NC0000311_Memo_19920225

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
25 February 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ken Eagleson
THROUGH: Trish MacPherson
Jimmie Overton
FROM: David Lenat
SUBJECT: HQW Boundaries for the West Fork French Broad River:
Effects of trout farm dischargers and the Mitchell Bissell discharge
(NPDES#NC0000311,Transylvania County)
BACKGROUND
The Asheville Regional Office has brought to our attention an inconsistency in our
HQW recommendation for the West Fork French Broad River.The Bioassessment
Group's report on eligible HQW streams (November 1989)had recommended the West
Fork for HQW designation "from SR 1312 to French Broad River" (Table A,page 5).
However,the discussion of the invertebrate data(page 62)recommended HQW only from
SR 1312 to a point "above the NC Highway 64 bridge". The former area is the presently
designated HQW(HQW Tr) segment(Figure 1). Other streams in this catchment are
classified as C Tr.
No invertebrate samples had been collected below the NC 64 bridge. This lower
portion of the river(about 1 mile)is more open and developed than the area above NC 64.
There is also one discharger within this stream segment: Mitchell Bissell Company,
NC0000311,Design Flow =0.030 MGD. This discharger(a metal plater)has been
conducting whole effluent toxicity tests since 1987. Occasional acute toxicity(5/20 tests)
was noted during 1987 and 1988,but no toxic test results were observed from March 1988
to June 1990. All tests since this time (four), however, have indicated acute toxicity. The
"acute toxicity" prediction is based on an in-stream waste concentration of,29 o at 7Q10
flow. During higher flows,the aquatic fauna may not be as severely affected.
It would be inappropriate to require more stringent discharge limitations for this
industry without data to support HQW for this segment of the West Fork. To address this
problem, three sites were sampled on the West Fork in February 1992.
Besides the possible effects of the discharge in the lower river,trout farm dischargers
may affect the upper and middle sections of the river. Samples taken from the middle
portion of the river(at the present upstream boundary of the HQW segment) address this
potential water quality problem.
SAMPLING SITES (Table 1,Figure 1)
Station 1. West French Broad River at SR 1312,Transylvania County.Information
received from Jeff Hinshaw(Agricultural Extension Service)indicates that 10 trout
farms discharge to the river(or its tributaries) above this point(Figure 1).
Station 2.West French Broad River at NC 64,Transylvania County.This site is
just upstream of Mitchell Bissell.
Station 3.West French Broad River about 50 meters above the confluence with the
North Fork,about one mile below Mitchell Bissell,Transylvania County.

FIGURE 1. SITE AND TROUT FARM LOCATIONS,WEST FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER
HQW STUDY 1990 AND 1992,TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY,
FRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN
0 0
NC 215
■ SR 1326
NC 281 FRENCH
BROAD
RIVER
111
SR 1309
' SR 1306 E
❑ SR 1309
NC 281
IN HQW
WEST FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER ,.,,,.,,, BOUNDARY
SR 1312 ♦+�flal ,1 ( .�.
•
t.. ,,.
❑ :
ems
2
US 64 MITCHELL
I BISSELL CO.
`............-.LEGEND ...........�..a.
® A. NEW SAMPLING LOCATIONS 1
• !� ■3�■ '� �la
•
® B. OLD SAMPLING LOCATIONS 1 N ����a� I l�
tfitia mg #•�4
® C.BOTH A AND B .1��
•
XV WASTE .AR .aj 4
El .„,0,
TROUT FARM LOCATIONS `/.f'1 1#�L
g HQW AREA •
o APPROX 1 MILE

•:
Table 1. Station descriptions, West Fork French Broad River,Transylvania County,
February 1992.
STATIONS
1 2 3
LOCATION SR 1312 NC 64 above mouth
WIDTH(M) 10.5 13 15.5
DEPTH(M)
AVERAGE 0.3 0.3 0.3
MAXIMUM 0.9 1.2+ 0.6
CANOPY(%) 80 60 40
AUFWUCHS Abundant Moderate Moderate
BANK EROSION Slight Slight Slight
SUBSTRATE(%)
BOULDER 20 40 30
RUBBLE 30 35 50
GRAVEL 20 13 10
SAND IQ 12 10
SILT Trace Trace -
COMMENT Embedded More open
Substrate
Table 2. Taxa richness (by group),biotic index numbers,and bioclassifcations,West Fork
French Broad River,Transylvania County,February 1992.
Station: 1 2 a
Group
EPHEMEROPTERA 20 22 U
PLECOPTERA 17 15 17
TRICHOPTERA 14 20 1.5.
COLEOPTERA 3 5 3
1 ODONATA 3 3 3
1 MEGALOPTERA 1 2 1
DIPTERA:MISCELLANEOUS 8 9 8
DIP'TERA: CHIRONOMIDAE 24 28 1¢
OLIGOCHAETA 2 3 1
MOLLUSCA 3 3 2
OTHER 2 0 0
Total Taxa Richness 97 110 22
Uncorrected EPT Taxa Richness 51 57 45
Seasonally Adjusted EPT S 41. 49 3.1
EPT Abundance 257 278 1E
En Rating Good Ex Good
Biotic Index
EPT only 1.70 1.84 1.89
All taxa 1.99 2.06 2.10
Biotic Index Rating Ex Ex Ex
, Final Bioclassification Ex Ex Ex
CTI(vs. station 2) 66% - 59%
CDI(vs. station 2) 60% - 40%
Impact Slight - Moderate
Wilcoxon Signed Rank
(vs. station 2) NS Significant(.05 level)
i

METHODS
All macroinvertebrate collections were made with DEM's standard qualitative sampling
method.This collection method uses a wide variety of collection techniques(10 samples) to
inventory the aquatic fauna. The primary output is a species list with some indication of
relative abundance (Rare, Common,Abundant) for each taxon.
Several metrics can be used with these qualitative samples to examine between-site
differences in water quality. EPT taxa richness (EPT S: taxa richness for the most
intolerant groups)can be used with DEM criteria to assign water quality ratings. EPT
abundance(EPT N) and total taxa richness calculations also are used to examine between-
site differences in water quality.
Water quality assessments also may evaluate the relative tolerance of macroinvertebrate
species,especially the abundance of"pollution indicator" groups. This type of information
is summarized with a Hilsenhoff-type biotic index. Both tolerance values for individual
species and the biotic index vary from 0 to 5,with higher numbers indicating more tolerant
species or more polluted conditions. Water quality ratings assigned with the biotic index
numbers are combined with EPT taxa richness ratings to produce a final bioclassification.
Two other indices also can be used with this data set to compare sites: a Common Taxa
Index(CTI) and a Common Dominants Index(CDI). These two indices are based on
Arkansas criteria and compare paired sites (usually a downstream site and an upstream
control),producing ratings of No Impact, Slight Impact, Moderate Impact or Severe
Impact. Both the CDI index and the CTI look at the species which are found at both sites
("common" taxa) and vary from 0 to 100%. Sites may be compared statistically using a
Wilcoxon Signed Rank test,with taxa richness(by group) as input data.
Classification Criteria for Mountain streams(Standard Qualitatitve Samples)
Bioclassification )✓PT S Biotic Index
Excellent >41 <2.61
Good 32-41 2.61-2.93
Good-Fair 22-31 2.93-3.24
Fair 12-21 3.25-3.69
Poor 0-11 >3.69
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (Tables 2 and 3,Appendix 1)
Water Quality Evaluations
Collections at the NC 64 site(Station 2)clearly substantiated the Excellent
bioclassification that had been given to this site during prior surveys. By making
comparisons to station 2, samples from other sites on the West Fork French Broad
indicated some water quality problems. All three sites,however,received an overall
Excellent bioclassification.
Taxa richness was lower at both stations 1 and 3 (Table 2); abundance values were
reduced only at station 3. Relative to station 2,the Common Dominants Index indicated
slight stress at station 1, but moderate stress at station 3. Similarly,the Wilcoxon ranked
sign test indicated a significant drop in taxa richness only at station 3. All sites,however,
were dominated by intolerant species,giving biotic index values in the Excellent category.
Two separate water quality problems seem to be affecting the West Fork French Broad
River:trout farm dischargers and the Mitchell-Bissell discharge. Table 3 summarizes the
changes in abundance that reflect these impacts. This table includes only those taxa that
were abundant for at least one of the three sites;changes in abundance reflect both
laboratory tabulations of abundance (Rare=1-2 specimens, Common=3-9 specimens,
Abundant=>9 specimens) and field notes. Field notes are especially important in defining
"dominant" species: those taxa which were observed at levels 1-2 orders of magnitude
above the">9 specimens" criteria. In examining between-site changes in abundance,we
have tried to separate out expected longitudinal changes in abundance,especially the loss of

Table 3.Changes in the abundance(>,<)of abundant taxa,West Fork French Broad River,Transylvania
County,February 1992. Dominant taxa indicated by asterisk(*). Between-site changes were assessed by
both field notes and sample identifications.Note that some changes reflect normal longitudinal shift in the
composition of the invertebrate community,especially between stations 1 and 2. R=Rare,C=Common,
A=Abundant
Discharger Trout Farm
Station: 1 2 3 Effect? Effect?
EPHEMEROPTERA
Baetis tricaudatus A < A* A*
Epeorus spp. C < A A X
Stenonema pudicum A* > A A
S. ithaca C < A A
Isonychia sp. R < A > R X X
Paraleptophlebia sp. A > R -
Ephemera sp. A > R -
Ephemerella catawba gr. A* A* > A X
E. invaria gr. R < A A
E. hispida A > C C
Eurylophela spp. C C A
Leptophlebia spp. A A > R X
Rhithrogena amica A A > C X
i R. exilis A > R -
PLECOPTERA
Acroneuria abnormis A A A
! Cultus decisus A A > C X
1 Diploperla duplicata C <? A > R X
I Helopicus subvarians R < A > R X
i Isoperla namata A > C R
i I. nr. slossonae A* A* » C X
Pteronarcys sp. C C A
Tallaperla sp. A* > A > C X?
Yugus bulbosus A > - -
1 TRICHOPTERA
1 Cheumatopsyche sp. R < A > R X X?
I
Hydropsyche sparna A* > A A X
Doliphilodes sp. R < A > R X X
I Neophylax spp. A < A* » R X X?
1 Nyctiophylax spp. A < A* >> C X
Pycnopsyche spp. A A A
Rhyacophila furcula A > C C X
i COLEOPI'ERA
IOptioservus sp. A > R R
IPromoresia tardella A > R
DIPTERA
1 Antocha sp. C R < A X
Prosimulium spp. A A A
Simulium sp. - A C
I Brillia sp. - C A ?
t Conchapelopia gr. A C C
Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 13 C C << A* X
Eukiefferiella sp. 1 A A C ?
Nanocladius sp. R < A > R ?
Parametriocnemus lundbecki A A* A
1, Rheotanytarsus sp. C A > - X
�� Thienemeniella spp. A A* A
MOLLUSCA
Elimia sp. - < A > R X
Ferissia sp. A A A
Pisidium sp. A > C - X

headwater species between stations 1 and 2. Stations 2 and 3,only 1 mile apart, would be
expected to have virtually identical benthic communities.
1.Trout farm dischargers. The Bioassessment group had conducted studies (May and
August 1990)of two trout farms discharging to the headwaters of the West Fork French
Broad River(Neil Medlin memo, 29 October 1990).The lower end of these surveys was at
NC 281. An additional eight trout farms discharge to the river,or its tributaries, between
this NC 281 site and the uppermost site (SR 1312, Station 1) sampled during the February
1992 survey.
Earlier studies had shown enrichment effects at the NC 281 site, with the
bioclassification varying from Fair to Good,depending on temperature,dilution,etc. The
site was characterized by large numbers Hydropsychidae and Ephemerella. This same
community was observed at the SR 1312 site during 1992. Intolerant taxa which were
reduced in abundance at this site(relative to station 2) included Dolophilodes, Isonychia,
and Epeorus (Table 3). Although the SR 1312 site was rated as Excellent during the
February 1992 study,it is possible that a lower rating would be recorded during summer
high temperature/low flow conditions.
2. Mitchell-Bissell discharge. Sampling of the lower river,just above the confluence
with the North Fork (Station 3), suggested recovery from stress. The macroinvertebrate
community at this site included many intolerant taxa,but many of these were markedly
reduced in abundance relative to station 2,including Isonychia,Rhithrogena arnica, Cultus
decisus,J-Ielopicus subvarians, Isoperla,nr. slossonae,Dolophilodes, Neophylax,
Nyctiophylax, and Elimia.
This pattern suggests elimination of many macroinvertebrates by acute toxicity,
followed by drift' colonization of this area by intolerant species from the area above NC
64. This hypothesis is supported by the high numbers of a taxon that should be prone to
drift colonization(Baetis tricaudatus),but the virtual elimination of some taxa that do not
enter the drift(Elimia, Neophylax). Recent self-monitoring toxicity tests also support this
hypothesis. Note, however, that not all species responded in the same manner.For
example,Goera(an intolerant non-drifting species) was common at the downstream site.
The latter pattern suggests that all taxa were not equally affected by the unknown pollutant.
Only two taxa became much more abundant below the discharge:Antocha and
Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 13. This statement reflects both the values in Table 3 and field
notes on the abundance of invertebrate taxa. Antocha is a relatively tolerant species; it
seems to have filled the niche vacated by the intolerant Nyctiophylax. C/O sp. 13 belongs
to a taxonomic group known to be resistant to some toxic compounds,especially metals2.
It is possible,however, that this species was capable of rapid recolonization,rather than
being tolerant to toxic stress.
HQW Boundaries and Management Activities
The boundaries included in the classification schedules (SR 1312 to the French Broad
River) are validated by the Excellent rating given to all three sites. It is evident that trout
farm discharges are having some impact on the middle portion of the river, and the SR
1312 site may not receive an Excellent rating during all months. This area will be
resampled during the summer of 1992,in order to determine if summer high
temperature/low flow conditions increase the severity of the problem. Some evaluation of
this problem by the field office also might be appropriate,i.e.,facility inspections plus
measurements of nutrients, BOD5, and dissolved oxygen. It is likely that problems are
1The term,"drift",refers to the tendency of some benthic species to enter the water column and be carried
downstream.
2Winner,R.W.,M.P.Boesel and M.P.Farrell. 1980. Insect community structure as an index of heavy
metal pollution in lotic ecosystems. Can.J.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 647-655.

•
caused by the combined effect of the ten trout farms,rather than problems at a specific
facility.
The February 1992 survey suggested that the Mitchell Bissell discharge is having some
impact on the stream fauna. This would suggest a review of their permit requirements and
further toxicity testing. Note,however,that our information suggests occasional acute
toxicity,rather than chronic toxicity.
Subbasin 040301
cc: Greg Thorpe, Planning
Dave Harding,Planning
Forest Westall,Asheville Regional Office
Jeff Hinshaw,Agricultural Extension Service,2016 Fanning Bridge Rd.,
Fletcher NC 28732
Jackie Nowell,Technical Support
Larry Ausley,Aquatic Toxicology
Central Files

i
APPENDIX 1.TAXA LIST AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE.R=RARE,COMMON,A=ABUNDANT.
STATIONS
Organism 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera
BAETIS TRICAUDATUS A A A
BAETISCA CAROLINA R
CENTROPTILUM SPP R
DRUNELLA SP R
EPEORUS SPP C A A
EPHEMERA SPP A R
EPHEMERELLA CATAWBA(GROUP) A A A
EPHEMERELLA HISPIDA A C C
``
EPHEMERELLA.a INVARIA(GR) R A A
EURYLOPHELLA FUNERALIS R R
EURYLOPHELLASPP C C A
HEPTAGENIA MARGINALIS C
ISONYCHIA SPP R A R
LEPTOPHLEBIA SPP A A R
LITDBRANCHA RECURVATA R R
NEOEPHE ERA PURPUREA C R
PARALEPTOPHLEBIA SPP A R
RHITHROGENA AMICA A A C
RHITHROGENA EXIUS A R
SERRATELLA DEFICIENS C C
STENACRON PALLIDUM C R
STENONEMA CARLSOM R R
I STENONEMA 1THACA C A A
STENONEMA PUDICUM A A A
Plecoptera
ACRONEURIA ABNORMIS A A A
ALLOCAPNIA SPP C R
BOLOTOPERLA ROSSI C
CULTUS DECISUS A A C
DIPLOPERLA DUPLICATA C A R
ECCOFTURA XAN HEVES R R
HELOPICUS SUBVARIANS R A R
ISOGENOIDES HANSOM C
ISOPERLA BILINEATA C C R
ISOPERL.A,NAMATA(GR) A C R
ISOPERLA NR SLOSSONAE A A C
ISOPERLA ORATA R C R
ISOPERLA SIMILIS R
ISOPERLA SLOSSONAE R
MALIREKUS HASTATUS C R
PARAGNETINA IMMARGINATA R C R
PTERONARCYS SPP C C A
STROPHOPTERYX SPP C C
SWELTSA SPP R R C
TALLOPERLA SPP A A C
YUGUSBULBOSUS A
Trichoptera
APATANIA SP R
BRACHYCENTRUS SPINAE C C
CERACLEA ANCYLUS C
CHEUMATOPSYCHE SPP R A R
DIPLECIRONAMODESTA C C
DOLOPHILODES SPP R A R
GLOSSOSOMA SPP R
GOERA SPP C C C
HYDATOPHYLAX ARGUS R
LEPIDOSTOMA SPP R R
MICRASEMA SPP R R
I

A,
STATIONS
Organism 1 2 3
NEOPHYLAX SPP A A R
NYCTIOPHYLAX SPP A A C
PHYLOCENTROPUS SPP R
POLYCENTROPUSSPP R R C
PYCNOPSYCHE SPP A A A
RHYACOPHILA ACUTILOBA C R
RHYACOPHILA CAROLINA R
RHYACOPHILA FUSCULA A C C
RHYACOPHILA SPP R
SETODES SPP R
SYMPHITOPSYCHE BRONTA R C R
SYMPHTTOPSYCHE SPARNA A A A
TRIAENODES TARDUS R
Coleoptera
GYRINUS SPP R
OPTIOSERVUS SPP A R R
. ODUMNIUS LATIUSCULUS R
PROMORESIA TARDELLA A R
PSEPHENUS HERRICKI R R
SPERCHOPSIS TESSELLATUS C R
Diptera: Chironomidae
APSECTROTANYPUS JOHNSONI C R
BRILLIA SPP C A
BRUNDINIEILA EUMORPHA C R C
CHIRONOMUS SPP R
• CONCHAPELOPIA GROUP A C C
CORYNONEURA SPP C C
CRICOTOPUS/ORTHOCLADIUS SP10 C C R
1 CRICOTOPUS/ORTHOCLADIUS SP13 C C A
DENIICRYPTOCHIRONOMUS SPP R
EUHIEFFERIELLA SP1 A A C
i EUIGEFFERIELLA SP11 C C
EUIQEFFERIELLA SP12 C R
EUIGEFFERIELLA SP2 C R C
MICROTENDIPES SP1 C R
NANOCLADIUS SPP R A R
ODONTOMESA FULVA C R
PAGASTIA SPP A C
PARACHAETOCLADIUS SPP R C R
PARACLADOPELMA SPP R
PARAMEFRIOCNEMUS LUNDBECKI A A A
PHAENOPSECTRA SP4 C
POLYPEDILUM ANGULUM R
POLYPEDILUM AVICEPS R C
POLYPEDILUM CONVICTUM R
POLYPEDILUM SCALAENUM R
POTTHASTIA LONGIMANUS R
PRODIAMESA OLIVACEA R
RHEOCRICOTOPUS SP2 C R
RHEOCRICOTOPUS SP3 R
RHEOTANYTARSUS SPP C A
ROBACKIA DEMEIIEREI R
STENOCHIRONOMUS SPP R
STICPOCHIRONOMUS SPP R
SYNORTHOCLADIUS SPP R
TANYTARSUS SP3 R
THIENEMANIELLA SPP A A A
TRIBELOS SPP R
f
4

STATIONS
Organism 1 2 3
Misc. Diptera
ANTOCHA SPP C R A
ATHERIX L.ANTHA R R C
BLEPHARICERA SPP R
CHRYSOPS SPP R
DICRANOTA SPP R
DIXA SPP R C
EMPIDIDAE R R
HEXATOMA SPP C R R
PALPOMYIA(COMPLEX) R
PROSIMULIUM SPP A A A
SIMULIUM SPP A C
TIPULA SPP C C C
Megaloptera
NIGRONIA SERRICORNIS C R
SIALIS SPP R R
Odonata
BOYERIA VINOSA R R
CALOPTERYX SPP R R
CORDULEGASTER SPP R R
GOMPHUS SPP R
LANTHUS SPP R R
Mollusca
EL1M[A SP A R
FERRISSIA SPP A A A
PHYSELLA SPP C
PISIDIUM SPP A C
Oligochaeta
ENCHYTRAEIDAE R
LUMBRICULTDAE C C C
NAIS SPP
QUISTADRILUS MULTISETOSUS R
Other
CURA FOREMANU R
PLACOBDELLA PAPILUFERA R