HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 6 Subbasin 04-03-06
Chapter 6
French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06
Including the: Nolichucky River, North and South Toe River, Big Rock Creek, Jacks Creek and
Right Fork Cane Creek
6.1 Subbasin Overview
Much of the land in this subbasin is within the Pisgah
National Forest, although there are scattered agricultural
and industrial lands throughout the subbasin. The largest
community is the Town of Spruce Pine, near the Blue
Ridge Parkway. There has been little population growth
in this subbasin, and the subbasin is expected to remain
mostly rural with only a slight increase in population by
the year 2020. Population increases of 14.1, 9.4 and 16.7
percent are projected for Avery, Mitchell and Yancey
counties, respectively. For more information regarding
population growth and trends, refer to Appendix I.
Subbasin 04-03-06 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 466 mi2
Land area: 465 mi2
Water area: 1 mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 31,122 people
Pop. Density: 66 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 87%
Surface Water: <1%
Urban: <1%
Cultivated Crop: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 11%
Counties
Avery, Mitchell and Yancey
Municipalities
Bakersville, Burnsville, Newland,
Spruce Pine, and Sugar Mountain
There are seven NPDES discharge permits in this
subbasin with a total permitted flow of 14.5 MGD. The
largest are Unimin Corporation/Quartz Operation (3.6
MGD), Feldspar Corporation (3.5 MGD), Unimin
Corporation/Schoolhouse Quartz Facility (2.16 MGD),
and K-T Feldspar Corporation (1.73 MGD). There are
two individual NPDES stormwater permits in the
subbasin. Refer to Appendix VI for identification and
more information on individual NPDES permit holders.
Significant issues related to compliance with NPDES
permit conditions are discussed below. There are no
registered animal operations in this subbasin.
A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 10. Table 14 contains a summary of assessment units and lengths, streams
monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results, along with use support ratings for waters
in this subbasin. Refer to Appendix X for a complete listing of monitored waters and more
information about use support ratings.
There were 10 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and five fish community samples
(Figure 10 and Table 14) collected during this assessment period. Data were collected from four
ambient monitoring stations as well. Refer to the 2003 French Broad River Basinwide
Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Appendix IV for more information on
monitoring.
Chapter 6 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06 74
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040306Table 14
Length/Area
A-25 nce10.0 B-1SSNOLICHUCKY RIVER7 2002Miles G
A-22 nce22.0 B-2SSNorth Toe River7-2-(0.5)2002Miles G
A-22 nce9.4 B-2SSNorth Toe River7-2-(21.5)2002Miles G
A-23 turbidity 14%11.3 B-3ISNorth Toe River7-2-(27.7)b 2002Miles F
24.8 B-4SNDNorth Toe River7-2-(27.7)c 2002Miles G
4.9 SB-3SNDRoaring Creek7-2-15 2002Miles E
SF-114.6 B-5SNDBig Crabtree Creek (Crabtree Creek)7-2-48 2002 1999Miles E E
A-24 nce25.9 B-6SSSouth Toe River7-2-52-(1)2002Miles E
6.3 SB-1SNDLittle Crabtree Creek7-2-52-33 2002Miles GF
1.2 SB-2SNDRight Fork Cane Creek7-2-59-1 2002Miles E
F-18.5 I NDJacks Creek7-2-63 2002Miles F
SF-213.9 B-7SNDBig Rock Creek7-2-64 2002 1998Miles E G
F-27.1 S NDPigeonroost Creek7-2-69 2002Miles E
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 040306
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 rating for all waters in subbasin 04-03-06 are summarized in Section 6.2.
Recommendations, current status and future recommendations for previously and newly
Impaired waters are discussed in Section 6.3. Waters with noted water quality impacts are
discussed in Section 6.4. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in
Section 6.5. Refer to Appendix X for a complete list of monitored waters and more information
on use support ratings.
6.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 04-03-06 in the aquatic life, recreation
and fish consumption 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 159.8 stream miles (23.2 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category. Of these, 19.8 stream miles (3.0 percent) are Impaired. Refer to Table 15
for a summary of use support ratings by category for waters in the subbasin 04-03-06.
6.3 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.
6.3.1 Right Fork Cane Creek (AU#7-2-59-1)
2000 Recommendations
Right Fork Cane Creek (1.1 miles) was previously Impaired and placed on the 303(d) list based
on evaluated information. Use support methodology has been improved, and only monitored
data are now used in use support determinations (see Appendix X). However, this stream was
required to remain on the 303(d) list until sampling was conducted to assess current water quality
conditions. Refer to Appendix VII for more information on the state’s 303(d) methodology and
listing requirements.
Chapter 6 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06 77
Table 15 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-06
Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 140.0 mi 0.0 78.5 mi 0.0
Impaired 19.8 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 159.8 mi
0.0 ac 0.0 78.5 mi
0.0 ac 0.0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 354.5 mi 0.0 0.0 25.4 mi
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 75.3 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
No Data 100.0 mi 689.6 mi 611.1 mi 0.0
Total 529.8 mi
0.0 ac
689.6 mi
0.0 ac
611.1 mi
0.0 ac
25.4 mi
0.0 ac
Totals
All Waters* 689.6 mi
0.0 ac
689.6 mi
0.0 ac
689.6 mi
0.0 ac
25.4 mi
0.0 ac
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Right Fork Cane Creek, from the source to Cane Creek (1.2 miles), is currently Supporting based
on an Excellent bioclassification at site SB-2. The benthic community was diverse and reflected
no water quality problems. There were a few habitat concerns noted, such as bank erosion and
riparian zone width, that should be addressed to protect this excellent water quality. It is
recommended that local agencies work with landowners to install best management practices
(BMPs) to improve the riparian zones and restore streambanks. Based on this sampling data,
DWQ recommends that Right Fork Cane Creek be removed from the 2006 303(d) list.
6.3.2 Jacks Creek [AU# 7-2-63]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Jacks Creek, from the source to the North Toe River (8.5 miles), is currently Impaired based on a
Fair bioclassification at site F-1. The fish community species diversity was low and conductivity
values were elevated. The stream had a narrow riparian zone and abundant instream algal
growth. DWQ will continue to monitor this site, and a more in-depth study should be conducted
to identify the source of high conductivity. It is recommended that local agencies work with
landowners to install BMPs to improve riparian zones and the overall water quality in this
stream.
Chapter 6 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06 78
Water Quality Initiatives
Because of the water quality impairment noted above, Jacks 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.
6.3.3 North Toe River [AU#7-2-(27.7)b]
2000 Recommendations
Habitat degradation and turbidity were noted problems in a 32.5-mile segment of the river from
Grassy Creek to the South Toe River. DWQ will continue to monitor the river to assess possible
impacts from mine processors and the WWTP located in the Town of Spruce Pine. The
implementation of BMPs is recommended to protect the river from future impacts from urban
runoff. DWQ will notify local agencies of water quality concerns for this creek and work with
these various agencies to conduct further monitoring and assist agency personnel with locating
sources of water quality protection funding.
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
The North Toe River, from Grassy Creek to the South Toe River (11.3 miles), is currently
Impaired based on a Fair bioclassification at site B-3. This same segment is also Impaired due to
a turbidity water quality standards violation at site A-23. The ambient monitoring station (A-23)
exceeded the state standard for turbidity in 14% of the samples collected during this assessment
period. This site receives runoff from the Town of Spruce Pine and several dischargers in the
watershed, which may have impacted the benthic community. The North Toe River may also be
impacted by road construction activities associated with the expansion of NC 19 from Burnsville
to Spruce Pine. Narrow riparian zones were also noted.
Several days before DWQ monitoring, a 1,500-gallon spill of #2 fuel oil in the river was reported
to local authorities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the primary
responder and coordinated clean up efforts. Prior to the spill, the North Toe River water quality
was improving (Good-Fair in 1992 and Good in 1997). DWQ will continue to monitor the water
quality at this site and work with local agencies to find the source of turbidity. It is
recommended that local agencies work with landowners to install BMPs to improve riparian
zones and the overall water quality in the river.
Water Quality Initiatives
Because of the water quality impairment noted above, the North Toe River 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 6 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06 79
6.4 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.
6.4.1 Big Rock Creek [AU#7-2-64]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Big Rock Creek, from source to the North Toe River (13.9 miles), is currently Supporting based
on an Excellent bioclassification at site B-7 and a Good fish community at site SF-2. Like many
other streams throughout the basin, drought conditions likely affected this stream. In 1997, the
stream was 20 meters (66 feet) wide, but in 2002, it was reduced to 9 meters (30 feet). Big Rock
drains primarily agriculture and forestland. Narrow riparian zones and eroding streambanks
were noted during sampling. It is recommended that local agencies work with landowners to
install BMPs to improve riparian zones and the overall water quality in Big Rock.
Water Quality Initiatives
Because of the poor riparian zones noted above, Big Rock 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.
6.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-06
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.
6.5.1 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification
Roaring Creek (AU# 7-2-15)
Roaring Creek, from source to the North Toe River (4.9 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site SB-3. The current DWQ classification is WS-IV, Tr.
Big Crabtree Creek (Crabtree Creek) (AU# 7-2-48)
Big Crabtree Creek (Crabtree Creek), from source to the North Toe River (14.6 miles), is
Supporting due to an Excellent bioclassification at site B-5 and SF-1. The current DWQ
classification is C Tr.
Chapter 6 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06 80
Right Fork Cane River (AU# 7-2-59-1)
Right Fork Cane Creek, from the source to Cane Creek (1.2 miles), is currently Supporting based
on an Excellent bioclassification at site SB-2. The current DWQ classification is C Tr. DWQ is
recommending that the Right Fork Cane Creek be removed from the 2006 state’s 303(d) list.
Refer to Section 6.3.1 for more information.
Big Rock Creek (AU#7-2-64)
Big Rock Creek, from source to the North Toe River (13.9 miles), is currently Supporting based
on an Excellent bioclassification at site B-7. The current DWQ classification is C Tr. Refer to
Section 6.4.1 for more information.
Pigeonroost Creek (AU# 7-2-69)
Pigeonroost Creek, from source to the North Toe River (7.1 miles), is Supporting due to an
Excellent bioclassification at site F-2. The current DWQ classification is C Tr.
Chapter 6 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06 81