B3_Broad_03

Section B: Chapter 3 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-03 96
Chapter 3 -
Broad River Subbasin 03-08-03
Includes Green River drainage above Lake Adger
3.1 Water Quality Overview
This subbasin contains the headwater reaches of the Green
River. This section of the Green River has been dammed
at two locations to form Lake Summit and Lake Adger.
Both reservoirs are used to produce hydroelectric power
and are owned by Duke Power. The Hungry River is the
only large tributary in this subbasin. The Green River
Game Land between Lake Summit and Lake Adger on the
Green and Hungry Rivers provides important protected
areas. The Green River Preserve, on the headwaters of the
Green River, also serves a similar function. The Town of
Saluda is the only municipality in this subbasin.
A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and
water quality monitoring stations is presented in Figure
B-3. Table B-5 contains a summary of monitoring data
types, locations and results. Use support ratings for
waters in this subbasin are summarized in Table B-6.
Appendix I provides a key to discharge identification
numbers. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of monitored waters and more information
about use support ratings.
Overall water quality in this subbasin is good as most of the streams drain undeveloped and
protected mountain areas. Most of the high gradient tributary streams in this subbasin are
classified as Trout waters. Rainbow, brown and brook trout have all been collected from streams
in this subbasin (Menhinick, 1991). The headwaters of the Green River above Lake Summit are
designated High Quality Waters.
The land comprising this subbasin is mountainous. Most of the land is forested (91 percent)
although some of the land is used for agriculture including pasture (7 percent) and cultivated
cropland (1 percent). Apple orchards are a significant land use in the upper reaches of many of
the Green River tributaries, including the Hungry River. While most of the watershed is
forested, portions of the basin are being developed for second homes and recreational activities,
such as golf courses. Most agriculture and development activities occur in river valleys and near
streams due to the more level ground found in valleys. Development in or near stream corridors
potentially affects water quality through nonpoint source runoff.
RJG Inc. is the only facility issued a NPDES permit in this subbasin; however, the facility was
never constructed.
Subbasin 03-08-03 at a Glance
Land and Water
Total area: 136.7 mi
2
Stream miles: 192.5
Lake acres: 692.0
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 8,186 people
Pop. Density: 60 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 90.7%
Surface Water: 1.1%
Urban: 0.4%
Cultivated Crop: 0.7%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 7.1%
Section B: Chapter 3 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-03 98
Table B-5 DWQ Monitoring Locations and Bioclassifications (2000) for Broad River
Subbasin 03-08-03
Site Stream County Road Bioclassification
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
B-1 Green River
1 Polk SR 1151 Good-Fair
B-2 Hungry River
1 Henderson SR 1799 Good
SB-1 Joe Creek Henderson SR 1106 Excellent
1 Historical data of this type are available for this waterbody; refer to Appendix II. Sites may vary.
Benthic macroinvertebrates in this subbasin were sampled during a three-year drought of a
magnitude that local meteorologists compared to the Dust Bowl. Flows in all streams were well
below normal, and the effects of nonpoint sources of pollution (nutrient runoff and instream
scour) were minimal.
Overall, water quality in this subbasin is good, with the three sites having a bioclassification of
Good or Excellent based on macroinvertebrate data. The increase in bioclassification at the site
located on the Hungry River from a Good-Fair in 1995, a high flow year, to Good in 2000, a very
low flow year, seemed to be due to reduced scour allowing recolonization of the benthic
macroinvertebrates. Data analysis indicated that water quality had not actually improved and
resumption of normal flow patterns is expected to reduce the bioclassification back to high
Good-Fair or low Good levels. Macroinvertebrate sampling has resulted in a Good-Fair
bioclassification to the Green River between Lake Summit and Lake Adger.
The two lakes in this subbasin, Lake Summit and Lake Adger, were monitored in 2000. In 1995,
both lakes were rated oligotrophic. Sampling in 2000 indicated that both lakes showed a slight
increase in total organic nitrogen. In Lake Summit, light penetration has increased since 1995,
indicating that the lake is phosphorus limited. From 1995 to 2000, light penetration in Lake
Adger has decreased, possibly due to residential development and clearing along the shoreline.
Both of these lakes are considered to be supporting all their designated uses.
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basinwide Assessment Report - Broad River Basin (NCDENR-DWQ, December 2001),
available from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by
calling [phone].
Section B: Chapter 3 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-03 99
Table B-6 Use Support Ratings Summary (2000) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) and Lakes (acres) in Broad River Subbasin 03-08-03
Use Support Category Units Supporting Impaired Not Rated No Data Total
Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation miles
acres
143.9
692.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.6
0.0
192.5
692.0
Fish Consumption miles
acres
192.5
692.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
192.5
692.0
Primary Recreation miles
acres
0.0
232.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
0.0
7.5
232.0
Water Supply miles
acres
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
The 1998 Broad River Basinwide Plan did not identify any impaired stream segments in this
subbasin.
3.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
Although no new stream segments in this subbasin were rated as impaired based on recent DWQ
monitoring (2000), impacts to the Green River from narrow riparian buffer zones were observed.
Part 3.5 below discusses these impacts.
3.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
There are no new stream segments in this subbasin that are impaired and on the state’s draft 2002
303(d) list. Refer to Appendix IV for more information on the state’s 303(d) list and listing
requirements.
3.5 Other Water Quality Concerns and Recommendations
The surface waters discussed in this section are supporting designated uses based on DWQ’s use
support assessment and are not considered to be impaired. However, notable water quality
problems and concerns have been documented for some waters based on this assessment. While
these waters are not considered impaired, attention and resources should be focused on these
waters over the next basinwide planning cycle to prevent additional degradation or facilitate
water quality improvement. A discussion of how impairment is determined can be found on
page 47.
Water quality problems in the Broad River basin are varied and complex. Inevitably, many of
the water quality impacts noted are associated with human activities within the watershed.
Solving these problems and protecting the surface water quality of the basin in the face of
continued growth and development will be a major challenge. Voluntary implementation of
Section B: Chapter 3 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-03 100
BMPs is encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. DWQ will notify local
agencies and others of water quality concerns for the waters discussed below and work with them
to conduct further monitoring and to locate sources of water quality protection funding.
Additionally, education on local water quality issues is always a useful tool to prevent water
quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. Nonpoint source program agency contacts
are listed in Appendix VI.
3.5.1 Green River
The benthic macroinvertebrate community of the Green River between Lake Summit and Lake
Adger was sampled in 2000. The site received a Good-Fair bioclassification, indicating some
impacts to water quality were present, but the biological community was not considered
impaired. However, the river has a narrow riparian zone with no canopy or instream woody
habitat. This likely contributes to sedimentation and other forms of habitat degradation. Refer to
Section A, Chapter 4 for more information regarding these problems.
The Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) also monitors one site along the Green River
at HWY 9 just below the Lake Adger Dam, and data indicate excellent water quality (Maas et al.,
June 2000). For more information of the VWIN program, refer to page 46 and page 137.
3.6 Additional Issues within this Subbasin
The previous section discussed water quality concerns for specific stream segments. This section
discusses water quality issues that relate to multiple watersheds in subbasin 03-08-03. Increased
growth and stormwater management were all identified by participants at the public workshop as
significant issues in this subbasin.
3.6.1 Streams Where Volunteer Monitoring Results Indicate Water Quality Impacts
In subbasin 03-08-03, VWIN monitors two sites on the Demannu and Camp Creeks in addition
to the site on the Green River. Sampling data from this program indicate good water quality in
Camp Creek and noted water quality impacts in Damannu Creek (Maas et al., June 2000).
Sedimentation, especially during rain events, was noted at both monitoring sites. BMPs should
be put in place during construction and on agricultural operations to reduce sediment inputs in
order to protect these streams and to prevent further water quality degradation. For more
information of the VWIN program, refer to page 46 and page 137.
3.6.2 Projected Population Growth
From 2000 to 2020, the estimated population growth for Polk County is 37 percent and
Henderson County is 40 percent. Growth management within the next five years will be
imperative, especially in and around developing areas, in order to maintain good water quality in
this subbasin. Growth management can be defined as the application of strategies and practices
that help achieve sustainable development in harmony with the conservation of environmental
qualities and features of an area. On a local level, growth management often involves planning
and development review requirements that are designed to maintain or improve water quality.
Section B: Chapter 3 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-03 101
Refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for more information about urbanization and development and
recommendations to minimize impacts to water quality.
3.6.3 Phase II Stormwater Requirements
Amendments were made to the Clean Water Act in 1990 (Phase I) and most recently in 1999
(Phase II) pertaining to permit requirements for stormwater dischargers associated with storm
sewer systems. Part of Phase II requires some county and municipal storm sewers systems
serving populations under 100,000, which are located in larger urban areas and/or that have a
high population density to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit. The county and municipal
permitting requirements are designed to lead into the formation of comprehensive stormwater
management areas for county and municipal areas. Henderson County will be considered for
inclusion under Phase II rules because of a population greater than 10,000 and/or a population
density greater than 1,000 persons per square mile. DWQ is currently developing criteria that
will be used to determine whether Henderson County and other counties and/or municipalities
will be required to obtain a NPDES permit. Refer page 26 for further information.