HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 4 Subbasin 04-03-04
Chapter 4
French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-04
Including the: French Broad River, Little Ivy Creek (River), Ivy Creek, California Creek and
Bull Creek
4.1 Subbasin Overview
The north and western portions of this subbasin are
located in Pisgah National Forest and consistently have
good or excellent water quality. The rest of the subbasin
is rural and includes the municipalities of Hot Springs,
Mars Hill and Marshall. The impacts of nonpoint source
pollution are evident in many of the streams outside of the
National Forest. Local efforts are underway to address
these water quality concerns. By the year 2020,
population in Buncombe and Madison counties is
expected to increase by 22.3 and 19.3 percent,
respectively.
Currently, there are 11 NPDES wastewater discharge
permits in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of
0.98 MGD; none are major dischargers. Refer to
Appendix VI for identification and more information on
individual NPDES permit holders. Refer to Appendix I
for more information regarding population growth and
trends. There are no animal operations listed in this
subbasin.
A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and
water quality monitoring stations is presented in Figure 8.
Table 10 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.
Subbasin 04-03-04 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 496 mi2
Land area: 494 mi2
Water area: 2 mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 40,490 people
Pop. Density: 81 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 85%
Surface Water: <1%
Urban: <1%
Cultivated Cropland: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 14%
Counties
Buncombe and Madison
Municipalities
Hot Springs, Mars Hill and
Marshall
There were 19 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and four fish community samples
(Figure 8 and Table 10) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from
one ambient monitoring station. 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
Chapter 4 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-04 49
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040304Table 10
Length/Area
A-13 nce33.1 B-1SSFRENCH BROAD RIVER6-(54.5)f 2002Miles GF
SF-130.8 B-5SNDBig Laurel Creek6-112 2002 1997Miles E GF
SF-130.8 B-6SNDBig Laurel Creek 2002 1997Miles G GF
F-314.8 B-8SNDShelton Laurel Creek6-112-26 2002 2002Miles G E
1.4 SB-2NR NDCold Spring Branch6-112-26-13-1-1 2002Miles NR
5.2 B-7SNDPuncheon Fork6-112-5 2002Miles E
20.3 B-9SNDSpring Creek6-118-(1)2002Miles E
1.7 B-9SNDSpring Creek6-118-(27)2002Miles E
F-17.4 B-2SNDIvy Creek (River)6-96-(0.5)2002 2002Miles G E
0.5 B-4SNDIvy Creek (River)6-96-(11.3)2002Miles GF
10.5 B-4SNDIvy Creek (River)6-96-(11.7)2002Miles GF
3.5 SB-3SNDMiddle Fork Little Ivy Creek6-96-10-1a 2002Miles NI
2.1 SB-4NR NDMiddle Fork Little Ivy Creek6-96-10-1b 2002Miles NR
3.6 SB-5SNDCalifornia Creek6-96-10-2a 2002Miles NI
3.8 SB-6NR NDCalifornia Creek6-96-10-2b 2002Miles NR
7.1 SB-8SNDPaint Fork6-96-10-3 2002Miles NI
7.1 SB-7SNDPaint Fork 2002Miles NI
2.9 SB-10NR NDBig Branch6-96-10-5 2002Miles NR
2.9 SB-9NR NDBig Branch 2002Miles NR
2.6 SB-11INDLittle Ivy Creek (River)6-96-10a 2002Miles F
2.1 B-3SNDLittle Ivy Creek (River)6-96-10b 2002Miles GF
F-23.8 S NDBull Creek6-96-16 2002Miles GF
Monday, July 25, 2005 040304
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040304Table 10
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 040304
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 04-03-04 are summarized in Section 4.2.
Recommendations, current status and future recommendations for previously and newly
Impaired waters are discussed in Section 4.3. Waters with noted water quality impacts are
discussed in Section 4.4. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in
Section 4.5. Refer to Appendix III for a complete list of monitored waters and more information
on use support ratings.
4.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 04-03-04 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 157.3 stream miles (20.8 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category. Of these, 2.6 miles (<0.5 percent) are Impaired. Refer to Table 11 for a
summary of use support rating by category for waters in subbasin 04-03-04.
4.3 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.
4.3.1 Little Ivy Creek (River) [AU # 6-96-10a]
2000 Recommendations
Little Ivy Creek, from SR 1547 to Ivy Creek (2.6 miles), was Impaired due to nonpoint source
pollution associated with agricultural and residential land use. Several projects are underway to
address fecal coliform bacteria and erosion in the watershed. DWQ will continue to monitor the
creek to better identify sources of pollution.
Current Status
Little Ivy Creek, from California Creek to SR 1547 (2.6 miles), is Impaired due to a Fair
bioclassification at site SB-11. Downstream, from SR 1547 to Ivy Creek (2.1 miles), Little Ivy
Creek is Supporting due to a Good-Fair bioclassification at B-3.
Chapter 4 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-04 53
Table 11 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-04
Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 144.4 mi 0.0 33.1 mi 0.0
Impaired 2.6 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 10.3 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 157.3mi
0.0 ac 0.0 33.1 mi 0.0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 370.1 mi 0.0 0.0 157.5 mi
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 2.7 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
No Data 225.9 mi 756.0 mi 722.9 mi 0.0
Total 598.7 mi
0.0 ac
756.0 mi
0.0 ac
722.9 mi
0.0 ac
157.5 mi
0.0 ac
Totals
All Waters* 756.0 mi
0.0 ac
756.0 mi
0.0 ac
756.0 mi
0.0 ac
157.5 mi
0.0 ac
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.
An intense monitoring effort was undertaken in the Little Ivy Creek watershed as part of a
special study. The study found that the biological impairment of the creek is likely attributed to
nutrient loading, sediment and non-urban development (NCDENR-DWQ, May 2003). Eleven
sites were monitored throughout the watershed in May 2002; however, only two of these sites
(B-3 and SB-11 on Figure 8) were large enough to receive a bioclassification. Several of the
other sites could not be rated due to low stream flows as a result of drought conditions during the
time of sampling. Sedimentation and narrow riparian zones are widespread concerns throughout
the entire watershed, and many of the problem areas are located near roadways and residential
land.
The monthly chemistry data from the Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN)
corroborated many of the DWQ benthic data conclusions in the Ivy Creek and Little Ivy Creek
watersheds (Maas et al., June 2002; Maas et al., May 2003). The Ivy Creek watershed exhibited
the highest pH and alkalinity values of any watershed in the seven county VWIN program;
conductivity and nutrient levels were also elevated. Water quality deteriorated below the
confluence of Ivy Creek and Little Ivy Creek, indicating that Little Ivy Creek and its tributaries
were significant contributors of pollutants to Ivy Creek (River). Since 1992, DWQ data indicate
overall declining benthic communities in the Ivy Creek watershed.
Chapter 4 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-04 54
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Little Ivy Creek watershed to document the effects of land use
changes and development in the surrounding area. It is recommended that local governments
develop programs to reduce water quality impacts due to construction activities to reduce the
amount of sediment that is entering the watershed. BMPs need to be installed and monitored
during and post-construction activities. Implementation of both urban and agricultural best
management practices (BMPs) are also encouraged.
Water Quality Initiatives
Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), the Madison County Health Department, and the NCDENR
Division of Environmental Health (DEH) are participating in the Little Ivy River Watershed
BMP Implementation Project. The project identified fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients and
sediment as potential water quality concerns throughout the watershed. Nonpoint sources
include runoff from agricultural areas, including cropland and small animal operations, and
straight pipes (wastewater discharged directly into streams without treatment). Using CWMTF
grant money, the county identified several straight pipes and failing septic systems in need of
repair. CWMTF and Section 319 grant money has also been used to establish a series of
controlled grazing demonstrations, accompanied with an educational program. Controlled
grazing allows for alternative watering systems and better distribution of livestock away from the
streams. Vegetative areas have also been installed or improved and have included the
establishment of riparian buffers, easements, livestock exclusion, cropland conversion, critical
area stabilization, and livestock facilities. In the last five years, 123 watering tanks have been
installed, 21 feed and waste structures were built, and 32,280 feet of streambank were protected
from livestock. Total funding for these projects was $470,000 and the county has an additional
$300,000 to continue installing BMPs.
Madison County SWCD also received $75,000 from the CWMTF to conduct an Integrated
Pollutant Source Identification (IPSI) survey through the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for
the entire Madison County area. Information obtained from this project will assist in identifying
nonpoint source locations and priority areas for restoration. Data analysis should be complete by
December 2004. In addition, grant proposals are being reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to address sedimentation and erosion problems. The district also
hopes to encourage the county to adopt sedimentation and erosion control ordinances. For more
information on the BMP Implementation Project in the Ivy Creek watershed, contact the
Madison County SWCD.
Because of the water quality impairment noted above, Little Ivy Creek 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.
Chapter 4 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-04 55
4.4 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.
4.4.1 California Creek [AU# 6-96-2a and b]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
California Creek, from source to Little Ivy Creek (7.4 miles), was sampled by DWQ pre- and
post-construction of I-26 in Madison County. The sample taken prior to construction was used
as a baseline of water quality in the creek. California Creek, from Sprinkle Creek to Little Ivy
Creek (3.8 miles), is currently Not Rated in the aquatic life category at site SB-6. This segment
was too small to rate according to DWQ sampling methodologies. The upstream site (SB-5),
from source to Sprinkle Creek (3.6 miles), however, supported a good, diverse biological
community. Sedimentation is a concern for the entire creek, and riparian habitat should to be
monitored at the downstream site (SB-6). The VWIN program also monitors California Creek,
and their findings corroborate DWQ data (see Appendix V). California Creek is part of the Little
Ivy Creek watershed. For more information, refer to the Little Ivy Creek 2005
Recommendations listed above.
4.4.2 French Broad River [AU# 6-(54.5)f]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
This portion of the French Broad River, from Sandymush Creek to the NC/TN state line (33.1
miles), flows through the Town of Marshall and is directly downstream of Progress Energy’s
Hydroelectric Plant in Marshall. This segment is Supporting in the aquatic life category due to a
Good-Fair bioclassification at site B-1. This site has consistently received a Good-Fair
bioclassification. In 2002, the aquatic plants were abundant, and algae were observed.
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in this segment of the river. It is recommended that
local agencies work with landowners to install BMPs to improve the riparian zones along this
portion of the French Broad River.
4.4.3 Ivy Creek (River) [AU# 6-96-(11.3) and 6-96-(11.7)]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Ivy Creek, from source to the French Broad River (18.4 miles), is currently Supporting because
of a Good bioclassification at site B-2 and a Good-Fair bioclassification at site B-4. It also
received an Excellent bioclassification at site F-1. Site B-4 is in close proximity to the
confluence with the French Broad River and has a wider riparian zone. This portion of Ivy
Creek consistently receives a Good-Fair bioclassification. However, it is important to note that
Chapter 4 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-04 56
the 2002 monitoring found fewer species and a less diverse biological community. Turbidity
was also a noted concern. Ivy Creek has the potential to continue to degrade in the next
monitoring cycle if these downward trends continue. It is important that the recommendations
outlined in the Little Ivy Creek watershed be implemented here as well (refer to Little Ivy Creek
2005 Recommendations listed above). The development and implementation of a local sediment
and erosion control program should help protect water quality at this site.
4.4.4 Bull Creek [AU# 6-96-16]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Bull Creek, from source to Ivy Creek (3.8 miles), is currently Supporting because of a Good-Fair
bioclassification at site F-2. This site was sampled for the first time in 2002, and while the
greatest number of fish in the basin was collected at this site, the diversity was only moderate.
There were indications of excess periphyton communities due to an elevated pH, and
conductivity was relatively high. VWIN also monitors this creek and their information
corroborates with DWQ data (see Appendix V). DWQ will continue to monitor this site and
work with others to determine the source of the high conductivity. It is recommended that local
agencies work with landowners to install BMPs to improve the riparian area along Bull Creek.
4.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-04
The following section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are
not specific to particular streams, lakes or reservoirs. The issues discussed may be related to
waters near certain land use activities or within proximity to different pollution sources.
This section also 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.
4.5.1 Subbasin Concerns and Priorities
In addition to the Little Ivy and Ivy Creek (River) watersheds, several other initiatives are
underway by the Madison County SWCD and NRCS to control and reduce the impacts from
agricultural activities. Over the last basinwide cycle (1998 to 2003), the county has installed 76
watering tanks, built one feed and waste structure, constructed 1,300 feet of stock trails, and
excluded livestock along several tributaries using 20,000 feet of fence. These projects were
funded by grants from the NC Agriculture Cost Share Program (NCASCP). In addition, 30 acres
have been converted from cropland to pasture, and crops are being rotated on two acres of land
to reduce the amount of pesticide and fertilizer use. Thirty-one watering tanks, four feed and
waste structures, and one stream crossing have also been constructed using EQIP grant money
totaling $150,000. The Madison County SWCD and NRCS are also working to promote
community awareness, stewardship and involvement in protecting the local watersheds.
Chapter 4 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-04 57
Within this subbasin, Madison County is expected to increase in population by 19.3% over the
next 15 years. Increases in population often lead to new construction sites and additional sources
of NPS from impervious surfaces. Local officials are currently working to establish
sedimentation and erosion control ordinances throughout the county and identifying those areas
most susceptible to growth and development activities. DWQ will work with the county SWCD
and NRCS staff to identify new biological monitoring sites to assess impacts to additional
watersheds within this subbasin.
4.5.2 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification
Big Laurel Creek (AU# 6-112)
Big Laurel Creek, from source to the French Broad River (30.8 miles), is Supporting due to an
Excellent bioclassification at site B-5 and a Good-Fair bioclassification at site SF-1. The current
DWQ classification is C Tr. Big Laurel Creek is located in a forested area of the subbasin, and
there is little development opportunity due to steep gradient slopes.
Shelton Laurel Creek (AU# 6-112-26)
Shelton Laurel Creek, from source to Big Laurel Creek (14.8 miles), is Supporting due to an
Excellent bioclassification at site F-3 and a Good bioclassification at site B-8. The current DWQ
classification is C Tr.
Puncheon Fork (AU# 6-112-5)
Puncheon Fork, from source to Big Laurel Creek (5.2 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site B-7. The current DWQ classification is C Tr.
Spring Creek [AU# 6-118-(1) and 6-118-(27)]
Spring Creek, from source to the French Broad River (22.0 miles), is Supporting due to an
Excellent bioclassification at site B-9 and a Good-Fair bioclassification at site SF-1. The current
DWQ classification for AU# 6-118-(1) is C Tr. The current DWQ classification for AU# 6-118-
(27) is C.
Chapter 4 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-04 58