HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 2 Subbasin 04-03-02
Chapter 2
French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02
Including the: French Broad River, Hominy and South Hominy Creeks, Mud Creek Watershed,
Cane Creek, Newfound Creek, Reems Creek, Sandymush Creek, Bent Creek,
Swannanoa River, Ross Creek, Lake Julian, Moore Creek, Canie Creek,
Burnett Reservoir and Lake Kenilworth
2.1 Subbasin Overview
In this subbasin, the French Broad River is a very wide
river capable of supporting many species of warmwater
gamefish. Of the five counties located in this subbasin,
Buncombe and Henderson counties are expected to
experience the largest increase in population by the year
2020 (22.3 and 28.7 percent increase, respectively).
Population growth in these counties is expected to occur
around Asheville and Hendersonville, which are the
largest urbanized areas in the subbasin. Since 1990,
Asheville has experienced a population increase of 11.4
percent, Hendersonville an increase of 50.2 percent, and
Black Mountain has increased by 35.7 percent. The
French Broad River, because of its proximity to these
large urban areas, is a popular water-based recreational
resource, and many of the tributaries have viable
populations of brook trout. For more information related
to population growth and trends, refer to Appendix I.
There are 67 individual NPDES wastewater discharge
permits in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of
55.4 MGD. The largest is the Metropolitan Sewerage
District – Water Reclamation Facility (MSD-WRF) in
Buncombe County (40.0 MGD). There are also two
individual NPDES stormwater permits. Significant issues
related to compliance with NPDES permit conditions are
discussed in the following sections. Asheville, Biltmore
Forest, Black Mountain, as well as Buncombe and
Henderson counties, will be required to develop
stormwater programs under Phase II. Refer to Appendix VI for more information on NPDES
permit holders and to Section 13.2 for information related to the state’s stormwater programs.
There are seven registered animal operations in this subbasin.
Subbasin 04-03-02 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 806 mi2
Land area: 801 mi2
Water area: 5 mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 218,920 people
Pop. Density: 282 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 74%
Surface Water: 1%
Urban: 3%
Cultivated Crop: 1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 21%
Counties
Buncombe, Haywood, Henderson,
Madison, and Transylvania
Municipalities
Asheville, Black Mountain,
Biltmore Forest, Canton, Fletcher,
Hendersonville, Laurel Park,
Montreat, Weaverville and
Woodfin
A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 6. Table 6 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.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 11
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040302Table 6
Length/Area
A-3 nce4.4 S SFRENCH BROAD RIVER6-(27)d Miles
A-5 Bacteria8.2 B-1SIFRENCH BROAD RIVER6-(54.5)b 2002Miles GF
A-9 nce18.3 B-2SSFRENCH BROAD RIVER6-(54.5)c 2002Miles G
A-10 nce6.4 B-3ISFRENCH BROAD RIVER6-(54.5)d 2002Miles F
A-10 nce3.9 B-3ISFRENCH BROAD RIVER6-(54.5)e 2002Miles F
3.7 SB-6NR NDGash Creek6-47 2002Miles NR
3.1 SB-7NR NDMill Pond Creek6-51 2002Miles NR
2.7 SB-8NR NDClear Creek6-55-11-(1)a 2000Miles NR
SF-22.5 SB-9SNDClear Creek6-55-11-(1)b 2000 2001Miles GF GF
SF-32.1 SB-10INDClear Creek6-55-11-(1)c 2001 2001Miles P F
SF-46.5 B-5INDClear Creek6-55-11-(5)2000 2001Miles P GF
2.6 SB-11SNDHarper Creek6-55-11-11 2000Miles E
2.3 SB-12SNDLaurel Fork6-55-11-2 2000Miles E
1.5 SB-13SNDCox Creek6-55-11-3a 2000Miles NI
1.1 SB-14NR NDCox Creek6-55-11-3b 2001Miles NR
1.1 SB-14NR NDCox Creek 2000Miles NR
2.4 SB-15NR NDMill Creek6-55-11-7 2001Miles NR
4.1 SB-16NR NDKyles Creek6-55-11-8 2001Miles NR
4.8 SB-19NR NDKing Creek [McCabe Pond, Jordans Lake,
Bonclarken Lake, Madonna Lake (Highlands
Lake)]
6-55-8-1-2-(1)2000Miles NR
4.8 SB-3NR NDBat Fork6-55-8-1a 2000Miles NR
4.8 SB-1NR NDBat Fork 2001Miles NR
F-21.5 SB-53INDBat Fork6-55-8-1b 2001 2002Miles NR P
3.4 SB-20NR NDDevils Fork6-55-8-2a 2000Miles NR
2.7 SB-21INDDevils Fork6-55-8-2b 2000Miles P
2.4 SB-22SNDMud Creek6-55a 2000Miles NI
1.9 SB-23NR NDMud Creek6-55b 2000Miles NR
F-1 A-4 nce11.0 SB-55ISMud Creek6-55c 2000 2002Miles F P
Monday, July 25, 2005 040302
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040302Table 6
Length/Area
F-1 A-4 nce11.0 SB-17ISMud Creek6-55c 2001 2002Miles F P
F-1 A-4 nce11.0 SB-18ISMud Creek 2001 2002Miles P P
2.2 B-4INDMud Creek6-55d 2000Miles P
7.4 SB-25SNDCane Creek6-57-(1)1999Miles G
9.6 B-6INDCane Creek6-57-(9)a 2002Miles F
F-32.4 S NDCane Creek6-57-(9)b 2002Miles G
3.5 SB-27SNDBent Creek6-67-(1)2001Miles E
3.5 SB-26SNDBent Creek 2001Miles E
3.5 SB-26SNDBent Creek 2001Miles NI
3.0 SB-28SNDBent Creek6-67-(7)2001Miles GF
1.9 SB-32SNDWesley Creek (Bent Creek Ranch Lake)6-67-10 2001Miles NI
1.3 SB-30SNDBoyd Branch6-67-6 2001Miles E
2.3 SB-31NR NDCanie Creek6-76-12 2002Miles NR
3.8 SB-33NR NDWebb Branch6-76-4 2002Miles NR
F-512.4 SB-54SNDSouth Hominy Creek6-76-5 2002 2002Miles GF G
4.5 SB-35SNDStony Fork6-76-5-3 2002Miles G
3.5 SB-34SNDWarren Creek6-76-5-4 2002Miles G
6.2 SB-5SNDBeaverdam Creek6-76-5-8 2002Miles NI
6.2 SB-4SNDBeaverdam Creek 2002Miles G
5.3 SB-36NR NDPole Creek6-76-6 2002Miles NR
2.9 SB-29SNDBill Moore Creek (Enka Lake)6-76-7a 2002Miles NI
3.2 SB-37NR NDMoore Creek6-76-8 2002Miles NR
9.7 SB-38SNDHominy Creek6-76a 2002Miles G
F-43.1 S NDHominy Creek6-76b 2002Miles GF
3.3 SB-39SNDHominy Creek6-76c 2002Miles GF
A-6 nce7.8 B-8ISHominy Creek6-76d 2002Miles F
5.3 SB-40SNDNorth Fork Swannanoa River6-78-11-(13)2002Miles GF
A-7 nce5.0 S SBeetree Creek (Beetree Reservoir)6-78-15-(1)Miles
Monday, July 25, 2005 040302
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040302Table 6
Length/Area
4.5 SB-41SNDChristian Creek (Davis Lake)6-78-19 1999Miles G
4.2 SB-42NR NDGrassy Branch6-78-20 1999Miles NR
4.6 SB-43NR NDHaw Creek6-78-22 1999Miles NR
2.6 SB-44SNDRoss Creek (Lake Kenilworth)6-78-23a 2002Miles NI
1.1 SB-45NR NDRoss Creek (Lake Kenilworth)6-78-23b 2002Miles NR
Lake Monitoring nce12.0 NR NDRoss Creek (Lake Kenilworth)6-78-23c Acres
3.8 SB-46NR NDSweeten Creek (Busbee Reservoir)6-78-24 1999Miles NR
3.0 SB-47SNDFlat Creek6-78-6-(4)1999Miles GF
7.0 SB-49INDSwannanoa River6-78a 2002Miles F
F-64.6 SB-48SNDSwannanoa River6-78b 2002 2002Miles GF G
2.6 B-10INDSwannanoa River6-78c 2002Miles F
A-8 nce11.5 SB-50SSSwannanoa River6-78d 2002Miles GF
A-8 nce11.5 B-11SSSwannanoa River 2002Miles GF
3.9 B-12INDNewfound Creek6-84a 2002Miles F
1.3 B-12INDNewfound Creek6-84b 2002Miles F
2.3 B-12INDNewfound Creek6-84c 2002Miles F
4.4 B-12INDNewfound Creek6-84d 2002Miles F
F-71.7 S NDNewfound Creek6-84e 2002Miles G
10.2 SB-51SNDReems Creek6-87-(1)2002Miles E
F-84.5 B-13SNDReems Creek6-87-(10)2002 2002Miles GF G
F-911.1 SB-52SNDFlat Creek6-88 2002 2002Miles GF G
9.8 B-14SNDSandymush Creek6-92-(1)2002Miles G
F-1010.7 B-14SNDSandymush Creek6-92-(9)2002 2002Miles G G
F-119.1 S NDTurkey Creek6-92-13 2002Miles G
Monday, July 25, 2005 040302
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040302Table 6
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 040302
There were 63 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and 16 fish community samples
(Figure 6 and Table 6) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from
eight ambient monitoring stations and two lakes. Many of these observations are corroborated
by data collected by the VWIN program (see Appendix V). 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.
Waters in the following sections are identified by 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 04-03-02 are summarized in Section 2.2.
Recommendations, current status and future recommendations for waters that were previously or
newly Impaired are discussed in Section 2.3. Waters with noted water quality impacts are
discussed in Section 2.4. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in
Section 2.5. Refer to Appendix X for a complete list of monitored waters and more information
on use support ratings.
2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 04-03-02 in the aquatic life, fish
consumption, recreation 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 336.7 stream miles (35.7 percent) and 12.0 freshwater acres (2.7 percent) monitored
during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. In the recreation category, 76.5 stream
miles (8.1 percent) were monitored. A total of 83.8 stream miles (8.9 percent) are Impaired.
This includes 8.2 miles Impaired for recreational use. Refer to Table 7 for a summary of use
support ratings for waters in subbasin 04-03-02.
2.3 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.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 17
Table 7 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-02
Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 201.5 mi 0.0 68.3 mi 0.0
Impaired 74.6 mi 0.0 8.2 mi 0.0
Not Rated 60.6 mi
12.0 ac 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 336.7 mi
12.0 ac 0.0 76.5 mi
0.0 ac 0.0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 150.7 mi 0.0 0.0 68.6 mi
325.9 ac
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 181.9 mi
30.8 ac 0.0 0.0 0.0
No Data 274.3 mi
397.6 ac
943.6 mi
440.4 ac
867.1 mi
440.4 ac 0.0
Total 606.9 mi
428.4 mi
943.6 mi
440.4 ac
867.1 mi
440.4 ac
68.6 mi
325.9 ac
Totals
All Waters* 943.6 mi
440.4 ac
943.6 mi
440.4 ac
943.6 mi
440.4 ac
68.6 mi
325.9 ac
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.
2.3.1 Mud Creek Watershed
Mud Creek [AU# 6-55c and d]
2000 Recommendations
Mud Creek was Impaired due to habitat degradation from point and nonpoint sources of
pollution. Nonpoint sources included urban and stormwater runoff as well as agricultural land
use. The Hendersonville Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was operating under a Special
Order of Consent (SOC) during the 2000 basin plan. The facility was under construction to
increase its flow capacity and was meeting the effluent limits of the SOC. Local agencies were
to assist in providing technical assistance and financial support for best management practices
(BMPs) associated with a local dairy operation. Land-of-Sky Regional Council of Governments
was to form a stakeholder group that was to develop an implementation plan to improve the
water quality throughout the watershed.
Current Status
Mud Creek, from Little Mud Creek to the French Broad River (13.2 miles), is currently Impaired
because of Poor or Fair bioclassification at sites B-4, SB-17, SB-18, SB-55, and F-1. Additional
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 18
sites at SB-22 and SB-23 are Not Rated (1.9 miles) and Not Impaired (2.7 miles) because data
from these sites were inconclusive or too small to rate.
Most of the data collected in this watershed during the assessment period was part of the DWQ
Watershed Assessment and Restoration Program (WARP) funded by the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund (CWMTF). This intensive survey collected the following data: benthic
macroinvertebrate; stream habitat assessment; morphology and riparian zone condition; water
quality sampling to evaluate stream chemistry and toxicity; and characterization of watershed
land use, conditions and pollution sources (NCDENR-DWQ, October 2002b). The study area
included the Mud Creek watershed and its major tributary streams (discussed below).
The study found that aquatic organisms in the creek are impacted by toxicity, habitat
degradation, storm flow scour from urban areas, and widespread stream degradation. Pesticides
and urban toxicants are thought to be the cause of toxicity. Channelization, lack of riparian
vegetation, and upland sedimentation are all potential causes of habitat degradation. Nutrient
overloading is also widespread. The biological community may also have been adversely
impacted by a four-year drought (1998 to 2002), although nonpoint source runoff impacts may
have been minimized during this time.
A group of local stakeholders have organized as the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council.
This group has developed a watershed plan and is moving into the implementation phase with
the support of a full-time watershed coordinator housed at the Henderson County Cooperative
Extension Service Center (NCCES). Working with the council, the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) helped develop a local watershed plan. The plan identifies sources of habitat and
water quality impacts and makes recommendations to address these issues. Refer to Current
Water Quality Initiatives for more information.
Hendersonville WWTP completed construction activities in March 2002. The newly constructed
aeration facility is producing high quality effluent. The SOC has been removed and the facility
is currently meeting its operating limits.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the Mud Creek watershed to study the causes of
toxicity. Management strategies were developed as part of the WARP study, and DWQ
recommends that the following strategies be implemented:
Feasible and cost-effective stormwater retrofit projects should be implemented
throughout the developed portions of the watershed.
A program to address toxic inputs from developed areas should be created and
implemented including source reduction and stormwater treatment methods.
Stream channel restoration activities.
BMPs to prevent pesticides from entering streams, including practices applicable to
apple orchards.
BMPs to minimize livestock access to streams.
Post-construction stormwater management strategies, especially in rapidly developing
areas, should be developed by Henderson County or the local municipality.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 19
Henderson County should develop local sediment and erosion control programs or
NC Division of Land Resources (DLR) should refine its present program, with
specific provisions to address smaller sites and road and site development on steep
slopes.
A watershed education program should be developed.
DWQ encourages the efforts of the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council and will partner
with them as they implement management strategies in the watershed.
Water Quality Initiatives
Several water quality initiatives are underway throughout the Mud Creek watershed. Henderson
County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) in conjunction with the NRCS has closed
three abandoned animal waste systems; installed 19 agrichemical handling facilities; converted
70 acres of conventional till vegetables to no-till farmland; purchased two precision sprayers to
reduce pesticide over spray; installed 2,663 feet of fence to exclude livestock; and installed five
watering tanks. Over $600,000 of funds from EQIP and the NC Agriculture Cost Share Program
(NCACSP) was spent to install the BMPs. The district is currently seeking additional funds to
purchase more precision sprayers and to examine the use of pheromone mediating mating
disruptors.
In addition to the local SWCD, the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council was formed and
consists of a diverse group that strives to improve and protect water quality throughout the Mud
Creek watershed. The council has developed management strategies grouped into the following
four categories: 1) stormwater; 2) nonpoint source pollution from agricultural activities; 3)
habitat degradation; and 4) upland sources of sediment (Mud Creek Watershed Restoration
Council, April 2003). Goals and objectives for each of these categories are listed below.
(1) Stormwater: Strategies are listed to address the volume, velocity and quality of post-
construction runoff from existing and future roads and commercial and residential
development.
Educate citizens and businesses on stormwater issues and BMPs; create an awards
program.
Develop or refine stormwater management and floodplain development ordinances.
Reduce impervious surfaces that create stormwater runoff and pollution; review
building codes for low impact development opportunities.
(2) Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agricultural Activities: Strategies are listed to reduce
pesticides, nutrients, sediment, and bacteria and other agriculture related nonpoint source
pollution.
Promote innovative pest management practices to minimize pesticide drift.
Work with willing landowners to stabilize streams, establish vegetative buffers, and
implement animal waste practices.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 20
(3) Habitat Degradation: Strategies include those that improve aquatic habitat needed by
aquatic organisms to survive and reproduce in a stream. The recommendations address the
causes of habitat degradation including sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of
riparian vegetation, loss of riffles or pools, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour (i.e.,
flow that washes away habitat).
Restore the most critically eroding streams and restore native vegetation along all
streams.
Educate landowners about the importance of riparian buffers.
Protect high priority wetlands and riparian buffers in the watershed.
(4) Upland Sources of Sedimentation: Strategies also include those that reduce sediment
pollution from construction activities and unpaved roads and driveways.
Consider the benefits of a local sediment and erosion control program.
Educate excavators and the public about how to control erosion.
Reduce sediment pollution from unpaved roads, eroding roadbanks and roadside
ditches.
Land use/cover information for the watershed was determined using 2001 aerial photography
with an Integrated Pollution Source Identification (IPSI) system developed by the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA). IPSI is a geographical information database that utilizes a number of
physical factors to aid in identifying and prioritizing issues affecting water quality. From IPSI, it
was determined that 45 percent of the land area is forest; 25 percent is used for residential,
commercial or industrial purposes, and 23 percent consists of agricultural use including row
crops, orchards, and cattle and horse pastures. Significant channelization and floodplain
alteration has occurred throughout the watershed during the last 150 years. Woody debris is
sparse, and the aquatic habitat is generally poor throughout the watershed. Without appropriate
water quality protection, increasing urbanization in the watershed will likely exacerbate existing
water quality problems. For additional information on local water quality initiatives in the Mud
Creek watershed and contact information, refer to Chapter 16.
Because of the water quality problems noted throughout the Mud Creek watershed, it has been
identified by NCEEP as one of 28 local watersheds in the basin with the greatest need and
opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. A local watershed plan was completed in
2003 and incorporated into the management strategies listed above. NCEEP is initiating two
wetland restoration projects (totaling 15 acres) and one 2,000 linear foot stream restoration
project in the Mud Creek watershed. Construction will begin in 2005. For a copy of the local
watershed plan, visit www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Mud_Creek/mudcreek.htm.
Bat Fork [AU# 6-55-8-1b]
2000 Recommendations
Bat Fork was Impaired due to habitat degradation from nonpoint source inputs including
agriculture as well as urban and nonurban development. Bat Fork could benefit from local
initiatives that might include the formation of a citizens group to conduct stream cleanup efforts,
assess the watershed for specific pollution sources, and identify possible solutions to nonpoint
sources of pollution. Local agencies could pursue funding opportunities to reduce nonpoint
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 21
source pollution and to implement a watershed-wide education effort. DWQ will work with
these various agencies to conduct further monitoring and assist with locating sources of funding.
Current Status
Bat Fork, from SR 1779 to Johnson Drainage Ditch (1.5 miles), is currently Impaired due to a
Poor bioclassification at site F-2. Upstream sites, from source to SR 1779 (4.8 miles), are Not
Rated due to the small stream size at sites SB-1 and SB-3. Bat Fork was sampled as part of the
Mud Creek WARP study. A number of stressors impact Bat Fork, including toxicants, severe
habitat degradation, and widespread stream degradation. Habitat degradation was the most
severe and likely due to channelization, removal of riparian vegetation, upland sediment sources,
and livestock access to the stream. In 2002, the lower Bat Fork monitoring site had the lowest
scoring habitat in the basin.
Since March 2000, the General Electric (GE) Lighting Plant has been sending remediated
groundwater and process waters to Hendersonville’s WWTP. This change in operations has
reduced impacts to Bat Fork, although the plant still discharges permitted stormwater to the
creek. A local initiative is underway (the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Project) which
should address water quality concerns throughout the entire Mud Creek watershed and include
Bat Fork.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the water quality in Bat Fork. It is recommended that local
agencies work with landowners to install 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 water quality
initiatives, refer to the Mud Creek recommendations listed above.
Devils Fork [AU# 6-55-8-2b]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Devils Fork is Impaired, from the first unnamed tributary west of SR 1006 to Johnson Drainage
Ditch (2.7 miles), due to a Poor bioclassification at site SB-21. This segment is located in a
commercial/industrial section of Hendersonville where channelization has impacted water
quality and riparian habitats. Upstream, Devils Fork, from source to the first tributary west of
SR 1006 (3.4 miles), is currently Not Rated because of a Not Rated bioclassification. Although
the monitoring site (SB-20) in this upstream segment is classified Not Rated, it was characterized
by a degraded aquatic community.
Devils Fork was sampled as part of the Mud Creek WARP study. The study determined that
Devils Fork suffers from exposure to toxicants, habitat degradation and nutrient enrichment.
Upstream toxicants are likely pesticides from orchards and/or row crops, and downstream
toxicants are from these same agricultural activities as well as urban areas. As with Bat Fork,
habitat degradation was caused by channelization, removal of riparian vegetation, and upland
sediment sources. It is recommended that local agencies work with landowners to install BMPs
to improve the riparian zone and complete stream restoration activities. As Devils Fork is part of
the Mud Creek watershed, refer to the Mud Creek recommendations and water quality initiatives
listed above.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 22
Clear Creek [AU# 6-55-11-(1)c and 6-55-11-(5)]
2000 Recommendations
Clear Creek is a large tributary of Mud Creek and consists of forested and agricultural land use.
Special studies revealed that pesticide runoff from apple orchards were impacting the aquatic
organisms in the stream. Local agencies should pursue funding opportunities to reduce nonpoint
source pollution and implement BMPs. DWQ will work with the various agencies to conduct
further monitoring and assist with locating sources of funding.
Current Status
Clear Creek, from Puncheon Camp Creek to Mud Creek (8.6 miles), is currently Impaired
because of Poor bioclassification at sites B-5 and SB-10 and a Fair bioclassification at site SF-3.
Although characterized by impacted aquatic communities, upper segments of Clear Creek, from
source to Puncheon Camp Creek (5.2 miles), are Not Rated due to the small stream size at SB-8
and Supporting due to Good-Fair bioclassification at SB-9 and SF-2.
Clear Creek was sampled as part of the Mud Creek WARP study. The study determined that the
primary cause of impairment in the lower segment is exposure to toxicants most likely associated
with farming activities. Habitat degradation and elevated nutrients are secondary issues for the
biological community. In addition, two tributaries leading to Clear Creek (Cox Creek and Mill
Creek) were identified and characterized by degraded biological communities similar to those
identified in lower Clear Creek.
NCEEP helped develop a local watershed plan in concert with the Mud Creek Watershed
Restoration Council. These plans identify sources of water quality impacts and make
recommendations to address these impacts. In the Clear Creek watershed, 1,300 feet of stream
restoration has been completed, and 6.4 acres of buffers have been installed as a result of the
work of the council.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the water quality in Clear Creek. High concentrations of metals
were found during storm events, and further study is needed to identify the source of these
metals and their impact on water quality. It is recommended that local agencies work with
landowners to install BMPs on apple orchards and tomato farms to reduce the amount of
pesticides entering the stream. For additional recommendations and water quality initiatives,
refer to Mud Creek 2005 Recommendations.
2.3.2 Hominy Creek [AU# 6-76d]
2000 Recommendations
Hominy Creek was Impaired due to nonpoint source pollution most likely associated with urban
and nonurban development and agricultural activities. Funding and implementation of
agricultural BMPs, including chemical handling facilities, is needed in order to reduce habitat
degradation and impacts to water quality from nonpoint sources. DWQ will work with the
various agencies to conduct additional monitoring and assist agency staff with locating sources
of water quality protection funding.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 23
Current Status
Hominy Creek, from the source to Moore Creek (16.1 miles), is Supporting due to a Good-Fair
bioclassification at SB-39 and F-4 and a Good bioclassification at site SB-38. Hominy Creek,
from Moore Creek to the French Broad River (7.8 miles), however, is currently Impaired due to
a Fair bioclassification at site B-8. This site is near the community of Enka, downstream of the
BASF discharge. Conductivity was much higher below the discharge, and there were many
pollution tolerant macroinvertebrates collected, which suggests that this portion of Hominy
Creek may be impacted by toxicity. The stream also has showed evidence of severe habitat
degradation including bank erosion and poor riparian buffers. The downstream portion of
Hominy Creek is urbanized. A special study found that many of the problems facing Hominy
Creek may be attributed to development directly next to the stream (NCDENR-DWQ, 2002a).
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Hominy Creek and work with other local
agencies to study the toxic impacts affecting this stream. BASF is no longer discharging to
Hominy Creek, which may result in a higher bioclassification rating during the next sampling
cycle. It is recommended that local agencies work with landowners to install BMPs to improve
the riparian zone and complete stream restoration activities. These practices will improve habitat
and stabilize eroding banks. In addition, care should be taken during development to minimize
erosion and sedimentation of the stream, and an area of natural vegetation should be maintained
adjacent to the stream. It is recommended that local efforts work together and focus on this
watershed for water quality improvement.
Water Quality Initiatives
Through the NC Agriculture Cost Share Program (NCACSP) and Agriculture Sediment
Initiative, the Buncombe County Soil and Water Conservation District (BCSWCD) was provided
$35,000 in cost share funding for BMPs in the Hominy Creek watershed. Implementation of
several BMPs is currently underway. For more information on either of these programs, refer to
Chapter 11.
Because of the water quality impairment noted above, Hominy Creek has been identified by
NCEEP 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.
2.3.3 French Broad River [AU# 6-(54.5)b, d and e]
Current Status
The French Broad River [AU# 6-(54.5)b], from Mud Creek to NC 146 (8.2 miles), is Supporting
in the aquatic life category due to a Good-Fair bioclassification at site B-1. This same segment,
however, is Impaired in the recreation category due to a standards violation for fecal coliform
bacteria. During annual screening in 2002, the ambient monitoring station (A-5) at Glenn Bridge
Road (SR 3495) near Skyland exceeded the water quality screening criteria for fecal coliform
bacteria. Subsequent monitoring of five samples in 30 days is required by DWQ assessment
methodology to confirm the fecal coliform levels and determine if it exceeds the state standard.
This additional monitoring reported fecal coliform bacteria levels above the standard. Excessive
rainfall in the two years of monitoring (Fall 2002 through 2003) caused extremely high flows in
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 24
the French Broad River. The associated nonpoint runoff from the precipitation events may have
caused the higher than normal bacteria levels.
Regional DWQ staff and the Buncombe County Metropolitan Sewerage District – Water
Reclamation Facility (MSD-WRF) are working to identify possible sources of the elevated fecal
coliform bacteria. The specific source has not been identified; however, the regional staff and
MSD-WRF were able to eliminate an MSD-WRF pump station as a potential source. This pump
station force main crosses the French Broad River, and no leaks or damage was found in the line.
Given that land use in this segment of the river is dominated by agricultural pastureland, it is
likely that the potential source of fecal coliform bacteria is associated with nonpoint source
runoff during heavy rain events.
From NC 146 to Craggy Dam (17.9 miles), the French Broad River [AU# 6-(54.5)c] is
Supporting in the aquatic life category due to a Good bioclassification at site B-2. No standards
violations were reported for fecal coliform bacteria at the ambient monitoring station A-9;
therefore, this segment is also Supporting in the recreation category. This site has been sampled
seven times since 1983 and has steadily increased from Fair (1983 and 1985) to Good-Fair
(1987, 1992 and 1997) to the most recent Good (2002) bioclassification. Like much of the
French Broad River, this section receives runoff from both point and nonpoint sources including
the City of Asheville and surrounding agricultural land. Substrate was a good mix of boulders
and rubble, and the macroinvertebrate community has been fairly stable since 1992.
The French Broad River [AU# 6-(54.5)d and e], from Craggy Dam to Sandymush Creek (10.3
miles), is Impaired in the aquatic life category due to a Fair bioclassification at site B-3. Craggy
Dam (Section 14.2) is a “run-of-river” dam that could potentially slow the flow of the river
during drought conditions, consequently impacting the benthic community downstream.
Specific conductivity was slightly higher at this site than at the upstream site B-2 (~90
µmhos/cm compared to ~50 µmhos/cm). The stream substrate was a good mix of boulders and
rubble.
Like much of the river, this section is impacted by runoff from both point and nonpoint sources
(i.e., agriculture, stormwater, etc.) and has historically received Fair (1990 and 1992) and/or
Good-Fair (1997) bioclassifications. The improvement to Good-Fair in 1997 was most likely
associated with treatment and operation upgrades at MSD-WRF. No violations of the discharge
permit were reported from 2000 to 2002, and information provided by MSD-WRF shows that
instream waste concentration of the discharge was less than 5% of the river’s flow during July
2002. This section of the river also receives water from Newfound Creek and Reems Creek.
Both of these watersheds have historically been impacted by both urban and agricultural runoff.
For more information on either of these watersheds, refer to Sections 2.3.5 and 2.4.1,
respectively.
Overall, the aquatic community in this stretch of the river has historically received low (Fair)
and/or marginal (Good-Fair) bioclassifications. Based on these low and marginal
bioclassifications, this segment is considered Impaired based on the most recent sampling data.
DWQ will continue to monitor this segment of the French Broad River and continue to work
with the City of Asheville as they develop a Phase II stormwater program to minimize impacts
from both point and nonpoint sources.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 25
2005 Recommendations
A total maximum daily load (TMDL) should be developed to identify and address the elevated
fecal coliform bacteria levels found in the river from Mud Creek to NC 146 (8.2 miles). It is
recommended that the adjacent segments of the French Broad River be included in this TMDL
so that the source of the fecal coliform can be identified and targeted for reduction. Prior to
scheduling and developing a TMDL, DWQ staff will continue to work with other agencies and
organizations to attempt to track and remedy sources of bacteria. Continued follow-up
monitoring is being conducted in this more normal flow year of 2004 to assess the persistence of
fecal coliform bacteria.
DWQ will also continue to monitor benthic macroinvertebrates along the entire mainstem of the
French Broad River and work with local agencies to identify impacts from point and nonpoint
sources.
Water Quality Initiatives
MSD-WRF is continually investing funds into its aggressive sewer rehabilitation program and
has completed several projects throughout the county. The results have reduced the amount of
sanitary sewer overflows, and no permit violations were reported from 2000 to 2002. For more
information about MSD-WRF, visit their website at www.msdbc.org.
2.3.4 Swannanoa River [AU# 6-78a and c]
2000 Recommendations
Swannanoa River was not Impaired, but impacts to water quality are evident along the entire
length of the river. DWQ recommends a strategy of monitoring the river to identify sources of
sediment. Sediment controls should be enhanced and in accordance with regulations or
ordinances to prevent further impacts to habitat and water quality along the Swannanoa River.
Current Status
The Swannanoa River, from source to the North Fork Swannanoa River (7.0 miles), is currently
Impaired because of Fair bioclassification at site SB-49. The river is also Impaired from Beetree
Creek to Bull Creek (2.6 miles) due to a Fair bioclassification at site B-10.
Segments of the Swannanoa River, from the North Fork of the Swannanoa River to Beetree
Creek (4.6 miles) and from Bull Creek to the French Broad River (11.5 miles), are currently
Supporting because of Good-Fair bioclassification at sites B-11, SB-48 and SB-50 and a Good
bioclassification at site F-6.
Much of the data collected in this watershed during the assessment period was part of special
study to prioritize projects for conservation and restoration (NCDENR-DWQ, January 2003). All
of the sample sites on the Swannanoa River indicate water quality problems. These include:
habitat degradation; poor riparian buffer zones; nutrient enrichment; sedimentation;
channelization; and toxicity. Many of these problems may be attributed to urban/residential
runoff and development. The lower portion of the river (near Biltmore Forest) has improved
over time, progressing from Poor or Fair in the 1980s to Good-Fair in the 1990s. The middle
section, however, still has a Fair bioclassification, and there are indications of water quality
decline over time.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 26
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the Swannanoa River watershed. It is
recommended that additional monitoring sites be included in the next cycle of basin sampling to
determine the quality of headwater streams. Evaluating these type of streams will require the
development of a headwater stream sampling protocol and criteria (see Appendix IV). Once data
have been compiled on these headwater streams, it is recommended that the headwaters be
prioritized and targeted for conservation easements.
It is also recommended that the municipalities along the river develop local stormwater plans to
address problems generated due to the changing land use in this watershed. Local planning
efforts, including zoning ordinances, should be considered to protect natural resources and guide
development. In addition, local governments and organizations should work to demonstrate
innovative BMPs on new developments. These pilot projects would be useful tools in trying new
practices and learning what works for developments in Western North Carolina. All of these
projects could be incorporated into Buncombe County’s NDPES Phase II stormwater program.
The projects could be very effective if Black Mountain, Swannanoa and other communities
joined in this effort to create a regional initiative.
Water Quality Initiatives
Throughout the Swannanoa River watershed, there are a variety of county and local initiatives
underway. On the county level, Buncombe County has an agreement in place with many of the
municipalities along the river to handle erosion control plans associated with new construction
activities. Working with the Buncombe County Soil and Water Conservation District
(BCSWCD), amendments were added to the county erosion control and subdivision ordinances
to limit the density of development on steep slopes (scale related to percent slope). These efforts
should help control nonpoint runoff from new development sites along the river.
Two other major funding initiatives are underway in the Swannanoa River watershed and include
projects under Section 319 and CWMTF for the Swannanoa Watershed Urban Cost Share
Program and the Azalea Park-Blue Ridge Parkway Restoration Project, respectively. These
projects are both being managed by a full-time watershed coordinator with RiverLink, who has
also been tasked with assessing nonpoint source activities and water quality impacts throughout
the entire Swannanoa River watershed.
As part of the Swannanoa Watershed Urban Cost Share Program, a watershed assessment was
completed using the Integrated Pollution Source Index (IPSI) developed by the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA). IPSI is a geographical information database that utilizes a number of physical
factors to aid in identifying and prioritizing issues affecting water quality. With this information,
RiverLink was able to identify nonpoint source pollution problems within urbanized areas of the
Swannanoa River watershed and determine which areas are best suited for restoration and
preservation activities.
Besides the IPSI, funding provided for the Swannanoa Watershed Urban Cost Share Program
was used for two projects in the Town of Black Mountain and three projects in the Haw Creek
watershed (AU# 6-78-22). These projects are described below.
Near the headwaters in the Town of Black Mountain, RiverWalk Park was constructed to address
nonpoint source pollution, particularly runoff associated with impervious surfaces and rooftops
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 27
from the Bi-Lo shopping complex. The park treats runoff from approximately 1.5-acres of
impervious surfaces. One wetland and one bio-retention pond (rain garden) were constructed
and were designed to hold water for 24 hours. Besides runoff treatment, the park will also serve
as an educational BMP site for local schools, government officials and local citizens. The park
was constructed with $37,000 of Section 319 grant money and involved the help of the Town of
Black Mountain, the Urban Forestry Division, Quality Forward, Montreat College, Warren
Wilson College, and numerous local volunteers.
The second project in Black Mountain is located behind the Black Mountain Center for the Arts.
This project is located in the downtown area and catches runoff from three rooftops and the
surrounding parking areas. Two rain gardens and one vegetated swale were constructed. Rain
barrels have also been incorporated into the project. The project is being used as an urban
stormwater BMP demonstration project and was constructed with $47,200 of Section 319 grant
money.
The projects in the Haw Creek watershed are also demonstration projects and include both public
and private property. At the Evergreen Community Charter School, two rain gardens, two
vegetated swales, and one stormwater wetland are being constructed. The rain gardens and
stormwater wetland will capture the majority of the runoff from the rooftop and parking areas
during storm and rain events. In addition, the rain gardens and wetland are being incorporated
into an environmental curriculum in the charter school and will include subjects such as water
quality and aquatic habitats. This project was constructed using $60,000 of Section 319 grant
money.
At the Charlie Bullman Athletic Field, invasive species will be removed and the native habitat
will be restored. The athletic field is located in a residential area, adjacent to elementary schools,
and is a part of the local parks system. Instream structures will be used to address 90-degree
bends in the creek and eroding streambanks will be stabilized. Riffles and pools will also be
added to improve the aquatic habitat. Each season 6 to 8 dump truck loads of clay are needed to
maintain the fields. Vegetated swales and bio-retention cells (ponds) will be used to catch
sediment runoff from the athletic fields. Sediment caught in the cells can be used again to
maintain the fields. This project was funded using $40,000 of Section 319 grant money.
The third project in the watershed is located on private property and is located at the confluence
of the mainstem of Haw Creek and a smaller tributary. Both streams receive runoff from local
roads. Invasive plant species will be removed and native species will be planted to stabilize
streambanks. A small wetland currently located on the site will be expanded and used to
facilitate treatment of road runoff. Conservation easements will also be marked to protect the
newly installed BMPs. This project is designed to demonstrate how homeowners can improve
water quality in their own backyards. This project was constructed using $23,800 of Section 319
grant money.
Grant money from the CWMTF was used for the Azalea Park-Blue Ridge Parkway Restoration
Project. Located in the area of Azalea Road, the Swannanoa River in this stretch is suffering
from eroding streambanks and severe aquatic habitat decline. The goal of the project was to
stabilize eroding banks, replant the riparian zone with native vegetation, modify the floodplain,
and improve the stream habitat with the use of instream structural devices such as crossvanes and
j-hooks to recreate pools and riffles throughout the project site. As a result, the project will
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 28
restore 1.3 miles of the mainstem of the Swannanoa River. This project should be completed in
2006 and will improve water quality by reducing sediment loading into the river system. It will
also enhance recreational fishing opportunities.
Riverlink is also working with different groups and landowners to protect additional headwaters
near the Town of Black Mountain and identifying potential BMP sites along private lands in the
City of Asheville.
Because of the water quality impairments noted above, the Swannanoa River has been identified
by NCEEP 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.
2.3.5 Newfound Creek [AU# 6-84a, b, c and d]
2000 Recommendations
Newfound Creek, although not considered Impaired based on 1997 data, remains on the state’s
303(d) list. Sedimentation, turbidity, fecal coliform bacteria, and bank destabilization continue
to be a concern for Newfound Creek. DWQ is proceeding with the development of a TMDL for
fecal coliform bacteria.
Current Status
Newfound Creek, from source to Dix Creek (11.9 miles), is currently Impaired because of a Fair
bioclassification at site B-12. The lower segment of Newfound Creek, from Dix Creek to the
French Broad River (1.7 miles), is Supporting based on a Good bioclassification at site F-7.
The creek suffers from severe habitat degradation including streambank erosion, embedded
substrate and poor riparian buffers. Samples collected in Newfound Creek show that the creek
still has nutrient and organic enrichment problems, both of which are likely associated with
agricultural land use (primarily dairy and beef cattle operations). Dairy waste management in
the watershed has been effective in reducing the amount of organic particulates and increasing
dissolved oxygen concentrations. The biological community may also have been adversely
impacted by urban and residential development, as well as a four-year drought (1998 to 2002).
In February 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a TMDL for fecal
coliform bacteria in Newfound Creek. The TMDL recommends a 92.8% reduction in fecal
coliform bacteria loading to Newfound Creek. BMPs for animal operations, riparian buffers, and
identification and repair of aging and/or failing septic systems should achieve the reduction goal.
For more information on TMDL reports or to review a copy of the Newfound Creek TMDL, visit
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality and fecal coliform bacteria levels in Newfound
Creek. DWQ encourages the implementation of the Newfound Creek nonpoint source strategy
plan and will assist agency personnel in locating sources of water quality protection funding. It
is recommended that local agencies work with landowners to install BMPs to improve the
riparian zone and limit livestock access to streams. Stream restoration activities are also
desirable along the creek as the banks are eroding and unstable. As this watershed continues to
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 29
develop, a local sediment and erosion control program should be developed and implemented.
This will likely require additional staffing at the local level.
Water Quality Initiatives
Many efforts by citizens and local agencies have been undertaken to improve water quality in the
Newfound Creek watershed. Several dairies and dischargers have ceased operation;
sedimentation and erosion control efforts are ongoing; and efforts are underway to improve on-
site wastewater systems.
The Buncombe County Soil and Water Conservation District (BCSWCD) has developed a
Newfound Creek watershed program and has a full-time watershed coordinator working in this
area. A nonpoint source strategy plan was completed in 2000 through a CWMTF grant of
$118,865. Activities underway include: watershed education and outreach; water quality
monitoring; and BMP installation. Over $100,000 from the NC Agriculture Cost Share Program
(NCASCP) has been spent in the watershed for BMPs. The Pigeon River Fund has also
contributed $23,900 towards this project for workshops, water quality monitoring equipment,
watershed signs, newsletters, and brochures.
A grant through EPA Section 319 ($416,250) provided funding for staff and equipment, helped
gain a new USGS gauge on Jenkins Valley Road, provided funding for an Integrated Pollution
Source Inventory (IPSI) by TVA, and funding for the installation of several BMPs. Under the
grant, BCSWCD installed 31 BMPs on a total of 10 acres of land. Total annual soil loss before
the BMPs were installed was 2,606.1 tons/site. After installation, 89.9 tons/site were reported.
As a direct result of the district’s efforts in the watershed, an estimated 2,156 tons/year of soil
was eliminated from Newfound Creek and its tributaries. Projects included a variety of urban
and agricultural BMPs such as septic system repairs, critical area treatments, and direct
streambank stabilization along the mainstem of Newfound Creek.
In 2003, BCSWCD received a $415,000 CWMTF grant for additional BMPs and continued
funding for a watershed coordinator. This existing grant allows for BMPs to be installed through
May 2006. Through IPSI, BCSWCD identified severely eroded perennial streams, and the
watershed coordinator is working with targeted community members to install BMPs along these
streambanks.
Current water quality monitoring (November 2004) through the BCSWCD indicates Newfound
Creek is still impacted by nonpoint sources including fecal coliform bacteria and sediment loss
from urban development. Water quality monitoring stations are located at eight different sites
throughout the Newfound Creek watershed where BMPs were or have the potential to be
installed. BCSWCD is diligently encouraging landowners to improve water quality through
conservation easements, cost share assistance and community outreach funded through the
CWMTF. Education outreach in the form of Erosion Control Workshops, parent meetings at
local schools, newsletter distributions, and site visits have increased the visibility of the
watershed. For more information, refer to the Newfound Creek Watershed Non-Point Source
Strategy Plan: Preliminary Plan (BCSWCD, December 2000) or visit
http://www.buncombecounty.org/governing/depts/Soil/watershed.htm.
Because of the water quality impairment noted above, Newfound Creek has been identified by
NCEEP as one of 28 local watersheds in the basin with the greatest need and opportunity for
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 30
stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given higher priority than
nontargeted watersheds for implementation of NCEEP restoration projects.
2.3.6 Ross Creek [AU#6-78-23b and c]
2000 Recommendations
A management strategy or TMDL approach will be used under the 303(d) process to address
urban runoff, sediment and nutrient loads in Ross Creek. DWQ will coordinate and collaborate
with local agencies over the next basinwide cycle to make progress towards this end.
Current Status
From I-240 to the backwaters of Lake Kenilworth (1.1 miles), Ross Creek is Not Rated due to a
Not Rated bioclassification at site SB-45. This Not Rated segment of Ross Creek is located near
Tunnel Road, a heavily urbanized area in the City of Asheville. In this area, potential impacts
include urban stormwater runoff from a high percentage of impervious surfaces draining to the
creek. DWQ noted evidence of habitat degradation including poor riparian zones, steep and
eroding banks, and embedded substrate. Conductivity is also high, double that of the upstream
monitoring site. Ross Creek was sampled as part of a special study to evaluate water quality
concerns throughout the Swannanoa River watershed (NCDENR-DWQ, March 2003).
Ross Creek (Lake Kenilworth) is currently Not Rated (12.0 acres) due to lack of adequate
number of samples. Potential problems associated with eutrophication were noted.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Ross Creek and will work with local agencies to identify the
source of the high conductivity found in the downstream site. DWQ encourages the
implementation of the Ross Creek Watershed Initiative developed by the Land-of-Sky Regional
Council of Governments. DWQ will assist local personnel in locating sources of water quality
protection funding for this watershed. It is also recommended that local agencies work to
improve the riparian zone and design stream restoration activities to stabilize the eroding banks.
This urban watershed would benefit from a local stormwater program including retrofitting sites
with BMPs to improve water quality. Asheville is required to develop a Phase II stormwater
program, and the Ross Creek watershed should be considered a priority for retrofit opportunities.
Water Quality Initiatives
Land-of-Sky Regional Council of Governments obtained funding from several sources, including
the Pigeon River Fund and a Federal 205(j) grant, to address stakeholder awareness of this
stream’s urban characteristics and to develop a restoration plan for Ross Creek. Since initial
funding of this project, the following activities have been conducted: intensive stream
monitoring; a stream cleanup day; curb markings along Ross Creek storm drains; three
stakeholder meetings; and preliminary identification of locations for stream restoration projects
(Land-of-Sky Regional Council of Governments, 2001).
Because of the water quality impairment noted above, Ross Creek has been identified by NCEEP
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.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 31
2.3.7 Cane Creek [AU#6-57-(9)a]
Current Status
Cane Creek, from Ashworth Creek to Cushion Branch (9.6 miles), is currently Impaired because
of a Fair bioclassification at site B-6. This site declined significantly from the last sampling in
1997. Cane Creek is located in an area undergoing significant urban development and land use
changes, particularly around the Town of Fletcher. DWQ will work with others to continue
monitoring this stream to determine the stressors in this watershed.
Cane Creek, from Cushion Branch to the French Broad River (2.4 miles), is Supporting due to a
Good bioclassification at site F-3. However, the recent widening of US 25 and the construction
of a new bridge across the stream seems to have contributed large amounts of sediment to the
stream.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will work with the Town of Fletcher as it begins to develop its Phase II stormwater
program and assist local agencies in identifying sources of water quality protection funding. In
addition, a local sedimentation and erosion control plan should be developed. The expanding
urban communities may also benefit from urban BMPs, watershed signs, newsletters and
brochures geared toward water quality awareness.
Water Quality Initiatives
RiverLink is evaluating the existing and historic environmental conditions in the Cane Creek
watershed. This evaluation will focus on ecological, hydrological and water quality changes in
Cane Creek and provide a baseline in order to address ecosystem restoration and maintenance.
RiverLink will develop a model to identify and prioritize protection and restoration projects. For
more information, contact RiverLink or visit to www.riverlink.org.
Because of the water quality impairment noted above, Cane Creek has been identified by
NCEEP 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.
2.3.8 Gash Creek [AU #6-47]
2000 Recommendations
Gash Creek was listed as Impaired due to nonurban development resulting in habitat degradation.
Additional information needs to be obtained for this creek in order to develop appropriate
management strategies for restoration. Golf and construction activities seem to be the primary
concern within this watershed and should be the focus of a nonpoint source inventory.
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Gash Creek, from source to the French Broad River (3.7 miles), is currently Not Rated because
of a Not Rated bioclassification at site SB-6. This stream could not be rated due to the small
stream size at the time of sampling. Gash Creek drains agricultural and residential land, as well
as a golf course. Water quality problems at this site include habitat degradation and organic
enrichment. The Etowah Sewer Company has moved its discharge to the French Broad River
since Gash Creek was last sampled in 1996. Unfortunately, the stream has not improved since
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 32
the removal of this discharge. The decline in water quality in 2002 may be attributed to a
combination of poor habitat, low flows due to drought conditions during the time of sampling,
upstream land practices, and an urbanizing landscape. Gash Creek remains on the 303(d) list of
Impaired waters. It is recommended that local entities work with landowners to improve riparian
buffers and habitat of Gash Creek.
2.3.9 Mill Pond Creek [AU #6-51]
2000 Recommendations
Mill Pond Creek was listed as Impaired due to nonpoint source pollution. Possible sources of
contamination include a closed landfill (Henderson County Stony Mountain Road Landfill), a
NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) storage site, and/or upstream dischargers. The
Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) consistently notes high levels of conductivity in
Mill Pond Creek. DWQ will investigate and monitor this creek in order to develop appropriate
management strategies.
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Mill Pond Creek, from source to the French Broad River (3.1 miles), is currently Not Rated
because of a Not Rated bioclassification at site SB-7. This stream could not be rated due to its
small size during the time of sampling. This small stream is located downstream from the
Henderson County landfill and two wastewater dischargers. Residential development and on-
going dam construction may also be impacting the creek. DWQ observations and monitoring
indicate that this creek suffers from poor habitat conditions and high conductivity. The
biological community was sparse indicating a toxic impact. DWQ will continue to monitor this
stream and work with local agencies to identify and address the source of conductivity and
toxicants. DWQ will also assist local personnel in locating sources of water quality protection
funding for this watershed. It is recommended that local agencies work to improve the riparian
zone and complete stream restoration activities to improve habitat.
2.3.10 South Hominy Creek [AU# 6-76-5]
2000 Recommendations
South Hominy Creek was listed as Impaired due to nonpoint source runoff associated with urban
stormwater runoff, non-urban development activities, and agricultural runoff. The water quality
in South Hominy Creek declined significantly from the first basinwide sampling period going
from a Good-Fair to a Poor bioclassification. DWQ will work with various local and county
agencies to conduct further monitoring and assist in locating sources of water quality protection
funding.
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
South Hominy Creek, from source to Hominy Creek (12.4 miles), is currently Supporting
because of a Good-Fair bioclassification at site SB-54 and a Good bioclassification at site F-5.
South Hominy Creek is located in the Hominy watershed. Overall, the creek contains good
aquatic habitats; however, there is evidence of streambank erosion, nutrient loading, livestock
access, and partially embedded substrate. Many of these issues are being addressed at the local
level by the BCSWCD.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 33
Due to the current bioclassification and continuing local initiatives, DWQ recommends that
South Hominy Creek be removed from the 2006 303(d) list of Impaired waters. In addition,
DWQ will continue to monitor this watershed and be involved in the NCEEP project described
below.
Water Quality Initiatives
In 2003, NCEEP began a local watershed planning project in the South Hominy Creek
watershed. Its goals were to assess the function of watershed resources, determine mechanisms
to improve stream and wetland integrity, and identify areas needing restoration, enhancement or
preservation. NCEEP identified 13 sites where opportunities exist to improve watershed
functions and water quality. The local watershed plan reviewed historical land use data and
concluded that impacts to the watershed are most likely associated with adjacent land use,
clearing of riparian buffers, and excess sediment due to bank erosion, land development, and/or
unpaved road runoff. Four general types of projects were identified and include: preservation of
watershed-riparian function; restoration of riparian corridors; enhancement of riparian corridors;
and BMP installation and landowner education. The plan also recommends that additional data
be collected to better characterize and prioritize management strategies (NCDENR-NCEEP,
February 2004a). For more information, refer to the technical findings report available on-line at
www.nceep.net/services/lwps/south_hominy_creek/southhominycreek.htm. The final local watershed plan
should be available in the summer of 2005.
2.4 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.
2.4.1 Reems Creek [AU# 6-87-(10)]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Reems Creek, from the bridge at US Highway 23 to the French Broad River (4.5 miles), is
currently Supporting because of a Good-Fair bioclassification at site B-13 and a Good
bioclassification at site F-8. Upstream, from source to the bridge at US Highway 23 (10.2
miles), Reems Creek received an Excellent bioclassification at site SB-51.
While the stream supports aquatic life, it contains elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels. In
2002, DWQ received a request to reclassify Reems Creek to Class B waters for primary
recreational use. DWQ staff conducted the necessary sampling for this request in 2003 and
found that the state standard for fecal coliform bacteria was exceeded. In this plan, the data
window used to make use support assessments is 1997 to 2002. In the next basinwide plan, this
stream will likely be Impaired for primary recreation due to fecal coliform bacteria. It is
recommended that local entities study the watershed to identify sources of fecal coliform bacteria
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 34
and implement measures to reduce the bacteria levels. DWQ will assist in locating sources of
water quality protection funding to address the issue of fecal coliform bacteria.
2.4.2 Gill Branch [AU# 6-76-12]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
DWQ did not have water quality data available during the plan’s data window of 1997 to 2002;
therefore, Gill Branch is currently rated No Data. Gill Branch is a tributary of Reems Creek; and
in 2002, DWQ received a request to reclassify Gill Branch to Class B waters for primary
recreational purposes. Recent sampling by DWQ (2003) indicates that Gill Branch has elevated
levels of fecal coliform bacteria. The sampling found that the state standard for fecal coliform
bacteria was exceeded. In the next basinwide plan, this stream will likely be Impaired for
primary recreation due to fecal coliform bacteria. It is recommended that local entities study the
watershed to identify sources of fecal coliform bacteria and implement measures to reduce this
problem. DWQ will assist in locating sources of water quality protection funding to address
fecal coliform bacteria.
2.4.3 Bent Creek [AU #6-67-(7)]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Bent Creek, from the Powhatan Dam to the French Broad River (3.0 miles), is Supporting due to
a Good-Fair bioclassification at site SB-28. This monitoring site is located below the Powhatan
dam and a campground sewage disposal facility (Powhatan Recreational Area). The
bioclassification may have been affected by low flow due to drought conditions during the time
of sampling. This segment of the stream showed signs of habitat degradation compared to
upstream sites, which received an Excellent bioclassification at sites SB-26 and SB-27. Bent
Creek also exhibited signs of nutrient enrichment (NCDENR-DWQ, January 2002).
Since the dam and the campground sewage disposal facility are in close proximity to each other,
DWQ could not separate out these impacts on water quality. Currently, there are no minimum
flow requirements along the dam, and the campground is constructing a new sewage collection
system. DWQ will work with the Powhatan Recreational Area to ensure that the sewage
disposal facility is operating according to its permit.
2.4.4 North Fork Swannanoa River [AU #6-78-11-(13)]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
The North Fork Swannanoa River, from the Asheville Water Supply Dam to the Swannanoa
River (5.3 miles), is Supporting due to a Good-Fair bioclassification at SB-40. Drought related
conditions experienced throughout the basin from 1998 to 2002 may have impacted the benthic
community along the North Fork creating habitat and water quality stress. Currently, there are
no minimum flow requirements for the water supply dam. This also may have contributed to the
Good-Fair bioclassification observed at this site. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality
throughout the Swannanoa watershed and rely on local initiatives to address potential sources of
nonpoint source pollution.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 35
2.4.5 Flat Creek [AU #6-78-6-(4)]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Flat Creek, from Big Piney Branch to the Swannanoa River (3.0 miles), is Supporting due to a
Good-Fair bioclassification at site SB-47. Flat Creek is located in a residential area and flows
through the Town of Montreat. As with many other streams throughout the Swannanoa
watershed, impacts to Flat Creek may be associated with habitat and water quality stress due to
drought conditions during the time of sampling. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality
throughout the Swannanoa watershed and rely on local initiatives to address potential impacts
from nonpoint source pollution.
2.4.6 Flat Creek [AU #6-88]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Flat Creek, from source to the French Broad River (11.1 miles), is Supporting due to a Good-Fair
bioclassification at SB-52 and a Good bioclassification at F-9. This watershed is located
adjacent to and north of the Reems Creek watershed and drains the extreme northwest corner of
Buncombe County where rolling pastures and hills characterize the landscape. Although the
Good bioclassification for site F-9 was also found to be Good in 1997, DWQ observed an
increase in more tolerant fish species and a less diverse community. Five NPDES facilities are
currently located in this watershed for a combined discharge of 0.13 MGD. DWQ will continue
to monitor the fish community and aquatic habitat in this area. DWQ will also work to identify
potential nonpoint source impacts.
2.4.7 Moore Creek [AU# 6-76-8]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Moore Creek, from source to Hominy Creek (3.2 miles), is currently Not Rated due to a Not
Rated bioclassification at site SB-37. This stream drains a residential area in Candler and suffers
from habitat degradation including bank erosion and poor riparian buffers. It is recommended
that local agencies work with landowners to improve the riparian zone adjacent to the stream.
Stream restoration activities are also desirable along Moore Creek as the banks are eroding and
unstable. Additional information and a more comprehensive watershed assessment are needed to
determine the stressors contributing to the water quality conditions in Moore Creek.
2.4.8 Canie Creek [AU# 6-76-12]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Canie Creek, from the source to Hominy Creek (2.3 miles), is currently Not Rated because of a
Not Rated bioclassification at site SB-31. This creek drains a mixture of residential and
commercial land and was found to have the lowest water quality in the Hominy Creek watershed.
The creek suffers from severe bank erosion, and rip-rap was used to stabilize portions of the
bank. Canie Creek also had high conductivity and a narrow riparian area. It is recommended
that local agencies work with landowners to improve the riparian zone adjacent to the stream.
Using bioengineering solutions, stream restoration activities are also recommended to prevent
any further impacts associated with erosion.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 36
2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-02
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.
2.5.1 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification
Harper Creek (AU# 6-55-11-11)
Harper Creek, from source to Clear Creek (2.6 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site SB-11. The current DWQ classification is B Tr.
Laurel Fork (AU# 6-55-11-2)
Laurel Fork, from source to Clear Creek (2.3 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site SB-12. The current DWQ classification is C Tr.
Bent Creek [AU# 6-67-(1)]
Bent Creek, from source to the Powhatan Dam (3.5 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site SB-26 and SB-27. The current DWQ classification is B Tr.
Boyd Branch (AU# 6-67-6)
Boyd Branch, from source to Bent Creek (1.3 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site SB-30. The current DWQ classification is C.
Reems Creek [AU# 6-87-(1)]
Reems Creek, from source to US Highway 23 (10.2 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site SB-51. The current DWQ classification is C Tr.
Chapter 2 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 37