HomeMy WebLinkAboutGreen River7.1
NC
D
W
Q
B
R
O
A
D
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
H
U
C
’
s
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
1
&
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
2
2
0
0
8
Ge n e r a l Wat e r s h e d de s c r i p t i o n
The Green River and its tributaries originate in Henderson and Polk Counties and
flow into the Broad River near the Polk-Rutherford County line. Tributaries to the
Green River include Joe Creek, Brights Creek, Hungry River, Britten Creek, Walnut
Creek and Whiteoak Creek (Figure 7-2). From the headwaters to Rock Creek, the
Green River is designated High Quality Waters (HQW). Further downstream, the
river has been dammed in two locations to form Lakes Summit and Adger. Both
reservoirs are used to produce hydroelectric power; neither is classified as a water
supply watershed. The Green River Game Land and the Green River Preserve provide
important protected areas to help maintain existing water quality throughout the
watershed. Much of the watershed is forested; however, portions are rapidly being
developed for second homes and recreational activities (Figure 7-1).
Wa t e r Qu a l i t y ov e r v i e W
Of the 268 stream miles in the Green River watershed, 109 miles were monitored
by DWQ. Of these waters, 100 percent are rated as Supporting for aquatic life.
Main stressors in this watershed are habitat degradation and nutrient impacts due to
construction activities and stormwater runoff (Table 7-1).
Biological monitoring was conducted at nine basinwide sites, two
of which were sampled for the first time in 2005. Benthic samples
were also collected from three special study sites – Green River
headwaters, Joe Creek and Little Whiteoak Creek.
No waters are Impaired in the Green River watersheds; however,
sedimentation was observed in many of the streams and further
investigation is needed to determine the status of the HQW
designation of the Green River (Table 7-1). For more information
on HQW designations, see Chapter 2 of DWQs Supplemental Guide
to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning.
There are six minor NPDES Discharge Permits within this watershed,
not including a seventh facility (Six Oaks Complex) which has
recently been built. Its first inspection was in February of 2007.
Of the six Stormwater Permits, five of the facilities discharge to
Whiteoak Creek and its headwaters.
Wat e r s h e d a t a Gl a n c e
co u n t i e s
Henderson, Polk
Municipalities
Saluda, Columbus
pe r M i t t e d Facilities
NPDES WWTP: 6
NPDES Nondischarge: 1
NPDES Stormwater: 6
Animal Operations: 2
Mo n i t o r e d st r e a M Mi l e s (al)
Total Streams: 109.9 mi
Total Supporting: 109.9 mi
Total Impaired: 0 mi
Total Not Rated: 0 mi
Gr e e n ri v e r Wat e r s h e d
HUC’s 0305010501 & 0305010502
Includes Joe Creek, Brights Creek, Walnut Creek & Whiteoak Creek
Fi g u r e 7-1: gr e e n ri v e r Wat e r s h e d La n d Co v e rGreen River Land Use
1%
82%
0%
10%
7%
Developed
Forest
W et land
Agriculture
Other
NRI: National Land Cover Data, 2001
7.2
NC
D
W
Q
B
R
O
A
D
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
H
U
C
’
s
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
1
&
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
2
2
0
0
8
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
-
2
:
g
r
e
e
n
ri
v
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
,
hu
C’
s 0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
1
&
hu
C
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
2
XY
#*#*
XY
#*
XY
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
%2
%2
%2
%2
#0
%2
#0
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
HENDERSON
POLK
AF37
Tryon
Rutherfordton
Columbus
TryonTryon
Saluda
W
a
l
nutCreek
HungryRiver
WhiteoakCreek
JoeCreek
BrittenCreek
BrightsCreek
ReedypatchCreek
Li
t
t
le
WhiteoakCreek
BROADRIVER
Green
River
CleghornCreek
NorthPacoletRiver
Nor
th
Paco
l
etRiver
HungryRiver
BROADRIVER
EF4
EF4
EF35
EF11
EF34
AF39
AF37
EF35
EF17
EF11
EF18
AF32
AF18
AF31
AF30
AF29
AF25
AB4
AB4
EB39
EB51
AB30
EB52 EB50
EB50 EB48
EB49
EB49
EB94
EB95EB94
EB94
EB79
EB79EB79
EB79
EB93
EB80
EB73EB73
EB73
EB72EB74
EB74
AB84
AB60
AB40
AB50
AB62 AB71AB22
AB61
AB87
AB69
AB38
AB39
AB58
AB24
AB48
AB85
AB76
AB81
AB78
AB80
AB33
AB23
AB16
AB29
AB35
AB63
AB47
EB118
EB118
EB119
EB119
EB120
EB122
EB121EB121
EB121
EB309
EB123
EB123
EB174
EB176
EB175
EB107
EB107
EB115
EB115EB115
EB112
EB159
EB159
EB100
EB163
EB123
EB108
EB167
EB149
EB353
®
0
3
6
9
12
1.5
Miles
PlanningSection
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
April,2008
Monitoring
Sites
Aquatic
Life
Rating
Impaired
Not
Rated
Supporting
¢¡
Ambient
[¡
Fish
Community
"à)
Benthos
Green
River
Watershed
County
boundaries
Municipalities
NPDES
Dischargers
XY
Major
#*
Minor
Non-Discharger
Permit
%2
Major
#0
Minor
Legend
7.3
NC
D
W
Q
B
R
O
A
D
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
H
U
C
’
s
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
1
&
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
2
2
0
0
8
ta b L e 7-1: Mo n i t o r e d st r e a M se g M e n t s in th e gr e e n ri v e r Wat e r s h e d s
au nu M b e r st r e a M na M e Le n g t h
(M i L e s )CL a s s .2008 ir
Ca t e g o r y
iM p a i r e d iM p a C t e d
po t e n t i a L st r e s s o r s
(po t e n t i a L so u r C e s )
dWQ
su b b a s i n
9-29-(12.5)a Green River 4.6 B; Tr 2 --03-08-03
9-29-(33)Green River 39.0 C
2 --Habitat Degradation,
(Construction)
Nutrient Impact
(Stormwater Runoff)
03-08-03
9-29-14 Joe Creek 4.6 B; Tr 2 --Habitat Degradation 03-08-03
9-29-30 Hungry River 12.5 C; Tr 2 --03-08-03
9-29-38-1 Brights Creek 5.3 C; Tr 2 --03-08-03
9-29-43 Britten Creek 6.1 C 2 --03-08-02
9-29-44 Walnut Creek 11.6 C 2 --03-08-02
9-29-46 Whiteoak Creek 18.1 C 2 --03-08-02
9-29-46-1 Little Whiteoak
Creek 8.0 C 2 --Habitat Degradation,
(Animals, Construction)03-08-02
*The 2008 IR Categories definitions can be found on the first page of Appendix 7-A
cu r r e n t st a t u s o F iM p a i r e d & iM pa c t e d Wa t e r s
gr e e n ri v e r AU#: 9-29-(12.5)a
Three benthic samples were collected in the Green River. Two (AB23 and AB24) are basinwide sites; one (AB22) was
sampled at the request of DWQ regional office staff to evaluate the impacts of commercial and residential development
on water quality above Lake Summit.
Located approximately three miles upstream of the lake, site AB22 received a Good-Fair bioclassification. Several samples
were collected above Lake Summit in 1989 and 1993. All received a Good or Excellent bioclassification; however, the
most recent Good-Fair shows a significant decline in water quality. Land cover in the area is predominantly agriculture
How to Read this Document
This document was written to correspond with our new Online Geographic Document Distribution (OGDD)
tool using Google Earth™. If you are unable to use Google Earth, this document provides maps and associated
water quality information and a discussion of water quality trends occurring in the watershed. Google Earth™
is an independent software program which can be downloaded to a personal, business, and most local and state
government computers; the program allows you to view satellite imagery of the earth’s surface along with location
identifiers. DWQ’s Basinwide Planning Unit created a “transparency” add on layer to Google Earth™ with basinwide
water quality data, which allows a user to locate their watershed, pinpoint a waterbody and use support ratings,
find a location of a permit and provides links to PDF watershed reports. For more information on how to download
Google Earth™ and DWQ’s data visit DWQ’s Basinwide Planning’s OGDD website. Please contact Melanie Williams
for more information at melanie.williams@ncmail.net or 919-807-6447.
Impaired streams are those streams not meeting their associated water quality standards in more than 10 percent
of the samples taken within the assessment period (January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2006) and impacted
streams are those not meeting water quality standards in 7 to 10 percent of the samples. The Use Support report
provides information on how and why water quality ratings are determined and DWQ’s “Redbook” describes
in detail water quality standards for each waterbody classification. For a general discussion of water quality
parameters, potential issues, and rules please see “Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning:
Support Document for Basinwide Water Quality Plans”.
Appendix 7-A provides descriptions of Use Support ratings for all monitored waterbodies in the subbasin.
Appendix 7-B provides a summary of each ambient data monitoring station (THERE ARE NO AMBIENT STATIONS IN
THIS WATERSHED).
Appendix 7-C provides summaries of biological and fish assessment monitoring sites.
7.4
NC
D
W
Q
B
R
O
A
D
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
H
U
C
’
s
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
1
&
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
2
2
0
0
8
with some forest and residential areas nearby; however, development pressure is evident throughout the watershed.
Substrate was a mix of boulder (15 percent), rubble (25 percent), gravel (15 percent), sand (35 percent) and silt (10
percent). Instream habitat was abundant; however, moderate streambank erosion and narrow riparian zones were
identified as habitat problems. More sampling is warranted based on the close proximity of the HQW designation just
upstream of the sampling reach (BAU Memo, December 2005).
Site AB23 is located between Lake Summit and Lake Adger and received a Good bioclassification, a slight improvement
from the Good-Fair it received in both 1995 and 2000. Substrate is a mix of rubble (35 percent), boulder (20 percent),
gravel (20 percent) and sand (25 percent). Instream habitat consisted of leafpacks, snags, undercut streambanks, and
frequent pools and riffles. DWQ biologists also noted that the riparian zones were intact.
Site AB24 is located near the mouth of the Green River and has been sampled five times since 1987. In 1987 and 1989,
the site received a Good bioclassification. Since 1995, however, the site has consistently rated Good-Fair. Even though
the site has consistently rated Good-Fair, species number and type declined significantly in 2005, and DWQ biologists
believe this decline is likely attributed to increased nutrient input and sediment from development activities in around
Lake Adger. Substrate was a mix of rubble (45 percent), boulder (20 percent), sand (20 percent), gravel (10 percent) and
some bedrock.
J o e Cr e e k AU#: 9-29-14
Joe Creek is a small tributary to the Green River and was sampled as part of a follow-up to special studies conducted
in 1989 and 2000. In 1989, site AB30 received a Good-Fair. In 2000, the site received an Excellent. In 2005, the site
dropped back down to a Good-Fair. Substrate was a mix of rubble (35 percent), gravel (30 percent), sand (30 percent)
and boulder (5 percent). Land cover is predominantly agriculture; however, like many watersheds in the Broad River
basin, land cover is quickly changing to commercial and residential properties. DWQ biologists recommend additional
monitoring on Joe Creek and throughout the Green River headwaters to evaluate the impacts to water quality from land
cover changes.
b r i g h t s Cr e e k AU#: 9-29-38-1
Site AF31 was sampled for the first time in 2005 and received a Good bioclassification. It was the smallest sub-watershed
sampled in the Broad River basin and was originally identified as a potential regional fish reference site in 1998. However,
during the time of sampling, DWQ biologists noted that the area nearby and immediately upstream of the site was being
developed into a 4,500-acre (7 mi2) residential golf club. When sampled on June 23, 2005, biologists observed that land
clearing activities followed by a storm event had contributed to excessive turbidity and thick sediment deposits in the
creek. A non-discharge permit has been issued to the Brights Creek Golf Club. The permit allows the facility to spray
disinfected (ultraviolet disinfection) effluent onto the development’s golf course. The DWQ regional office staff in the
Aquifer Protection Section will be responsible for compliance evaluations on this facility.
W a L n u t Cr e e k AU#: 9-29-44
Walnut Creek drains the extreme northeast corner of Polk County. Within the sampling reach, the DWQ biologists noted
very diverse habitat. The lower one-third of the reach has a cobble and boulder substrate with riffles and a swift current.
The upper two-thirds of the reach is shallower, slower moving, and the substrate is mostly sand. Site AF29 received an
Excellent bioclassification in 2000 and 2005. DWQ biologists note that the watershed and the fish community are unique
in that:
Twenty-five species have been collected from the stream, including ten species of minnows, five species of •
suckers and four species of darters. It is only one of two streams in the basin where this many species have
been collected;
Six pollution intolerant species have been collected;•
Regional endemic species inhabiting the stream include three chub species and a darter;•
Two species (the brassy jumprock and the piedmont darter) are rare to uncommon in the basin; and•
Only one non-native (exotic) species was collected from the stream.•
Site AB47 received a Good bioclassification. Species collected in 2000 (Excellent) and 2005 (Good) are indicative of
a minimally impacted stream segment. The slight difference in rating may be due to seasonality and scouring that
likely occurred during the 2004 hurricane season. Sediment was identified as a habitat concern for the Walnut Creek
watershed.
7.5
NC
D
W
Q
B
R
O
A
D
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
H
U
C
’
s
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
1
&
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
2
2
0
0
8
W h i t e o a k a n d Li t t L e Wh i t e o a k Cr e e k s AU#: 9-29-46, 9-29-46-1
Whiteoak Creek drains central Polk County, which includes the Town of Columbus. Sites AF32 and AB48 received Good
bioclassifications. Ten fish species were collected at site AF32. This included both pollution tolerant and intolerant
species with the bluehead chub being the dominant species. The bluehead chub is often an indicator of nutrient
enrichment; therefore, nutrients are identified as a concern for this watershed. Site AB48 has been sampled five times
since 1986. The site was rated Good-Fair in 1986, but subsequent years have resulted in a Good bioclassification. The
substrate is a mix of rubble, boulder and gravel (50 percent) and sand (50 percent). Fewer species were collected in 2005
when compared to previous years of sampling indicating a decline in water quality. DWQ biologists identified sediment
as a concern for the Whiteoak Creek watershed.
Little Whiteoak Creek is a tributary to Whiteoak Creek and was sampled as a special study site to evaluate impacts from
development activities in the watershed. Site AB33 received a Good-Fair bioclassification. Several pollution tolerant
and intolerant species were collected; however, animal waste in the stream likely contributed to the Good-Fair rating.
Within the sampling reach, cattle had unlimited access and riparian zones were limited due to agricultural activities
along both sides of the stream. Livestock exclusion is recommended along Little Whiteoak Creek to prevent further
degradation of the stream.
Recommendations for these waters can be found later in this chapter.
siG niFicant no n -co M p l i a n c e is s u e s
Upon request, DWQ provides technical assistance to facilities that are interested in upgrading or changing their treatment
procedure. DWQ technical assistance is provided to ensure that the facility remains in compliance with the permitted
limits while also exploring other treatment options. The Town of Columbus’ WWTP (Permit NC0021369) requested
DWQs assistance in August 2007. DWQ provided guidance on flow measurements and composite sampling and advised
the installation of an automatic bar screen to improve the performance of the secondary clarifier. The Town is also in
the process of obtaining funds to perform a feasibility study for a regional wastewater treatment plant for the Towns of
Columbus, Tryon and Saluda. The study will evaluate the feasibility of treating all of the towns’ wastewater at the Tryon
WWTP and eliminating the other two (Columbus and Saluda WWTPs). DWQ staff believes that a countywide system would
be an asset to Polk County residents and support the efforts of the Town of Columbus to efficiently and effectively treat
wastewater in their area.
No significant non-compliance issues were identified within the Green River watersheds.
lo c a l initiatives
nC ag r i C u L t u r e Co a s t sh a r e
p r o g r a M
The NC Agriculture Cost Share Program
(NCACSP) was established in 1984 to help
reduce agricultural nonpoint runoff into
waters of the state. The program helps
landowners and renters of established
agricultural operations improve their on-
farm management by using approved
agricultural BMPs. BMPs include vegetative,
structural or management systems that can
improve the efficiency of farming operations
while reducing the potential for surface and
groundwater contamination. The NCACSP
is implemented by the Division of Soil and
Water (DSWC), which divides the approved
BMPs into five main purposes or categories:
Erosion Reduction/Nutrient Loss •
Reduction in Fields;
Sediment/Nutrient Delivery •
ta b L e 7-2: bMps in s ta L L e d t h r o u g h nCaCsp
0305010502 0305010503
pu r p o s e o F bMp to t a L
iM p L e M e n t e d
Co s t
to t a L
iM p L e Me n t e d
Co s t
Erosion Reduction/
Nutrient Loss Reduction
in Fields
0.95 acres $13,045 8.9 acres $1,200
Sediment/Nutrient
Delivery Reduction from
Fields
1 unit $5,140
----
Stream Protection from
Animals
2 unit $10,185 3 units $16,796
600 linear feet 5,234 linear feet
Proper Animal Waste
Management --------
Agricultural Chemical
Pollution Prevention 1 unit $2,789 2 units $18,627
Total Costs $31,159 $36,623
be n e F i t s (L b.)0305010502 0305010503
Total Soil Saved (tons)98 7
Total Nitrogen (N) Saved 255 9
Total Phosphorus (P) Saved 185 --
Total Waste-N Saved 853 --
Total Waste-P Saved 377 --
7.6
NC
D
W
Q
B
R
O
A
D
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
H
U
C
’
s
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
1
&
0
3
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
2
2
0
0
8
Reduction from Fields;
Stream Protection from Animals;•
Proper Animal Waste Management; and•
Agricultural Chemical (agrichemical) Pollution Prevention.•
The NCACSP is a voluntary program that reimburses farmers up to 75 percent of the cost of installing an approved
BMP. The cost share funds are paid to the farmer once the planned BMP is completed, inspected and certified to be in
accordance with NCACSP standards. The annual statewide budget for BMP cost sharing is approximately $6.9 million.
During this assessment period, $67,782 was allocated for BMPs in the Green River watershed. Table 7-2 summaries the
cost and total BMPs implemented.
re c o M M e n d a t i o n s
Habitat Degradation
In most cases habitat is degraded be the cumulative
effect of several stressors acting in concert. These
stressors often originate in the upland portions of
the watershed and may include impervious surfaces,
sedimentation and erosion from construction, general
agriculter, and other land disturbing activities.
Many tools are available to address habitat degradation including:
urban stormwater BMPs; agricultural BMPs; ordinance and/or rule
changes at the local, state, and federal level; volunteer activism; and
education programs. Figure 7-2 illustrates the general process for developing
watershed restoration plans. This process can and should be applied to streams
impaired or impacted by habitat degradation. Interested parties should contact
the Basinwide Planning Program to discuss opportunities to begin the planning and restoration process in their chosen
watershed.
Nutrient Impact
Nutrients refer to phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N), which are common components of fertilizers, animal and human
waste, vegetation, aquaculture and some industrial processes. Nutrients in surface waters come from both point and
nonpoint sources including agriculture and urban runoff, wastewater treatment plants, forestry activities and atmospheric
deposition. While nutrients are beneficial to aquatic life in small amounts, excessive levels can stimulate algal blooms
and plant growth, depleting dissolved oxygen in the water column.
Nutrient impacts in this watershed are mainly from agriculture, commercial and residential property stormwater runoff.
Riparian buffers are needed along streams to filter excess nutrients and other contaminates before the runoff reaches
the stream. Excessive fertilizing of residential lawns and golf courses also significantly impacts water quality. Education,
along with encouraging the use of riparian buffers, can reduce the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen entering surface
waters.
re F e r e n c e s & su p p o r t i n G do c u M e n t a t i o n
NCDENR Division of Water Quality. April 2006. Basinwide Assessment Report – Broad River Basin. http://h2o.enr.state.
nc.us/esb/Basinwide/Broad2006FinalAll.pdf.
NCDENR Division of Water Quality. December 2005. Broad River Basin: Special Sampling in Rutherford, Polk and Henderson
Counties. Biological Assessment Unit (BAU) Memo.
NCDENR Division of Water Quality. February 2003. Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. http://h2o.enr.state.
nc.us/basinwide/Broad/2002/plan.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1999. Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs. First Edition. EPA 841-B-
99-044. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington D.C.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams—Sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph
7. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Build
Partnership
S
T
A
R
T
Characterize
Watershed
Set G
o
a
l
s
Ident
i
f
y
Solut
i
o
n
s
Measur
e
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
Make A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
Implement
Plan
Design
Implementation
Program
Improve
Plan
Fi g u r e 7-2