/mm/dd)
Date End (yy/mm/dd)
Time Begin
Time End
Depth - DM, DB, DBM
Value Type -A, H, L
Composite-T, S, B
Sample Type
02/08/12
1130
Grab
COMMENTS:
NH3 as N 610 mg/L
TKN an N 625 mg/L
NO2 plus NO3 as N 630 mg/L
XX
P: Total as P 665 mg/L
PO4 as P 70507 mg/L
P: Dissolved as P 666 mg/L
K-Potassium mg/L
Cd-Cadmium 1027 pall.
Cr-Chromium:Total 1034 pg/L
Cu- Copper 1042 pg/L
Ni-Nickel 1067 pg/L
Pb- Lead 1051 pg/L
Zn- Zinc 1092 pg/L
V-Vanadium pg'L
Ag- Silver 1077 pg/L
AI -Aluminum 1105 pg/L
Be- Beryllium 1012 g/L
Ca- Calcium 916 mg/L
Co- Cobalt 1037 pg/L
Fe- Iron 1045 pg/L

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Asheville Regional Office Lab Report / Water Quality
WO SAMPLE TYPE
COUNTY McDowell
PRIORITY
RIVER BASIN: Catawba
X❑ AMBIENT E:] QA
X❑ STREAM
EFFLUENT
REPORTTO LYFrost-ARO
0 COMPLIANCE E:] CHAIN OF CUSTODY
LAKE
F-1 INFLUENT
Other
EMERGENCY
ESTUARY
COLLECTOR(S) LY Frost
VisitlD:1
Lab Number:
Date Received
Time Received
Received By :
Estimated Boo Range: unk Station Location: North Forth of the Catawba at NCSR 1560 bridge
Seed: Chlorinated: Remarks: Downstream of DOT 221 project
Station # Date Begin (yy/mm/dd) Date End (yy/mm/dd) Time Begin Time End I Depth - DM, DB, DBM Value Type -A, H, L Composite-T, S, B Sample Type
02/09/04 1030 Grab
BOO 310 mg/L
Chloride 940 mg/L
COD High 340 mg/L
Chl a: Tri 32217 pg/L
COD Low 335 mg/L
Chl a: Corr M09 pg/L
Colifonn: MF Fecal 31616 GRAB #/100 mis
Pheophytin a 32213 pg/L
Colifonn: MF Total 31504 #/100 mis
Color: True 80 C.U.
Colifonn:.Tube Fecal31616 #1100 mis
Color: (pH ) 83 pH= C.U.
Colifonn: Fecal Strep 31673 #1100 mis
Color: pH 7.6 82 C.U.
Residue: Total 500 mg/L
Cyanide 720 mg/L
Volatile 505 mg/L
Fluoride 951 mg/L
Fixed 510 mg/L
Formaldehyde 71880 mg/L
Residue: Suspended 530 mg/L
Grease and Oils 556 mg/L
Volatile 535 mg/L
Hardness Total 900 mg/L
Fixed 540 mg/L
Specific Cond. 95 pmhos/cm2
pH 403 units
MBAS 38260 mg/L
Acidity to pH 4.5 436 mg/L
Phenols 32730 pg/L .
Acidity to pH 8.3 435 mg/L
Sulfate 945 mg/L
Alkalinity to pH 8.3 415 mg/L
Sulfide 745 mg/L
Alkalinity to pH 4.5 410 mg/L
Boron: Total 1022 pg/L
TOC 680 mg/L
Tannin & Lignin 32240 pg/L
XX
ITurbidity82079 NTU
Hexavalent Chromium 1032 pg/L
Colifonn Total Tube 31508 #1100 mis
COMMENTS:
Sample Point % (2) 1 Conductance (94)
Temp-C (10) ID.O. (300)
NH3 as N 610 mg/L
TKN an N 625 mg/L
NO2 plus NO3 as N 630 mg/L
P: Total as P 665 mg/L
PO4 as P 70507 mg/L
P: Dissolved as P 666 mg/L
K-Potassium mg/L
Cd- Cadmium 1027 pg/L
Cr-Chromlum:Total 1034 pg/L
Cu- Copper 1042 pg/L
Ni-Nickel 1067 pg/L
Pb- Lead 1051 pg/L
Zn- Zinc 1092 pg/L
Iv -vanadium pg/L
Ag- Silver 1077 pg/L
AI -Aluminum 1105 pg/L
Be- Beryllium 1012 ug/L
Ca- Calcium 916 mg/L
Co- Cobalt 1037 pg/L
Fe- Iron 1045 pg/L
pH (400) 18.3 Alkalinity (82244) 14.5 Alkalinity (431)
Li -Lithium 1132 ug/L
Mg- Magnesium 927 mg/L
Mn-Manganese 1055 pg/L
Na- Sodium 929 mg/L
Arsenic:Total1002 pg/L
Se- Selenium 1147 pg/L
Hg- Mercury 71900 pg/L
Ba_Barium pg/L
Organochlorine Pesticides
0mnnoohosohorus Pesticides
Acid Herbicides
Base/Neutral&Acid Extractable Organics
TPH Diesel Range
Purgeable Organics (VOA bottle req'd)
TPH Gasoline Range
TPH/BTEX Gasoline Range
LAB USE ONLY
Temperature
on arrival (IC):
4.5 Acidity (82243) 18.3 Acidity (82242) Air
8.4
rC (20)
depth m (Salinity ppt (480) 1Precipit-In/day (45) 1Cloud Cover % (32) l Wind Dir-Deg (36) IStrm Flow Sev (1351) ITurbidity Sevedty (1350) 1 Wind Velocity -mph (35) 1Mean Stnn Depth-ft (64) IStrm Width-ft (4)

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Asheville Regional Office Lab Report / Water Quality
W❑ SAMPLE TYPE
COUNTY McDowell
PRIORITY
RIVER BASIN: Catawba
l AMBIENT F QA
x STREAM
F EFFLUENT
REPORT TO LY Frost - ARO
COMPLIANCE F--j CHAIN OF CUSTODY
LAKE
INFLUENT
Other
EMERGENCY
ESTUARY
COLLECTOR(S) LY Frost
VisitlD:�
❑
Lab Number. r
Date Received
Time Received
Received By :
Estimated BOD Range: unk Station Location: North Forth of the Catawba at Baxter WWTP
Seed: Chlorinated: Remarks: Upstream of DOT 221 project
Station # Date Begin (yy/mm/dd) Date End (yy/mm/dd) Time Begin Time End Depth - DM, DB, DBM Value Type - A H, L Composite-T, S, B Sample Type
02/09/04 1100 Grab
BOD 310 mg/L
Chloride 940 mg/L
COD High 340 mg/L
Chi a: Tri 32217 pg/L
COD Low 335 mg/L
Chi a: Corr 32209 pg/L
Coliform: MF Fecal 31616 GRAB #1100 MIS
Pheophytin a 32213 pg/L
Coliform: MF Total 31504 #/100 MIS
Color. True 80 C.U.
Coliform: Tube Fecal 31615 #1100 MIS
Color. (pH ) 83 . pH= C.U.
Coliform: Fecal Strep 31673 #1100 MIS
Color. pH 7.6 82 C.U.
Residue: Total 500 mg/L
Cyanide 720 mg/L
Volatile 505 mg/L
Fluoride 951 mg/L
Fixed 510 mg/L
Formaldehyde 71880 mg/L
Residue: Suspended 530 mg/L
Grease and Oils 556 mg/L
Volatile 535 mg/L
Hardness Total 900 mg/L
Fixed 540 mg/L
I Specific Cond. 95 pmhos/cm2
pH 403 units
MBAS 38260 mg/L
Acidity to pH 4.5 436 mg/L
Phenols 32730 pg/L
Acidity to pH 8.3 435 mg/L
Sulfate 945 mg/L
Alkalinity to pH 8.3 415 mg/L
Sulfide 745 mg/L
Alkalinity to pH 4.5 410 mg/L
Boron: Total 1022 pg/L
TOC 680 mg/L
Tannin & Lignin 32240 pg/L
XX
Turbidity 82079 NTU
Hexavalent Chromium 1032 pg/L
Coliform Total Tube 31508 #/100 mis
COMMENTS:
Point % (2)
(94) 1 Water Temp-C (10) I D.O. (300)
pH (400) 18.3 Alkalinity
NH3 as N 610 mg/L
TKN an N 625 mg/L
NO2 plus NO3 as N 630 mg/L
P: Total as P 665 mg/L
PO4 as P 70507 mg/L
P: Dissolved as P 666 mg/L
K-Potassium mg/L
Cd- Cadmium 1027 pg/L
Cr-Chromium:Total 1034 pg/L
Cu- Copper1042 pg1L
Ni-Nickel1067 pg/L
Pb- Lead 1051 pg/L
Zn- Zinc 1092 pg/L
V-Vanadium pg/L
Ag- Silver 1077 pg/L
AI -Aluminum 1105 pg/L
Be- Beryllium 1012 pg/L
Ca- Calcium 916 mg/L
Co- Cobalt 1037 pg/L
Fe- Iron 1045 pg/L
Li -Lithium 1132 ug/L
Mg- Magnesium 927 mg/L
Mn-Manganese 1056 pg/L
Na- Sodium 929 mg/L
Arsenic:Total1002 pg/L
Se- Selenium 1147 pg/L
Hg- Mercury 71900 pg/L
Ba_Barium pg/L
Organochlorine Pesticides
Omanoohosohorus Pesticides
Acid Herbicides
Base/Neutral&Acid Extractable
rPH Diesel Ranae
TPH Gasoline Range
TPH/BTEX Gasoline Ranae
LAB USE ONLY
Temperature
on arrival (°C): _ 8.4
Alkalinity (431) 14.6 Acidity (82243) 8.3 Acidity (82242) Air Temp-C (20)
depth m (Salinity ppt (480) 1Precipit-In/day (45) 1Cloud Cover % (32) 1 Wind Dir-Deg (36) IStrn Flow Sev (1351) 1Turbidity Severity (1350) l Wind Velocity -mph (35) [Mean Stan Depth-ft (64) 1Strm Width-ft (4)

rR(; imaoP fd(1x4RO __ _
IPRt : image 640x4RO nix Plc
1PEG image 640x480 pixels
Subject: North Fork of the Catawba River Pollution Event
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 11:12:27 -0400
From: Art Bonham <[e-mail]>
To: "Westall, Forrest" <[e-mail]>, "Frost, Larry" <[e-mail]>,
"Nevils, F. Mell" <[e-mail]>,
"Medlin, Caroline" <[e-mail]>; "Clark, Alan" <[e-mail]>,
"Owen, Debra" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Kucken, Darlene" <[e-mail]>, "Taylor, Win" <[e-mail]>,
"Westphal, Marilyn" <[e-mail]>,
"Struve, Michael R." <[e-mail]>,
"Abernathy, Chuck" <[e-mail]>,
"McFadyen; Ken" <[e-mail]>,
"Wilson, Greg" <[e-mail]>
Dear Sir or Madam:
The purpose of this e-mail is to advise the NC Division of Land
Resources, the NC Division of Water Quality and the McDowell County
Government of a major sediment and pollution event observed in the North
Fork of the Catawba River in the vicinity of Sevier, NC in McDowell
County on July 27 and -August 3, 2002 and to request your collective
assistance in identifying and remediating the -sediment and pollutant
source(s).
Background and Findings:
At approximately noon on Saturday, July 27, 2002, a member of the Lake
James volunteer Water Information Network took water samples from the
North Fork of the Catawba River below the bridge at SR 1560 (Old
Linville Rd.) and observed that the river water level was very low and
had a pale milky green color to the water but no_ obvious signs of
suspended sediment. Those samples were then analyzed at the UNC-A
Environmental Quality Institute the next Monday, July 29, 2002 with the
following results:
Nitrate Nitrogen as N = 9.5 mg/L
Ammonia Nitrogen as N = 2.08 mg/L
Orthophosphate as PO4 = 3.7 mg/L
Turbidity = 3 NTU
Conductivity = 333.7 uS/cm
Follow-up samples were taken a week later at noon on Saturday, August 3,
2002 in the North Fork River just above the confluence with Armstrong
Creek (about 1/2 miles downstream from the bridge at SR 1560). The
sampler observed that the North Fork water level was extremely low, that
it was a brownish orange color and carried a heavy load of suspended
sediment. It was evident from examining high water marks and flow lines
on the bank that the river had been running about a foot higher earlier
in the week and had receded but still carried the heavy sediment load.
(See the attached photo, "NF at 1560.JPG") Those samples were analyzed
by the UNC-A EQI on August 5, 2002 with the following results:
Nitrate Nitrogen as N = 7.0 mg/L
Ammonia Nitrogen as N = 0.2 mg/L
Orthophosphate as PO4 = 1.55 mg/L
Turbidity = 110 NTU
Conductivity = 332.6 uS/cm
Also on August 3rd, the upstream portion of the North Fork River was
observed to be running clear at the bridge at SR 1573 just below the
Baxter Corp. (see attached photo, "NF at SR 1573.JPG")
v
I of 5 8/9/2002 I :56 PM

--�,3 . -k-
l67
7`), �0G
t
0-
9
�2,S
Z

State of North .Carolina
G Department of Environment
J iw' and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
MEMORANDUM
ENR
NORTH CAROLIN
ENVIRONMENT AND
December 29, 1999
TO: Invited Stakeholders (See attached list)
FROM: Alan Clark
SUBJECT: January 13 Catawba River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules Planning Meeting
A meeting to discuss proposed riparian buffer rules for the Catawba River Basin has been .
scheduled for 9:00 AM to noon on Thursday, January 13, 2000 at Duke Power's McGuire
Facility on Lake Norman (map enclosed). The purpose of the meeting is to bring together a .
number of interest group representatives in the basin as a first step toward seeking broader
stakeholder involvement in the development of buffer rules. It is envisioned that over the next
several months, workshops and public hearings will be held throughout the basin in order to hear
from a large segment of the basin's stakeholders prior to adopting temporary rules.
This initial meeting was prompted, in part, by strong interest expressed by members of the
Environmental Management Commission's Water Quality Committee (WQC) toward adopting
temporary buffer rules for the basin in May 2000. In addition, the full Environmental .
Management Commission approved the final Catawba Basinwide Water Quality Plan that
addressed riparian. buffers in the basin. Temporary rules would be adopted pursuant to the NC
Clean Water Act of 1999 that authorized the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to
adopt temporary rules in the Catawba, Tar -Pamlico and Cape Fear River Basins to protect water
quality. In order to adopt temporary rules, the act requires solicitation of stakeholder input,
provision of a formal 30-day comment period and holding of public hearings. In order to meet
the May timeframe, the following schedule has been proposed:
• Hold an initial stakeholder meeting in early January 2000
• Hold stakeholder workshops in early to mid -February (need stakeholder input to help plan
details such as dates, times, locations, content and invitees)
• Bring temporary rules language, based on stakeholder workshop input, to the WQC and
EMC in March
• Open a 30-day public comment review period after the March EMC meeting including
holding of public hearings in early to mid -April
• Bring the temporary rules to the WQC and EMC for adoption in May.
• Continue to work towards bringing permanent rules to the EMC for adoption in Dec. 2000.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post'consumer paper

A copy of the Neuse Basin buffer rule is included for your information. It is recognized that the
terrain, and to some extent the purpose of the buffers in the Catawba basin are different than in
the Neuse. It is also recognized that Mecklenburg County already has buffer rules; that buffer
recommendations are being formulated in the lower basin by Voices and Choices; and that
support for buffers by the many local governments in the upper basin is for perennial streams
only (the Neuse rules also include intermittent streams). However, the Neuse rules represent
hundreds of hours of stakeholder deliberations that attempt to balance the need for environmental
protection with flexibility in land use. Accordingly, they are offered as a starting point.
.,Presented below are topics to be covered at the meeting.
1) Welcome ` Introductions/ Purpose
2) Background on -the impetus for rule -making and the tentative schedule
3) . Summary;of the Neuse Rules
4)..Comparisons with other buffer recommendations for the basin
5) Discussion of an appropriate stakeholder process
Please plan on attending this meeting if you can, or feel free to send a representative if you
cannot. If you have any questions or suggestions for discussion, feel free to contact me at 919-
733-5083, ext. 570. If you need directions to the meeting location, please contact Steve Johnson
(704/373-4391) or Jennifer Huff (704/373-4392) at Duke Power. The McGuire facility is located
on Highway 73 near Huntersville along the southeast shore of Lake Norman. You can enter
through the McGuire Island entrance with the Black Duke Power sign. The meeting will be in _
the main meeting room of the Environmental Center (building 7405). I look forward to seeing
you there.
Enclosures
Invited Stakeholder List
Neuse Buffer Rule
Location map showing the meeting site

INVITED STAKEHOLDERS
NAME
COMPANY/ORGANIZATION
JENNIFER HUFF
DUKE POWER COMPANY
BILL TOOLE
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON
MARTHA BURRIS
GASTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXT
DONNA LISENBY
CATAWBA RIVERKEEPER
MIKE STRUVE
WESTERN PIEDMONT COG
BRUCE BISHOP
HOME BUILDERS HICKORY-CATAWBA CO
CHRISANNE MITCHELL
TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
RUSTY LYDAY
USDA-NRCS
SQUEAK SMITH
TROUT UNLIMITED
SUSIE HAMRICK JONES
FOOTHILLS CONSERVANCY
JUDY FRANCIS
BURKE COUNTY PLANNING
MARY GEORGE
CATAWBA COUNTY
JEFF CARPENTER
NC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
SYLVIA TURNMIRE
ALEXANDER COUNTY
MIKE LANE
CALDWELL COUNTY
KEN MCFADYN
MCDOWELL COUNTY
JEFF MORSE
TOWN OF VALDESE
BARRY GULLET
CHAR_MECKLENBURG UTILITY DEPARTMENT
STEVE SCHREINER
CRESCENT RESOURCES
RUSTY ROZELLE
MECKLENBURG CO DEPT OF ENV PROT
MIKE MCLAURIN
CENTRALINA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS -
MORELAND GUETH
NC DIVISION OF FOREST RESOURCES
GORDON SMITH
MOUNTAIN ISLAND INSTITUTE
EDNA CHIRICO
DON ABERNETHY
BURKE SWCD & NC ENV MGMT COMMISSION
MITCH PEELE
NC FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
DR TIM MEAD
CATAWBA RIVER FOUNDATION
FORREST WESTALL
NCDWQ ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
REX GLEASON
NCDWQ MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
JOHN DORNEY
NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
COLEEN SULLINS
NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY

AO
7�97U IV
dVW a s Ic
d
A
l _
• to n iao �c�x� �(b�au�
4` tq�uaucuo-1Inu�

Catawba River Basin Stakeholder Riparian Buffer Meeting
NAME
ORGANIZATION
PHONE
ADDRESS
EMAIL
s e WC' A V
r
�.9-
Boa- 66 ?�4 c a74
6 ��
r
-
ew ,. C. Guy
V111,41
em eve o f
� cEv.env
G
P n tamX 4 Uvw I•.ee- w c 28 20 -ram
carer -aKer
'
`�
9'9 33-sa83
'?>�1G2 !Nw!&�vla.jb17, �+/ . �(fLZ76`l9 -!6/%
jen.XK e ncm•�l, �t
1•
%. u%cvusl(.ot,&
e�
-��
70 7- r a
-
ra sJ-,lw-• Po6GZ 4. cJ
/0Y3 Fa /hLon e d q..0 s7� �1/C Zvi e 7,AC.
'cl.h •d
7-
z b
decj
—
` (I -6a-�
I L 9 /%
S� C� vacs e
��-ivlc s
T'$ 3 2.
F0.0ox 21 q Mo>;6f-Nrl
r ci iD h3l.'
L 1P 'tom
' OC7
�2Z 9/ Ec
t�0 �0 9a�lP I C lib/ uG Z a&-3
X.
w6a- a-matn
gyp
o. u- 3 Ne it c 59
fi @�cl. ad C-Rfaa�.'�c
! '
Nc/JEiv ? IV04e6(f % e-
71 - 6 9 9
Al. A4A? A, Zriz S
/1lklmel.
Co. Lim''
(M)63 -lcoo
3,'?A ls5 - 4Ve,, :5-.J &sv)'/,P /U 04£9
T v� a�e GvtoQP
o ar c
COW0 —V01 111,V,
914)F33-972&
0! J, CA. d. /r, I(ot' Z76ol
bob. 2c/Zoc/cI r9JGwtGI �•
nn Y Vl
�' 4lx
9I 7 Q6
�� u ."
A `�T TTo
I
NC`� sh��� (
�2°0-251-bra
/I
5e'7 w Oof�F-t.J Acf - 4,C � L
-r.D%A7Ta J Q IJ C MA -I .
VAc b DIAJe" CO UrWtV
uk.-rs-r . AA A4L, b M Z'3 S- •
14 kl-ff}D M GbOWEELL .
aw Ride
ee -ev
-3�18-a
v ��x 3Sod C
tver
er T v Z.
` o 0�-A,o
R C-
04-92Z-u
C Zo 4 G of Air
p�-cSv
D is
0 P(' Vr �) S C 280Z4
-+aVld• ietMah @ A;eS. iASA
5V'n- SM-
70q-Q11-315 b
13U3 Cher vi 112 R ALt AS G U,3
W A. SM- • GS(!A•
' A'RC I vw�
G�hP2�olCC N�xts:�1�,a.� VTwr/
70'�-391-5098
5100 77'eoolLsl150� �Wp C:NAfLt,oii•� 1.1L 28ZI�o
� bC�v��-`�T Gi•C41gQ-1,o�C
`4 A v,4
14W A lfiS • ,aeY
.
5 V Wss Me 6,
/
/
CA (,v Q C �d es
ZS 2�
0. 1%rt0 !C=% ' e-
Ec1 CO
Chi rt Co Rrchdrds Prop
'$a,-v90
Po �X d(,71q Chd NC d$dd
eCht'ri Co �mt'nclso2(r)
. ,' 0/Ps�
�c�. v
- x
, 6 33g / �l L �iD
G'z
tcga el �gdr!/J
C nb-&I CO
7W 3Y8 270S
J /30� 5Z1O /t/ 2.8Z
@ C f fm�
�c. John W • 7605
"s4 . Ca..�..
2,a K
nc. vS
mekL
, N e-+
nnl,uc -U..
W�
;U
�• v
►V
V
. roc• US,
/a,, V ovee
, Corr)
2 In 6 v C n^m c clvr�n en r� . ri
Cq-cse fir- Rpa34 z4 �d T�,o 'B 1O0�3 c� 2�Co!- rm� s wl sir-,a��ureE - Wm&Y
C,,,Jd",Y.!l
I!
c,�,,,,,�rK,:ss►.,...._ 821- 7S7-f 30! '�• o. a•Zoo ,i�%Kss & Aol.eekt.

-—3i�:-' �;: fxt.��y .. �,.�:-�,✓i 7 S/ /` :-�.�.�._ mil �l
�1
------=— - -
o _Sir
_._.— Q �' ----- ----_._- k�iL_.ill_S_-------------------=---------------------
I ' _u f z L:Z __�.✓ .14 t ��� — TL- D �•�—_/`�TLosx /�¢ 7 /�Z -- -------..
I 'gel
------------------------------ _-- ------------= ------------- - --- ----- --
- - -- __ _�

ST n'"°v
ir
,Njart4 Cgxrnlina C enrral ,�kssemhfg
'�&rtttte CIThumher
�St�xts �$i�tztifr$ �ui�i�
c ttlet$ • Z7681—ZOOS
SENATOR STEVE METCALF
28TH DISTRICT
August 1, 2000
Dear Folks,
I am sorry I am unable to attend your meeting tonight. I have committee meetings in
Raleigh on Tuesday and Wednesday; otherwise I would be there with you. I have sent to
represent me Angie Whitener, a member of my staff and a resident of McDowellCounty.
Please know I continue to be concerned about the imposition of buffers along the Upper
Catawba River Basin. That is why I have written Secretary Bill Holman of the -
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. A copy of our correspondence
should be distributed to you tonight. In addition, I speak with Secretary Holman and
other department officials often about this issue.
Should there be any question; let me again state my position. I believe that buffers along
the Upper Catawba River Basin are not necessary to protect the quality of water in our
area. In addition, I believe that whatever policy is ultimately adopted, that there must be
input from the citizens of McDowell County.
Let me also report that as of this week, the stakeholder group for the development of a
policy for the Upper Catawba River Basin had not been appointed. I have requested and
received confirmation from Secretary Holman that Mr. Gary Revis, Vice -President of
your organization, will be appointed to that group.
Thank you for your interest and I wish you well at your meeting tonight.
Sincerely,
Steve Metcalf
e�
NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE ���

JUL 31 '00 03:31PM o*00000000000000000000000000000 P.2
�Iitrt�F �M�,eYintt �L;txztrl ��s��tt(�x�
�ru.ttF >;Il,nttGcr
ttTtL ~�r�iaEutirri �1t�Ii?lLT�
�a(LigEI :�7�i11
March 20, 2000
T ae Honorable Bill Holman
Secretary
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
5:.2 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
D --ar Secretary Holman:
R:cently it has come to our attention that the Department is beginning the rule -making
process regarding riparian buffers along the Catawba Rliver Basin. We understand the
need for long-term solutions to preserve and improve water quality. That's why we
supported House Bill 1160, the Clean Water Act of 1999. However, as representatives of
Senate District 23, we must express olar conc--m about the state's oversight in the
irr;plementation of the Clean Water Act in the Catawba River Basin.
We believe that any plan for the Catawba River must be ponsistent with the special
gt:alities of the basin and its inhabitants. As you know, the Department has recently
established rules in the Neuse River Basin and is in the process of implementing rules in
thy° Tar -Pamlico River Basin.
W. believe that the Department should not assume that the rules established in those two
basins can be simply applied in the Catawba River Basin. The Catawba River is vastly
different topographically from these other systems, traversing most of western North
Carolina from its headwaters in the mountains to the southern piedmont where it exits
North Carolina.
It is our understanding that the Environmental Management Commission has requested
that the Department proceed with temporary rule malting. While temporary rules are
neR:ded in emergency situations, there is no emergency in westem'North Carolina that

JUL 31 07 03:31PM00I0IIIII0I II0II0I%II JIII/00
P.3
jequires the Department to establish these rules without consulting Ithe affected
communities.
ru the Department moves forward on temporary rules, we are worried that the EMC is
9ttempting to force those rules. on these communities when it should be working with
1 )cal residents to develop a compromise that both protects the environment and addresses
tle special circumstances of the river basin's communities. As a result, we believe it
would serve the interests of the Department, the people who live in the Catawba River
basin and the environment for the Department to drop its attempt to propose temporary
riles to the EMC.
In addition, we suggest the Department consider the following suggestions:
• That the Catawba River and it tributaries' water quality be assessed to
identify problem areas.
• That local governments are allowed to address water quality problems with a
variety of measures including stream bank stabilization, waste water system
expansion, and Best Management Practices similar to those used in the North
Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program.
• That the use of buffers is focused along lakes in the basin where development is more
likely to occur.
• That local governments work with the Division of Water Quality to increase water
quality monitoring and address problem areas.
• That local governments also work with the Division to educate people living in the
river basin about how clean water can be maintained in the Catawba River and its
tributaries,
• That the Department provide more information to local communities about
stakeholder meetings and EMC decisions.
• That private property owners are included in EMC stakeholder neetings.
We are deeply concerned about protecting water quality,.in Western North Carolina --and
so are our constituents and their communities. Hovvevet, unnecessary regulation is not
th,! way to preserve the water quality along the Catawba River. We believe the
Department can do the most good for the environment by working with local residents to
develop solutions that work in our communities.
T17ank you for your assistance. Please let us know if we can provide you with any
ad-iitional information.
x" _ Sincerely,
Steve Metcalf
Charles N. Carter, Jr.

JUL 31 '00
^ 4't
Y
P.4
NORTH CAROLJNA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
May 11, 2000
The Honorable Steve Metcalf &
The Honorable Charles Carter
General Assembly of North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Re: Catawba River Buffers
Dear Senator Metcalf and Senator Carter:
Thank you for your letter of March 20, 2000 expressing concerns about rulemaking
by the Environmental Management Commission to protect riparian buffers in the
Catawba River Basin. I have discussed the specific concerns that you raised with key
members of the Environmental Management Commission and Division of Water
Quality staff.,
As you know the Environmental Management Commission with support from
Governor Hunt and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has adopted
rules requiring protection of vegetated riparian buffers in the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico
River Basins. These rules, in combination with voluntary and incentive -based
programs such as the agriculture best management practices cost share program and
conservation reserve enhancement program, are protecting and restoring water quality
in the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico Rivers. Protection and restoration of buffers is one of the
most cost effective strategies to protect water quality.
DENR agrees with you that water quality problems in the mountains are different
from those found in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. DENR also agrees with you that
the expertise and experience of mountain residents and local officials are needed to
develop and implement effective water quality protection strategies. The strategies
developed by the EMC, DENR and stakeholders in the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River
Basins may not be effective in the mountains.
On May 11, 2000, I will recommend to the Environmental Management (EMC):
• that the F..MC suspend any proposal to adopt temporary or permanent buffer, unless
local governments ask the EMC to adopt rules;
• that the EMC direct DENR to consult with local elected officials and others a
process to consider and address the concerns raised by you and your constituents in
the Catawba River Basin;
• that the EMC and DENR seek comments and recommendations from local officials_,
soil and wader supervisors, farmers, landowners, business leaders, conservationists,
and citizens on water quality; and
• that the EMC establish a deadline of completing the process by December 1, 2000.
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIhHi NOXYN CAMoLINA 27699.1601
PN40N12919.733,49e4 FAY 919.7113.1io6a WWW.ENR.8TATE.NC.u2-IZNR/
AN CdQUAL OPPORTUNITY / Arr1RMAYM! ACTION 1EMPLOYER - 00% Y4ECra69L0/t0% PGOT-CONSUMER -ArgZP

JUL 31 100 03:33PM o*00000000000000000000000000000 P.5
Ser. ator Steve Metcalf and Charles Carter
Pao a Two
May 11, 2000
Tn the interim, DENR will urge local governments to adopt local ordinances to protect vegetated
huf iers on the shores of the many beautiful lakes in the basin and along the main stem of the river that are
threatened with development within the next two years. DENR acknowledges that many local
gov°rnments have already enacted ordinances to protect bufFcrs to protect drinking water supplies. It is
important that local governments take responsibility for protecting water quality while the EMC delays
action, DENR will also educate major landowners and developers in the basin about the environmental
and economic benefits of protecting buffers and will urge them to protect buffers as they develop their
property.
DENR looks forward to working with McDowell and Burke County officials to protect the high water
quality, excellent fishing, and scenic values of Lake James.
Dr. David Moreau, Chairman of. the Environmental Management Commission, and I will be meeting
on May 17 with local officials from the Catawba River Basin to hear their concerns, seek their
recommendations, and urge them to help DENR and the EMC develop policies to protect water quality.
rho Catawba. River is one of North Carolina's greatest environmental and economic resources. I am
confident that by working together we can develop a strategy that protects public health, protects and
maintains clean water, respects private property rights, and'ensures economic prosperity.
appreciate your past support of legislation to protect public health, water quality, and air quality.
'lease let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Sin erely,
Bill Holman
cc: '. he Honorable Fountain Odom, Co -Chairman, Environmental Review Commission
the Honorable Pryor Gibson, Co -Chairman, Environmental Review Commission
Dr. David Moreau, Chairman, Environmental Management Commission
Vlr_ Tc>anrny Stevens, Director, Division of Water Quality

JUL 31 09 i OiOiiiOOOO iiOOOOO iiii0t0iii
P.6
N.C. Senate District 28
Sen. Charles Carter Sen. Steve Metcalf
[phone] [phone]
2111 Legislative Building 520 Legislative Office Building
North Carolina Senate Raleigh, NC 27601-2808
FOIL YMMEDIATE RELEASE 03/20/00
McDowell must have input in river basin plan, senators say
Carter, Metcalf ask state to forgo temporary rules for Catawba River
RALEIGH — Residents in the Catawba River Basin must have a say in any clean -water rules
established to protect the basin, state Sens. Charles Carter and Steve Metcalf said today.
Carver and Metcalf, both first -teen Democrats from Buncombe County, sent a letter today to Bill
Holman, secretary of the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The letter
urges Holman not to establish temporary rules along the basin that are similar to the ones
implemented along the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico basins in the eastern part of the state. Instead, the
senators said that temporary rules were not necessary and that any plan to protect the basin must
inel•sde input from local residents.
`The Catawba River Basin is not the same as river basins in the east, and it should not be treated
the ;tame," .Metcalf said. "That's why we have asked the Department to seek input from residents
who live near the river — they will have some great ideas about preserving water quality without
lots of red tape,"
The basin rules are part of the Clean Water Act of 1999, which was supported by both senators.
Metoaif and Carter say that the law should be applied in consultation with the residents who live
near the Catawba River.
"We all support clean water, but the state should not just force rules upon McDowell County
residents without seeking local input," Carter said. "And while temporary rules are very valuable
in ar. emergency situation, there is no emergency in western North Carolina that would require
such rules to be forced upon mountain residents."
Residents in McDowell County, where much of the Catawba River is located, have expressed
conc;rn about state -mandated rules along the basin. McDowell County commissioners approved _
a resolution last October calling for community -based basin protections agreed upon by the state
and 1:3cal governments and affected citizens.
NOT 1r.- A copy of the senators' letter to Secretary Holman is attached.
North Corofina Senote • Ralelgh, NC 27601-2808

�en�.tors: Let residents have a say in water rules v
,y NUEE CONLEY
taff Writer
Residents of the Catawba'River
%aasin, including McDowell County,
nnust have a say in. the formation of
any clean water rules intended to
protect the basin, said state Sens.
C'harles.Carbor and Steve Metcalf.
Cartk!r and Metcalf, both first -
term Democrats from Buncombe,
Seri. a letter Monday ~to Bill
Holman, secretary of the stat.e's
0cpart.nrenl. of r;nvironment. and
tf�atur:rl Rigsources. They asked
flc;lrnan not. to ,.:>tnErlish tonporrry
rules along the Catawba River
basin that' are similar to the ones
implemented for the Neuse and
Tar -Pamlico basins in eastern
North Carolina.
Instead, the senators wrote that
temporary rules are not necessary
and any plan to protect the .basin
must include input from local resi-
dents and'pmperty owners:.
"'Elie Catawba River basin is not
the same as river basins in the east,
and it should not be treated the
s<imic," Me.k.;ilfsaid. "Phat's why we
have asked the Deparl.merit tri seek
input from residents -who live near
the river = they will have some
great ideas about preserving water
quality without lots of red tape."
The General Assembly recently
granted autborfty to the N.C.
Environment Management
Commission to establish temporary
regulations for the Tar -Pamlico
River basin, the .Cape Fear basin
and the Catawba River basin.
The basin rules are part of the
Clean Vater Act of 1999, Which.
was supported by both Carter and
Metcalf. Specific regulations have.
Senators: Give people a. say
(Continued from Page 1A)
western North Carolina from its
headwaters in the mountains to the
southern Piedmont where it exits
North Carolina," read the letter.
In the letter, Carter and hietcalf
also call for the Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources to "provide more infor-
mation to local communities about
stakeholder meetings and EMC
decisions. They also cdl for private
property owners to be included in
ENIC meetings.
McDowell residents have also
expressed their concern about pro-
posed rules for the Catawba River
basin. Last month, a meeting was
held in the McDowell County
Courthouse which drew a crowd of
concerned residents and public offi-
cials.
Last October, the McDowell
County Board of Commissioners
approve a.resolution in opposition
to the possible establishment of
riparian buffers alongthe stream'
banks of the Catawba River basin -
The cummissioners.liave also called
for community -based protedidns fo"r
,eater quality that. can be mutually.
agreed upon by the state and local
governments and"at%cted residents.
The temporary rules call for the
establishment of mandatory 50400t
buffers along the stream banks
within the Catawba River basin.
yet to be drafted but local people
have based fears of losing their land
to buffer zones based on those
which were established in the
Neuse River basin.
Carter and Metcalf said, in their
letter, that the law should be
applied in consultation with the
residents who live near the
Catawba River.
"We all support. clean water, but
the state should notjust force rules
upon MCDOWell County residents
without seeking local input; Carter
said. "And while ternporary rules
State environmental. officials
plan to hold public hearings on the
proposed rules before making a
final decision. If implemented,
these temporary rules would
remain in place until permanent
regulations are adopted. ' . .. ' .
are very valuable in an emergent; N
situation, there is no emergency n o
western North Carolina that woul, o
require such rules to be forced upor—
mountain residents." ^'
In their letter, Carter an —
Metcalf joint out how the land is
the Catawba River basin is differ-
ent from the land found in eastern
North Carolina.
'The Catawba River is vastly
different topographically from these
other systems, traversing most of
(See SENATORS, Page 2A)

_ / �`.► Gam___.—. � I
"..-- _ __ � r a2 - � P--t_ ^ �c�_� � -__ � d�' �1_ _
ILE
N

-2, 5;-'�
Trl

-___.ill
.j _ !�"� /� /yam/�• .�f/�.� '/ems/ {�]�
i

INTERNAL GUIDANCE MANUAL
N.C. DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STREAM CLASSIFICATION METHOD
January 19, 1999
Version 2.0
Introduction
This stream evaluation method is intended to distinguish ephemeral channels from intermittent channels.
The numerical rating system format was developed based on repeated requests from the regulated
community for an objective method of stream evaluation. The 19 point minimum score for determining an
intermittent channel was based on the results of over 300 individual field trials conducted in the Piedmont
and Coastal Plain portions of the Neuse River Basin during May, June, July and August of 1998, as well as.,
field testing conducted during December 1998 and January 1999. The four tiered weighted scale used for
this system is in response to the intrinsic variability of stream channels. The score ranges were developed in
order to better assess the often gradual (and sometime variable) transition of streams from ephemeral to
intermittent.
Previous versions of this form used a "yes"/ "no" format and was found by NCDWQ staff and by -the
regulated community to be inadequate to properly encompass and assess the natural variability encountered
when making stream determinations in the field. Moderate characters are intended as an approximate
qualitative midpoint between the two extremes of Absent and Strong. The remaining qualitative description
of Weak represents gradations that will often be observed in the field. The "in between grades" are
intended to allow the evaluator the required flexibility in assessing inherently variable features. In addition,
the small increments in scoring between gradations will help reduce the range in scores between different
evaluators.
How To Use The Classification
L The Classification Form
The four tiered weighted scale is designed to encompass the range in variability of each character likely to
be observed in the field. The Primary and Secondary indicators are weighted to reflect the relative
importance that each character has in determining Intermittent channels from Ephemeral channels. Absent,
Weak, Moderate, and Strong are defined below. These definitions are intended as guidelines. Personal
experience and best professional judgement should also be employed in conjunction with these guidelines
when evaluating streams. The evaluator must select the most appropriate number for each variable —
selection between those in the form is not allowed.
Absent: The character is not observed. (On a scale of 1 to 10, Absent = 0)
Weak: The character is present but you have to search intensely (i.e., ten or more minutes) to find it. (On a
scale of 1 to 10, Weak =1, 2, or 3).
Moderate: The character is present and observable with mild (i.e., one or two minutes) searching. (On a
scale of 1 to 10, Moderate = 4, 5, or 6).
Strong: The character is easily observable. (On a scale of 1 to 10, Strong = 7 to 10).

Examples:
(**These are intended as guidelines and the numbers given are provided only for a general reference. The
numbers should not necessarily be taken literally**).
Fish: Absent: No fish, even after an intense 10 minute search of a large (e.g., 200') liner stretch of stream.
Fish sampling should be conducted visually and with a dip net.
Fish Weak: One or two fish found after an intense search.
Fish Moderate: After a mildly intensive search (i.e., 1 or 2 minutes), you see four or five individual fish, or
one small school.
Fish: Strong: Upon casual observation, you see a half dozen fish and/or two or three small schools.
Meanders: Absent: The stream is straight.
Meanders: Weak: Nearly all of the stream is straight, only one or two very small bends.
Meanders: Moderate: Most of the stream is straight although there are a few bends. One or two of these
bends may be large.
Meanders: Strong: Large portions of the stream bend. The bends will mostly be large or exaggerated.
A Field Use Of The Classification System
A. Channel Assessment Methodology
Streams are drainage features that change from ephemeral to intermittent to perennial along a gradient or
continuum —often times with no single distinct point demarcating these transitions. In order to determine
ephemeral streams from intermittent ones using this classification system, the field evaluator must exercise
caution. Determinations must not be made at one point without first walking up and down the channel. This
initial examination allows the evaluator to examine and study the nature of the channel, make judgements
about what is happening in the watershed, and make mental notes (based on the characters used in the
classification form) about where along the reach in question the channel likely changes from ephemeral to
intermittent. As a general rule of thumb, several hundred feet (sometimes much more) of channel should be
walked to make these determinations. It is not possible to make decisions regarding ephemeral versus
intermittent from evaluating a single point along the channel.
B. Addressins Weather Induced Variability
As channels convey water, their rate and duration of flow is influenced by recent and long-term weather. In
order to "filter" out some of this variability, it is STRONGLY recommended that field evaluations be
conducted at least 48 hours after the last known rainfall. However, please note that the classification
method has been designed with enough built in redundancy to allow for reasonably accurate ratings even
after a recent rainfall.
Primary Indicators
I. Geomorphology
#1 Riffle -Pool Sequence. Pools: Areas of slow moving water. These usually form where the stream
widens. Riffles: Shallow areas extending across the streambed where the water moves faster. Usually these
areas occur when the stream narrows. Sometimes this faster moving water runs over small rocks, cobble or
pebbles (although rocks aren't always needed for a riffle). .
#2 USDA Texture In Streambed: Is the material comprising the bottom of the stream different than the
material comprising the surface of the ground surrounding the stream? (For example: Are there small
pebbles, gravel or sand in the stream whereas the surrounding land is covered with leaves or topsoil, etc.)?

#3 Natural Levees: Are there large "mounds", "hills", or broad low "ridges" of sand or silt deposited
parallel (or nearly so) to the stream on its floodplain and adjacent to one or both of its banks? These
features may be covered with trees and shrubs or they may be barren sand or silt.
#4 Sinuosity: Does the stream bend? Are there curves in the stream? These bends or curves can be small
or large. More formally, sinuosity is the ratio of the length of the channel to the down valley distance (i.e.,
1:1 = straight channel).
#5 Active (Or Relic) Floodplain: A flat'(or nearly flat) lowland that borders a stream, is covered by its
waters at flood stage, and is built of organic matter and/or alluvium due to overbank deposition. These
areas may have plants adapted to wet areas growing on them. Small floodplains can be found "inside" the
stream's banks in deeply incised channels. More frequently, floodplains are outside of the stream's banks.
#6 Braided Channels: Are there more than one small stream channels that cross or "braid" over ene
another. This usually occurs in areas where the land flattens significantly and where there is abundant
sediment supply in a wide streambed with shallow water flow.
#7 Recent Alluvial Deposits: Are there recent deposits or accumulations (in the stream or on adjacent
floodplains) of sand, silt, cobble, or gravel?
#8 Bankful Bench: When you look at the side of the streambank is there a nearly continuous "bench"
eroded into the channel which has accumulated sand or silt. This area is often covered with plants. In dry
times when the stream is low, you can often see it part way up the bank. In wet times you may not be able
to see it as the stream will be flowing over the bench.
#9 Bed And Bank: Is the water in the stream in a well-defined channel surrounded or "contained" by a
higher bank area. In small streams the bank may be very low (sometimes only a few inches) and may not
necessarily be a continuous feature.
#10 2nd Order Or Greater Channel: To your knowledge (you can look at SCS County Soils'Survey Maps
or U.S. Geological Survey Maps, or use field observations) is the channel that you are looking at have one
(or more) other channels flowing into it?

Primary Indicators
II. Hydrology
#1 Ground Water: Seeps: Usually seeps have water dripping or slowly flowing out from the ground or
from the side of a hill. Water Table: If you dig a hole in the ground near the stream (not in the streambed)
of approximately a foot deep and water fills it (usually this will be a slow process) the water table is high
and may help keep the stream flowing in dry seasons. High water tables are most common in the Coastal
Plain.
Primary Indicators
Biology
#1 Fibrous Roots: When you look in the bottom (or edge) of the stream, are there very small (almost "hair-
like") roots there? Fibrous roots do not include roots larger than half the thickness of a finger and are not
generally "woody" in appearance or consistency.
#2 Rooted Plants In Streambed: Are there plants growing in the bed of the stream? Plants growing on
any part of the bank of the stream should not be counted.
#3 Periphyton: When you look on rocks, logs, plants, or twigs in the water is there a "slimy" or "spongy -
leafy" growth of algae or very small plants present? Usually the color is a brown -green or dark brown,
although this growth can take on the color of the silt or sediment present in the stream.
#4 Bivalves: Are there clams or mussels in the stream? To look for them, dig around in the streambed or
look for them where plants are growing in the streambed. Also, look for empty shells washed up on the
bank. Some bivlaves (e.g., Fingernail clams) can be pea -sized or smaller.
Secondary Indicators
I. Geomorphology
#1 Head Cut: An abrupt vertical drop in the bed of a stream channel. It often resembles a small
intermittent waterfall (or a miniature cliff). Intermittent streams sometime start at these areas.
#2 Grade Control Point: Often this feature is distinguished' by a.large rock outcrop in the channel or by a
large root which extends across the channel. These structures separate an abrupt change in grade of the
stream bed.

#3 Topography Indicating A Natural Drainage Way?: When looking at the local topography in the field
(or on a U.S. Geological Survey Map) does the land slope towards the channel (or are the contour lines
fairly close together and roughly sinuous in shape and thereby indicating a "draw"?). In other words, does
the land have slopes that seem to drain to or indicate a natural drainage way?
Secondary Indicators
II. Hydrology
#1 This (Or Last's) Years Leaflitter Present In Streambed: Are there leaves (freshly fallen, or some
may be "blackish" in color and/or partially decomposed) present in the streambed?
#2 Sediment On Plants (Or Debris): Are plants (or rocks, logs, or other debris) in the stream (or on the
streambank or flood plain) stained white, gray, red, brown, or reddish -brown with sediment?
#3 Wrack Lines: Are twigs, sticks, logs, leaves, or other floating material (including litter such as plastic
soda bottles, beer cans, styrofoam, etc.) piled up on the upstream side of obstructions in the stream, on the
streambank, and/or in the floodplain?
#4 Water In Channel >48 Hrs. Since Last Known Rainfall: Intermittent streams do not always have
water in them. Water in intermittent channels may linger in pools or holes in the streambed. A good rule of
thumb for distinguishing intermittent streams from ephemeral ones is if they have water in them for more
than 48 hours since the last rain.
#5 Water In Channel During Dry Conditions Or In growing Season? Intermittent streams do not
always have water in them. Look for water in pool areas or in holes in the streambed. Another good rule of
thumb for differentiating ephemeral streams from intermittent ones is if they have water in them during dry
(drought) conditions or during the growing season.
#6 Hydric Soils In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut): Are hydric soils present in the sides of the
channel or in the headcut? Use a soil auger to sample these areas for hydric soil indicators.

Secondary Indicators
III. Biology
#1 Are Fish Present: Look for fish in pools or other areas of standing water in the stream. In addition, look
under overhangs in the bank, near tree roots, on the downstream side of rocks or other large obstructions, or
in and around plants.
#2 Are Amphibians Present: Look for frogs near the bank and in the water (also look for tadpoles in the
water). Salamanders may also be found under rocks, logs, or leaf packs in the stream or in very moist leaf
litter, moss, or logs (and under rocks) next to the stream.
#3 Are Aquatic Turtles Present: Look'for turtles on rocks or logs in the stream or in and around rocks and
logs in areas adjacent to the stream. Also look.for turtles basking in areas exposed to sunlight.
#4 Crayfish: Look for crayfish in small pools, under rocks, under logs, sticks or within leaf packs in the
stream. Additionally, look for small holes in the muddy streambank or look for distinct "chimneys"
(roughly cylindrical chimneys) on the muddy bank.
#5 Macrobenthos: Look under rocks, logs, twigs, and leaf packs. Also look under the streambank and in
(and on) any vegetation in the stream. If you have a dip net, drag it around the streambank and in any
vegetation or leaf packs present. If you have a kick net set it up downstream of any riffles and kick (and
"wash") the rocks in the riffle so that the material disturbed is caught in the downstream net. The use of
nets for this step is strongly recommended.
#6 Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus: In slow moving (or stagnant) areas of the stream are there clumps of
"fluffy" rust -red material in the water? Additionally, on the sides of the bank (or in the streambed) are there
red or rust colored stains (usually an "oily sheen" or "oily scum" will accompany these areas) on the soil
surface? These features are often (although not exclusively) associated with groundwater.
#7 Filamentous Algae: In slow moving areas (or in pools or stagnant areas) are floating green algae
(usually not attached to rocks or logs) present?
#8 Wetland Plants In Streambed: Are plants usually associated with wet areas present in the streambed?
For example, cattails or black willow? (For determining OBL, FACW, FAC, FACU, or UPL See
Appendix I) . Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) includes rooted plants that generally grow totally
submerged under the water's surface.

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: River Basin:
County:
Evaluator:
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:
Latitude:
Signature:
Date: USGS QUAD:'
Longitude:
Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator anti landowner agree that the feature is a utan-made
ditch, then use of this forin is not necessary.
Also, ij'in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a ratan -made ditch and not a modijied natural stream —this
raling syslem should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geonun•pholoey Absent Weak
Moderate
Strom
1 Is There A Riffle -Pool Sequence? 0 1
2
3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1
2
3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? p 1
2
3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1
2
3
5) is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present'? 0 1
2
3
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1
2
3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1
2
3
F) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present'? 0 1
2
3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1
2
3
-Nnrr;: treed & Dank Caused By Ditrhhte And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) is A 2"" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3
No-0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
IL Hydroloev Absent Weak
Moderate
Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1
2
3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
III. Biolof'yy Absent Weak
Moderate
Strong
1; Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2
1
0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2
1
0
3)Is Peri hyton Present? 0 1
2
3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1
2
3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
_
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Head Cnt PrP.cf--nt In l-'hnnna19 tl L -

USDA Riparian Forest Buffer
Conservation Practice Job Sheet
Landowner
Definition
A riparian forest buffer is an area of trees and shrubs
located adjacent to streams, lakes, ponds, and
wetlands.
Purpose
Riparian forest buffers of sufficient width intercept
sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and other materials in
surface runoff and reduce nutrients and other pollutants
in shallow subsurface water flow. Woody vegetation in
buffers provides food and cover for wildlife, helps lower
water temperatures by shading waterbody, and slows
391
out -of -bank flood flows. In addition, the vegetation
closest to the stream or waterbody provides litter fall
and large woody debris important to aquatic organisms.
Also, the woody roots increase the resistance of
streambanks and shorelines to erosion caused by high
water flows or waves. Some species established or
managed in a riparian forest buffer can be managed to
provide timber, wood fiber, and horticultural products.
Where used
Buffers are located by permanent or intermittent
streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and seeps. Many of
these areas have year-round or seasonal beneficial

If needed, an aerial view or a side view of the vegetation types, widths of zones 1, 2, and 3 (as applicable to this site), a direction arrow, and the
type of water body or water course are shown below. Other relevant information, such as shoreline or bank shape, upslope field conditions
including crop types, and complementary practices, and additional buffer specifications may also be included.
Scale 1 "= ft. (NA indicates sketch not to scale: grid size=1/2" by 1/2")
........................ •.............. _...,....................................................................................
Additional Specifications and Notes:
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,
age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at
[phone] (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call 1-800-245-6340 (voice) or
[phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.

Burke County Shoreline Protection Fact Sheet
History
As a means to protect water quality, aesthetics, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational uses of
Lake James, Lake Rhodhiss, and Lake Hickory, Burke County has enacted shoreline
development regulations that address erosion and runoff, preservation of wildlife habitat, and
protection of vegetative buffers in shoreline areas.
Areas Covered by Shoreline Regulations
Areas covered under shoreline regulations include all land within 250' of the reference line of
Lake James, Lake Rhodhiss, and Lake Hickory.
Areas / Activities Exempt from Shoreline Regulations
Lots recorded in the Register of Deed's office prior to the adoption of these restrictions are
exempt. Additionally, activities of state regulated utilities and timber harvesting activities regulated
by the NC State Department of Forestry are exempt from these provisions. However, any
applicable watershed regulations still apply to these types of uses. Exempt uses are encouraged
to comply with the regulations voluntarily.
Shoreline Protection Permit
No soil disturbing activity or vegetation removal may begin before a Shoreline Protection Permit is
obtained from the Burke County Planning Department. Applications and complete copies of
existing regulations are available at 200 Avery Avenue in Morganton, or by calling 828-439-4362.
The cost per permit is $50.00.
Natural Woodland Buffer Within 50' of Reference Line
A natural woodland buffer shall remain undisturbed within 50' of the reference line. All trees,
shrubs, leaf layers, and soil are protected and may not be removed unless they are dead,
diseased, or pose an immediate hazard. Individual trees may be pruned to remove only lateral
limbs from the lower 50% of the tree's total height. There can be no grubbing or grinding of
stumps and they should be left in place where possible. Chemicals may not be used to kill stumps
or any other vegetation. Clearing may be done with hand tools only. Groundcovers, other than
turf grass, may be planted in this area.
Natural Woodland Buffer Between 50' and 100' of Reference Line The regulations for this area are similar to the above'Festrictions, however turf grass may be
planted in this area. Structures may be allowed in this portion of the buffer area provided that no
paved surfaces are within 75' of the reference line. Structures on lots with less than a 2:1 slope
may be placed no closer than 65' from the reference line. On lots with a greater slope, structures
may not be within 75' from the reference line.
Shoreline Stabilization
Shoreline stabilization is permitted provided it is done in such a way as to disrupt a.minimal
amount of shoreline as possible. Machinery may be used forthis-purpose and may access the
shoreline by barge or by creating a corridor, generally no more than 10' in width, down through
the buffer to the reference line. Vegetation removed for this -purpose must be replaced. Fallen
trees in the water are to remain in place unless they interfere with piers as permitted through
Duke Power Lake Management.
Tree Replacement
Any live trees within 100' of the reference line, with a trunk diameter of 6" or greater that are
removed, must be replaced. Replacement trees must not be less than 1" trunk diameter in size
and must equal the tree size that was removed. (Ex2mple:3-2" diameter trees = 1-6" diameter
tree.) Replacement trees may be planted anywhere, in the 100' buffer area.
Erosion Control .
Any grading or construction activity that disturbs soil within 250' of the reference line must have a
soil and erosion control plan done by a registered surveyor, engineer, architect, or representative
of the Burke County Soil and Water Conservation District. Erosion preventative measures must
be in place before soil disturbance begins and be maintained so as to be effective and reliable.
Disturbed areas must be stabilized as soon as possible.
Violations
Violations of the shoreline regulations may subject the property owner to fines of $100.00 per
each day the violation exists as per Section 1205 of the Burke County Zoning Ordinance.

m
Petition No. 99-65(c)
Petitioner: Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MECKLENBURG
COUNTY ZONING REGULATION OF THE
ORDINANCE NO. COUNTY CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MECKLENBURG
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA:
Section 1. The Mecklenburg County Zoning Regulations as embodied in the Zoning Ordinance are
hereby amended as follows:
1. Amend CHAPTER 12: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF GENERAL
APPLICABILITY, by adding a new PART as follows:
PART 8: S.W.I.M. (SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT)
STREAM BUFFERS
Section 12.801. Purpose.
The purpose of the stream buffer network in Mecklenburg County is to ensure that the stream
and adjacent lands will fulfill their natural functions. Stream systems are comprised of the
stream and their drainage basins. Streams have the primary natural functions of conveying
storm and ground water, storing floodwater and supporting aquatic and other life. Vegetated
lands adjacent to the stream channel in the drainage basin serve as a "buffer" to protect the
stream system's ability to fulfill its natural functions. Primary natural functions of the buffer
include:
• Protect water quality by filtering pollutants;
• Provide storage for floodwaters;
• Allow channels to meander naturally; and
• Provide suitable habitats for wildlife.
Section 12.802. Definitions.
For the purposes of Chapter 12, Part 8, the following words and phrases shall be defined as
specified below.
1. Best Management Practices (BMPs): A structural or nonstructural management -based
practice used singularly or in combination to reduce non -point source input to receiving
waters in order to achieve water quality protection goals.

Non-structural BMPs. Non -engineered methods to control the amount of non -
point source pollution. These may include land -use controls and vegetated
buffers.
Structural BMPs. Engineered structures that are designed to reduce the delivery
of pollutants from their source or to divert contaminants away from the water
supply. These may include wet detention ponds, detention basins, grass swales.
and ditches, and infiltration devices.
2. Buffer: A natural or vegetated area through which storm water runoff flows in a diffuse
manner so that the runoff does not become channelized and which provides for
infiltration of the runoff and filtering of pollutants.
3. Buffer Zones: The stream buffer is comprised of three (3) zones as shown below.
Stream Side Managed Use Uolond
Zone Zone Zone
4. Buffer Widths: Viewed aerially, the stream buffer width is measured horizontally on a
line perpendicular to the surface water, landward from the top of the bank on each side of
the stream.
5. Drainage Basin: The area of land which drains to a given point on a body of water.
6. Floodplain Land Use Map (FLUM): A locally developed floodplain map which is used
for regulation of new development.
7. FLUM Floodwav: The channel of a stream or other watercourse draining equal to or
greater than 640 acres (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulated) and
the adjacent land areas that -must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than 0.1 feet, based on July
1999 land use conditions.
8. FLUM Floodway Encroachment Lines: The lateral limits of a floodway district, based on
July 1999 land use conditions, as shown on the Floodplain Land Use Map (FLUM),
2

along streams or other bodies of water, within which, in the direction of the stream or
other body of water, no structure or fill may be added, unless specifically permitted
herein. Their purpose is to preserve the flood -carrying capacity of the floodway. Their
location is such that the floodway between them including the channel will handle the
base flood flow.
9. FEMA Frinee: The land area of a stream draining equal to or greater than 640 acres
located between the limits of the FLUM floodway encroachment lines and the maximum
elevation subject to inundation by the base (1 % chance) flood based on July 1999 land
use conditions.
10. Floodplain: The low, periodically flooded lands adjacent to streams. For land use
planning purposes, the regulatory floodplain is usually viewed as all lands that would be
inundated by the Regulatory Flood.
11. Mitigation: Actions taken either on -site or off -site as allowed by this Part to offset the
effects of temporary or permanent loss of the buffer.
12. Stream: A drainage feature on the land surface for conveying water. As used in this Part,
the main channel of the Catawba River, Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake and Lake
Wylie, is not a stream and this Part does not apply.
13. Ton Of Bank: The landward edge of the stream channel during high water or bankfull
conditions at the point where the water begins to overflow onto the floodplain.
Section 12.803. Applicability.
All properties shall be subject to the buffer requirements of this PART 8 except those
properties which, as of the effective date of November 9, 1999, fit into one of the
following categories:
(a) Have been issued a Certificate of Building Code Compliance.
(b) Have a valid building permit.
(c) Have been subdivided by a recorded subdivision plat.
(d) Have been described by metes and bounds in a recorded deed which:
• If to be used for residential purposes:
Are 1 acre or less in size.
• If to be used for nonresidential purposes:
Are 4 acres or less in size if located on a non-FEMA regulated floodway, or
Are 7 acres or less in size if located on a FEMA regulated floodway.
(e) Are included on a valid preliminary subdivision plan.
(f) Have otherwise secured a vested property right under State law or local ordinance.

2. Redevelopment or expansions to uses included in the above categories are not subject to
the buffer requirements of this Part unless it would result in an increase in the total
impervious area within the buffer.
3. In the event that stream buffers are required by another Section of this Ordinance, the
more stringent stream buffer requirements apply.
Section '12.804. Buffer Standards.
Required stream buffer widths vary based on the size of the upstream drainage basin.
Mecklenburg County's Geographic Information System (GIS) will serve as a tool to delineate
the size of drainage basins and specify the corresponding buffer widths. S.W.I.M. stream
buffer requirements specified in this PART 8 begin at the point where the stream drains 100
acres or greater. Refer to the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Storm Water Design Manual for
optional buffers on streams which drain less than 100 acres.
1. Buffer widths for streams draining equal to and greater than 100 acres
Buffers are required for streams draining areas equal to or greater than 100 acres as
specified below. Buffer widths for these streams are measured horizontally on a line
perpendicular to the surface water, landward from the top of the bank on each side of the
stream.
Drainage Area
Stream Side
Managed Use
Upland
Total Width
Designation
Zone
Zone
Zone
of Buffer on each side
of Stream
> 100 acres
20 feet
None
15 feet
35 feet
> 300 acres
20 feet
20 feet
10 feet
50 feet
> 640 acres 0)
30 feet
45 feet
25 feet PLUS 50% of
100 feet PLUS 50% of
the area of the FEMA
the area of the FEMA
fringe beyond 100 feet
fringe beyond 100 feet
Footnotes:
Buffer widths for drainage areas of > 640 acres:
1. The FEMA fringe and FLUM floodway encroachment lines will be used
for floodplain and buffer calculations.
2. If the floodplain is less than 100 feet wide, the total width of the buffer on
- that side of the stream will be 100 feet except as provided in 4. below.
3. The landowner/developer has discretion to designate the buffer zone
4

beyond the 100-foot minimum. The additional buffer area beyond 100
feet must be contiguous with at least a portion of the required 100-foot
buffer and be configured in such a manner as to benefit water quality.
4. So long as the total buffer width is maintained, the buffer may vary in
width on either side of the stream based on individual stream side
topography provided that the owner(s) control both sides of the stream
and the stream side zone is maintained on both sides of the stream.
5. Buffer requirements do not apply to the main channel of the Catawba
River including Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie.
2. Buffer description
Buffer function, vegetation and use vary according to the different buffer zones as
described in the following table.
Characteristics
Stream Side Zone
Managed Use Zone
Upland Zone
Function
Protect the integrity of the
Provide distance between
Prevent encroachment
ecosystems
upland development and
and filter runoff
the stream side zone
Vegetative
Undisturbed (no cutting
Limited clearing -
Grass or other
Targets m
or clearing allowed) - If
Existing tree density must
herbaceous ground
existing tree density is
be retained to a minimum
cover allowed - Forest
inadequate, reforestation is
of 8 healthy trees of a
is encouraged
encouraged
minimum 6 inch caliper
per 1000 square feet - If
existing tree density is
inadequate, reforestation
is encouraged
Uses (2)
Very restricted - Permitted
Restricted - Permitted
Restricted - Permitted
uses limited to: flood
uses limited to: all uses
uses limited to: all uses
control structures and bank
allowed in the Stream
allowed in the Stream
stabilization as well as
Side Zone, as well as
Side and Managed Use
installation of utilities and
storm water best
Zones, as well as
road crossings with
management practices
grading for lawns,
stabilization of disturbed
(BMPs), bike paths, and
gardens, and gazebos
areas as specified in Section
greenway trails (not to
and storage buildings
12.806.2
exceed 10 feet in width)
(non-commercial and
not to exceed 150
square feet)

Footnotes:
Re -vegetation of disturbed buffers is required as specified in the Charlotte -
Mecklenburg Land Development Standards Manual when such disturbances result
in the failure of the buffer system to comply with the vegetative targets specified
above. The manual also contains recommended tree densities for each zone for
voluntary reforestation efforts.
(2) Fill material can not be brought into the buffer. Grading is allowed only in the
Upland Zone. Commercial buildings or occupied structures are not allowed in the
buffer. Permitted uses within the buffer zones should be coordinated to ensure
minimal disturbance of the buffer system. For example, if it is necessary to install
utilities within the buffer, every attempt should be made to build greenway trails so
they follow the cleared areas instead of additional clearing.
3. Diffuse flow requirement
Diffuse flow of runoff shall be maintained in the buffer by dispersing concentrated flow
and reestablishing vegetation. Techniques for providing diffuse flow are specified in the
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Land Development Standards Manual.
(a) Concentrated runoff from ditches or other manmade conveyances shall be
converted to diffuse flow before the runoff enters the buffer.
(b) Periodic corrective action to restore diffuse flow shall be taken by the property
owner as necessary to prevent the formation of erosion gullies.
4. Ponds
Ponds which intersect the stream channel shall have the same buffers as the original
stream measured from the top of the bank of the pond. Buffer requirements shall not
apply to wet ponds used as structural BMPs.
5. Buffer delineation
The following buffer delineations are required:
(a) Streams and buffer boundaries including all buffer zones must be clearly delineated
on all construction plans, including grading and clearing plans, erosion, drainage
and sediment control plans and site plans.
(b) Outside buffer boundaries must be clearly marked on -site prior to any land
disturbing activities. -
(c) The outside boundary of the buffer must be permanently marked at highway stream
crossings.
(d) Streams and buffer boundaries including the delineation of each buffer zone must
be specified on all surveys and record plats.
(e) Buffer requirements must be referenced in homeowners' association documents.

Section 12.805. Incentives.
1. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to set forth incentives to offset restrictions that buffer
requirements place on development. These incentives promote open space development
that incorporates smaller lot sizes to minimize total impervious area within the
development, reduce total construction costs, conserve natural areas, provide community
recreational space, and promote protection of streams.
2. Reduction in lot size
Allow a one -for -one credit in lot size reduction in addition to what is allowed in Section
9.205(4)(a) provided this is not below the minimum requirement for the next lower
zoning classification.
3. Relax lot setback requirements
For all lots within a development requiring a SWIM buffer, setback requirements as
specified in Section 9.205(4) are reduced as follows:
(a) Front setbacks can be reduced to a minimum of 15 feet for all lots except front
loaded garages must maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet.
(b) Rear setbacks can be 100 % within a SWIM buffer. Rear setbacks can be reduced
to 30 feet on all internal lots. Rear yards forming the outer boundary of a project
must conform to the minimum of subsection 9.205(1)(g) for the zoning district in
which the development is located.
(c) Side setbacks can be reduced to a minimum of 3 feet provided all fire code
requirements are satisfied.
4. Open space
SWIM buffer areas can be used toward satisfying the required open space minimums for
the development if dedicated.
5. Density bonus
In addition to the provisions 2 through 4 above:
(a) Single family development projects may be granted a density bonus provided the
entire required SWIM buffer area or the entire SWIM buffer area plus any
additional buffer area is dedicated as common open space. Such dedication must be
to a homeowners' association or a public or private agency that agrees to accept
ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the space. The density bonus is
calculated as follows:

The entire dedicated buffer area in acres multiplied by the maximum residential
density number of the underlying zoning district.
(b) Lots within single family projects that meet the above density bonus need not meet
the minimum lot width requirements set out in subsection 9.205(1) provided that
each lot meets the minimum lot width requirements set forth in Table 9.205(5).
Section 11.806. Miti' atg ion.
1. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to set forth the basis on which mitigation is required for
unavoidable or approved buffer impacts within any of the buffer zones. This mitigation
basis shall allow the property owner or other entity the opportunity to disturb a buffer,
provided that steps are taken to offset the buffer loss. Prior to any buffer impact, any
person or entity seeking approval of a buffer impact shall submit the requisite site and
mitigation information for approval to the Mecklenburg County Department of
Environmental Protection as specified below, to the extent approval is required by this
Part.
2. Buffer impacts 'not requiring mitigation
t`
The following buffer impacts do not require mitigation or specific plan approval but are
required to comply with the specifications provided in the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Land
Development Standards Manual for stabilization of disturbed areas to minimize negative
water quality impacts.
(a) Road crossings for connectivity or transportation links where the Charlotte -
Mecklenburg Planning Commission has granted site plan approval.
(b) Utility crossings.
(c) Parallel water and sewer utility installation as approved by Charlotte -Mecklenburg
Utilities.
(d) Public paths and trails parallel to the stream outside the Stream Side Zone and
stream crossings. Pathways must use existing and proposed utility alignments or
previously cleared areas and minimize tree cutting to the maximum extent
practicable. To the extent possible, pathways shall preserve existing drainage
patterns and avoid drainage structures that concentrate storm water.
(e) Incidental drainage improvements/repairs for maintenance.
(f) Individual pedestrian. paths connecting homeowners to the stream in the form of
narrow, pervious footpaths with minimal'tree disturbance.
(g) New domesticated animal trails (farming) where existing trails are lost as a result of
action beyond the farmer's control. Stream crossings should be constructed and
maintained to minimize impacts to the Stream Side Zone with fencing
perpendicular and through the buffer to direct animal movement.

(h) Mitigation approved by a State or federal agency acting pursuant to Sections 401 or
404 of the federal Clean. Water Act.
3. Buffer impacts requiring mitigation
Impacts to stream buffers not specified -in Section 12.806.2, proposed to allow
development or other land use in a buffer, shall be required to mitigate or offset the
proposed impact in accordance with this Section. Buffer impacts requiring mitigation
and plan approval include:
• Filling or piping of streams
• Removal of vegetation from the Stream Side or Managed Use Zones other than as
specified by Section 12.804.2 "Vegetative Targets."
• Paths proposed within the Stream Side Zone
• Stream relocations
• Fences and walls requiring tree removal in the Stream Side or Managed Use Zones
• Other buffer impacts not permitted under Section 12.804.2.
The landowner or other entity proposing any of the impacts specified above shall prepare
and submit for approval a site specific plan to the Mecklenburg County Department of
Environmental Protection. This site plan shall show the extent of the proposed impact
and clearly specify the proposed mitigation technique.
4. Pre -approved mitigation techniques
The following techniques are available to landowners for mitigation of buffer impacts,
upon review and approval of a specific site mitigation plan by the Mecklenburg County
Department of Environmental Protection. Specifications for these pre -approved
mitigation techniques are provided in the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Land Development
Standards Manual.
(a) Installation of Structural BMPs: The installation of an on -site structural BUT
designed to achieve specified pollutant removal targets will allow for stream buffer
impacts on the specific site. The BMP should remain outside the Stream Side Zone
if practical. A detailed BMP design plan must be submitted to the Mecklenburg
County Department of Environmental Protection for approval based on
specifications and pollutant removal targets contained in the Charlotte -
Mecklenburg Land Development Standards Manual. This plan must also include a
long term maintenance strategy for the BMP complete with the establishment of
adequate financing to support the proposed maintenance practices.
(b) *Stream Restoration: The owner may restore and preserve the buffer area on any
stream of equivalent or greater. drainage area the condition of which is determined
to be qualified for restoration by the Mecklenburg County Department of
Environmental Protection on a 1:1 basis in linear feet of stream. This restoration
shall include stream bank improvements and Stream Side and Managed Use Zone
9

re -vegetation, in accordance with the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Land Development
Standards Manual.
(c) Stream Preservation: The owner may purchase, fee simple, other stream segments
at equivalent or greater drainage area on a 1:1 linear foot basis and convey fee
simple and absolute title to the land to the City/County or other conservation
organization.
(d) Wetlands Restoration: On a 2:1 acreage basis for disturbed stream and buffer area
(2 acres of wetland for each acre of disturbed area), the owner may provide a
combination of the preservation and/or restoration of wetlands with protective
easements, and the implementation of structural or non-structural BMPs to achieve
specific pollutant removal targets within the impacted area as specified in the
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Land Development Standards Manual.
(e) Bottom Land Hardwood Preservation: On a 2:1 acreage basis for impacted stream
and buffer area (2 acres of bottomland hardwood for each acre of disturbed area),
the owner may provide a combination of the preservation of existing bottom land
hardwood forest or other specifically approved natural heritage area by
conservation easement or other legal instrument; ' and the implementation of
structural or non-structural BMPs to achieve specific pollutant removal targets
within the impacted area as specified in the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Land
Development Standards Manual.
(f) Controlled Impervious Cover: The owner may commit to, and provide, a specific
site development plan that limits overall site impervious cover equal to or less than
24%. Development on this basis shall allow for stream buffer impacts on the
specific site. Preservation of the Stream Side Zone is encouraged.
(g) " Open Space Development: The submission of a specific site development plan
which preserves 50% 'of the total land area as undisturbed open space shall allow
for stream buffer impacts on the specific site.
(h) Mitigation Credits: The purchase of mitigation credits on a 1:1 basis utilizing
linear feet of stream impacted and the prevailing rate of purchase as established by
the Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection shall allow for
stream buffer impacts on the specific site. Mitigation credits purchased under any
other program (i.e., U.S. Army Corp of Engineers) shall not cover this requirement
unless the issuing agency agrees to relinquish the funds to the appropriate
City/County agency.
5. Other mitigation techniques
No provision of this Part shall prevent the creative development of alternative mitigation
plans: The owner shall submit such plan with proposed buffer impacts and detailed
mitigation information to the Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental .
Protection for approval. The criteria used to judge the acceptability of any alternative
plan shall be the degree to which the plan addresses the preservation of the four primary
natural functions of stream buffers. Such plans may be submitted' in conjunction with a
10

mitigation plan submission to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for proposed stream or wetland impacts. The
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection, when considering
proposed mitigation alternatives, shall give equal weight to proposals which utilize the
preservation of unique or endangered habitat or natural areas against proposed buffer
impacts.
6. Posting of financial security required for structural BMPs
When structural BMPs (wet detention ponds and other BMPs) are approved for
mitigation of a buffer disturbance, the approval shall be subject to the owner filing a
surety bond or letter of credit or making other financial arrangements which are
acceptable to the Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection, in a
form which is satisfactory to the County Attorney, guaranteeing the installation and
maintenance of the required structural BMPs until the issuance of certificates of
occupancy for seventy-five percent (75%) of all construction which might reasonably be
anticipated to be built within the area which drains into the BMPs, allowing credit for
improvements completed prior to the submission of the final plat. At such time that this
level of occupancy is achieved, written notice thereof must be given by the owner to the
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection. The owner must also
verify the adequacy of the maintenance plan for the BMPs including the necessary
financing to support the proposed maintenance practices. The Mecklenburg County
Department of Environmental Protection will inspect the structural BMPs and verify the
effectiveness of the maintenance plan and if found satisfactory, will within 30 days of the
date of the notice notify the owner in writing.
7. Maintenance responsibilities for structural BMPs - Civil Penalties .
Maintenance of all structural BMPs shall be the responsibility of the property owner or
his designee. Any person who fails to maintain the required BMPs in accordance with
the approved maintenance plan shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than. $500.
Each day that the violation continues shall constitute a separate violation. No penalties
shall be assessed until the person alleged to be in violation has been notified in writing of
the violation by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or by other means
which are reasonably calculated to give actual notice_ The notice shall describe the
nature of the violation with reasonable particularity, specify a reasonable time period
within which the violation must be corrected, and warn that failure to correct the.
violation within the time period shall result in assessment of a civil penalty or other
enforcement action.
11

Section 12.806. Anneals and Variances.
Appeals and variances from this Part shall be subject to Chapter 5 of these regulations.
Section 2. That this Part shall become effective upon its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Attorney
Read, approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina, in meeting on the 9th day of November, 1999.
Clerk, Board of County Commissioners
12

Reducing Nutrient Loading to Neuse and
Tar -Pamlico Estuaries.
Riparian Buffer Protection Rules for Neuse/Tar-Pamlico River Basins
On Dec. 9, 1999, the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission
adopted rules to protect 50-foot wide riparian,
or waterside, buffers along waterways in the
Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River Basins. These
rules are one part of a larger nutrient reduction
strategy for the basins. The rules have been
effective as temporary rules since July 22,
1997 in the Neuse River basin. They took
effect on Jan. 1, 2000 as temporaryrules in
the Tar -Pamlico River basin, and will be
effective on Aug. 1, 2000 as permanent rules,
pending review by the General Assembly during
the summer.
The main rule, referred to as the buffer
protection rule, requires that up to 50 feet of
existing vegetated riparian area be protected
and maintained on both sides of waters in the
basin. The rule applies'only to. areas where
vegetation is already established within that 50
feet. This rule.does not establish new
buffers unless the existing use of the
buffer changes. Diffuse flow of stormwater
that runs into the buffer must be maintained.-

The public is encouraged to read and understand the buffer rules before beginning any activities within
buffers in the Basins.. For more information or to obtain a copy of the rules, please contact Division of
Water Quality staff at a Regional Office (see below). The rules can also be viewed or downloaded from
the DWQ web http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/netise.htm for the Neuse River, basin or
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/tarp.htm for the Tar -Pamlico River basin.
DENR Washington Regional Office [phone]
Location and mail address: 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889
DENR Raleigh Regional Office [phone]
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101, Raleigh, NC
Mail address: 1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628

Water Quality Agenda Item Number 2:
Consideration of Revisions to the
Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule
In accordance with House Bill 1402, a Stakeholder Advisory Committee has been
meeting since October 1998 to discuss revisions to the Neuse Riparian Buffer Rule.
The Stakeholder Advisory Committee includes 23 members representing a broad range
of interests, including development, agriculture, local government, mining, forestry and
environmental. The members of the committee are listed on the next pages.
House Bill 1402 directed the Stakeholder Advisory Committee to address several
specific issues, including establishment of a mitigation program, delegation of the
program to local governments, definition of a stream, determination of "no practical
alternatives," and designation of allowable uses. As a result of the committee's
recommendations, a revised Neuse Riparian Buffer Rule and three additional
accompanying rules have been drafted and are now presented to the Water Quality
Committee.
The contents of this package include:
• A list of members of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee.
• A report describing the Stakeholder Advisory Committee's final recommendations
on the Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules.
• The revised Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules developed by the Stakeholder Advisory
Committee.
• A copy -of House Bill 1402.
• Meeting minutes from Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting_ s.
_ .. .
• The products of two technical advisory committees that assisted the Stakeholder
Advisory Committee in developing the revised rules.
• A copy of the current temporary Neuse Riparian Buffer Rule.

NEUSE RIVER BUFFER STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE
November 6, 1998
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Non -Discharge Branch
Wetlands / 401 Unit
1) Dr. Kenneth Reckhow, Chair Ph: 919-515-2815
Director Water Resources Research Institute Fax: [phone]
North Carolina State University Email: [e-mail]
Campus Box 7912
Raleigh, NC 27695
2) Dr. Charles (Pete) Peterson
Environmental Management Commission
UNC Institute for Marine Sciences
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
3) Coleen Sullins
Water Quality Section Chief
Division of Water Quality
P. 0. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626
Ph: 252-726-6-819 ext. 130
Fax: [phone]
Email:[e-mail]
Ph: 919-733-5083 ext. 550
Fax: [phone]
Email: coleen sullins@ h2o.ennstaLe.naus
4) David Franklin Ph: 910-251-4952
Special Projects Manager Fax: [phone]
US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division Email: [e-mail]
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
5) John Phelps
NC Assoc. of Soil and Water
Conservation Districts
P.O. Box 30122
Raleigh, NC 27622
6) Ronald Aycock/Paul Meyer
NC Assoc. of County Commissioners
P. 0. Box 1488
Raleigh, NC 27619
7) Paula Thomas
NC League of Municipalities
P. 0. Box 3069
Raleigh, NC 27602
Ph: 919-787-3658
Fax: [phone]
Email: none
Ph: 919-715-2893
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Ph.: 919-715-3930
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

8) Lisa Martin (Prefer mobile and e-mail)
Upper Neuse River Basin Assoc.
P. 0. Box 12276
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
9) Richard Slozak
Lower Neuse River Basin Assoc.
P. 0. Drawer A
Goldsboro, NC 27533
Mobile: [phone]
Ph: 919-558-2702
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Ph: 919-580-4330
Fax: [phone]
Email:
10) John Hennessy Ph. [phone]
NC Assoc. of Environmentdl Professionals Fax: [phone]
224 Fayettevilee Street Mall, Suite 100 Email: John@ Barrettkays.com
., Raleigh,. NC 27602..
11) Michael Avery and Greg Mayo Ph: 252-636-4063
NC Chapter of the American Planning Assoc. Fax: [phone]
City of New Bern Planning Dept. Email: [e-mail]
P. 0. Box 1129 [e-mail]
New bern, NC 28563
12) Fred Allen
NC Aggregates Association
P. 0. Box 30603
Raleigh, NC 27622-0603
13) Jim Kuszaj
NC Citizens for Business and Industry
9650 Strickland Road
Suite 103-209
Raleigh, NC 27615-1937
14) Anne Coan
NC Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.
P. 0. Box 27766
Raleigh, NC 27611
15) Bob Slocum/Al Weller
NC Forestry Association, Inc.
1600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 1
Raleigh, NC 27608
16) Paul Wilms
NC Home Builders Association, Inc.
P. 0. Box 99090
Raleigh, NC 27624-9090
Ph: 919-782-7055
Fax: [phone]
Email: NCAArocks@aoLcom
Pager: [phone]
Ph: '919-848-5991
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Ph: 919-782-1705
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
acoan@aoLcom
Ph: 919-834-3943
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Ph: 919-676-9090
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

17) Nathaniel Mund
Ph: 919-821-4455
Conservation Council of NC
Fax: [phone]
P. O. Box 12671
Email: [e-mail]
Raleigh, NC 27605
18) Joe Rudek
Ph: 919-881-2601
NC Environmental Defense Fund
Fax: [phone]
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Email: ioe rudek@eEL)2
Raleigh, NC 27607
19) Marion Smith
Ph: 252-637-7972
Neuse River Foundation
Fax:[phone]
P. O. Box 15451
Email: [e-mail]
New Bern, NC 28561
20) Molly Diggins
Ph: 919-833-8467
NC Chapter of the Sierra Club
Fax: [phone]
1024 Washington Street
Email: [e-mail]
Raleigh, NC 27605
-
David Knight
Ph: [phone]
Email: dwktivht@mind. 'is.c om
21) Tom Bean
Ph: 919-833-1925
NC Widlife Federation
Fax: [phone]
P. O. Box 10626
Email:[e-mail]
Raleigh, NC 27605
22) Robert M. Weintraub
Ph: 919-781-1952
Centex Homes
Fax: [phone]
3739 National Drive_, Suite 101
Email:radweintr@aoLcom
Raleigh, NC 27612

Neuse Buffer Stakeholder Advisory Committee: Report of Final
Recommendations to the Environmental Management Commission
I. Executive Summary
House Bill1402 established the Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the Neuse
Buffer Rule (Appendix 2). The Committee consisted of 23 members representing
specific organizations with interests ranging from environmental protection, local
government, development, industry and federal and state regulatory agencies. The -
Committee's role was to recommend modifications to the Neuse Buffer Rule (NBR)
as adopted in -15A NCAC- 2B :0233 by the Environmental Management Commission
(Appendix 1). The intent of this process is to protect and enhance the water quality of
the Neuse River while not imposing an undue burden on the regulated public.
The Committee met 14 times between October 21, 1998 and February 26, 1999. One
meeting was held in Goldsboro, one in New Bern, -and the remainder held in Raleigh.
The Committee heard from a number of technical witnesses in a variety of areas
while developing their recommendations, including a Forestry Technical Advisory
Committee and a Stream Technical Advisory Committee. This report describes the
operation, decisions and conclusions of the committee. The appendices to this report
describe the members, meeting minutes, technical advisory committee reports as well
as a proposed revised Neuse Buffer Rule, proposed rules for local government
delegation and legislation.
II. Background
The Neuse Buffer Rule (NBR) was first adopted as a temporary rule by the
Environmental Management Commission on June 11, 1997 after extensive public
comment and review, including four public hearings (effective date of July 22, 1997).
Since then, the Commission has approved two revisions to the temporary rule. The
NBR is part of a comprehensive package of Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy rules designed to achieve a 30% reduction in the amount of
nitrogen reaching the Neuse River at New Bern.
The main purpose of the NBR is to prevent additional increases, and where possible,
contribute to reductions in nitrogen. The other rules that make up the Neuse River
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy, such as wastewater treatment plant
limits and urban and agricultural runoff controls, are designed to achieve the nitrogen
reduction. The NBR establishes a 50-foot riparian buffer along all intermittent and
perennial streams, lakes, ponds and estuaries in the Neuse Basin with runoff directed
through the buffer as diffuse flow to remove nutrients. The rule provides exemptions
for activities such as road and utility crossings, greenway trails and water -dependent
projects, which are difficult to completely avoid siting in the buffer.

During May 1998, the Division of Water Quality held a series of training sessions in
an effort to address questions and concerns regarding implementation of the buffer
rule. Following the training sessions, considerable concerns still existed among the
staff and regulated community over the provisions of the rule and implementation of
those provisions. During the Summer of 1998, meetings were held between members
of the General Assembly, the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
the regulated communities and the conservation communities to discuss the concerns
over the buffer rule.
As a result of the concerns continued to be expressed by all parties, the General
Assembly promulgated statutory language. House Bill 1402 established how the rule
Was to be implemented on a temporary basis created a stakeholder committee;
established a requirement to allow for alternatives to maintaining the buffer through a
compensatory mitigation program, established a Riparian Buffer Mitigation Fund and
program, and established a requirement for the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) to adopt rules to provide for delegation of the program to
interested local governments. The stakeholder committee was tasked with evaluating
the rules and making recommendations on improvements to the EMC and the
Environmental Review Committee of the General Assembly.
III. Stakeholder Advisory Committee Structure and Operation
The Committee consisted of 23 members of organizations specified in HB 1402. The
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources appointed Dr.
Ken Reckhow of the N.C. Water Resources Research Institute as chair. DWQ staff
served as staff for the committee. Steve Smutko and Nan Freeland of the Natural
Resources Leadership Council at NCSU served as facilitators.
The general topics of discussion at the fourteen meetings are listed below.'Minutes of
these meetings are attached as Appendix 4. An initial two-day meeting was held on
October 21 and 22, 1998 in Waynesborough State Park in Goldsboro. The purpose of
the first meeting was to review the NBR, visit field sites that presented typical NBR
implementation issues and develop discussion topics for future meetings.
The November 12, 1998 meeting was devoted to stream mapping and included
presentations from experts from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NC
Geological Survey, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis and NCSU.
Methods for defining streams were discussed at the November 13, 1998 meeting.
The Stakeholder Advisory Committee established a Stream Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) at this meeting (see Appendix 4 for its final report). The Forestry
Technical Advisory Committee, established ten years ago as part of the changes made
to the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act related to forestry, was convened during
the NBR review process to discuss buffer protection requirements for forestry
(Appendix 5).
The December 3 and 4, 1998 meetings included discussion on delegating the buffer
protection program to local governments, identifying the edge of the buffer and

vegetational concerns, mapping streams, and defining forest vegetation. During these
meetings, the Committee also discussed options for buffer width and allowable uses
within the buffer. The December 18, 1998 included presentations from NC Division
of Coastal Management staff on their proposed buffer rules and DWQ engineering
staff on stormwater management.
On January 7 and 8, 1999, the Committee heard from buffer experts at NCSU and
mitigation experts from DWQ. The primary issues discussed on those days were
mitigation, and allowable uses; particularly electric utilities. The meetings on January
21 and 22, 1999 consisted mainly of reports by the Stream and Forestry TAC and
discussions on mitigation, storm -water management, delegation and buffer widths.
The February 1, 1999 meeting covered allowable uses, buffer width and vegetation,
mitigation'and delegation. A meeting was held on February 15, 1999 to reach
conclusions on definitions, delegation, mitigation and legislation. The final meeting
of the Committee was held on February 26, 1999 in New Bern. --Discussions centered
on vegetation and buffer widths, forestry use in the buffer and allowable uses,
including mining.
IV: Major Accomplishments and Conclusions
The committee agreed to operate by consensus where possible, and where consensus
was not possible, the differing positions of Committee members were to be reported
to the EMC for use in their decision making. The Committee's efforts are
summarized in the proposed revised Neuse River Buffer Rule, the new Mitigation and
Delegation Rules (Appendix 1) and the proposed Legislative Changes (Appendix 6).
On most issues, the Committee reached consensus or near consensus. The next
section includes a list of the issues on which the Committee did not reach consensus
and a summary of the differing opinions. Below are the major accomplishments of
the Committee:
(1) Stream definitions — The Committee decided to continue using the USGS
topographic and county soil survey maps to define streams. Waters that appear on
either of these maps would be covered by the rule unless there is a field
determination that a stream shown on the map does not exist on the ground or
there is an existing use in the buffer. Either DWQ or delegated local government
staff can make the field determination. During this initial phase, waters that do not
appear on the maps shall not be subject to the rule even 'if they exist on the
ground. A longer -range program of applied research and mapping is needed to
produce higher quality maps of stream locations. Funding from the N.C.
Legislature will be necessary to develop a more reliable map of streams of the
Neuse River basin and (eventually) the entire state.

(2) Mitigation — As required by HB 1402, a process was set up to allow the option of
compensatory mitigation in for impacts to the buffer. This process would allow
either mitigation to be carried out by the developer, private banks or the N.C.
Wetlands Restoration Program. The Committee agreed that mitigation should be
expanded beyond the area of coverage applicable and in the types of
compensatory mitigation provided for in HB 1402 (see section on Legislative
Changes below).
(3) Delegation — As required by HB 1402, a process was established to allow
voluntary delegation of this program to qualified local governments with DWQ
oversight (see Delegation Rule and Legislative Changes).
(4) Buffer Width and Vegetation — The Committee achieved a near -consensus to
recommend that the EMC adopt a 50-foot buffer with two zones that would be
applied for all vegetation. Zone 1 would be 30 feet wide and Zone 2 would be 20
feet wide with grading and fill allowed. Maintenance of existing vegetation in
Zone 1 would be required. The footprint of existing land uses within the buffer
would be exempt, with the buffer rule only applying when (and if) land use
changed. The people on the Committee who did not agree with this
recommendation believed that the extension of the rule to all vegetation rather
than just areas with forest vegetation was too expansive. Additionally, concern
was raised that extending the buffer protection to all vegetation would limit
opportunities for mitigation.
(5) Allowable.Uses — A list of 36 specific activities were separated into categories of
exempt, allowable, allowable with mitigation and prohibited. Uses listed as
exempt, such as archaeological activities and dam maintenance, can be done
without staff review. Uses listed as allowable, such as greenway trails, mining,
driveway. crossings wider than 25 feet or railroad crossings greater than 150 linear
feet, need written staff approval but do not -require mitigation. Uses listed as
allowable with mitigation, such as in -stream ponds (mitigation can be on -site)
and stormwater management facilities, need written staff approval and
compensatory mitigation. Uses listed as prohibited may not be undertaken in the
buffer without a variance. Although consensus was not reached on each of these
36 uses, the assignment of these uses to these categories received general support
by the committee.
(6) Forestry Management — The Committee approved by consensus revised
provisions to increase the amount of logging allowed in Zone 1 based on a
compilation of parts of several draft rules proposed by the Forestry TAC with the
addition of return times for harvesting. However, the committee did not reach'
consensus on the requirement for management of the 10-foot area directly
adjacent to surface waters.

(7) Legislative Changes — A specific list of legislative suggestions was developed
including:
a) Establishing a training program with fees,
b) Allowing compensatory mitigation on perennial as well as intermittent
streams,
c) Allowing options to mitigation, which are functionally equivalent in addition
to buffer restoration,
d) funding a stream mapping process, and
e) Revising the delegation process.
V. Issues on Which the Committee Did Not Reach Consensus
Issue 1: The Width and Vegetation Requirements for the Buffer
The Committee heard a presentation from Dr. Wendell Gilliam (Soil Science
Department at NC State University) on the scientific research supporting various
buffer widths. Dr. Gilliam's presentation and technical bulletin reflected that
different buffer widths display a range of nitrogen removal rates depending on the
location and adjacent land use. For example, in Coastal Plain agricultural settings, a
30-foot buffer of deep-rooted vegetation combined with a grassed filter strip to
diffuse flows has been sufficient to obtain a high nitrogen removal rate. However, in
the Piedmont, Dr. Gilliam said that a 50-foot forested buffer strip would be needed
for nitrogen removal because of the differences in slopes and soils. Some of the
literature cited.in Dr. Gilliam's technical bulletin shows that high nitrogen removal
rates may not achieved until buffer widths reach 70 to 80 feet.
The majority of the Committee agreed that the buffer should be 50 feet wide and
apply to all vegetation with exemptions for existing uses. However, some members
of the Committee believed that the extension of the rule to all vegetation rather than
just areas with forest vegetation was too expansive. Additionally, concern was raised
that extending the buffer protection to all vegetation would limit opportunities for
mitigation.
Issue 2: Ratios for Mitigation
The Committee did not agree on appropriate ratios for mitigation. They decided to
present the Commission with a range of ratios for impacts to Zones 1 and 2. The
range for impacts to Zone 1 was 1.5 to 5 and the range for Zone 2 was 1 to 2.
Issue 3: The Price for Mitigation
The majority of the Committee agreed that the price computed by the DWQ Wetland
Restoration Program was appropriate and necessary to successfully complete
mitigation activities. However, some members of the committee believed that this
price was too high.

Issue 4: Exemptions for Small Impacts
Initially, the Committee considered providing an exemption for small impacts that
remove less than a specified area or length of riparian buffer. Some members of the
Committee believed that an exemption for small impacts would increase the
efficiency of the buffer rule by allowing DWQ and the delegated local authorities to
focus on more significant buffer impacts. However, the majority of the Committee
agreed that the revised draft rule provides enough provisions for small impacts to the
riparian buffer such as driveway crossings and utility service. However, some
members of the committee believed that an additional exemption for small impacts
based on the area of the impact should have been included.
Issue 5: Forest harvesting in the Ten Feet Directly Adjacent to Surface Waters
The majority of the committee agreed to allow removal of high -value trees (as
specified in the Definitions Rule) within the first ten feet directly adjacent to surface
waters. However, some members of the committee believed that there should be a ten
foot no -cut zone directly adjacent to streams where tree harvest would be entirely
prohibited.
Issue 6: Forest Harvesting Where the Majority of the Trees are 10-inches DBH
or Greater
The majority of the committee agreed that for a mature stand of trees, the harvesting
requirements should allow removing 50% of the trees that are 10-inches DBH or
greater. However, some members of the committee believed that the harvesting
requirements for mature stands should allow removing 50% of the trees that are 5-
inches DBH or greater.
Issue 7: Inclusion of Land Donation as an Option for Mitigation
The majority of the committee agreed that land donation should be allowed as an
option for meeting mitigation requirements as specified in House Bill 1402.
However, some members of the committee preferred that this not be offered as an
option for meeting mitigation requirements.
VI. Summary
In general, the Neuse River Buffer Stakeholder Advisory Committee is
recommending NBR revisions and additional accompanying rules to the
Environmental Management Commission that are clarified and more easily
implemented by state and local government. The rule still provides protection the
primary function of stream buffers — namely, to remove nutrients from runoff — and
thereby contribute to the legislative goal of 30% reduction in nitrogen to the Neuse
River.

Appendices
Appendix 1
Proposed Revised Neuse River Buffer Rules
Appendix.2. _ ..
. House Bill 1402 . - .....
Appendix 3
Minutes of Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meetings
Appendix 4
Stream Technical Advisory Committee Report
Appendix 5
Forestry Technical Advisory Committee Draft Rules
Appendix 6
Proposed Legislative Changes to H.B. 1402
Appendix 7
Current Temporary Neuse Buffer Rule

Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements —A Review
A. J. Castelle,* A. W. Johnson, and C. Conolly
ABSTRACT
Upland vegetated buffers are widely regarded as being necessary
to protect wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. Buffer size
requirements, however, have typically been established by political
acceptability, not scientific merit. This often leads to insufficiently
buffered aquatic resources. In order to assist public agencies in formu-
lating appropriate buffer standards, we conducted a literature search
of the scientific functions of buffers. The literature search reconfirmed
the need for buffers and emphasized the importance of considering
specific buffer functions. A range of buffer widths from 3 m to 200
m µ•as found to he effecttve,'depending on site=specific conditions; a
buffer of at least 15 m was found to be necessary to protect wetlands
and streams under most conditions.
AUATIC RESOURCES such as wetlands and streams are
subject to disturbances that originate in adjacent
upland areas. These disturbances can result in changes
in the biological, chemical, and physical properties of
wetlands and streams. As a result of external influences,
aquatic resources may be exposed to higher levels of
noise, light, temperature, pollutant loading, stormwater
runoff, invasive species establishment, and human activ-
ity. These disruptions often lead to a reduction in wetland
and stream functional value.
A common method for reducing or eliminating impacts
to aquatic resources from adjacent land uses is to maintain
buffers around the resources. Buffers are vegetated zones
located between natural resources and adjacent areas
subject to human alteration. In some locations, a buffer
may be referred to as a ve- etated filter strip. The emphasis
on the filtering functions of buffers is derived from
their widespread use 'to remove sediments and other
waterborne pollutants from surface runoff.
There is rarely debate regarding the need for some
buffering of valuable aquatic resources from potential
anthropogenic degradation. However, there is often little
agreement regarding the degree of buffering necessary
or how best to achieve that measure of protection. One
of the important factors which determines the effective-
ness of a buffer is its size. Buffers that are undersized
may place aquatic resources at risk; however, buffers
that are larger than needed may unnecessarily deny land-
owners the use of a portion of their land. Therefore, it
is important to be able to.determine the minimum buffer
width necessary for aquatic resource protection.
Resource agencies are most often responsible for set-
ting buffer requirements. Many agencies seek to attain
no net loss of wetlands. However, wetland buffer policies
have often been established with significant regard for
political acceptability but with little consideration of
scientific data. As a result, many people are unable to
A.J. Castelle and C. Conolly, Adolfson Associates, 5309 Shilshole Ave.
N.W., Seattle, WA 98107; and A.W. Johnson, Aquatic Resource Consul-
tants, 1606 Nob Hill Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98109. Received 16 Feb.
1993. `Corresponding author.
Published in J. Environ. Qual. 23:878-882 (1994).
recognize that the resources may be at serious risk be-
cause of the false perception that the resources are being
properly buffered from potential impacts.
In order to balance development with effective natural
resource protection, a rational strategy for protecting
aquatic resources must be developed. It appears that the
use of buffers will continue to be an important element
of this strategy. To accomplish this, scientifically based
criteria for establishing buffer requirements.must be uti-
lized by .resource agencies.
In this paper, we address the status of wetland and
stream buffers to provide a basis for establishing wetland
buffer requirements that are scientifically sound. Much
of the information presented here was obtained during
the completion of recent studies sponsored by the Wash-
ington State Department of Ecology and King County
(Washington) Surface Water Management Division. The
former study focused on wetland buffers (Castelle et al.,
1992a,b); the latter study concentrated on stream buffers
(Johnson and Ryba, 1992).
For purposes of this paper, buffers consist of either
native vegetation, which is left undisturbed, or may be
areas that were wholly or partially cleared and then
subsequently revegetated. Further, we focused on buffers
intended to reduce or eliminate potential damage to wet-
lands and streams from anthropogenic sources. We real-
ize, however, that other natural resources are also threat-
ened by human activities and are similarly in need of
protection. Additionally, we have not specifically ad-
dressed potential adverse impacts to aquatic resources
due to natural processes (for example, slope failures and
floods); however, we recognize that in many instances
aquatic resources are protected from such occurrences
by surrounding uplands.
DISCUSSION
Four criteria have been identified for deterri ining ade-
quate buffer sizes for aquatic resources: (i) resource
functional value, (ii) intensity of adjacent land use, (iii)
buffer characteristics, and (iv) specific buffer functions
required (Castelle et al., 1992a). Generally, smaller
buffers are adequate when the buffer is in good condition
(e.g., dense native vegetation, undisturbed soils), the
wetland or stream is of relatively low functional value
(e:g., high disturbance regime, dominated by nonnative
plants), and the adjacent land use has low impact potential
(e.g., park land, low density residences). Larger buffers
are necessary for high value wetlands and streams that
are buffered from intense adjacent land uses by buffers
in poor condition.
Many agencies throughout the USA rely primarily on
a combination of political acceptability and assumed
aquatic resource functional value to establish buffer Stan -
Abbreviations: VFSs, vegetated filter strips; HSI, habitat suitability index;
DHD, direct human disturbance.
878

CASTELLE ET AL.: w'ETLAND & STREAM BUFFERS
879
water temperature moderation
sediment removal
nutrient removal
species diversity
in 30 50 70 90
BuffbF Widths �m)'
Fig. 1. Range of buffer widths for providing specific buffer functions.
dards (Castelle et al., 1992a). A search of the literature
suggests, however, that a scientific approach would de-
pend on the specific functions that a buffer needs to
provide under site -specific conditions. Accordingly, this
discussion presents the findings of the literature, focusing
on specific buffer functions.
Buffer Size Requirements
Buffer widths necessary for adequate performance of
several specific buffer functions —based upon their bio-
logical, chemical, and physical characteristics —are given
in Fig. 1. The results illustrate that buffer sizes may
vary widely, depending on the specific functions required
for a particular buffer. The following presents an over-
view of some important buffer functions and the buffer
widths necessary to achieve those functions. Note that
in addition to SI units given for buffer sizes, English
units are included in parentheses. The alternative units'
are included because these are the units typically used
by regulatory and resource agencies in the USA.
Sediment Removal and Erosion Control. Vegetated
buffers control erosion by blocking the flow of sediment
and debris, by stabilizing streambanks and wetland edges,
and by promoting infiltration (Shisler et al., 1987). Buffer
vegetation forms a physical barrier that slows surface
flow rates and mechanically traps sediment and debris.
Roots maintain soil structure and physically restrain oth-
erwise erodible soil. Flow rates are generally lower for
sheetflow than for channelized flow.- Therefore, where
vegetation helps resist the formation of channels, water
Will flow more slowly, allowing more time for settling
of sediments and infiltration.
Wong and McCuen (1982) derived an equation to
determine effective buffer widths, based upon sediment
particle size, slope, surface roughness, and runoff charac-
teristics. While small buffers were found to remove small
amounts of sediments, the relationship between buffer width
and percent sediment removal was nonlinear. Dispropor-
tionately large buffer widths were required for incremen-
tally greater sediment removal. For example, if the sedi-
ment removal design criteria were increased from 90 to
95 % on a 2 % slope, then the buffer widths would have
to be doubled from 30.5 to 61 m (100-200 ft).
Young et al. (1980) found that a 24.4 m (80 ft) vege-
tated buffer reduced the suspended sediment in the feedlot
runoff by 92 %, but Schellinger and Clausen (1992) deter-
mined that a 22.9-m (75-ft) filter strip removed just 33 %
of the suspended solids from dairy farm runoff. Horner
and Mar (1982) reported that a 61-m (200-ft) grassy
Swale removed 80% of the suspended solids and total
recoverable Pb; Broderson (1973) also found buffers that
are 61 m wide to effectively control sedimentation, even
on steep slopes. According to Lynch et al. (1985), a
30-m (98-ft) buffer between logging activity and wetlands
and streams removed an average of approximately 75
to 80% of the suspended sediment in stormwater. Greater
sedimentation. resulted from forested areas that had been
commercially clear-cut and then denuded with an herbi-
cide because of channelization, which developed follow-
ing these activities. Ghaffarzadeh et al. (1992) examined
sediment removal by grass vegetated filter strips (VFSs)
ranging from 0 to 18.3 in (60 ft) on 7 and 12 % slopes.
They found no difference in VFS performance on either
slope beyond 9.1 m, where 85 % of the sediment was
removed. Further, there was no difference in sediment
removal between the two slope angles beyond 3.1 m.
Excess Nutrient and Metal Removal. Buffers can
remove metals and excess nutrients from runoff by both
filtering water and via plant uptake. Madison et al. (1992)
examined the ability of grass VFSs to reduce NH;-N,
NO3-N, and PO4-P from two simulated storm events (the
equivalents of the 1-yr and 10-yr events). Reporting the
results as trapping efficiencies, they found that a 4.6 m
(15 ft) VFS trapped approximately 90% of each of these
nutrients. Grassy VFSs which were 9.1 m (30 ft) wide
had trapping efficiencies of between 96 and 99.9%.
Vegetated filter strips wider than 9.1 m did not result
in further improved trapping efficiencies. Earlier, Dillaha
et al. (1989) reported that 9.1 and 4.6 m VFSs removed
an average of 84 and 70% of suspended solids, 79 and
61 % of �, and 73 and 54% of N, respectively. Xu et
al. (1992) found that NO3 concentrations were reduced
from 764 mg NO3-N kg-` soil to approximately 0.5 mg
NO3-N kg-` soil in a 10-m mixed herbaceous and for-
ested buffer strip in the North Carolina Piedmont.
Murdock and Capobianco (1979) found that man-
nagrass (Glyceria grandis) took up 80% of the available
P, and also took up significant quantities of Pb, Zn, and
Cr. Gallagher and Kibbey (1980) found that other species
accumulated Cu, Cr, Fe, Mn, Sr, Pb, and Zn. Hubbard
and Lowrance (1992) noted the NO3 had `very little
impact" on riparian systems after passing through a 7-m
(23.2-ft) forested buffer. They attributed the loss of NO3
in the buffer to a combination of microbial denitri.fication
and plant uptake.
Vanderholm and Dickey (1978) monitored feedlots
and found buffer widths ranging from 91.5 m (300 ft)
at 0.5 % slope to 262.2 in (860 ft) at 4.0 % slope to be
effective in removing 80 % of the nutrients, of the solids,
and of the biological oxygen demand from surface runoff
through sediment removal and nutrient uptake. Doyle et
al. (1977) found that 3.8 m (12.5 ft) forested buffers
and 4.0 m (13.1 ft) grass buffers reduced N, P, K, and
fecal bacteria levels. Lynch et al. (1985) evaluated the

880 J. ENVIROIN. QUAL.. VOL.'-3, SEPTENIBER-OCTOBER 1"1
ability of Vegetated buffers in reducing soluble nutrient
levels in runoff from logging operations. They found
that a 30-m (98 ft) buffer reduced nutrient levels in the
water to `far below drinking water standards. -
A slightly different approach was used by Bingham
et al. (1980), who studied pollutant runoff from caged
poultry manure. Rather than recommending specific
buffer widths, the authors reported that a 1:1 ratio of
buffer area to waste area (the cumulative surface area
of the poultry cages) was successful in reducing nutrient
runoff to background levels for animal waste practices.
Overcash et al. (1981) analyzed grass buffer strips as
vegetative filters for nonpoint-source pollution from ani-
mal waste with a one dimensional model_, and_ also con-
cluded that a 1:1 ratio was sufficient to reduce animal
waste concentrations by 90 to 100%. Wooded riparian
buffers in the Maryland coastal region were found to
remove as much as 80% of excess P'and 89% of excess
N, most of it in the first 19 m (62.3 ft) (Shisler et al.,
1987).
Noderation of Stormwater Runoff. Wetland and
stream buffers affect the quantity as well as the quality
of stormwater runoff. A vegetated buffer zone that resists
channelization is effective in decreasing the rate of water
flow, and in turn, increasing the rate of infiltration (Brod-
erson, 1973). Bertulli (1981) concluded that adjacent
forest vegetation and litter lowered stream water eleva-
tions from 9.9 m (32.3 ft) to 5.3 m (17.3 ft) for a 100-yr
flood.
Moderation of Water Temperature. Forested buffers
adjacent to wetlands provide cover, thereby helping to
maintain lower water temperatures in summer and lessen
temperature decreases in winter. Broderson (1973) found
that 15.2-m (50-ft) buffers provided adequate shade for
small streams; further, buffer widths along slopes could
decrease with increasing tree height with no -significant
loss of shading.
Lynch et al. (1985) determined that a 30-m (98-ft)
buffer from logging operations maintained water temper-
atures within 1°C of their former average temperature.
Barton et al. (1985) found a strong correlation between
maximum water temperatures and buffer length and width
for trout streams in southern Ontario, Canada. They
derived a regression equation in which buffer dimensions
accounted for 90 % of the observed temperature variation.
In their study, Brazier and Brown (1973) sought to
define the characteristics of buffer strips that were im-
portant in shading small streams adjacent to logging.
They found that 24 m (73 ft) forested buffer was often
sufficient to shade these streams, maintaining prelogging
temperature ranges. Buffers that are at least 30 m wide
have generally been found to provide the same level of
shading as that of an old -growth forest (Beschta et al.,
1987).
!Maintenance of Habitat Diversity. Some wetland -
dependent birds and animals have specific needs that can
only be met in the adjacent upland buffer (Naiman et al.,
1988). Species such as wood ducks, great blue herons,
pileated woodpeckers, and ospreys require large trees
for nesting. Amphibians such as the pacific tree frog
spend only a short portion of their life span in a wetland,
although they cannot complete their life cycle without
one. This is often true of small wetland -dependent mam-
mals as well (Castelle et al., 1992a), because these
animals must burrow above the water table to avoid
inundation of their burrows.
Isolated wetlands, riparian corridors, and their buffers
often afford most of the green space in urban environ-
ments. These green spaces allow animals and birds to
travel through the urban landscape with some protection
from humans and domestic animals in ­ildli a corridors.
Buffers may also form a transition zone between upland
and aquatic environments. The ecoturre, or area where
one ecotype touches another, is recognized as a boundary
having a set of characteristics uniquely defined by space
and time scales, and by the strength of the interaction
between the adjacent ecological systems (Naiman et al.,
1988). Edge effect theory proposes that species numbers
of both plants and animals increase at edges, due to
overlap from adjacent habitats and to creation of unique
edge -habitat niches.
Wildlife Species Distribution and Diversity. Milli-
gan (1985) studied bird species distribution in 23 urban
wetlands in King County, Washington. Bird species di-
versity, richness, relative abundance, and breeding nurn-
bers were positively correlated with wetland buffer size.
Hickman and Raleigh (1982) studied cutthroat trout, and
recommended that 30.5 m (100 ft) buffers be employed,
although no data were presented to support this recom-
mendation. Moring (1982) assessed the effect of sedimen-
tation following logging with and without buffer strips
of 30 m (98 ft) and found that increased sedimentation
from logged, unbuffered stream banks clogged gravel
streambeds and interfered with salmonid egg develop-
ment. With buffer strips of 30 m or greater, salmoru
eggs and alevins developed normally. Erman et al. (1977)
also found that a 30-m buffer zone was successful in
maintaining background levels of benthic invertebrates
in streams adjacent to logging activity in a study of
California streams. y v
Finally, a series of habitat suitability index (HSI)
models has been published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for a variety of wildlife species, including birds.
mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (e.g., Raleigh, 1982:
McMahon, 1983; Sousa and Farmer, 1983; Raleigh et
al., 1984; Schroeder, 1984). Space limitations do not
permit a proper review of studies based on HSI modes
in this paper. In summary, however, these studies hay --
demonstrated a need for buffer widths of between 3.0
and 106.7 m (10 and 350 ft), depending on the particular
resource needs of individual species.
Reduction of Human Impact. Buffers protect wet-
lands from direct human impact through limiting easy
access to the wetland and by blocking or attenuating the
conveyance of noise, light, odors, and debris. Shisler
et al. (1987) analyzed 100 sites in coastal New Jersey
to evaluate the relationship between buffer width and
direct human disturbance (DHD) to wetlands. These
authors found that the adjacent land use type accounted
for much of the variation found in the level of human
disturbance. In all cases, human disturbance was higher
in wetlands adjacent to dense residential, commercial.

CASTELLE ET AL.: WETLAND & STREAM BUFFERS
881
or industrial uses. They also found that there was an
inverse relationship between buffer width and DHD.
Harris (1985) studied noise attenuation (expressed as
insertion foss) through vegetated borders along busy
streets. This report concluded that the insertion loss
through an evergreen vegetated buffer was between 0.7
and 1.0 db (A) per m. Therefore, a mature evergreen
buffer 6.1 m (20 ft) wide would provide an insertion
loss of approximately 4 to 6 db (A) per m. Without such
a buffer, tripling the distance between the noise source
and the receptor would be necessary to achieve an inser-
tion loss of this magnitude. Groffman et al. (1990) recom-
mended a heavily forested buffer of 32 m (100 ft) to
reduce the noise of commercial areas to -background
levels.
Agency Applicability
Many regulatory agencies rely predominantly on wet-
land and stream rating systems (a measure of functional
value) to establish buffer sizes (Castelle et al., 1992a).
For example, in Washington State, the Washington De-
partment of Ecology has developed a four -tiered wetlands
rating system (Washington Dep. of Ecol., 1991) and
King County has established a three -tiered rating system
for both wetlands and streams (King County Sensitive
Areas Ord., 1990). In each case, larger buffers are
required around higher rated aquatic resources than
around resources of lower relative value. While the
Washington Department of Ecology system also consid-
ers the intensity of adjacent land use in establishing
wetland buffers (Washington Dep. of Ecol., 1991), most
other agencies apply a single buffer size requirement
regardless of site -specific conditions (Castelle et al.,
1992a).
Even in the Washington State example given, however,
several important criteria identified in the literature have
been omitted from consideration during buffer size estab-
lishment. First, despite the number of studies that have
identified effective buffer widths for specific buffer func-
tions, no buffer size regulations were identified that
considered individual buffer functions (Castelle et al.,
1992a). Secondly, buffer characteristics or conditions
have seldom been addressed in current regulations. By
considering only aquatic resource functional value in
developing buffer requirements, agencies are utilizing
only one of four of the criteria identified for establishing
buffer sizes. Additionally, by not considering individual
buffer functions, most of the scientific information avail-
able regarding buffers is ignored.
Given that agencies typically do not consider all of
the criteria, and that buffer widths are most often based
on functional value alone (and perhaps, more commonly,
on political acceptability), it may be helpful to identify
general guidelines for buffer sizes. Buffer size require-
ments may fall under one of two categories: fixed -width
and variable -width. Each of these types of buffer require-
ments has advantages and disadvantages. Fixed -width
buffers are most often based on a single parameter, such
as functional value. Fixed -width buffers are more easily
enforced, do not require regulatory personnel with spe-
cialized knowledge of ecological principles, allow for
greater regulatory predictability, and require smaller ex-
penditures of both time and money to administer. How-
ever, fixed -width buffer systems most often do not con-
sider site -specific conditions, and therefore may not
adequately buffer aquatic resources. Variable -width
buffers are generally based on a combination of buffer
sizing criteria, such as functional value and adjacent
land use intensity. Variable -width buffer requirements
consider site -specific conditions and may be adjusted
accordingly to adequately protect valuable resources.
Unfortunately, variable -width buffers also require a
greater expenditure of resources and a higher level of
training for agency -staff, while -offering less predictability
for land use planning. V
From the literature, it appears that buffers less than
5 to 10 m provide little protection of aquatic resources
under most conditions. Based on existing literature,
buffers necessary to protect wetlands and streams should
be a minimum of 15 to 30 m in width under most
circumstances. Generally, minimum buffer widths to-
ward the lower end of this range may provide for the
maintenance of the natural physical and chemical charac-
teristics of aquatic resources. Buffer widths toward the
upper end of this range appear to be the minimum neces-
sary for maintenance of the biological components of
many wetlands and streams. Note, however, that site -
specific conditions may indicate the need for substantially
larger buffers or for somewhat smaller buffers.
REFERENCES
Barton, D.R., W.D. Taylor, and R.M. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of
riparian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern
Ontario streams. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 5:364-378.
Bertulli, J.A. 1981. Influence of a forested wetland on a southern
Ontario watershed. p. 33-47. In' Pioc. of the Ontario Wetlands
Conference. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Dep, of Applied
Geography, Ryerson Polytechnieal Inst., Toronto, ON.
Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilbv, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby, and T.D.
Hofstra. •1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries
and forestry interactions. p. 191-232. In E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy
(ed.) Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions.
Contrib. 57. Seattle, WA. February 1986. Inst. of For. Res.,
Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Bingham, S.C., P.W. Westerman, and M.R. Overcash. 1980. Effects
of grass buffer zone length in reducing the pollution from land
application areas. Trans. ASAE 23:330-342.
Brazier, J.R., and G.W. Brown. 1973. Bufferstrips for stream temper-
ature control. Res. Pap. 15. Forest Research Lab, Oregon State
Univ., Corvallis, OR.
Broderson, J.M. 1973. Sizing buffer strips to maintain water quality.
M.S. thesis. Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M.
Witter, S. Mauermann, T. Erickson, and S.S. Cooke. 1992a.
Wetland buffers: Use and effectiveness. Publ. 92-10. Adolfson
Assoc., for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Manage. Program, Wash-
ington Dep. of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. hfetz, S. Meyer, and
M. Witter. 1992b. Wetland buffers: An annotated bibliography.
Publ. 92-11. Adolfson Assoc., for Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Manage. Program, Washington Dep, of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. 1989.
Vegetative filter strips for agricultural nonpoint source pollution
control. Trans. ASAE 32:513-519.
Doyle, R.C., G.C. Stanton, and D.C. Wolf. 1977. Effectiveness of
forest and grass buffer strips in improving the water quality of
manure polluted runoff. ASAE, Pap. 77-2501. ASAE, St. Joseph,

882
1. ENVIRON. QUAL.. VOL. 23. SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1"4
MI.
Erman, D.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.B. Roby. 1977. Evaluation of
streamside bufferstrips for protecting aquatic organisms. Tech.
Completion Rep., Contrib. 165. California Water Resour. Center,
Univ, of California -Davis, Davis, CA.
Gallagher, J.L., and H.V. Kibbey. 1980. Marsh plants as vectors in
trace metal transport in Oregon tidal marshes. Am. J. Bot. 67:
1069-1074.
Ghaffarzadeh, M., C.A. Robinson, and R.M. Cruse. 1992. Vegetative
filter strip effects on sediment deposition from overland flow. P.
324. In Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.
Groffman, P.M., A.J. Gold, T.P. Husband, R.C. Simmons, and
W.R. Eddleman. 1990. An investigation into multiple uses of
vegetated buffer strips. Publ. NBP-90-44. Dep. of Nat. Res. Sci.,
Univ. of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
Harris, R.A. 1985. Vegetative barriers: An alternative highway noise
abatement measure. Noise Control Eng. -1: 27:4-8: - - -
Hickman, T., and R.F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat suitability index mod-
els: Cutthroat trout. FWS/OBS-82/10.5. U.S. Dep. of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Horner, R.R., and B.W. Mar. 1982. Guide for water quality impact
assessment of highway operations and maintenance. Rep. WA-RD-
39.14. Washington Dep. of Trans., Olympia, WA.
Hubbard, R.K., and R.R. Lowrance. 1992. Solute transport through
a riparian forest buffer system. p. 43-44. In Agronomy abstracts.
ASA, Madison, WI.
Johnson, A.W., and D. Rvba. 1992. A literature review of recom-
mended buffer widths to maintain various functions of stream
riparian areas. King County Surface Water Manage. Div., Seattle,
WA.
King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance. 1990. King County (Wash-
ington) Ordinance no. 9614, King County, WA.
Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best management
practices for controlling nonpoint-source pollution on forested wa-
tersheds. 1. Soil Water Conserv. 40:164-167.
Madison, C.E., R.L. Blevins, W.W. Frye, and B.J. Barfield. 1992.
Tillage and grass filter strip effects upon sediment and chemical
losses. p. 331. In Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI.
McMahon, T. E. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: Coho salmon.
FWS/OBS-82/10.49. U.S. Dep. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Milligan, D.A. 1985. The ecology of avian use of urban -freshwater
wetlands in King County, Washington. M.S. thesis. Univ. of
Washington, Seattle, WA.
Moring, J.R..1982. Decrease in stream gravel permeability after
clear-cut logging: An indication of intragravel conditions for devel-
oping salmonid eggs and aevins. Hydrobiologia 88:295-298.
Murdock. A., and J.A. Capobianco. 1979. Effluent on a natural
marsh. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 51:2243-2256.
Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, J. Pastor, and C.A. Johnston. 1988.
The potential importance of boundaries to fluvial ecosystems. J.
North Am. Benthological Soc. 7:289-306.
Overcash, M.R., S.C. Bingham, and P.W. Westerman. 1981. Pre-
dicting runoff pollutant reduction in buffer zones adjacent to land
treatment sites. Trans. ASAE 24:430-435.
Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Brook trout.
FWS/OBS-82/10.24. U.S. Dep. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman. R.C. Solomon, and P.C. Nelson. 1984.
Habitat suitability information: Rainbow trout. FWS/OBS-82/
10.60. U.S. Dep. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wash-
ington, DC..
Schellinger, G.R., and J.C. Clausen. 19,92. Vegetative filter treatment
of dairy barnyard runoff in cold regions. J. Environ. Qual. 21:
40-45.
Schroeder, R.L. 1994. Habitat suitability index models: Black brant.
FWS/OBS-82%10.63. U.S. Dep. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordan, and R.N. Wargo. 1987. Coastal wetland
buffer delineation. New Jersey Dep. of Environ. Protection, Div.
of Coastal Resources, Trenton, NJ.
Sousa, P.J., and A.H. Farmer. 1983. Habitat suitability index models:
Wood duck. FWS/OBS-82/10.43. U.S. Dep. of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Vanderholm, D.H., and E.C. Dickey. 1978. ASAE Pap. 78-2570.
ASAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL. ASAE, St. Joseph, bII.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1991. Washington State Wetlands
Rating System. Wash. Dep. of Ecology, Olympia, Pub. No. 91-57.
Wong, S.L., and R.H. McCuen. 1982. The design of vegetative
buffer strips for runoff and sediment control. A tech. pap. developed
as part of a study of stormwater management it.. coastal areas
funded by Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program. Civ.
Eng. Dep., Univ, of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Xu, L., J.W. Gilliam, and R.B. Daniels. 1992. Nitrate movement
and loss in riparian buffer areas. p. 342. In Agronomy abstracts.
ASA, Madison, WI.
Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness
of vegetated buffer strips in controlling ,pollution from feedlot
runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 9:483-497.

Riparian Buffer Requirements
in the Neuse/Tar-Pamlico .
River Basins
Why is there a buffer rule?
(continued)
. In 1998, the N.C. Environmental
Management Commission called for NPS
rules in the Tar -Pamlico River basin
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)
New Roanoke Chowan Pasquotank
Watauga
French Broad,., r g r sv 4
Little
Tennessee
Hiwassee _ roa - Pamlico
Savannah Catawba* use
Yadkin• a e
_ Pee Dee pak-
Lumber ' ape Fear
NSW basins with riparian buffer .
requirements
NSW basins/watersheds with primarily point
source nutrient requirements.
Why is there a buffer rule?
e In 1995, the N.C. General Assembly set a
30% N reduction goal for the Neuse. River
estuary.
. The Neuse NSW Strategy includes 9 rules
that affect agriculture, urban areas,
nutrient applicators and wastewater
treatment plants.
. Riparian buffers are highly effective at
removing N from nonpoint sources.
What is a Riparian Area?
An area of land
adjacent to -a,
stream, river,,
lake, pond or �
estuary.
� 1

Other Benefits of Buffers
• Stabilize streambanks
. Provide wildlife habitat
. Provide communities with a natural
area that is attractive and enjoyable
. Help prevent homes and businesses
from flooding
r'
Where does the buffer apply?
Applies to:
- Perennial streams
- Intermittent streams
- Lakes
- Ponds
- Estuaries
- Modified natural
streams
Does not apply to:
- Ditches
- Manmade
conveyances
- Ephemeral streams
- Manmade ponds &
lakes outside natural
drainage ways
History of the Neuse Buffer Rule
Winter 1995:
Rule development begins
May & Nov. 1996:
Public meetings & hearings
July 1997:
Temporary rule in effect
Oct. 1997:
Public hearings
Summer 1998:
General Assembly considered
permanent rule but instead
approved H.B.1402
stakeholder Committee formed
Spring 1999:
Temporary rule revised
I
Since July 22, 1997, a temporary
rule has required protection and
maintenance of riparian buffers•
in the Neuse River basin.
The Riparian Buffer rules in the
Tar -Pamlico River Basin became
effective as temporary rules on
January 1, 2000.
History of the Neuse Buffer Rule
(continued)
Summer 1999: EMC adopted revised rules as
temporary rules and
approved proceeding ahead
with the permanent
rulemaking process
December 1999: EMC approved final rules
August 2000: Permanent rules to go4nto
effect

Stakeholder Advisory Committee
• Members represent industry, local
governments, homebuilders, mining,
forestry, farmers and environmental
interests
• 14 meetings since Oct 21, 1998,
over 100 hours of deliberations
• Submitted final recommendations to
the EMC at the end of March
Applicabili (�-S0 L -
flr
- Waters shown on USGS topo r NRCS soli
maps, however waters not on e maps will
not be regulated even if present"on the
ground.
- Not covered if DWQ staff visit site and 0`
determine that a stream is not present.
- Not covered if the footprint of the use
within the buffer is existing
and ongoing. x'
Buffer Width
- Zone 1 is a uniform 30 feet. Zone 1 is to be
essentially undisturbed.
- Zone 2 is a uniform 20 feet, but may be
graded and revegetated. Zone 2 is to be
vegetated.
- Diffuse flow is to be maintained.
Major Components for the Proposed
Rules
• Applicability
r•
^.
• Vegetation
�! .; ':::.
• Buffer Width
�'`
• Table of Uses
• Mitigation
• Delegation
Vegetation .
- The rule applies to all streams
regardless of adjacent vegetation.
However, exemptions are given for
"existmg,uses" sudh as agriculture,
builds l s u _110e,q, roads, etc.
'fable of Uses
There are 68 different uses listed in the rule.
The uses include road and railroad crossings,
utility crossings, utility corridors, pathways
and trails and water -dependent activities.
They are classified as follows:
• Exempt (no review required)
• Allowable ("no practical alternatives")
• Allowable with Mitigation` '
• Prohibited /

More on Table of Uses0a
- Be more specific about allowable uses and
what is required to get approval for them.
- Uses that have greater impact have to
undergo more stringent review.
Delegation
- Local governments may request delegation
from the EMC.
- DWQ will provide training.
- Local governments will take over rule
Implementation except for mitigation
program.
. New developments that require a 401
Wetland Certification: DWQ Wetland/401
Unit
. Other new developments: DWQ, DLR,
DCM. the Corps
. Existing development and agriculture:
DWQ, Cooperative Extension Service, lyC
Division of Soil and Water /
Mitigation
- Mitigation only allowed for certain activities
classified as allowable with mitigation.
- May be a condition for variance approval.
- Can do mitigation through paying a fee,
donating property or doing own mitigation /✓`�
project. g/J
- Mitigation is subject to a multiplier.
- Fee will be approximat 1pacre.
Detail Riparian Buffer Rules
Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules
http://h2o.enr.state'.nc.us/nps/neuse.htni
Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/tarp.htm
. Forestry activities: DWQ, DFR
. Field determinations to determine
whether the rule applies and
compliance/enforcement activities: DWQ
regional offices

f
There are two ways to get an "exemption" to
the riparian area rule:
• The proposed activity meets the
requirements to obtain an exemption.
• The affected party has obtained a
variance.
The following people may be held responsible:
• the landowner
• the lessee
• the developer
. the person holding timber rights
. the person removing timber
Other Rules to be Aware of
• Randleman Lake Watershed Rules
• Water Supply Watershed Rules

National Conservation Buffer Initiative
` Questions and Answers
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Question: What is the national conser-
vation buffer initiative?
Answer: The initiative is an effort to use
grasses and trees to protect and enhance
all the resources on a farm. It's an attempt
to help producers not only maintain their
best land in crop production, but also to
make good use of marginal land.
Conservation buffers can be a key to
maintaining a healthy, productive farm.
Healthy farms produce much more than
crops and livestock, and using buffer
strips is an excellent way to ensure good
water, fish and wildlife habitat, better air
quality and other environmental benefits.
Question: What are buffer strips?
Answer: A conservation buffer strip is an
area or strip of land maintained in perma-
nent vegetation to help control pollutants
and manage other environmental prob-
lems. Examples of conservation practices
that serve as buffers include filter strips,
riparian (streamside) forest buffers, con-
tour buffer strips, field borders, wind-
breaks and shelterbelts, herbaceous wind
barriers, cross wind trap strips, and alley
cropping systems. Other practices consid-
ered as buffers or closely associated to
them are hedgerow plantings, grassed
waterways, and streambank protection
measures.
Question: How do buffer strips help a
landowner?
Answer: Many ways. They slow water
runoff, trap sediment, and enhance infil-
tration in the buffer. Buffers also trap fer-
tilizers, pesticides, bacterial and viral
pathogens, and heavy metals. They can
also help trap snow and cut down on
blowing soil in areas with strong winds.
They can protect livestock and wildlife
from harsh weather and can protect build-
ings from wind damage.
Buffers can reduce noise and odor.
They may be the primary source of food,
nesting cover, and shelter for many
wildlife species. Or, they may be the con-
necting corridor for wildlife to move safe-
ly from one habitat area to another.
Buffers can help stabilize a stream and
reduce its water temperature. They can
serve as a turn row. The vegetation,
whether it's forage or trees, can be
planned for harvest. Buffers offer a set-
back distance of ag chemical use from
water sources.
Like the trim on a house makes the
house look better, well -planned buffers
improve the appearance of a farm or
ranch. A system of buffers gives some
diversity to the landscape. If they are used
as part of a conservation system on a farm
or ranch, they will make good use of
areas that shouldn't be cropped.
Conservation buffersare a visual show-
case of the conservation ethics of a farmer
or rancher, a sign of a good neighbor.
Question: Why is this initiative being
started now?
Answer: Conservation buffers have been
around for some time. It is the conserva-
tion programs in the 1996 Farm Bill that
make them particularly timely now. For
instance, the continuous signup for
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is
an opportunity to use buffers to protect
the most fragile areas of a farm.
Producers don't have to make an
all —or —nothing choice on bringing land
out of CRP— they can crop the best and
make buffer strips of the rest. If the whole
field is not accepted by USDA for CRP,
they may consider establishing buffers
and entering them into the CRP through
the continuous signup program. The
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP), the Wetlands Reserve Program
the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP), and state and
local programs offer both technical and
financial help in establishing buffers.
Question: Who is promoting conserva-
tion buffers?
Answer: The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) started the
buffer initiative. NRCS conservationists
are working with other federal agencies in
USDA, including the Farm Service
Agency, Cooperative Extension Service,
and the Forest Service. Farm and conser-
vation organizations involved include the
National Corn Growers Association, the
National Association of Conservation
Districts, and state conservation agencies.
Private industry is also involved. Initiative
leaders want to involve all groups who
can help, including wildlife organizations,
water quality agencies, and others.
Question: Where can buffer strips be
used?
Answer: Buffer strips can be used along
streams, on field edges, or within the
field. Buffers are most effective if they are
planned as part of a comprehensive con-
servation system. For instance, if contour
buffers and grassed waterways are used
on land that does not have adequate ero-
sion protection, they will fill with sedi-
ment much more quickly. Or, a filter strip
or forested riparian buffer along a stream
will eventually cease to be effective if the
streambank is actively eroding. An impor-
tant consideration in planning buffers as
part of the conservation system is their
ability to be adjusted to improve or meet
specific wildlife habitat needs.
Question: What kind of help is avail-
able?
Answer: Your local USDA Service Center
is the place to start. The staff will know
what technical and financial help is avail-
able, including the USDA programs listed
above and any state or local programs
offered through local conservation dis-
tricts. NRCS and Farm Service Agency
employees can also point to successful
local examples of buffers. NRCS conser-
vationists can help producers plan effec-
tive buffer strips as part of a comprehen-
sive conservation system.
Contour buffer strips, field borders, grassed Conservationists urge their use as part
waterways, filter strips and riparian forest of a complete conservation system.
buffers are all part of the buffer initiative.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at [phone]. 7b file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, or call [phone] (voice) or [phone] (17DD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.

Catawba River Basin
Stakeholder Riparian Buffer Meeting
9:00 AM to Noon
Thursday, January 13, 2000
Duke Power, McGuire Island Facility
Huntersville, NC
AGENDA
9:00 Welcome =- George Everett, Duke Power
9.05 Purpose of Meeting / Introductions -- Alan Clark, NC Division of Water
Quality (DWQ)
9:15 Impetus for Temporary Buffer Rules and Tentative Schedule — Alan Clark,
DWQ
9:30 Summary of Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules -Lin Xu, DWQ
10:00 Other Buffer Programs / Recommendations for the Catawba Basin
Mecklenburg Counjy — Rusty Rozelle, Mecklenburg Department of
Environmental Protection
Burke County -- Judy Francis, Burke County Planning
Voices and Choices — Mike Struve, Western Piedmont Council of Governments
10:30 Break
10:40 Where Do We Go From -Here? — Alan Clark, DWQ
11:50 Next Steps
G

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
-C 59 WOODFIN PLACE
ASHEVILLE, NORTH 'CAROLINA 28801
ONE= 828/251-6208 .FAX: [phone]
'!v,_ - -
TO:
FAX #:
C
FROM:
DATE: ` /
# OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER:

YOU.R-LAND
WILL BE TAKEN
by use of stream buffers if N.C.
House Bill 1160 Section 7, is
enforced by the. Environmental
Management
Commission in
Raleigh. Want to know more?
Come to:
McDowell Co Courthouse
7 pm, Tuesday July 18th,
This involves EVERYONE!
Let vnnr vnirP hP hpnrd
Meeting sponsored by Upper Catawba River Landowners Alliance.

UPPER CATAWBA RIVER LANDOWNERS ALLIANCE
POST OFFICE BOX 2042
MARION, NC 28752
PURROSE_ST.A.TEMEIYT
TO PROTECT AND REPRESENT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF
LANDOWNERS ALONG THE UPPER CATAWBA RIVER AND ITS
TRIBUTARIES, AND TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE WATER QUALITY
THROUGHOUT McDOWELL AND ADJOINING COUNTIES FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS BY LOCAL CONTROL
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEES
Big Business (>20 employees)
$500.00
Mid size business ( 10 to 20 employees)
$250.00
Small Business (up to 10 employees)
$100.00
Rental Property Owners (4 to 10 units)
$100.00
Rental Property Owners (10 to 20 units)
$250.00
Rental Property Owners ( > 20 units)
$500.00
Individual (Actively Working)
$ 25.00
Individual ( Retired or Disabled)
$ 10.00
Campgrounds (up to 10 sites)
$100.00
Campgrounds ( 10 to. 20 sites)
$250.00
Campgrounds (> 20 sites )
$500.00
Farmers will be assessed as a business
OUR GOAL IS 5,000 MEMBERS BYDECEMBER 1,2000
WE WANT OUR VOICE TO BE HEARD
All dues collected go to pay our attorneys to fight this battle
********** TO JOIN FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW **********
Make Checks Payable To: UCRLA
Mail Checks To: UCRLA - P O Box 2042 - Marion, NC 28752
Cut Here -------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_U
Name Phone
Street Address Post Office Box
Town State Lip Code
* * PLEASE MAKE COPIES OF THIS AND PASS IT TO YOUR FRIENDS

Will you- just hand your land to the
Government without a fight
In August, '1999, both the House & Senate of the, General Assembly of North Carolina
passed House Bill.1160, The Clean Water Act of 1999. This legislation gave governing
powers to an appointed committee, The Environmental Management Commission,
enabling them. to' invent and impose strict guidelines governing creks, streams, and all
other tributaries carrying water that eventually flows Jnto the Catawba River. Among
these rules is one that indicates that any land adjoining these tributaries must have a 50-
foot natural growth.or riparian buffer.
These buffer rules will prohibit any landowner from, using their land on 50 feet of
either side for any building, farming, timber harvesting or any other activity which might
disturb the natural growth ,of vegetation. According to the Catawba River Basinwide
Plan, variances to this ruling could be issued, but only at a cost of .96 cents per square -
foot. (Approximately $42,625.00 per acre.) In other words, you, as a landowner would
have to nay the state .96 ner square foot to use your own land if the need arose for
you to use your land for any of the activities mentioned above.
We, as citizens of McDowell County, feel that we are being punished because the
eastern part of the state has wantonly ruined much of their water through growth and
economic development. They have had the. opportunity to raise their standard, of living
and have decided to deny us the same opportunity.. We have some of the cleanest water in
North Carolina and have thus far been quite responsible in maintaining our lakes, streams
and property through volunteer efforts. We wish to be able to continue to do this and to
send a message to the North Carolina General Assembly that we resent that this
legislation was passed in this manner and these rules adopted without our input or
representation.
The Upper Catawba River Landowners Alliance (UCRLA) has formed to fight this
unconstitutional -takeover of our, land. Help .us protect your land and interests by joining
our organization today. Help us to make your voice heard.

Wednesday, June 219 2000 18 Ana �
a+ is x ' G Q, E'r °• �+ @ $, IT m 7 ,{ a 8 s, R '�• g w'*1i5.y ~�
!A ID t0 w C+ e . RL g $ .
eD °' �D o, '�f o B, 2' w 6. �i Q '� �'. a �,
to ®' `� `� w i9 m �+- �a ° 9��. +� .d 610� 9 .., a Q. a .., B •�
g �• qg o g°
.rav� A3�°y 'Q.:�� "iS�ri�gS x
e R ^ =„� a a. � � o is � ,�� 9 ��'' 6• �'•
�R
a•' is n + °y' n d' yr eo a m qfill, , m !� a [yoLW 5 C A � O UI p 3' a. C� 61 �sJ a $ i� r ktyt
' I ' O p C �D opyq A•Oi C F I, s 1lJ �Y�4 G 4y' . P• -• 99 d„o�, g o+o i6'9 '�" one •�qgR v �.�a•�wy� ��S'
"S A ,� w FPS rots
Lake 'Preservationists say now is the time
(Continued from Page 1A)
originally thought," she said.
In both the state park and
national forest efforts, the main
property owner officials are dealing
with is Crescent Resources, The
Charlotte -based land development
aria of Duke Energy owns much of
the property around the 6,610-acre
impoundment..
Consorvat,onista say land
preservation is vital around the
largely undeveloped lake to protect
water quality, ensure public recre-
ational access and protect impor-
tant wildlife and aquatic babitate.
Crescent's plans call for signifi-
cant aboreline development on the
lake in the future. The company
has said it would be willing to sell
land fbr preservation purposes, but
only at market value.
It's time for citizens to let their
voices be heard, Braun said.
"The only way we're going to pull
this off is if the public makes the
calls and writes the letters," he
said. "That's what these officials
respond to
Here's a hst of key state and fed-
eral elected officials to contact:
• National forest expansion
effort:
-t- Sen. Jesse Helms (R NC) 403
irkning
DC. 20510-8301te Office d208-
!iM-6342 phond202-228-1339 fax e-
mail: jease—
holmsaolme.sonate.gov
— Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)
,225 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510 202-224-
3154 e-mail: senatorGedwards,sen
ate.gov
— Rep, Cass Ballenger (R)10th
District 2182 Rayburn House Ofics
Building t1►ashington, D.C. 20516-
3310 202.225.2676 e-mail: cassbal-
lengerftmail.house.gov
gep Charles Taylor (R)11th
District $81 Cannon House Office,
Building Washington, D.C. 20516-
3311202-226-Ml
Other key U.S. Senate members:
— Sen. Slade Gorton 730 Had
Senate Office Building Washington,
D,C, 20510 202.224.3441
phonel202-224-098 fax
— Sen. Robert C. Byrd 311 Hart
Senate Office Building Washington,
D.C. 20510 202-224.3954 phone
mail: senator [e-mail]-gov
— Sen. Ernest F, Hollings 125
Russell Senate Office Buildin
Washington, .D.C. 20510 202-2 -
6121 phone/2M224.6121 fax
• State park expansion a i t: —
Sen. Charles Carter 21 11aywood
St., Apt. 3A Asheville, C. 28801
828-645.4821 a -mail:
— Sen. Steve etcalf P.O. Box
1694 Asheville ,C. 28802 828-
232-1679 e-mail:
-- Rep. YVaiter Church P.O. Box
760 vaid e, N.C,28690 828-874-
2141 e-mail:
waltc�m¢.n etste.nc.us
-_)ie)i. Mitch (lillesple 163 Lake
Tahoma Road Marion, N.C. 28752
828-724-9995 e-mail:
mitchoms.nega.state.ne.ua
— Sen. Marc Basnight 2007
Legiaistive Building Raleigh, N.C.
27601 9i9.733.6854 e-mail:
marcbfnciegmet
— Son. John Garwood 1118
Legislative Building Raleigh, N.C.
27601919-788-5742 e-mail: john-
gAnclegmet
— Rep. James Black 2804
Legislative Building Raleigh, N.C.
0 rn �
,to speak up
21601 919-733-3451 e-mail:
[e-mail]
Sen. Fountain Odom
Legislative Building Raleigh, N.Cst` +
27601919-733-6767 e-mail: foun•0 _
tsino®ms.ncga.ststc.nc.us
— Sec. Bill Holman N.C.
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources 1601 Mail
Service Center Raleigh, N.C.
27699.1601 919-715.4101 e-mail:
[e-mail]
— Phil McKnelly, Director of
N.C. Division of Parke and
Recreation 1615 Mail Service
Center Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1615
919-783.4181 e-mail: phil.mcknel-
ly9ncmaii.net
— Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. Office
of the Governor 20301 Mail Service
Center Raleigh N.C. 27699.03011-
800.662.7962 Xune/919-716.8175
• For more information, contact
Braun at 4334526 or 488.9779, or
visit the Citizens To Save Lake
James website at httpJ/www.gocl-
ties.com/RainForeWJunglA602.
L%

.:a. r.osavm ®asf,s.lr®vwa vsa wv®rde•,eesrvasorwlw rarer o•,se.ww®v®.a. ,r,r^®,�aa.ar m,.�Irro ar .��
I CLIP & SAVE
The following listings currently serve on the N.C. Environmental Commission Board & Mr, Bill Holman serves as Secretary of the
e N. C. Dept. of Environment. These are the people you need to contact to express your opinion about Buffers in McDowell County, 11
NAME
Biti Hallnert :
David H. Morreau, Chairman
Charles H. Pbterson, Vice Chairman
I Don. A. Abernathy
Anne C. Bames
ADDRESS
: Ssc .W
Dpt. City Pian•UNCCH, CO 3140 - Chapel Hill 27599
232 OaWeat Drive, Pine Knoll Shone, NC 28612
8360 Old NC 910, Hickory, NC 2t3802
313 Severin SL, Chapel MR. NC 27616
TELEPHONE
;
919.962.4756 (0) • 918.942.1878 (H)
252.726.6841(0) • 252 247.6172 (H)
828,397-7035 (0)
919-967.7610 (H)
TERM EXPfRE
T'-r: '
7/1/06
7/1101
00/01
6=1
AR HOs
919+7.75 3Q80'
919-962.5206
252 726-2426
828.397.7035
919.967--7610
e41>aii l3dd►es8
t/etsl: '
ftmu@ert&unc.edu
Pedocal .unC,edu
NO 00A
NO
Daniel V. Besse
P.O. Box 15306, Winston 8a m, NC 27113
336.722.1674(0) • 3<3i6.76i-1058 (H)
7/1/06
338722.1674
Emil
Larry G. Jordan
P10. Box 220, Apex, NC 27502
918,962.8388 (0) • 919-2-7562 (H)
7/V06
No18v81
Nor!
Moses Carey, Jr.
901 Lystra Lane, Chapel HNi, NC 27514
919.933.8494 (0) • 919.928.85i3 (H)
7/1/01
919.933.9201
MOW @tdebbulh,net
Franklin S. Clark, III (MD)
1945 Fordham Drive, NC 2M
9104I83.7666 (0)
7/1/01
W 405668
Wood
Robert E. Cook
Marion E. Deerhake
3105 Carw9ht Dr Raieigh, NC 27612
2208 St, Marys St„ R ei , NC 27608
919.782.1490 (H)
919.541.5986 (0) • 919-781.3367 H)
7 M
71
9I 782.2454
9101.7165
rtled .org i
Robert Epting
410 Airport Rd., Chapel lQ-- NC 27614
9i9.929-0323 (0) • 9t9.967.06 88 (H)
_ENT
919.929.3860
@t1o! COm
Will 9. irowter
Coast Builders 3797 wy, 24, Newport, NC 28570
252.93.7709 (0) • 252.393.2M (H)
7170
o F9 dd
E. Leo Green. Jr.
609, Wilson, Rd 2703
252.237.5366
71/03
252-243-7489colic
EdyAn S. Melvin
,0. 9x 14 , Greensboro, NC 28723 '
336.691.9803 •33fi•20 t77 (H
71101
336.691.9806
aoi.cotn S
Robert ay
nine ty Street, ui
6- 58t0
1.
2 5B
t8yer WAI,
reds tarn
2 n a , een ,
1. 56 • 799
71
ra
e Ryon 0.lbrner
We A 110 W. Main St., Canbom NO 27510 —
r _ 919_932-1590 (0))919.932 7955 (H) .�.
+ ® 7/1/01� ®�
� � 8it�932 ism r
� �ROTEGUedcom _ J
---.r--_.—.....—_.--
rc.rw.o_swwm.w®a vwa�or,�.r •,w -------sewer --w,r--------
c..-----r--------®aovowww wtr w�
!, ....CLIP.,l�..�1���'_.___.____...._._.._.__.__.._............_....__.__._..._..._. _._...._'?

The following Legislators voted AGAINST House Bin 1160, the Clean water Act -of 1999. Article VU of this ball is what
gave the Environmental Commission the authority to make the Buffer Rules that we are fighting against. Please call or
write these legislators and tell them you appreciate their stand against government take-over of our land. Urge them to
continue the fight for our rights by mounting an effort to repeal Article VU of House Bill 1160.
Name Party
Rex L. Baker R
Cherie Killian Berry
Joanne Walker Bowie
John Douglas Bridgeman
John Walter Brown
Charles F. Buchanan
J. Russell Capps
James C. Carpenter
Debbie A.Clary
Billy James Creech
Donald Spencer Davis
Jerry Charles Dockham
J. Samuel Ellis
R. Mitch Gillespie
Jinn Gilley
William Seth &Batt
George Milton Holmes
Leg+ Thomas Justus
Joe Leonard Kiser
Wm. Eugene McCombs
Wm. Frank Mitchell
John M. Rayfield
Carolyn B. Russell
Mitchell S. Setzer
Paul Wayne Sexton
Edgar V. Starnes
Timothy N. Tallent
W.B.Teague Jr. .
Greg J. Thompson
Wm. Eugene Wilson
R
R
D
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Dist.
40th
45th
29th
76th
41st
46th
92nd
53rd
48th
20th
19th
94th
I3th
49th
69th
40th
41st
50th
45th
I
83rd
42n
d
Address
2183 Slate Rd. King, NC 27021
1400 S. College Ave. Newton, NC 28658
106 Nut Bush Rd E Greensboro, NC 27410
2510 Armstrong Circle Gastonia, NC 29054
2297 Austin Traphiil Rd Elkin, NC 28621
Rt 1 Box 273 Green Mountain, NC 28740
7204 Halstead Dane Raleigh, NC 27613
P O Box 397 Otto, NC 28763
105-D-02 Northshore Ct. Cherryville, NC 28021
549 H Norris Rd. Clayton, NC 27520
P O Box 363 Erwin, NC 28339
P O Box 625 Denton, NC 27239
3513 Auburn-Knightsdale Rd. Raleigh, NC 27610
163 Lake Tahoma Rd. Marion, NC 28752
2009 K.imway Drive Matthews, NC 28105
2923 Westfield Rd Mt. Airy, NC 27030
3927 W Old Hwy 421 Harnptonville, NC 27020
P O Box 2396 Hendersonville, Ne 28793
P O Box 47 Vale, NC 28168
P O Box 132 Faith, NC 28041 -
734 Olin Rd. Olin, NC 28660
119 Oak Trail Belmont, NC 28012
304 Glen Oak Drive (3oldsboro, NC 27534
P O Box 406 Catawba, NC 28609
123 Irving Road Stoneville, NC 27048
5852 New Farm Rd. Granite Falls, NC 28630
p O Box 3126 Concord, NC 28025
2435 Staley Store Rd. Liberty, NC 27299
18 Pine Street Spruce Pine, NC 28777
881 Queen St. Boone, NC 27607

i ne lowing Legislators-' - vu r 1--u
NAME
Ima S. ,dams
Iartha BAlexander
-ordon PAllen
,ary D. *ed
gene Arvid
Phillip ABaddour, Jr.
lobby hWd Barbee; Jr.
)aniel Befoot
)aniel "ISlue, Jr.
?onald,IN3onner
1ossie16yd-McIntyre
ferry Sowell
iarold .Brubaker
.anier Grisler
Nalter:6urch
Neiso"le
Leslie ft, Jr.
'James%lker Crawford, Jr. -
Arlie (7#
rerllianGuipopper, III
te Omingham
b%Oedmon
l brling
LEddins
i &4ards
es:Esposito
iffobtf' Fitch, Jr.
ilefox
rltlt6 Gardner
irMbson, III
faGoodwrin
evOrady
i6ray
Irlekney
Illwaire
im Hardaway
30ionsley, Jr.
nlpHiii
n*Hom
IdUaven Howard
wed Hunter, Jr.
" 1 he Clean Water Act of 1999". Please contact
ADDRESS
>. Mandela Court Greensboro, NO 27401
�2 ' 5 Meyers Park Dr. Charlotte, NC 28207
33 Crestwood Dr. Roxboro, NO 27573
307 Sartin Road Burlington, NC 27217
905 Greystone Drive Rocky Mount, NC 27804
25 Pinebridge lane Goldsboro, NO 27530
17 W. Main Street locust, NO 28097
'09 S. Aspen St. Lincointon, NC 28092
M17 long Point Court Raleigh, NC 27604
3 O Box 718 Rowland, NO 28383
H7 Cloverbrook Dr. Jamestown, NC 27282
t05 South Virginia St. Goldsboro, NC 27630
Z15 Back Creek Church Rd. Asheboro, NC 27203
14 Laurel Summit Asheville, NO 28803
$263 Mineral Springs Mtn. Ave. Valdese, NC 28690
012 Carpenter Dr. Reidsville, NO 27320
08 Olds Towne Dr. Sanford, NO 27330
i509 College Street Oxford, NC 27566
521 US Hwy 64 E Ramseur, NC 27316
O Box 344 Edenton, NO 27932
021 Valleywood Place Charlotte, NC 28216
16 Lakeview Place Smithfield, NO 27577
O Box 144 WalkNrtown NO 038 27051
O Box 293 Earl,
12 Clarkson St Charlotte, NC 28202
1333 Queens Road Apt.101 Charlotte, NO 26207 2149
11504 Stratlen Court Raleigh, NC 27615
12 Riverside Dr. Washington, NC 27869
07 Staneford Rd. Winston- Salem, NO 27104-2721
''16 South lodge Street Wilson, NC 27893
,123 Pine Cone Drive Oxford, NC 27565
14 St Johns Drava Salisbury, NC 28144
r7 Lakewood Circle Troy, NC 27371
28 Anson Avenue Rockingham, NC 28379
N107 Jean Circle Jacksonville, No 28540
o Pine Valley Rd., SW Winston Salem, NC 27104-3
i104 Carolina Forest Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516
P O Box 248 Syiva, NC 28779
p O Box 155 Enfield, NC 27823
6920 Birchleaf Dr. Raleigh, NC 27630
1p O Box 130 Lake Waccamaw, NC 28450
10 Polkviile Rd. Shelby, NO 28160
�3Magnolia Ave. Mo*sville, NC 27028
Box 418 Conway, NC 27820
�0103
10 Surry Road rChao�Hi�il. NC 275NO 14
representatives of
HOME PHONE #
335-273-9280
704-365400.
036-599-2943
336-229-1980
52.4434 073
19-734-3917
.704-888-6727
VO4-732-0887
1919 231-7617
10-422-3402
36-541.6220
- b19-731-2750
bra-629-4202
1828-298-8514
1828-879-3761
36-349-6734
19 77B-1977
19-693-6119
180
9-847-1372
2-946-3714
9-693.6616
0-572-1217
0-997-9790
0-455-9359
16-722-2311
19-967-3622
08-686-9210
42-4445-3121
19-832-0231
-9420
01_10' ®OA 6iG
express yourself
FFICE PHONE #
19-733-5902
19-733-7208
19-733-5662
19-733-5607
49-733-5806
119-715-0850
i19 733-5908
119-716-3021
)19-733-2528
d19433-5803
319-733-9505
919-775-3001
$19 715-4946
919.733-5605
019-733-5664
9-733-5827
9-733-5824
9-733.6886
9-715-3028
19-733-5778
19.733-558M
19-733.5988
19-733-5732
19 733-5747
19-733-5900
19-733-5800
19-733-5906
19 716-3009
,19.715-2241
19-733-5767
119-733-5802
119-715-3007
119.7334838
119.715-9844
i19-733-5820
)19.733-5752
)19.716-3005
)19.715-2530
319-733-5780
D19.733.5830
918 733-5849
919-733-5904
919-733 2962
� 19.733-5501
u�I- wr.. _..

Maggie Jeffus
Ted Kinney
Paul Loebke
ary McAllister
Daniel McComas
aul "Jaybird" McCrary
arian McLawhorn
dwin McMahan
ax Melton
jokey Michaux, Jr.
eorge Miller, Jr.
avid Miner
Richard Moore
Richard Morgan
melia Morris
ane Mosley
harles Neely, Jr.
dd Nye
artin Nesbitt, Jr.
arren "Pete" Oldham
illiam Owens, Jr.
can Rouse
Liston Ramsey
David Redwine
Eugene Brown
Drew Saunders
ilma Sherrill
Ronnie Smith
Ron Sutton
colt Thomas
oe Tolson
Russell Tucker
illiam Wainwright
rudi Wailend
ex Warner
Edith Warren
Nurham Warwick
onstance K. Wilson
Larry W. Womble
teve Wood
-om Wright
it Doua Yates
603 Rolling Rd. Greensboro, NO 27403
06 Chloe Dr. Fayetville, NO 28301
,507 Oakland Ave. Durham, NC 27705
130 Spyglass Dr. Fayetviile, NO 26311
1717 Softwind Way Wilmington, NC 28403
310 Westover Dr. Lexington, NO 27292
P O Box 399 Grifton, NC 28530
3007 Clarendon Rd Charlotte, NO 28211
220 Sandy Ridge Rd. W. Monroe, NC 28112
4722 Alfred Street Durham, NO 27713
6862 Somerset Dr. Durham, NO 27707
108 Lakewater Dr. Cary, NO 27511
=1014 Oakwood Avenue Kannapolis, NO 28081
688 NC Hwy 705 Eagle Springs, NC 27242
1105 Pigeon House Ct. Fayetviile, NO 28311
M3 Carolyn Court Cary, NO 27511
'•,3065 Granville Drive Raleigh, NC 27609
O Box 8 Elizabethtown, NO 28337
180 Robinhood Rd # 3 Asheville, NO 28804
i3211 Cumberland Rd. Winston Salem, NC 27105
.113 Hunters Trail East Elizabeth City, NO 27909
!211 Pompano Drive Emerald Isle, NO 28694
fox 337 Marshall, NC 28753
1700 Frink St, Ocean Isle Beach, NO 28469
�108 Woodlawn Dr. Wiiliamston, NO 27892
04 Sherwood Drive Huntersville, NO 28078-9003
�220 Robinhood Road Asheville, NO 28804
103 Gloucester Ct Newport, NC 28670
@940 Philadelphia Rd. Pembroke, NO 28372
104 Pebbiebrook Drive New Sam, NO 28662
P O Box 1038 Pinetops, NO 27864
464 N NO 411 Hwy Pink Hill, NO 28572
p O Box 33 Havelock, NC 28532
112 Ridgewood Place Brevard, NC 28712
4333 Legion Road Hope Mills, NO 28348
O Box 448 Farmville, NC 27828
02 Fox Lake Drive Clinton, NO 28328
126 Lansdowne Rd Charlotte, NC 28270
1294 Salem Lake Rd. Winston Salem, NC 27107
1P O Box 5172 High Point, NO 27262
322 S 17th St Wilmington, NO 28401
604 Prince Street Laurinburg, NO 28352
6-275-4762
9-488-5681
9-286-0269
9-488-9928
0-392-3011
52-524-3113
34-366-7196
D4-764-3690
19-596-6230
19-489-5649
19-460-7757
10-948.4238
19-467-8639
19-782-3845
10-862-2420
28-255-8114
36-767-6936
52-335-0167
0-579-2169
2-7924245
14-875-2738
!8-254-5770
i2-726-7933
10.843-2363
52-638-5688
52-827-2749
32-568-3295
52-447-7379
28-883-3790
10424-0030
52-753-4198
10-592-4807
04-364-2311
36-784-9373
36-883-966
110-343-9842
110-276-1727
19 733-5191
19-733-5758
19-73-7663
19 733-5959
19-733-5786
19-715-3017
19-733-5661
19-733-5784
19-733-5772
19-733-5995
19-733-5861
119 733-5746
119-715-3010
119-733-5741
119-733-5781
319-733-5956
19-733-5956
19-716-3026
19-733-0010
733-5606
19-715-3023
19-733-5776
19-715-4466
19 733-5773
19-715-0875
19-733-5863
19-715-3024
119-715-3015
19-733-5898
19-715-3012
119-733-5863
119-715-3019
119-715-3003
119-733-5903
119-733-5777
319-733-5807
319-733-5754
319-733-5821

Basinwide Planning Schedule for 1998 to 2003
BASINWIDEPLANNING SCBEDULE
FOR NORTH CAROLINA'S 17 MAJOR RIVER BASINS
(1998 TO 2003)
New Roanoke Chowan
Watauga
r�JF- r•f,f
French Broad ' \ ``•"'f""'"`
, , •.a.awti.ti.ti.+.ti.�
t �-+ti y�kn.a?• ti:ti /%/�// 1111111 \ \ \ \ \
Little
;, I rasqu()
�i
Broad
::;ts,^t�.�sti // -�¢;- I - •::;:::: rar-
Hiwassee
Savannah
��`"' I
'//// •. y3.�5a
Pamlico
Yadkin-, White
..
.h �.
Pee Dee Oak'
"'��
"�=�'.-•
1998
2001
Lumber / Cape Fear
�-1
1999
'�= 2002
_`�
0
2000
W
+-••�• 2003
•.`:.
NC Quality ec ion, Quality .
� W ater Quality Section, Raleigh, NC
DQW
In -House
EMC/WQC.
Public
Final Plan
Begin
=
Biological
Draft Due
Approval
Mtgs. and,
Receives
NPDES
Data
For Staff
For'Public
Draft Out
EMC
Permit
Basin
Collection
Review,
Meetin
For Review
A rove!
Issuance
Neuse
Summer.95
7/1998
7/1998
9/1998
998
1/1999
Lumber
Summer 96
8/1998
1211998
2/1999
5/191999
11/1999
Tar-pamlico
Summer 97
8/1998
2/1999
4/1999
7/1999
112000
Catawba
Summer 97
5/1999
7/1999
10/1999
12/1999
3/2000
Fr. Broad
Summer 97
8/19°;g
12/1999
2/2000
5/2000
812000
New
Slimmer98
11/1i199
2/2000.'
4/2000
7/2000
11/M000
Cape Fear
Summer 98
11/1999
2/2000
412000
712000
12/2000
Roanoke
Summei,99
8/2000
12/2000 •:
2/2001
7/2001
1/2002
White Oak
Summer 99
2/20i11
7/2001
9/2001
12/2001
6/2002
Savannah
Summer 99
6/2001
9/2001
1 MOW
2/2002
8/2002
W�„ga ,
Summer 99
6/2001
10/2001
12/2001
3/2002
9002
Little Tean.-
Summer 99
612001
9/2001
11/2001:
2I2002
10/2002
•
,
I
Hiwassee
Summer 99 '
612(d; i
9/2001
11/2001 -
2I2002
��
Chowan
Summer 2000
712061
10/2001
1/2002 `,
5/2002
11/2002
Pasquotank
Summer 2000
7/2001
1Q/2001
i/2002 .
5/2002
12/2002
Broad
Summer 2000
4/2002
7/2002
. ' 9/2002 :.
1212002
712003
Yadkin
Sunnier 2001
4/2002
9/2W2
12/2002
3/2003 :
9/2003
Note: A basinwide plan was con leted for all 17 basins during
Round 1 (1993 and 1998).

BASINWIDE WATER QUALITY PLANNING
What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?
Basinwide planning is a nonregulatory watershed -based approach to restoring and protecting the quality of
North Carolina's surface waters. Under this approach, basinwide plans are prepared by the NC Division of
Water Quality for each of the 17 major river basins in the state according to the schedule presented on the
reverse side. While these plans are prepared by the Division of Water Quality, their implementation and
the. protection of water quality entails the coordinated efforts of many agencies, groups and local .
governments across the state.
This approach to managing water quality will allow for better identification of water quality problems;
development of more effective and innovative protective management strategies; maintenance and
protection of water quality and aquatic habitat; assuring equitable distribution of waste assimilative
capacity for dischargers; 'and improving public awareness and involvement in the management of the
state's surface waters.
Goals: Balancing Water Quality Protection and Economic Growth
The goals of basinwide water quality planning are:
• to identify impaired waters and restore them to full health;
• to identify and protect highly valued resource waters; and
• to seek ways of protecting water quality while accommodating reasonable economic growth.
Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning
• increased opportunity for public participation in protection of the state's rivers, streams and lakes
through basin workshops and public meetings.
• A focused effort on one river basin at a time across the state.
• Basinwide permitting of aft wastewater treatment plants in each river basin.
• Balancing of existing point and nonpoint source regulatory programs.
• Preparation of basinwide water quality management plans for each of the state's 17 river basins.
• Updating of basin plans at rive -year intervals.
Availability of Basinwide Water Quality Management Plans
Basinwide water quality management plans have been completed for all 17 river basins and are available
upon request from the Division of Water Quality (see address below). These plans are free, although
supplies are limited. The plans range in size from 180 to 425 pages. Exdcutive summaries are also
available.
• Neuse River
• Lumber River
• Catawba River
• French Broad River
• Cape Fear River
• Roanoke River .
• Watauga River
• Hiwassee River
• Savannah River
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
• Chowan River
Pasquotank River
For Additional Information,
Contact:
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY PLANNING BRANCH ,
1617 MAIL'SERVICE CENTER ,
RALEIGH NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] ext. 360
Revised August 31, 1999
• Tar -Pamlico River
• New River
• White Oak River
• LittleTennessee River
• Broad River

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA- SESSION 1999
PART VII. AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY RULES TO PROTECT THE CAPE FEAR,
CATAWBA, AND TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASINS.
Section 7.1. Notwithstanding G.S. 150B-21.1(a)(2) and Section 8.6 of
S.L. 1997-458-2 the Environmental Management Commission may adopt temporary
rules as provided in this section to protect water quality standards and uses as
required to implement basinw_ icon:: eater quality management plans for the Cape Fear,
Catawba, and Tar -Pamlico - River Basins pursuant to G.S. 143-214.1, 143-214.7,
143-215.3, and 143B-282. . Prior to the adoption of a temporary rule under this
subsection, the Commission shall:
(1) Consult with persons who may be interested in the subject matter
of the temporary rule .during the development of the text of the
proposed temporary rule.
(2) Publish a notice of intent to adopt a temporary rule in the North
Carolina Register. The notice shall set out the text of the proposed
temporary rule and. include the name of the person to whom
questions and written comment on the proposed rule may be
submitted, ,The Commission shall accept written comment on the
proposed temporary rule for at least 30 days after the notice of
intent to adopt the temporary rule is published in the North
Carolina Register.
(3) Hold a public hearing on the proposed temporary rule in the river
basin to which the proposed temporary rule applies.
Section 7.2. Notwithstanding -26 NCAC 2C.0102(11), Section 7.1 of this
act shall continue in effect until 1 July 2001.
Section 7.3. This Part shall not be construed to invalidate any
development and implementation of basinwide water quality management plans by
the Environmental Management Commission and the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources that has occuricd prior to the date this Part becomes effective.
House Bill 1160

. Proposed Objections
(You may contact Bobby Bryan if you have questions or need further discussions at 733-2721)
2B .0241
In paragraph (b)(1)(a) it's not clear what makes scale maps "appropriate".
In paragraph (b)(1)(D) it's not clear what remedies and actions are "appropriate".
In paragraph (b)(3) it's not clear what is meant by "adequately" enforce.
In paragraph (g) it's not clear what is meant by "adequately" implemented and enforced.
2B .0242
The report that you attempt to incorporate by reference in Item (4) is not material which can be
incorporated by reference. There's no authority to reference the zones not established by rule.
In paragraph (8)(c)(9)(ix) it's not clear what's meant by "cultural or historic' resources.
In paragraph (9)(f) it's not clear what terms of a perpetual conservation easement will be acceptable to the
Division.

PHONE:
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
59 WOODFIN PLACE
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
828/251-6208' FAX: [phone]
TO: 5r k/ E AJD 5' 7:-%
FAX # : 45r,572 L? / /
FROM:
DATE:
# OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER:
MESSAGE: If questions, please call 828/251-6208.

STAR
4
�5 o
�IIr� Cnttrnliu�x (�err�rtt� �;.�sEm.�I�
J�$rrate Cn4rzrrrher
,,Stale ` Iegi5w sxe puilbing
er$4, 2715171. -zoIIs
SENATOR STEVE METCALF
28TH DISTRICT
August 1, 2000
Dear Folks, .
I am sorry I am unable to attend your meeting tonight. I have committee meetings in
Raleigh on Tuesday and Wednesday; otherwise I would be there with you. I have sent to
represent me Angie Whitener, a member of my staff and a resident of McDowell County.
Please know I continue to be concerned about the imposition of buffers along the Upper
Catawba River Basin. That is why I have written Secretary Bill Holman of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. A copy of our correspondence
should be distributed to you tonight. In addition, I speak with Secretary Holman and
other department officials often about this issue.
Should there be any question; let me again state my position. I believe that buffers along
the Upper Catawba River Basin are not necessary to protect the quality of water in our
area. In addition, I believe that whatever policy is ultimately adopted, that there must be
input from the citizens of McDowell County.
Let me also report that as of this week, the stakeholder group for the development of a
policy for the Upper Catawba River Basin had not been appointed. I have requested and
received confirmation from Secretary Holman that Mr. Gary Revis, Vice -President of
your organization, will be appointed to that group.
Thank you for your interest and I wish you well at your meeting tonight.
Sincerely,
1,
Steve Metcalf
vas
NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE ���

JUL 31 '00 03:31PM a400000000000000000000000000000 P.2
ff"�rl 4tA�(n"r �
• zg �.� l
��rt1� CtT�rniirttt i�,:iY�z�r,C ��,���ZtGX� ,
�►rttFtt2 C�i'IlalttGcr ,
$httL ryi,Itttitrs ittl>?tlT�
�aliigG ;�7lill
March 20, 2000
Tie Honorable Bill Holman
Secretary
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
5:.2 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
D:ar Secretary Holman:
Rscently it has come to our attention that the Department is beginning the rule -making
process regarding riparian buffers along the Catawba Raver Basin. We understand the
need for long-term solutions to preserve and improve. water quality. That's why we
supported -House Bill 1160, the Clean Water Act of 1999. However, as representatives of
Senate District 23, we must express ojx concern About the state's oversight in the
implementation of the Clean Water Act in the Catawba River Basin.
We believe that any plan for the Catawba River trust be ,'onsistent with the special
qualities of the basin and its inhabitants. As you know, the Department has recently-
established rules in the Neuse River Basin and is in the process of implementing rules in
the Tar -Pamlico River Basm.
WY believe that the Department should not, assurne that the rules established in those two
basins can be simply applied in the Catawba River Basin. The Catawba River is vastly
different topographically from these other systems, traversing most of western North
Carolina from its headwaters in the mountains to the southern piedmont where it exits
Nclrth Carolina. r
It is our understanding that the Environmental Management Commission has requested
that the Department proceed with temporary rule making. While temporary rules are
net:ded in emergency situations, there is no emergency in western North Carolina that

. r.
ii G 0000000000077070000000 oioiio PR
requires -the Department to establish these. rules without consulting the affected
communities.
As the Department moves forward on temporary rules, we are worried that the EMC is
€ ttempting to force those rules on these communities when it should be working with
1 )cal residents to develop a compromise that both protects the environment and addresses
t'ie special circumstances of the river basin's communities. As a result, we believe it
would serve the interests of the Department, the people who live in the Catawba River
basin and the environment for the Department to drop its attempt to propose temporary
riles to the EMC.
In addition, we suggest the Department consider the following suggestions:
• That the Catawba River and it tributaries' water quality be assessed to
identify problem areas.
• That local governments are allowed to address water quality -problems with -a
variety of measures including stream bank stabilization, waste water system
expansion, and Best Management practices similar to those used in the North
Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program.
• That the use of buffers is focused along lakes in the basin where development is more
likely to occur.
• That local governments work with the Division of Water Quality to increase water
quality monitoring and address problem areas.
• That local governments also work with the Division to educate people living in the
river basin about how clean water can be maintained in the Catawba River and its
tributaries.
• That the Department provide more information to local communities about
stakeholder meetings and EIVIC decisions.
• That private property owners are included in EMC stakeholder meetings.
We are deeply concerned about protecting water. quality -in Western North Carolina --and
so are our constituents and their communities. Howevet, unnecessary regulation is not
thy: way to preserve the water quality along the Catawba Rivet. We believe the .
De!paranent can do the most good for the environment by working with local residents to
develop solutions that work in our communities.
TLank you for your assistance. Please let us know if we can provide you with any
ad-litional information.
Sincerely,
Steve Metcalf
Charles N. Carter, Jr.

JUL 31'0_0
P.4
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OP
EENVIRONMKNT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
May 11, 2000
The Honorable Steve Metcalf &
The Honorable Charles Carter
General Assembly of North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Re: Catawba River Buffers
Dear Senator Metcalf. and Senator Carter:
Thank you for your letter of March 20, 2000 expressing concerns about rulemaking
by the Environmental Management Commission to protect riparian buffers in the '
Catawba River Basin. I have discussed the specific concerns that you raised with key
members of the Environmental Management Commission and Division of Water
Quality staff.
As you know the Environmental Management Commission with support from
Governor Hunt and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has adopted
rules requiring protection of vegetated riparian buffers in the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico
River Basins. These rules, in combination with voluntary and incentive -based
programs such as the agriculture best management practices cost share program and
conservation reserve enhancement program, are protecting and restoring water quality
in the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico Rivers. Protection and restoration of buffers is one of the
most cost effective strategies to protect water quality.
DENR agrees with you that water quality problems in the mountains are different
from those found in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. DENR also agrees with you that
the expertise and experience of'mountain residents and local officials are needed to
develop and implement effective water quality protection strategies. The stmt.cgies
developed by the EMC, DENR and stakeholders in the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River
Basins may not be effective in the mountains.
On May 1-1, 2000, I will recommend to the Environmental Management (EMC);
• that the F.MC suspend any proposal to adopt temporary or permanent buffer, unless
local governments ask the EMC to adopt rules;
• that the EMC direct DENR to consult with local elected officials and others a
process to consider and address the concerns raised by you and your constituents in
the Catawba River Basin;
• that the EMC and DENR seek comments and recommendations from local officials,
soil and water supervisors, farmers, landowners, business leaders, conservationists.
and citizens on water quality; and
• that the EMC establish a deadline of completing the process by December 1, 2000.
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALIIGH, N0RVW CAIVOLINA 2761351.1601
PHONC 919.733•4B94 RAY 919.715.10y0 WWW.ENR.6TATE.NC.U91V6NR/
AN fYQUAL OPPORTUNITY / APPIRMAYIrk ACTION EMPLOYER - 1109A RtCTQI.c0/1096 POCT-CONSVNCR-r.r-UP

1 31 100 I V00000000000000000000000@000 l I
P.5
Ser ator Steve Metcalf and Charles Carter
Page Two
May 11, 2000 w
Tn the interim, DENR will urge local governments to adopt local ordinances to protect vegetated
buffers on the shores of the many beautiful lakes in the basin and along the main stem of the river that are
threatened with development within the next two years. DENR acknowledges that many local
governments have already enacted ordinances to protect buffers to protect drinking water supplies. it is
important that local governments take responsibility for protecting water quality while the FMC delays .
acti,)n, DENR will also educate major landowners and developers in the basin about the environmental
and economic benefits of protecting buffers and will urge them to protect buffers as they develop their
property.
DENR looks forward to working with McDowell and Burke County officials to protect the high wager
quaJ ity, excellent fishing, and scenic values of Lake James.
Dr. David Moreau, Chairman of the Environmental Management Commission, and I will be meeting
on May 17 with local officials from the Catawba River Basin to hear their concerns, seek their
recommendations, and urge them to help DENR and the EMC develop policies to protect water quality.
Me Catawba River is one of North Carolina's greatest environmental and economic resources. I am
confident that by working together we car' develop a strategy that protects public health, protects and
maintains clean water, respects private property rights, and'ensures economic prosperity.
appreciate your'past support of legislation to protect public health, water quality, and air quality
:'lease let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Sin erely,
Sill Holman
cc: "be Honorable Fountain Odom, Co -Chairman, Environmental Review Commission
The Honorable Pryor Gibson, Co -Chairman, Environmental Review Commission
Dr. David Moreau, Chairman, Environmental Management Commission
VIr. Tommy Stevens, Director, Division of Water Quality

I%151I J I'I 1 FA'I P5 I�T!Slrdl I'I 4-:I I % I Si I% 1 I I IJ ! 21 I I I r% J
P.6
. 1
N.C. Senate District, 28
Sen. Charles Carter Sen. Steve Metcalf
[phone] [phone]
2111 Legislative Building 520 Legislative Office Building
North. Carolina Senate Raleigh, NC 27601-2808
FOIZ IMMEDIATE RELEASE 03/20/00
McDowel'Y must have input in river basin plan, senator's say(:artear, Metcalf ask state to forgo temporarytempor2ry rules for Catawba Diver
RA LEIGH — Residents its the Catawba River Basin must have a say in any clean -water rules
established to protect the basin, state Sens. Charles Carter and.Steve Metcalf said today.
Carer and Metcalf, both first -term Democrats from Buncombe County, sent a letter today to Bill
Holman, secretary of the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The letter
urgers Holman not to establish temporary rules along the basin that are similar to the ones
implemented along the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico basins in the eastern part of the state. Instead, the
senators said that temporary rules were not necessary and that any plan to protect the basin must
incl•sde input from local residents.
"Th,-'Catawba River Basin is not the same as river basins in the east, and it should not be treated
the ;lame," Metcalf said. "That's why we have asked the Department to seek input from residents
who live near the river — they will have some great ideas about preserving water quality without
lots of red tape,"
The basin rules are part of the Clean Water Act of 1999, which was supported by both senators.
Metcalf and Carter say that the law should be applied in consultation with the residents who live
near the Catawba River.
"We all support clean water, but the state should not just force rules upon McDowell County
residents without seeking local input," Carter said. "And while temporary rules are very valuable
in ar emergency situation, there is no emergency in western North Carolina that would require
such rules to be forced upon mountain residents."
Residents in McDowell County, where much of the Catawba River is located, have expressed
conc yin about state -mandated rules along the basin. McDowell County commissioners approved
a resolution last October calling for community -based basin protections agreed upon by the state
and 1 Kcal governments and affected citizens.
NOT. • A copy of the senators' letter to secretary Holman is attached
North Carolina Senate • Raleigh, NC 27601-2808

r►ll C �Ya
,jenators: Let residents' have'a say
ty M E CONLEY
,taff Writer
Residents of the Catawba -River
1xasin, including McDowell County,
must have a say in, the formsition of
any clean waiter rules intended to
protect the basin, said state Sens.
Charles Carter and Steve Metcalf.
Garber and Metcalf, both first -
term ilemocrats from Buncombe,
Sent a latter Monday —to Bill
Mulman, secretary of 1Jie state's
bcpartiiient. of Environment and
HDOr,11 Ri"sourres. They asked
Holman not to estr.hiish teinpornly
rules along the Catawba River
basin that, are similar to the ones
implemented for the Neuse and
Tar -Pamlico basins in eastern
North Carolina.'
Instead, the senators wrote that
temporary rules are not necessary
and any plan to protect the.basin
must include input from local resi-
dents and property owners:
"Tire Catawba River basin is not
f is same as river basins in the east,
and it should not be treated the
Kline, Niek alf said. 'That's why «e
have asked the Deparl.ment tr, s�.k
input from residents -.who live near
the river , they will have'some
great ideas about preserving water
quality without lots of red tape."
The General. Assembly recently
granted authority to the N.C.
Environment Management
Commission to establish temporary
regulations for the Tar -Pamlico
River basin, the .Cape Fear basin
and the Catawba River basin.
The basin rules are part of the
Clean Vater Act of 190.9, which..
was supported by both (carter and
hletc, f. Specific regulations have.
yet to be drafted but Iocal people
have based fears of losing their land
to buffer zones based on those
which were established in the
Neuse River basin.
Carter and Metcalf said, in their
letter, that the law should be
applied in consultation with the
residents who live near the
Catawba Rivera
`We all support clean water, but
the state shoidd not just. force rules
upon I1dr.I)owell County residents
without seeking focal input," Carter
said. "And while. temporary rules
Senators; Give people. a. say.
(Continued. from Page 1A)
western North Carolina from its
b". heaters in the mountains to the
southern Piedmont where it exits
North Carolina,"'read the letter.
In the letter, Carter and Metcalf
also call for the Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources to "previde•more infor-
mation to local communities about
stakeholder meetings and BMC
decka-ions. They also call for private
property owners to be included in
EMC meetings.
McDowell residents have also
expressed their concern about pro-
posed rules for the Catawba River
basin. Last month, a meeting was
held in the McDowell County
Courthouse which drew a crowd of
concemed'residents and public offi-
cials.
Last October, the McDowell
County Board of Commissioners
approved a:resolution in opposition
to the possible Establishment of
riparian buffers along the atr"_—
banks of the Catawba River basin.
The commissioners have. also called
for community -based protections lot
water quality that. can be mutually. f
agreed upon by the state and local
governments and`affeeW residents.
The temporary rules call for the
establishment of mandatory 50-foot
bluffers along the stream baulrs
within the Catawba River basin.. ..
State. environmental officials
plan to hold public hearings on the'
proposed rules before malting a
final decision. If implemented,
these temporary rules would
remain in place until permanent
regulations are adopted. ' .
in water rules N
are very valuable in an emergenc;
situation, there is no emergency n o
western North Carolina that woul. o
require such rules to be forced upor—
mountain residents."
-In their letter, Carter an.
Metcalf point out how the land is -
the Catawba River basin is differ-
ent from the land found in eastern
North Carolina.
"The Catawba River is vastly
different topographically from these
other systems, traversing most of
(See SENATORS, Page 2A)
C_­
C"