HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 1 Subbasin 04-03-01
Chapter 1
French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01
Including the: West Fork, North Fork and Middle Forks of the French Broad River, Little River,
French Broad River, Peter Weaver and Morgan Mill Creeks
1.1 Subbasin Overview
Originating in Transylvania County, the headwaters of the
French Broad and Little Rivers are in this subbasin. The
headwater tributaries are generally high gradient streams
capable of supporting viable trout populations. Most of
this subbasin is forested, and half of the land area is
permanently protected as part of the Pisgah National
Forest. By the year 2020, population within Henderson
and Transylvania counties is expected to increase by 28.7
and 14.7 percent, respectively. Of particular concern is
residential and urban development occurring in the
surrounding areas of Brevard and Rosman. Since 1990,
Brevard alone has experienced a 26.0 percent increase in
population. Consequently, streams in these areas may be
negatively impacted by sediment and streambank erosion
commonly associated with development activities.
There are 15 individual NPDES wastewater discharge
permits in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of
32.98 MGD. The largest are RFS Ecusta, Inc. (27.5
MGD), City of Brevard WWTP (2.5 MGD), and AGFA
Corporation (2.4 MGD). Refer to Appendix VI for more
information on NPDES permit holders. Issues related to
compliance with NPDES permit conditions are discussed
below in Section 1.3 for Impaired waters and in Section
1.4 for other waters. Information regarding population growth and trends can be found in
Appendix I. There are no registered animal operations in this subbasin.
Subbasin 04-03-01 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 215 mi2
Land area: 214 mi2
Water area: 1 mi2
Population
2000 Est. Pop.: 22,079 people
Pop. Density: 89 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 89%
Water: <1%
Urban: 2%
Cultivated Crop: 3%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 6%
Counties
Henderson and Transylvania
Municipalities
Brevard and Rosman
A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 5. Table 4 contains a summary of assessment units and lengths, streams
monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results, along with use support ratings for waters
in this subbasin. Refer to Appendix X for a complete listing of monitored waters and more
information about use support ratings.
There were 24 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and four fish community samples
(Figure 5 and Table 4) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from
three ambient monitoring stations. Refer to the 2003 French Broad River Basinwide Assessment
Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Appendix IV for more information on
monitoring.
Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 1
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040301Table 4
Length/Area
A-1 nce19.7 B-1SSFRENCH BROAD RIVER6-(1)2002Miles E
A-3 nce8.8 S SFRENCH BROAD RIVER6-(27)c Miles
1.7 SB-7SNDMorgan Mill Creek (Kaiser Lake)6-10-1a 2000Miles NI
0.2 SB-8SNDMorgan Mill Creek (Kaiser Lake)6-10-1b 2000Miles NI
0.1 SB-6NR NDMorgan Mill Creek (Kaiser Lake)6-10-1c 2001Miles NR
2.3 SB-14SNDPeter Weaver Creek6-10a 2000Miles NI
2.3 SB-10SNDPeter Weaver Creek 2001Miles NI
2.3 SB-15SNDPeter Weaver Creek 2001Miles NI
0.8 SB-11NR NDPeter Weaver Creek6-10b 2001Miles NR
4.1 SB-2SNDCherryfield Creek6-11 2001Miles NI
2.6 SB-5SNDMason Creek6-11-3 2001Miles NI
1.4 SB-17SNDWest Fork French Broad River6-2-(0.5)a 2001Miles NI
0.6 SB-13INDWest Fork French Broad River6-2-(0.5)b 2001Miles F
5.0 SB-16SNDWest Fork French Broad River6-2-(0.5)c 2001Miles G
SF-14.8 B-2SNDWest Fork French Broad River6-2-(7.5)2002 1997Miles E NR
2.8 SB-1SNDCarson Creek6-20b 2002Miles E
1.2 SB-4SNDFlat Creek6-2-10 2002Miles E
1.5 SB-18NR NDWoodruff Branch6-2-12 1998Miles NR
10.1 B-3SNDNorth Fork French Broad River6-3-(6.5)2002Miles E
10.1 SB-9SNDNorth Fork French Broad River 2002Miles G
A-2 nce14.8 B-5SSLittle River (Cascade Lake)6-38-(1)2002Miles G
F-14.9 B-6SNDLittle River6-38-(20)2002 2002Miles GF GF
F-25.4 SB-12SNDCrab Creek6-38-23 2000 2002Miles NI G
F-25.4 SB-19SNDCrab Creek 2000 2002Miles G G
4.1 B-4SNDMiddle Fork French Broad River6-5 2002Miles E
Monday, July 25, 2005 040301
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040301Table 4
Length/Area
Assessment Unit # - Portion of DWQ Classified Index where monitoring is applied to assign a use support rating.
Use Categories:Monitoring data type: Use Support Ratings 2004:
AL - Aquatic Life F - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent S - Supporting nce - no criteria
REC - Recreation B - Benthic Community Survey G - Good I - Impaired ce - criteria exce
SF - Special Fish Community Study GF - Good-Fair NR - Not Rated
SB - Special Benthic Community Study F - Fair ND - No Data
A - Ambient Monitoring Site P - Poor
NI - Not Impaired
Ambient DataBioclassifcations:
Monday, July 25, 2005 040301
Waters in the following sections are identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). This
number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database, 303(d)
Impaired waters list, and the various tables in this basin plan. The assessment unit number is a
subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the
end of the AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter
indicates that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.
Use support ratings for all waters in subbasin 04-03-01 are summarized in Section 1.2.
Recommendations, current status and future recommendations for previously or newly Impaired
waters are discussed in Section 1.3. Waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Section 1.4. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Section 1.5.
Refer to Appendix X for a complete list of monitored waters and for more information about use
support ratings.
1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 04-03-01 in the aquatic life, recreation,
fish consumption and water supply categories. There are no fish consumption advisories in this
subbasin; therefore, all waters are No Data in the fish consumption category. In the water supply
category, all waters are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional
water treatment plant consultants.
There were 96.8 stream miles (23.1 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category. Approximately 0.6 stream miles (<1 percent) are Impaired. Refer to Table
5 for a summary of use support ratings for waters in subbasin 04-03-01.
1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters
The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2000) or are
newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either
remain on the state’s 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2006 303(d) list.
The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII.
1.3.1 West Fork French Broad River [AU# 6-2-(0.5)b]
2000 Recommendations
The 1995 basinwide plan identified 0.5 miles of the West Fork French Broad River below the
Whitewater Trout Farm as partially supporting. The plan recommended that a special study of
trout farms be conducted to determine if current permit conditions are adequate to protect water
quality. This site was not sampled during the 2000 basin cycle and remains on the 303(d) list of
Impaired waters.
Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 5
Table 5 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-01
Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 93.8 mi 0.0 43.2 mi 0.0
Impaired 0.6 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 2.4 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 96.8 mi
0.0 ac 0.0 43.2 mi
0.0 ac 0.0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 192.3 mi
82.7 ac 0.0 0.0 29.6 mi
97.6 ac
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 4.1 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
No Data 125.4 mi
97.6 ac
418.6 mi
180.3 ac
375.4 mi
180.3 ac 0.0
Total 321.8 mi
180.3 ac
418.6 mi
180.3 ac
375.3 mi
180.3 ac
29.6 mi
97.6 ac
Totals
All Waters* 418.6 mi
180.3 ac
418.6 mi
180.3 ac
418.6 mi
180.3 ac
29.6 mi
97.6 ac
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.
Current Status
A 0.6-mile segment is currently Impaired due to a Fair bioclassification at site SB-13. In 2001,
DWQ conducted a special study in the headwaters of the West Fork French Broad River. From
this study, DWQ was able to determine that area trout farms are still having an impact on water
quality despite the improvements in operations to reduce nutrient inputs by altering trout feed
and capturing more solids. In addition to trout farm discharges, other factors including poor
riparian habitats and livestock access to tributaries are also affecting water quality. The West
Fork French Broad River has clear indicators of water quality problems, specifically nutrient
enrichment evidenced by algae growth and an atypical fish community (NCDENR-DWQ,
November 2003).
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to work with Whitewater Trout Farm (also known as KB Farms) to reduce
impacts to water quality through the NPDES general permit. It is recommended that local
agencies work with landowners to install best management practices (BMPs) to improve the
riparian zone and limit livestock access to streams.
Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 6
1.3.2 Peter Weaver Creek [AU# 6-10a and b]
2000 Recommendations
Peter Weaver Creek, from Morgan Mill Creek to the French Broad River, was partially
supporting for its use and was placed on the 303(d) list. More comprehensive benthic
macroinvertebrate surveys were needed for DWQ to determine the extent of water quality
problems and if the impacts were from a trout farm located on Morgan Mill Creek or other
nonpoint sources. DWQ proposed to implement a water quality monitoring program in the
watershed to identify which pollutants were causing the problems. Depending on the results of
the intensive sampling, existing individual NPDES permit holders may be required to conduct
upstream/downstream monitoring, and general NPDES permit holders may be required to obtain
individual NPDES permits.
Current Status
Peter Weaver Creek, from source to Morgan Mill Creek (2.3 miles), is currently Supporting due
to Not Impaired bioclassifications at sites SB-10, SB-14 and SB-15. Based on sampling criteria,
the lower segment of the creek, from Morgan Mill Creek to the French Broad River (0.8 miles),
is Not Rated at site SB-11. Observations made at the time of sampling, however, indicate that
the biological community has degraded and may be responding to habitat and water quality
problems associated with trout farm discharges and nonpoint runoff from residential areas,
including a recreational vehicle park. Drought conditions may also be impacting this sampling
site.
Samples at sites SB-10, SB-11, SB-14 and SB-15 were collected as part of a Watershed
Assessment and Restoration Program (WARP) study on Peter Weaver and Morgan Mill (see
Section 1.3.3) Creeks (NCDENR-DWQ, June 2002). This intensive survey collected the
following data: benthic macroinvertebrate; stream habitat assessment; morphology and riparian
zone condition; stream chemistry; and characterization of watershed land use conditions and
pollution sources. The study determined that impacts in Peter Weaver Creek are due to: organic
loading from a trout farm located on Morgan Mill Creek; prevention of downstream movement
of aquatic invertebrates at the water intake dam of the trout farm; and habitat degradation
manifested by sedimentation and substrate instability.
2005 Recommendations and Water Quality Initiatives
As part of the WARP study on Peter Weaver and Morgan Mill Creeks, management strategies
were developed to restore the Impaired waters. The following are recommendations to improve
water quality in both creeks:
Local agencies should work with landowners to install BMPs focusing on livestock
operations and exclusion.
Stream restoration and streambank stabilization practices should be implemented with
priority given to Peter Weaver and Morgan Mill Creeks.
Sediment and erosion control practices should be improved. The NC Division of
Land Resources (DLR) or Transylvania County should develop guidelines that better
protect waters from the impacts of home and road development on steep slopes.
Improved mechanisms for addressing the impacts of disturbances of less than one
acre should also be developed. Staffing levels must be sufficient to support effective
enforcement. Eroding bare areas along road banks and at home sites should be
Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 7
stabilized with vegetation or regraded to an appropriate slope so that vegetation can
be established.
DWQ should continue monitoring to identify sources of high metal concentrations in
area tributaries. Once identified, these sources should be eliminated, if possible.
Transylvania County or the NC Division of Environmental Health (DEH) should
survey residences for straight pipes and work with owners to eliminate them.
A watershed education program should be developed and implemented with the goal
of targeting homeowners in order to reduce current stream damage and prevent future
degradation.
In addition to the above, DWQ in coordination with the NC Cooperative Extension Service
(NCCES) has reexamined the waste management plan of the Morgan Mill Trout Farm. DWQ
and NCCES made the following recommendations: reconstruct the intake structure; change the
sediment flushing schedule and structure; modify the settling ponds; switch from an automatic
feeding system to a manual feeding schedule with high yield food; and consider decreasing the
size of the operation. DWQ and NCCES will continue to monitor the trout farm and assist in
implementing the recommendations listed above.
1.3.3 Morgan Mill Creek [AU# 6-10-1a, b and c]
2000 Recommendations
Morgan Mill Creek, from the trout farm (US 64) to Peter Weaver Creek, was partially supporting
for its use and was placed on the 303(d) list. Refer to Section 1.3.2 above for more information
regarding Morgan Mill Creek.
Current Status
Morgan Mill Creek, from source to river mile 1.92, is currently Supporting due to Not Impaired
bioclassifications at sites SB-7 and SB-8. Based on current sampling criteria, the lower segment
of the creek, from river mile 1.92 to Peter Weaver Creek (0.1 mile), is currently Not Rated at site
SB-6. Observations made at the time of sampling indicate that the biological community in this
lower segment of Morgan Mill Creek has degraded in response to habitat and water quality
problems. Drought conditions may also be impacting this sampling site.
The June 2002 WARP study for Peter Weaver Creek (see Section 1.3.2) also pertains to Morgan
Mill Creek. Like Peter Weaver Creek, organic loading from Morgan Mill Trout Farm,
prevention of downstream movement of aquatic invertebrates at the water intake dam, and
habitat degradation, including sedimentation and substrate instability, are the limiting factors for
the biological community.
2005 Recommendations and Water Quality Initiatives
DWQ will continue to monitor the water quality in Morgan Mill Creek. It is recommended that
local agencies work with landowners to install the appropriat BMPs to improve the riparian zone
and limit livestock access to streams. Since much of the stream is channelized with unstable
streambanks, stream restoration activities are also desirable. For additional recommendations
and management strategies, refer to Peter Weaver Creek (Section 1.3.2).
Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 8
1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts
The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality
problems and concerns were documented for these waters during this assessment. Attention and
resources should be focused on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate
water quality improvements. DWQ will notify local agencies of these water quality concerns
and work with them to conduct further assessments and to locate sources of water quality
protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality issues and voluntary actions
are useful tools to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. Nonpoint
source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VIII.
1.4.1 Little River [AU# 6-38-(20)]
2000 Recommendations
Little River, from Cascade Lake Dam to the French Broad River (4.8 miles), was monitored by
DWQ for benthic macroinvertebrates. Samples showed impacts to the aquatic habitats and water
quality, both of which are likely associated with agricultural activities. BMPs are encouraged to
reduce potential nonpoint pollution impacts.
Current Status
Little River, from Cascade Lake Dam to the French Broad River (4.9 miles), is currently
Supporting due to Good-Fair bioclassifications at sites B-6 and F-1. This site consistently
receives a Good-Fair, but usually has the fewest numbers of fish collected during sampling. The
substrate of the stream has become more embedded since this site was last monitored in 1997,
making sediment a concern for this stream. This watershed could also be impacted by
agricultural activities that accelerate erosion and instream habitat degradation. Agricultural
BMPs are encouraged to reduce future impacts.
Cascade Lake hydroelectric dam is located approximately 4 miles upstream of the sampling sites.
In July 2002, the owner, Cascade Power Company, surrendered the license to operate the facility
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The facility will no longer generate
electricity, and the project will operate as a "run-of-river" with all flow going into the old bypass
section. For more information, see Section 14.2.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Little River. DWQ will also work with local agencies to identify
sediment sources and assist agency personnel to locate monies for water quality protection
funding. It is recommended that local agencies work to install BMPs and implement a sediment
and erosion control program. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has identified
Little River as an area that supports listed and otherwise rare and sensitive aquatic species. Care
should be taken to protect these species and their aquatic habitats.
Water Quality Initiatives
Since 1998, over $516,000 worth of BMPs have been installed throughout Transylvania County
using money from the NC Agriculture Cost Share Program (NCACSP), the NRCS
Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP), the Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF), and Section 319. Using funds from CWMTF, the Transylvania County Soil and
Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 9
Water Conservation District (SWCD) completed a watershed assessment for the Little River
watershed. The project inventoried 4.9 miles of the Little River and determined and prioritized
stream restoration and BMP opportunities. Streambank stabilization and livestock exclusion
projects are currently in progress.
In addition to the efforts underway by Transylvania County SWCD, the Henderson County
SWCD has installed 16,166 feet of fence, 13 watering tanks and 2 stream crossings along
tributaries of the Little River. NCACSP provided funding in the amount of $40,903 for these
projects.
Because of the potential water quality problems noted in Little River, it has been identified by
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) as one of 28 local watersheds in the basin with
the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will
be given higher priority than nontargeted watersheds for implementation of NCEEP restoration
projects.
1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-01
This section identifies those surface waters given an Excellent bioclassification, and therefore,
may be eligible for reclassification to a High Quality Water (HQW) or an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW). It should be noted that these are streams that were sampled by DWQ during this
basinwide cycle. There may be other tributaries eligible for reclassification in addition to the
ones listed below. For more information regarding water quality standards and classifications,
refer to Chapter 8.
1.5.1 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification
French Broad River [AU# 6-(1)]
The French Broad River, from source to Nicholson Creek (19.7 miles), is Supporting due to an
Excellent bioclassification at site B-1. The current DWQ classification is B Tr.
Carson Creek (AU# 6-20b)
Carson Creek, from Carson Creek dam to the French Broad River (2.8 miles), is Supporting due
to an Excellent bioclassification at site SB-1. The current DWQ classification is B Tr.
Flat Creek (AU# 6-2-10)
Flat Creek, from source to the West Fork French Broad River (1.2 miles), is Supporting due to an
Excellent bioclassification at site SB-4. The current DWQ classification is C Tr.
Middle Fork French Broad River (AU# 6-5)
The Middle Fork French Broad River, from source to the French Broad River (4.1 miles), is
Supporting due to an Excellent bioclassification at site B-4. The current DWQ classification is B
Tr.
Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 10