B4_Broad_03

Section B: Chapter 4 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-04 102
Chapter 4 -
Broad River Subbasin 03-08-04
Includes First Broad River and lower portion of Broad River in NC
4.1 Water Quality Overview
The watershed for this subbasin is primarily the First
Broad River and its tributaries. The First Broad River
originates in Rutherford County and flows into the Broad
River in Cleveland County, just above the South Carolina
border. Other large tributaries to the First Broad River
include Wards Creek, Knob Creek, Brushy Creek and
Beaverdam Creek. Within miles of the First Broad
River’s confluence with the Broad River, the Broad River
flows into South Carolina. Sandy Run Creek is the only
large tributary to the Broad River in this subbasin.
A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and
water quality monitoring stations is presented in Figure
B-4. Table B-7 contains a summary of monitoring data
types, locations and results. Use support ratings for
waters in this subbasin are summarized in Table B-8.
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.
Land within this subbasin is the transitional zone between the mountain and piedmont
ecoregions, with some streams exhibiting mountain characteristics, while other streams are more
like piedmont streams. Land use is dominated by forest and agricultural activities, although
residential development is increasing. The population of Cleveland County is expected to
increase 20 percent from 2000 to 2020 and 16 percent in Rutherford County. The Town of
Shelby is the largest urban area. Shelby’s population has increased approximately 33 percent
over the past ten years and is expected to continue growing.
This subbasin contains 17 permitted dischargers. Major dischargers include the Shelby WWTP
(6 MGD to the First Broad River), Cleveland Mills (0.8 MGD to the First Broad River), and PPG
Industries (1.3 MGD to Brushy Creek). Three facilities experienced problems meeting BOD5,
ammonia and total suspended solid limits during the two-year review period: Casar Elementary,
Specialty Lighting and Whispering Pines Rest Home. Four dischargers, Cleveland Mills,
Jefferson Smurfit, PPG Industries and the Shelby WWTP, are required to monitor their effluent’s
toxicity. There were no indications of toxicity problems during the most recent review period.
Subbasin 03-08-04 at a Glance
Land and Water
Total area: 426.4 mi
2
Stream miles: 426.4
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 56,063 people
Pop. Density: 132 persons/mi
2
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 63.0
Surface Water: 1.2
Urban: 2.7
Cultivated Cropland: 2.0
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 31.2
Section B: Chapter 4 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-04 104
Table B-7 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(2000) for Broad River Subbasin 03-08-04
Site Stream County Location
Bioclassification or
Noted Parameter2
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring
B-1 Sandy Run Creek
1 Cleveland SR 1195 Good
B-2 First Broad River
1 Cleveland SR 1530 Good
B-3 N Fork First Broad River
1 Rutherford SR 1728 Excellent
B-4 Hinton Creek
1 Cleveland NC 226 Good-Fair
B-5 First Broad River Cleveland Off SR 1809 Good
B-6 Knob Creek
1 Cleveland SR 1004 Good
B-7 First Broad River Cleveland SR 1140 Good
B-8 Brushy Creek Cleveland SR 1308 Good
B-9 Beaverdam Creek
1 Cleveland NC 105 Good
SB-1 Wards Creek Cleveland SR 1525 Good
Fish Community Monitoring
F-1 Sandy Run Creek Cleveland SR 1332 Good
F-2 Wards Creek Cleveland SR 1525 Excellent
F-3 Knob Creek Cleveland SR 1641 Good-Fair
F-4 Brushy Creek Cleveland SR 1342 Good-Fair
F-5 Hickory Creek Cleveland NC 18 Good
F-6 Beaverdam Creek Cleveland NC 150 Good
SF-1 N Fork First Broad River Rutherford SR 1728 Excellent
SF-2 Brier Creek Cleveland SR 1728 Excellent
Ambient Monitoring
A4700000 Broad River Cleveland NC 150
Fecal coliform
Iron
A4800000 First Broad River Cleveland SR 1530 None
A6400000 First Broad River Cleveland SR 1140
Fecal coliform
Iron
A6450000 Sugar Branch Cleveland NC 150 Fecal coliform
1 Historical data of this type are available for this waterbody; refer to Appendix II. Sites may vary.
2 Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in more than 10 percent of samples collected within the assessment
period (9/1995-8/2000).
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
Section B: Chapter 4 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-04 105
below normal, and the effects of nonpoint sources of pollution (nutrient runoff and in stream
scour) were minimal.
Overall, water quality in this subbasin is good, with the majority of the 18 sites having a
bioclassification of Good or Excellent based on macroinvertebrate data and fish community
surveys despite noted habitat degradation. One exceptional area with Excellent water quality,
based on both benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community surveys, is the North Fork First
Broad River, a headwater tributary of the First Broad River. The watershed for this stream is the
South Mountains in Rutherford County. This area recently became part of the South Mountains
Game Land. Fish community surveys also indicated Excellent water quality in Wards Creek, a
tributary of the First Broad River a little further downstream in Cleveland County, which also
originates in the South Mountains.
Benthic macroinvertebrate data from three sites on the First Broad River, from a headwater area
near Casar to a downstream site near Earl, all resulted in Good bioclassifications. The upstream
and middle site had bioclassifications unchanged from 1995, while the site near Earl improved
slightly from Good-Fair in 1995. This large, sandy site has been borderline Good to Good-Fair
since 1987.
Sandy Run Creek, a large tributary to the Broad River, received Good bioclassifications from an
upstream fish community survey site and a downstream benthic site that is below the Boiling
Springs WWTP. The benthic macroinvertebrate site improved from a Good-Fair
bioclassification in 1995. Beaverdam Creek is another tributary to the Broad River that also
received a Good bioclassification from both fish community surveys and benthic
macroinvertebrates. As with Sandy Run Creek, the benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassification
on Beaverdam Creek improved slightly from Good-Fair in 1995.
Fish community data also indicated Good water quality in Hickory Creek. Benthic
macroinvertebrate data were also collected at the same site, but the severe drought conditions did
not allow a bioclassification to be applied. However, taxa richness improved from 1987 to 2000,
indicating substantial improvement in the stream.
Habitat degradation in the stream likely accounts for differences between the fish community
surveys and benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassifications. Similar to Knob Creek, Brushy Creek
also received a higher benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassification (Good) in the lower reaches of
its watershed. Water quality in Brushy Creek has improved greatly since receiving a Fair
bioclassification in 1987.
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 4 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-04 106
Table B-8 Use Support Ratings Summary (2000) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) and Lakes (acres) in Broad River Subbasin 03-08-04
Use Support Category Units Supporting Impaired Not Rated No Data Total
Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation miles
acres
226.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
199.9
0.0
426.4
0.0
Fish Consumption miles
acres
426.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
426.4
0.0
Primary Recreation miles
acres
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Water Supply miles
acres
102.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
102.2
0.0
4.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1998 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each waterbody. The 1998 Broad River
Basinwide Plan identified three impaired streams in this subbasin: Hickory Creek, Brushy Creek
and Beaverdam Creeks.
4.2.1 Hickory Creek (9.6 miles from source to First Broad River)
1998 Recommendations
Hickory Creek was rated partially supporting based on benthic macroinvertebrate sampling in
1987. At that time, the creek was impacted by the Shelby wastewater treatment plant and
nonpoint source runoff. In 1990, the Shelby WWTP made upgrades to the plant, which included
relocating its discharge from Hickory Creek to the First Broad River. DWQ planned to sample
Hickory Creek during the next basinwide cycle to monitor the effects the improvements to the
Shelby WWTP have on water quality. In addition, DWQ was to work with local agencies to
identify and assess nonpoint source contributions to the impairment.
Status of Progress
In 2000, fish community surveys indicated Good water quality in Hickory Creek. Benthic
macroinvertebrate data were also collected at the same site, but the severe drought conditions did
not allow a bioclassification to be given using the benthic data. However, taxa richness
improved from 1987 to 2000, indicating substantial improvement in the stream, and the creek is
no longer impaired. However, habitat degradation was noted and included sedimentation,
shallow runs, and infrequent riffles and pools. Trash, including automobile tires, was also found
in the stream.
2003 Recommendations
As this stream drains the eastern half of the Town of Shelby, BMPs to address nonpoint source
pollution problems should be put in place now to prevent further additional degradation and
Section B: Chapter 4 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-04 107
facilitate water quality improvement. Section A, Chapter 4 contains general recommendations
for development, construction, stormwater and agricultural best management practices.
4.2.2 Brushy Creek (8.4 miles from SR 1323 in Cleveland County to First Broad River)
1998 Recommendations
In 1998, the lower section of Brushy Creek was rated partially supporting based on a Fair benthic
macroinvertebrate bioclassification from samples taken in 1987. Although a benthic
macroinvertebrate site further upstream was sampled in 1995 and was given a Good
bioclassification, the lower site was not updated. As a result, the lower section of the creek was
rated partially supporting. DWQ planned to sample the lower section of Brushy Creek during the
next basinwide cycle to more clearly determine if the stream is impaired.
Status of Progress
In 2000, both benthic macroinvertebrates and fish community surveys were sampled in Brushy
Creek. The benthic macroinvertebrate community was sampled near the mouth of the watershed
and resulted in a Good bioclassification. The fish community survey was conducted upstream of
the benthic macroinvertebrate sample at SR 1342 and resulted in a Good-Fair bioclassification.
Brushy Creek is no longer considered impaired. Habitat degradation in the stream likely
accounts for the differences in the fish community survey and benthic macroinvertebrate
bioclassifications. The fish community survey was conducted immediately upstream from a sand
dredging operation, which could be negatively affecting habitat. Habitat problems noted at this
site include sedimentation, severe bank erosion, infrequent pools and riffles, and lack of riparian
buffer. Please refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for more information and general recommendations
on habitat degradation and instream mining operations.
Water quality in the lower reaches of Brushy Creek has improved greatly since receiving a Fair
bioclassification in 1987. This better water quality is due in large part to improvements in the
PPG-Shelby discharge. Before 1999, this plant was routinely noncompliant with its whole
effluent toxicity limit. The facility has been continuously compliant since August 1998, after
plant modifications were made to remove the toxicity from the effluent.
4.2.3 Beaverdam Creek (10.9 miles from source to First Broad River)
1998 Recommendations
Beaverdam Creek was rated as partially supporting during the last basin cycle by using
macroinvertebrate data from 1995 that resulted in a Fair bioclassification. The creek is impacted
by four small package plants located two to five miles upstream of the sampling site and
nonpoint source runoff. The plants include Jefferson Smurfit Corporation (0.01 MGD to an
unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek); Specialty Lighting (0.01 MGD to an unnamed tributary
to Beaverdam Creek); Crest High School (0.02 MGD to an unnamed tributary to Beaverdam
Creek); and Crest Junior High School (0.02 MGD to Beaverdam Creek). The 1998 plan
recommended that these four facilities conduct instream monitoring to determine if and to what
extent these facilities may be contributing to the impairment. In addition, DWQ was to work
with local agencies to identify and assess nonpoint source contributions to the impairment.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-04 108
Status of Progress
In 2000, both benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community surveys were conducted in
Beaverdam Creek at NC 150. Both the benthic macroinvertebrate community and the fish
community resulted in Good-Fair bioclassifications and the stream is no longer impaired.
2003 Recommendations
Over the last basinwide cycle, both Jefferson Smurfit and Specialty Lighting have been
collecting instream monitoring data. Also over the last two-year review period, Specialty
Lighting experienced problems meeting BOD5 and ammonia limits. The facility is working with
the Regional Office to develop a plan to upgrade the plant to correct these problems. Both Crest
High School and Crest Junior High School are in the process of removing their discharge and
connecting to the Shelby wastewater treatment plant. For more information on the removal of
these facilities, please refer to page 109.
Although the stream is no longer impaired, habitat degradation was noted at this site including
sedimentation, severe bank erosion, and infrequent pools and riffles. The fish community survey
also indicated nutrient enrichment. Please refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for more information
and general recommendations on habitat degradation.
4.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
No new stream segments are rated impaired based on recent DWQ monitoring (1995-2000);
however, as mentioned previously, some impacts to water quality were observed. Refer to Part
4.5 of this chapter for further discussion of potential water quality problems.
4.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
There are two stream segments in this subbasin that are on the state’s draft 2002 303(d) list.
Segments of Brushy and Beaverdam Creeks are discussed above. Refer to Appendix IV for more
information on the state’s 303(d) list and listing requirements.
4.5 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 and Appendix III.
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
BMPs is encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. DWQ will notify local
Section B: Chapter 4 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-04 109
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.
4.5.1 Hinton Creek
The benthic macroinvertebrate community of Hinton Creek 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.
Land use in the Hinton Creek watershed is extremely varied. Agricultural and open (not
forested) areas dominant the lands adjacent to the stream while many of the tributaries remain
forested. Habitat problems associated with agriculture and cleared lands were noted in Hinton
Creek and include sedimentation, severe bank erosion, and infrequent pools and riffles.
Agricultural BMPs for controlling sediment should also be installed to protect aquatic life in the
Country Line Creek watershed. Section A, Chapter 4 discusses habitat degradation, including
sedimentation, and provides general recommendations.
4.5.2 Knob Creek
In 2000, both benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community surveys were conducted in Knob
Creek. The benthic macroinvertebrate community was sampled near the mouth of the watershed
and resulted in a Good bioclassification. The fish community survey was conducted upstream of
the benthic macroinvertebrate sample at SR 1342 and resulted in a Good-Fair bioclassification.
Habitat degradation in the stream likely accounts for the differences in the fish community
survey and benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassifications. Habitat problems were noted in Knob
Creek and include sedimentation, vertical banks, no pools and infrequent riffles. Please refer to
Section A, Chapter 4 for more information and general recommendations on habitat degradation.
4.6 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 03-08-04. Increased
growth and NPDES dischargers were all identified by participants at the public workshop as
significant issues in this subbasin.
4.6.1 NPDES Dischargers
As was mentioned in this chapter’s overview, three facilities experienced problems complying
with NPDES permit limits over the most recent two-year review period. Casar Elementary
School experienced chronic violations of ammonia, BOD5 and fecal coliform limits throughout
the two-year review period and is discussed on page 69 with other dischargers owned by the
Cleveland County School System.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Broad River Subbasin 03-08-04 110
Specialty Lighting experienced chronic violations of BOD5 and ammonia limits. A new
chlorinator unit has been installed in the facility to replace one that had a leak. The facility
treatments works are currently under review, and a plan to upgrade the facility has been
submitted to DWQ for review. The modifications proposed are expected to only be marginally
successful in correcting the problems and additional designs need to be considered.
The Whispering Pines Rest Home also experienced problems complying with their NPDES
limits over the two-year review period. Problems were addressed by operational changes at the
facility and it is currently in full compliance.
4.6.2 Projected Population Growth
From 2000 to 2020, the estimated population growth for Cleveland County is 20 percent and
Rutherford County is 16 percent. Shelby’s population has increased 33 percent over the past ten
years and is expected to continue growing. 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. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for more information about urbanization
and development and recommendations to minimize impacts to water quality.
4.6.3 High Fecal Coliform Bacteria Concentrations
Fecal coliform bacteria are widely used as an indicator of the potential presence of pathogens
typically associated with the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals and are therefore found in
their wastes. Coliform bacteria are relatively easy to identify and are usually present in larger
numbers than more dangerous pathogens, even though they respond to the environment and to
treatment in much the same way. Sources of fecal coliform bacteria, as well as other more
dangerous pathogens, include runoff from pastures, feedlots, poultry operations and lagoons that
do not employ appropriate best management practices. Other sources include straight pipes,
leaking and failing septic systems, and noncompliant WWTPs. Wildlife and pet waste also
contribute to elevated concentrations of pathogens.
Ambient monitoring samples collected from three locations in this subbasin revealed
concentrations of fecal coliform greater than 400 colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of
samples (Table B-7). These data indicate that some streams in this subbasin may not be suitable
for primary recreation. Current methodology requires additional bacteriological sampling for
streams with concentrations greater than 400 colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of samples
or a geometric mean greater than 200 colonies/100ml. However, these additional assessments
are prioritized such that, as monitoring resources become available, the highest priority is given
to those streams where the likelihood of full-body contact recreation is greatest. Currently, no
waters in this subbasin are classified for primary recreation (Class B).