FBR Final Entire Plan

French Broad River
Basinwide Water
Quality Plan

April 2005

Prepared by:
Michelle Raquet
[e-mail]
[phone] ext. 367

NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

This Document was approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission on
April 14, 2005 to be used as a guide by the NC Division of Water Quality for carrying out
its Water Quality Program duties and responsibilities in the French Broad River basin.
This plan is the third five-year update to the French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission in May 1995.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................x
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................xx
What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?........................................................................xx
Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning........................................................................xx
Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning.................................................................xxii
Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations .........................................................xxii
How You Can Get Involved ..............................................................................................xxii
Some Other Reference Materials.......................................................................................xxii
How to Read the Basinwide Plan......................................................................................xxiii
Chapter 1.............................................................................................................................................1
French Broad River Basin Subbasin 04-03-01
Including the West Fork, North Fork and Middle Forks of the French Broad River, Little River, French
Broad River, Peter Weaver and Morgan Mill Creeks
1.1 Subbasin Overview........................................................................................................1
1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ...............................................................................5
1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters....................5
1.3.1 West Fork French Broad River [AU# 6-2-(0.5)b].............................................5
1.3.2 Peter Weaver Creek [AU# 6-10a and b]............................................................7
1.3.3 Morgan Mill Creek [AU# 6-10-1a, b and c].....................................................8
1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts......................................9
1.4.1 Little River [AU# 6-38-(20)].............................................................................9
1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-01 .......................................10
1.5.1 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification.................................10
Chapter 2...........................................................................................................................................11
French Broad River Basin 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, Burnett Reservoir and Lake Kenilworth
2.1 Subbasin Overview......................................................................................................11
2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary .............................................................................17
2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..................17
2.3.1 Mud Creek Watershed .....................................................................................18
Mud Creek [AU# 6-55c and d]........................................................................18
Bat Fork [AU# 6-55-8-1b]...............................................................................21
Devils Fork [AU# 6-55-8-2b]..........................................................................22
Table of Contents i
Clear Creek [AU# 6-55-11-(1)c and 6-55-11-(5)]...........................................23
2.3.2 Hominy Creek [AU# 6-76d]............................................................................23
2.3.3 French Broad River [AU# 6-(54.5)b, d and e].................................................24
2.3.4 Swannanoa River [AU# 6-78a and c]..............................................................26
2.3.5 Newfound Creek [AU# 6-84a, b, c and d].......................................................29
2.3.6 Ross Creek [AU#6-78-23b and c]....................................................................31
2.3.7 Cane Creek [AU#6-57-(9)a]............................................................................32
2.3.8 Gash Creek [AU #6-47]...................................................................................32
2.3.9 Mill Pond Creek [AU #6-51]...........................................................................33
2.3.10 South Hominy Creek [AU# 6-76-5]................................................................33
2.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................................34
2.4.1 Reems Creek [AU# 6-87-(10)]........................................................................34
2.4.2 Gill Branch [AU# 6-76-12]..............................................................................35
2.4.3 Bent Creek [AU #6-67-(7)]..............................................................................35
2.4.4 North Fork Swannanoa River [AU #6-78-11-(13)].........................................35
2.4.5 Flat Creek [AU #6-78-6-(4)]............................................................................36
2.4.6 Flat Creek [AU #6-88].....................................................................................36
2.4.7 Moore Creek [AU# 6-76-8].............................................................................36
2.4.8 Canie Creek [AU# 6-76-12].............................................................................36
2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-02 .......................................37
2.5.1 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification.................................37
Chapter 3...........................................................................................................................................38
French Broad River Basin Subbasin 04-03-03
Including the Davidson River, Boylston Creek, Mills River and North Fork Mills River
3.1 Subbasin Overview......................................................................................................38
3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary .............................................................................41
3.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..................41
3.3.1 Mills River [AU# 6-54-(1)a and b, 6-54-(4.5), 6-54-(5) and 6-54-(6.5)]........41
3.3.2 Brandy Branch [AU # 6-54-6].........................................................................46
3.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................................46
3.4.1 Davidson River [AU # 6-34-(1), 6-34-(15.5), 6-34-(17), 6-34-(21)]...............46
3.4.2 Boylston Creek [AU#6-52-(6.5)].....................................................................47
3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-03 .......................................48
3.5.1 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification.................................48
Chapter 4...........................................................................................................................................49
French Broad River Basin Subbasin 04-03-04
Including the French Broad River, Little Ivy Creek (River), Ivy Creek, California Creek and Bull Creek
4.1 Subbasin Overview......................................................................................................49
4.2 Use Support Assessment Summary .............................................................................53
4.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..................53
4.3.1 Little Ivy Creek (River) [AU # 6-96-10a]........................................................53
Table of Contents ii
4.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................................56
4.4.1 California Creek [AU# 6-96-2a and b]............................................................56
4.4.2 French Broad River [AU# 6-(54.5)f]..............................................................56
4.4.3 Ivy Creek (River) [AU# 6-96-(11.3) and 6-96-(11.7)]....................................56
4.4.4 Bull Creek [AU# 6-96-16]..............................................................................57
4.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-04 .......................................57
4.5.1 Subbasin Concerns and Priorities ....................................................................57
4.5.2 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification.................................58
Chapter 5...........................................................................................................................................59
French Broad River Basin Subbasin 04-03-05
Including the Pigeon River, West and East Fork Pigeon River, Richland Creek, Fines Creek, Crabtree
Creek, Hyatt Creek, Plott Creek, Raccoon Branch, Hurricane Creek, Lake Junaluska and Walters Lake
5.1 Subbasin Overview......................................................................................................59
5.2 Use Support Assessment Summary .............................................................................63
5.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..................63
5.3.1 Pigeon River [AU# 5-(7)b]..............................................................................64
5.3.2 Waterville (Walters) Lake [AU # 5-(7)e]........................................................67
5.3.3 Richland Creek [AU # 5-16-(1)a, b, c, d and e; 5-16-(16)a]...........................68
5.3.4 Lake Junaluska [AU # 5-16-(1)f].....................................................................69
5.3.5 Fines Creek [AU # 5-32]..................................................................................69
5.3.6 Raccoon Creek [AU # 5-16-14].......................................................................70
5.3.7 Hyatt Creek [AU # 5-16-6a and b]..................................................................71
5.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................................71
5.4.1 Plott Creek [AU # 5-16-9]...............................................................................71
5.4.2 Jonathan Creek [AU # 5-26-(7)]......................................................................72
5.4.3 Crabtree Creek [AU# 5-22].............................................................................72
5.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-05 .......................................73
5.5.1 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification.................................73
Chapter 6...........................................................................................................................................74
French Broad River Basin Subbasin 04-03-06
Including the Nolichucky River, North and South Toe Rivers, Big Rock Creek, Jacks Creek and Right
Fork Cane Creek
6.1 Subbasin Overview......................................................................................................74
6.2 Use Support Assessment Summary .............................................................................77
6.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..................77
6.3.1 Right Fork Cane Creek (AU#7-2-59-1)...........................................................77
6.3.2 Jacks Creek [AU# 7-2-63]...............................................................................78
6.3.3 North Toe River [AU#7-2-(27.7)b].................................................................79
6.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................................80
6.4.1 Big Rock Creek [AU#7-2-64]..........................................................................80
6.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-06 .......................................80
Table of Contents iii
6.5.1 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification.................................80
Chapter 7...........................................................................................................................................82
French Broad River Basin Subbasin 04-03-07
Including the Little Creek, Bald Mountain Creek, Cane River and Price Creek
7.1 Subbasin Overview......................................................................................................82
7.2 Use Support Assessment Summary .............................................................................85
7.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..................86
7.3.1 Little Creek (AU# 7-3-33)...............................................................................86
7.3.2 Cane River [AU#7-3-(13.7)b]..........................................................................86
7.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................................87
7.4.1 Price Creek (AU# 7-3-21)................................................................................87
7.4.2 Bald Mountain Creek (AU# 7-3-32)................................................................87
7.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-07 .......................................87
7.5.1 Bald Creek (AU#7-3-22).................................................................................88
7.5.2 Straight Pipes...................................................................................................89
7.5.3 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification.................................89
Chapter 8...........................................................................................................................................90
North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications
8.1 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards ......................................90
8.1.1 Statewide Classifications .................................................................................90
8.1.2 Statewide Water Quality Standards .................................................................91
8.2 Reclassification of Surface Waters..............................................................................94
8.2.1 Pending and Recent Reclassifications in the French Broad River Basin.........94
Chapter 9...........................................................................................................................................96
Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality
9.1 General Sources of Pollution.......................................................................................96
9.2 Managing the Impacts of Growth, Development, and Stormwater Runoff.................97
9.2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................97
9.2.2 Effects of Growth and Development in the French Broad River Basin ..........97
9.2.3 The Role of Local Governments......................................................................98
9.2.4 Maintain and Develop Riparian Buffers ........................................................100
9.2.5 Protecting Headwaters...................................................................................100
9.2.6 Reduce Impacts of Future Development........................................................102
Chapter 10.......................................................................................................................................103
Water Quality Stressors
10.1 Stressor Identification................................................................................................103
10.1.1 Introduction and Overview ............................................................................103
10.1.2 Stressor Sources.............................................................................................103
10.2 Habitat Degradation...................................................................................................103
Table of Contents iv
10.2.1 Sedimentation ................................................................................................104
10.2.2 Loss of Riparian Vegetation ..........................................................................107
10.2.3 Loss of Instream Organic Microhabitats........................................................108
10.2.4 Channelization ...............................................................................................108
10.2.5 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation ..................................109
10.3 Fecal Coliform Bacteria.............................................................................................110
Chapter 11.......................................................................................................................................112
Agriculture and Water Quality
11.1 Animal Operations.....................................................................................................112
11.2 Impacted Streams in Agricultural Areas....................................................................113
11.3 Agricultural Best Management Practices Funding Opportunities .............................114
11.3.1 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP).......114
11.3.2 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program .............................................................114
11.3.3 Agricultural Sediment Initiative ....................................................................115
Chapter 12.......................................................................................................................................116
Forestry in the French Broad River Basin
12.1 Forestland Ownership................................................................................................116
12.1.1 Forest Management........................................................................................116
12.1.2 Urban Forestry ...............................................................................................117
12.1.3 Forest Utilization ...........................................................................................117
12.2 State Forests (SFs)/Educational State Forests (ESFs)...............................................117
12.3 Forestry Water Quality Regulations in North Carolina.............................................117
12.3.1 Forest Practices Guidelines for Water Quality (FPGs)..................................117
12.3.2 Other Forestry Related Water Quality Regulations .......................................118
12.3.3 Water Quality Foresters.................................................................................118
12.3.4 Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs)...............................................118
Chapter 13.......................................................................................................................................120
Wastewater and Stormwater Programs
13.1 NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Summary......................................................120
13.2 DWQ Stormwater Programs ......................................................................................121
13.2.1 NPDES Phase I ..............................................................................................121
13.2.2 NPDES Phase II.............................................................................................122
13.2.3 State Stormwater Program .............................................................................122
13.3 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules..............................................................123
13.4 Septic Systems and Straight Piping ...........................................................................125
Chapter 14.......................................................................................................................................127
Water Resources
14.1 River Basin Hydrologic Units....................................................................................127
Table of Contents v
14.2 Minimum Streamflow................................................................................................128
14.3 Interbasin Transfers ...................................................................................................131
14.4 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought ..................................................................131
Chapter 15.......................................................................................................................................133
Natural Resources
15.1 Ecological Significance of the French Broad River Basin ........................................133
15.2 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species...............................................133
15.3 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the French Broad River Basin .......................135
15.4 Significant Aquatic Habitats in French Broad River Basin.......................................136
15.5 Public Conservation Lands ........................................................................................139
Chapter 16.......................................................................................................................................140
Water Quality Initiatives
16.1 The Importance of Local Initiatives...........................................................................140
16.2 Federal Initiatives.......................................................................................................144
16.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program.......................................................144
16.3 State Initiatives...........................................................................................................146
16.3.1 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program........................................146
16.3.2 Clean Water Management Trust Fund...........................................................147
References.......................................................................................................................................155

Table of Contents vi

APPENDICES

I Population and Growth Trends in the French Broad River Basin

II Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the French Broad River Basin

III Land Cover in the French Broad River Basin

IV DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the French Broad River Basin

V Other Water Quality Data in the French Broad River Basin

VI NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits in the French Broad River Basin

VII 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methodology

VIII French Broad River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts

IX French Broad River Basin Workshop Summaries

X Use Support Methodology and Use Support Ratings

XI Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Appendices vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 General Map of the Entire French Broad River Basin.............................................xviii
Figure 2 General Map of the French Broad River Basin in North Carolina ............................xix
Figure 3 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2002 to 2007).............................................................xx
Figure 4 Division of Water Quality Regional Offices ...........................................................xxiv
Figure 5 French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 ........................................................................2
Figure 6 French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-02 ......................................................................12
Figure 7 French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03 ......................................................................39
Figure 8 French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-04 ......................................................................50
Figure 9 French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 ......................................................................60
Figure 10 French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-06 ......................................................................75
Figure 11 French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-07 ......................................................................83
Figure 12 ORWs and HWQs in the French Broad River Basin...................................................92
Figure 13 Water Supply Watersheds in the French Broad River Basin .......................................95
Figure 14 Diagram of Headwater Streams within a Watershed Boundary................................101
Figure 15 Ownership of Forestland in the French Broad River Basin.......................................116
Figure 16 French Broad River Basin Significant Natural Heritage Areas, Significant
Aquatic Habitats and Public Conservation Lands .....................................................137
Figure 17 NCEEP Targeted Watersheds Map of the French Broad River Basin.......................151

List of Figures viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Impaired Waters Monitored in the French Broad River Basin (1997 to 2002).........xiv
Table 2 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007)...........................................................xxi
Table 3 Five-Year Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan .....................xxi
Table 4 DWQ Assessment And Use Support Ratings Summary For Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 04-03-01.....................................................................................................3
Table 5 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-01 .........................6
Table 6 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary of Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 04-03-02 .......................................................................................................13
Table 7 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-02 .......................18
Table 8 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 04-03-03...................................................................................................40
Table 9 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-03 .......................42
Table 10 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 04-03-04...................................................................................................51
Table 11 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-04 .......................54
Table 12 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 04-03-05...................................................................................................61
Table 13 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-05 .......................64
Table 14 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 04-03-06...................................................................................................76
Table 15 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-06 .......................78
Table 16 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 04-03-07...................................................................................................84
Table 17 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Category in Subbasin 04-03-07 ................85
Table 18 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications ..........................................90
Table 19 Registered Animal Operations in the French Broad River Basin (September
2003)..........................................................................................................................113
Table 20 Summary of Agricultural Sediment Initiative Surveys..............................................115
Table 21 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the French Broad
River Basin (September 2003)...................................................................................121
Table 22 Communities in the French Broad River Subject to Stormwater Requirements .......124
Table 23 Results of Recent WaDE Surveys in the French Broad River Basin.........................126
Table 24 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the French Broad River Basin.......................................127
Table 25 Estimated Interbasin Transfers in the French Broad River Basin (1997)..................131
Table 26 List of Rare Animals Associated with Aquatic and Wetland Habitats in the
French Broad River Basin (September 2003)............................................................133
Table 27 Local Water Quality Initiatives..................................................................................141
Table 28 Projects Funded Through Clean Water Act Section 319 ...........................................145
Table 29 NCEEP Targeted Local Watersheds (2004)..............................................................148
Table 30 Projects in the French Broad River Basin Funded by the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund (December 2003)...............................................................152

List of Tables ix

Executive Summary

Basinwide water quality planning is a watershed-based approach to restoring and protecting the
quality of North Carolina’s surface waters. Basinwide water quality plans are prepared by the
NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for each of the 17 major river basins in the state. Each
basinwide plan is revised at five-year intervals. While these plans are prepared by DWQ, their
implementation and the protection of water quality entail the coordinated efforts of many
agencies, local governments and stakeholders throughout the state.

The goals of basinwide planning are to:

ƒ Identify water quality problems and restore full use to Impaired waters.
ƒ Identify and protect high value resource waters.
ƒ Protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic growth.

DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives:

ƒ Collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies.
ƒ Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity.
ƒ Evaluate cumulative effects of pollution.
ƒ Improve public awareness and involvement.
ƒ Regulate point and nonpoint sources of pollution where other approaches are not
successful.

This 2005 document is the third five-year update of the French Broad River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. The first basinwide plan for the French Broad River basin was completed in 1995
and the second in 2000. The format of this plan was revised in response to comments received
during the first and second planning cycles. DWQ replaced much of the general information in
the first two plans with more detailed information specific to the French Broad River basin. For
this plan, a greater emphasis was placed on identifying water quality concerns on the watershed
level in order to facilitate protection and restoration efforts.

DWQ considered comments from four public workshops held in the basin and subsequent
discussions with local resource agency staff and citizens during draft plan development. This
input will help guide continuing water quality management activities throughout the river basin
over the next five years.

French Broad River Basin Overview

The French Broad River basin drains to the Gulf of Mexico via the Ohio, Tennessee and
Mississippi Rivers (Figure 1). The boundaries of the French Broad River basin within North
Carolina contain portions or all of Avery, Buncombe, Haywood, Henderson, Madison, Mitchell,
Transylvania and Yancey counties (Figure 2). DWQ subdivides all river basins into subbasins.
The French Broad River basin contains seven subbasins (Figure 2). Maps of each subbasin are
included in each of the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 through 7).

Executive Summary x

The basin is composed of three major drainage areas. These include the French Broad River
watershed, the Pigeon River watershed and the Nolichucky watershed. All three rivers
individually flow northwest into Tennessee.

There are seven man-made lakes in the basin monitored by DWQ and include: Lake Julian;
Burnett Reservoir; Beetree Reservoir; Lake Kenilworth; Lake Junaluska; Allen Creek Reservoir;
and Waterville (Walters) Lake.

Major tributaries in the basin include: the East, North and West Fork French Broad Rivers; Mills
River; the Mud Creek watershed; Swannanoa River; East and West Fork Pigeon Rivers; and the
North and South Toe Rivers. There are several trout waters, High Quality Waters (HQW), and
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) found throughout the basin.

Information presented in this basinwide water quality plan is based on data collected from
September 1997 to August 2002 and does not include damage and/or impacts from the recent
flood and hurricane events of September 2004. Samples were collected during November and
December 2004 in order to evaluate the impacts from the hurricanes and will be discussed in the
next basinwide cycle.

The varied nature of the topics discussed below demonstrates the wide range of stressors leading
to water quality degradation in the French Broad River basin. Water quality stressors are
identified when impacts have been noted to biological (fish and benthic) communities or water
quality standards have been violated. Water quality decline can often be attributed to a
combination of many stressors that lead to habitat and water quality degradation. In some way,
every person, industry, farm and municipality in the basin impacts water quality. Therefore,
every resident of the basin should play a role in management strategies designed to protect and
restore the streams, lakes and rivers in the basin.

Population Growth and Urbanization
The French Broad River basin encompasses all or portions of eight counties and 24
municipalities. In 2000, the overall population of the basin (based on the percent of the county
land area in the basin) was 393,795, with
approximately 139 persons/square mile. The most
populated areas are located in and around
Asheville, Hendersonville, Waynesville and Black
Mountain.
French Broad River Basin
Statistics

Total Area: 2,830 sq. miles
Freshwater Stream Miles: 3,985.2 mi
Freshwater Lakes Acres: 1,736.6 ac
No. of Counties: 8
No. of Municipalities: 24
No. of Subbasins: 7
Population (1990): 357,932*
Population (2000): 393,795*
Pop. Density (2000): 139*

* Estimated based on % of county land area
that is partially or entirely within the basin,
not the entire county population.

Populations of counties that are wholly or partially
contained within the basin increased by over
70,000 people between 1990 and 2000.
Buncombe, Haywood, Madison and Henderson
counties contain the fastest growing municipalities
in the basin. County populations are expected to
grow by more than 122,000 (25 percent) by 2020
for a total population of almost 575,000 people.

Growing populations are often accompanied by a
loss of natural areas and an increase in imperious
Executive Summary xi

surface. Based on the current land cover information provided by the National Resources
Inventory (USDA-NRCS, June 2001), there was a 38 percent decrease (23,500 acres) in
cultivated cropland in the French Broad River basin from 1982 to 1997. Uncultivated cropland
and pastureland decreased by a total of 33,700 acres (45.5 and 7.7 percent, respectively). Forest
cover also decreased by nearly 60,000 acres (6 percent). Urban and built-up land cover
increased significantly by 90,000 acres (85.2 percent). Much of the land cover change is
accounted for in the Upper French Broad River hydrologic unit, which includes rapidly growing
areas in Buncombe and Henderson counties. Population growth trends and the accompanying
impacts to water quality are discussed in Chapters 9 and 10.

Impacts from Stormwater Runoff
Stormwater runoff is a primary carrier of nonpoint source pollution (NPS) in both urbanized and
rural areas. The impact of stormwater runoff is particularly severe in developing areas where
recently graded areas are highly susceptible to erosion, and urbanized areas where stormwater
runoff is rapidly channeled through curb and gutter systems into nearby streams.

There are several different stormwater programs administered by DWQ. One or more of these
programs affect several communities in the French Broad River basin. The goal of DWQ
stormwater discharge permitting regulations and programs is to prevent pollution from entering
the waters of the state via stormwater runoff. Those programs try to accomplish this goal by
controlling the source(s) of pollution. These programs include the NPDES Phase II designations,
HQW/ORW stormwater requirements and the Water Supply Watershed Program. Local
governments that are or may be affected by these programs are presented in Chapter 13.

Local Involvement
Local organizations and agencies are able to combine professional expertise and local knowledge
not present at the state and federal level. This allows groups to holistically understand the
challenges and opportunities of local water quality concerns. Involving a wide array of people in
water quality projects also brings together a range of knowledge and interests and encourages
others to become involved and invested in these projects. Working in cooperation across
jurisdictional boundaries and agency lines opens the door to additional funding opportunities and
eases the difficulty of generating matching or leveraged funds. This could potentially allow local
entities to do more work and be involved in more activities because funding sources are
diversified. The most important aspect of these local endeavors is that the more localized the
project, the better the chances for success.

The collaboration of local efforts is key to water quality improvements, and DWQ applauds the
foresight and proactive response by locally based organizations and agencies to potential water
quality problems. There are many excellent examples of local agencies and groups using these
cooperative strategies throughout the state. Several local watershed projects are highlighted
throughout the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1-7). Chapter 16 also examines the local and federal
initiatives underway in the French Broad River basin.

Surface Water Classifications and Use Support Assessments

Use support assessments based on surface water classifications form the foundation of this
basinwide plan. Surface waters are classified according to their best-intended use. Determining
Executive Summary xii

how well a waterbody supports its uses (use support rating) is an important method of
interpreting water quality data and assessing water quality.

Use support methodology has changed significantly since the 2000 revision of the French Broad
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. In the previous plan, surface waters were rated fully
supporting (FS), partially supporting (PS), not supporting (NS) and not rated (NR). FS was used
to identify waters that were meeting their designated uses. Impaired waters were rated PS and
NS, depending on the degree of degradation. NR was used to identify waters with no data or
having inconclusive data. The 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
Report Guidance issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested that
states no longer subdivide the Impaired category. In agreement with this guidance, North
Carolina no longer subdivides the Impaired category and rates waters as Supporting, Impaired,
Not Rated or No Data. These ratings refer to whether the classified uses of the water (such as
water supply, aquatic life and primary/ secondary recreation) are being met.

Use support methods have been developed to assess ecosystem health and human health risk
through the development of use support ratings for five categories: aquatic life, fish
consumption, recreation, shellfish harvesting and water supply. These categories are tied to the
uses associated with the primary classifications applied to NC rivers, streams and lakes. A full
description of the classifications is available in the DWQ document titled: Classifications and
Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina. This document is
available on-line at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/.

Biological, chemical and physical monitoring data collected between September 1997 and
August 2002 were used to assign use support ratings in this basin. The list of Impaired waters is
presented in Table 1 and total monitored miles and acreage are presented below. Detailed
information related to use support methodology is provided in Appendix X.

Aquatic Life
The aquatic life use support category is applied to all waters in North Carolina. Therefore, this
category is applied to all 3,985.9 freshwater miles and 1,736.6 freshwater acres in the French
Broad River basin. Approximately 24.4 percent of the stream miles (973.2 miles) and 56.7
percent of the freshwater acres (985.1 acres) were monitored. There were 129.2 (13.2%)
Impaired stream miles and 200.0 (20.3%) Impaired freshwater acres.

Fish Consumption
Like the aquatic life use support category, the fish consumption category is also applied to all
waters in the state. Fish consumption use support ratings are based on fish consumption advice
or specific advisories issued by the NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS).
If a limited fish consumption advice, advisory or a no consumption advisory is posted at the time
of use support assessment, the water is rated Impaired.

Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. (BRPP) and Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) are
required to annually monitor dioxin levels in fish tissue in the Pigeon River. This monitoring is
required as part of the BRPP discharge permit issued by DWQ and as a condition of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for CP&L. In the past, there has been a limited-
consumption advisory for common carp in effect for the Pigeon River from the Town of Canton
to the North Carolina-Tennessee state line (approximately 26 miles, including Waterville Lake).
Executive Summary xiii

In 2001, however, the fish consumption advisory was revised by the NCDHHS due to declining
dioxin concentrations in fish. The advisory was removed from common carp caught in the river.
The limited-consumption advisory remains in effect, however, for Waterville (Walters) Lake.
NCDHHS suggests that women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15 avoid
eating carp caught from the lake. For all others, consumption of carp should be limited to no
more than one meal per month. Swimming, boating and other recreational activities are not
affected by this advisory. Visit the NCDHHS website for more information at
www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish.

Recreation
The recreation category is also applied to all waters in the state. Approximately 8.4 percent of
the freshwater stream miles (333.4 miles) were monitored for recreation; however, no freshwater
acres were sampled during the assessment period. There were 22.0 stream miles (6.6 percent)
Impaired in the recreation use support category.

Water Supply
Based on reports from the NC Department of Environmental Health (DEH) regional water
treatment consultants, all water supply waters in the French Broad River basin are Supporting on
an evaluated basis.

Impaired Waters
Impaired waters found in the French Broad River basin identified by DWQ within the last five
years are presented in Table 1. The use support category for which a waterbody is Impaired is
indicated in the table. Descriptions of Impaired segments, as well as problem parameters, are
outlined in Appendix X. Management strategies for each waterbody are discussed in detail in the
appropriate subbasin chapter. Maps showing current use support ratings for waters in the French
Broad River basin are also presented in each subbasin chapter (Chapters 1 through 7).

Table 1 Impaired Waters Monitored in the French Broad River Basin (1997 to 2002)

Stream/
River Name*
Assessment Unit
Number (AU#) Subbasin Class Miles Acres Category
West Fork French Broad River 6-2-(0.5)b 04-03-01 B Tr 0.6 0.0 Aquatic Life
Peter Weaver Creek 6-10b 04-03-01 C Tr 0.8 0.0 Aquatic Life
Morgan Mill Creek 6-10-1b 04-03-01 B Tr 0.1 0.0 Aquatic Life
Mud Creek 6-55b 04-03-02 C 1.9 0.0 Aquatic Life
Mud Creek 6-55c 04-03-02 C 11.0 0.0 Aquatic Life
Mud Creek 6-55d 04-03-02 C 2.2 0.0 Aquatic Life
Bat Fork 6-55-8-1a 04-03-02 C 4.8 0.0 Aquatic Life
Bat Fork 6-55-8-1b 04-03-02 C 1.5 0.0 Aquatic Life
Devils Fork 6-55-8-2b 04-03-02 C 2.7 0.0 Aquatic Life
Clear Creek 6-55-11-(1)a 04-03-02 B Tr 2.7 0.0 Aquatic Life
Clear Creek 6-55-11-(1)c 04-03-02 B Tr 2.1 0.0 Aquatic Life
Clear Creek 6-55-11-(5) 04-03-02 C 6.5 0.0 Aquatic Life
Executive Summary xiv

Hominy Creek 6-76d 04-03-02 C 7.8 0.0 Aquatic Life
French Broad River 6-(54.5)b 04-03-02 B 8.2 0.0 Recreation
French Broad River 6-(54.5)d 04-03-02 B 6.4 0.0 Aquatic Life
French Broad River 6-(54.5)e 04-03-02 B 3.9 0.0 Aquatic Life
Swannanoa River 6-78a 04-03-02 C 7.0 0.0 Aquatic Life
Swannanoa River 6-78c 04-03-02 C 2.6 0.0 Aquatic Life
Newfound Creek 6-84a 04-03-02 C 3.9 0.0 Aquatic Life
Newfound Creek 6-84b 04-03-02 C 1.3 0.0 Aquatic Life
Newfound Creek 6-84c 04-03-02 C 2.3 0.0 Aquatic Life
Newfound Creek 6-84d 04-03-02 C 4.4 0.0 Aquatic Life
Ross Creek 6-78-23b 04-03-02 B 1.1 0.0 Aquatic Life
Cane Creek 6-57-(9)a 04-03-02 C 9.6 0.0 Aquatic Life
Gash Creek 6-47 04-03-02 C 3.7 0.0 Aquatic Life
Mill Pond Creek 6-51 04-03-02 WS-IV 3.1 0.0 Aquatic Life
Brandy Branch 6-54-6 04-03-03 WS-III 2.1 0.0 Aquatic Life
Little Ivy Creek (River) 6-96-10a 04-03-04 WS-II HQW 2.6 0.0 Aquatic Life
Pigeon River 5-(7)b 04-03-05 C 6.4 0.0 Aquatic Life
Waterville (Walters) Lake 5-(7)e 04-03-05 C 0.0 773.1 Fish Consumption
Richland Creek 5-16-(1)a 04-03-05 B 8.0 0.0 Recreation
Richland Creek 5-16-(1)b 04-03-05 B 2.3 0.0 Aquatic Life,
Recreation
Richland Creek 5-16-(1)c 04-03-05 B 0.7 0.0 Aquatic Life,
Recreation
Richland Creek 5-16-(1)d 04-03-05 B 0.9 0.0 Recreation
Richland Creek 5-16-(1)e 04-03-05 B 2.0 0.0 Aquatic Life,
Recreation
Lake Junaluska
(Richland Creek) 5-16-(1)f 04-03-05 B 0.0 200.0 Aquatic Life
Richland Creek 5-16-(16)a 04-03-05 B 1.6 0.0 Aquatic Life
Fines Creek 5-32 04-03-05 C 9.7 0.0 Aquatic Life
Raccoon Creek 5-16-14 04-03-05 B 4.7 0.0 Aquatic Life
Hyatt Creek 5-16-6a 04-03-05 C 0.9 0.0 Aquatic Life
Hyatt Creek 5-16-6b 04-03-05 C 2.6 0.0 Aquatic Life
Jacks Creek 7-2-63 04-03-06 C 8.5 0.0 Aquatic Life
North Toe River 7-2-(27.7)b 04-03-06 C Tr 11.3 0.0 Aquatic Life
Cane River 7-3-(13.7)b 04-03-07 C Tr 3.5 0.0 Aquatic Life

Executive Summary xv

Use Support
Category Units Total Impaired
Length/Area
Percent of
All Waters
Aquatic Life Freshwater miles 129.2 mi 13.2
Fish Consumption Freshwater acres 773.1 ac 20.3
Recreation Freshwater miles 22.0 mi 6.6
* Refer to individual subbasin chapters for a description of the Impaired segments.

Recommended Management Strategies for Restoring Impaired Waters

The Impaired stream segments within the French Broad River basin are impacted by a
combination several stressors, most of which are associated with nonpoint source pollution.
Within this basinwide plan, DWQ presents management strategies and recommendations for
those waters considered to be Impaired or that exhibit some notable water quality problems.
Major water quality problems in the basin include habitat degradation and fecal coliform bacteria
contamination (affecting primary recreation). Habitat degradation (including sedimentation,
streambed scour and streambank erosion) is primarily attributed to nonpoint source pollution.
Sources of nonpoint source pollution include runoff from construction sites, agricultural lands,
urban areas and hydromodification.

The task of quantifying nonpoint sources of pollution and developing management strategies for
these Impaired waters is very resource intensive. This task is overwhelming, given the current
limited resources of DWQ, other agencies (e.g., Division of Land Resources, Division of Soil
and Water Conservation, NC Cooperative Extension Service, etc.) and local governments. DWQ
will collaborate with other agencies and watershed groups that deal with nonpoint source
pollution issues to develop management strategies for the Impaired and notable waters within the
French Broad River basin.

Impaired Waters on the State’s 303(d) List

For the next several years, addressing water quality impairment in waters that are on the state’s
303(d) list will be a DWQ priority. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states
to develop a list of waters not meeting water quality standards or which have Impaired uses. The
waters in the French Broad River basin that are on this list are discussed in the individual
subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 through 7). States are also required to develop Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs) or management strategies for 303(d) listed waters to address impairment.
EPA issued guidance in August 1997 that called for states to develop schedules for developing
TMDLs for all waters on the 303(d) list within 8-13 years. Information regarding 303(d) listing
and reporting methodology can be found in Appendix VII.

Challenges Related to Achieving Water Quality Improvements

To achieve the goal of restoring Impaired waters throughout the basin, DWQ will need to work
more closely with other state agencies and stakeholders to identify and control pollutants. The
costs of restoration will be high, but several programs exist to provide funding for restoration
efforts. These programs include the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), the NC
Executive Summary xvi

Agriculture Cost Share Program (NCACSP), the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP),
and the Section 319 of the EPA.

Balancing economic growth and water quality protection will be a tremendous challenge. Point
source impacts on surface waters can be measured and addressed through the basinwide planning
process. Nonpoint sources of pollution can be identified through the basinwide plan, but actions
to address these impacts must be taken at the local level. Such actions should include:
development and enforcement of local erosion control ordinances; requirement of stormwater
best management practices (BMPs) for existing and new development; development and
enforcement of buffer ordinances; and land use planning that assesses impacts on natural
resources. This basinwide plan presents many water quality initiatives and accomplishments that
are underway within the basin. These actions provide a foundation on which future initiatives
can be built.

Executive Summary xvii

Introduction

What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?

Basinwide water quality planning is a watershed-based approach to restoring and protecting the
quality of North Carolina's surface waters. Basinwide water quality plans are prepared by the
NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for each of the 17 major river basins in the state (Figure 3
and Table 2). Preparation of a basinwide water quality plan is a five-year process, which is
broken down into three phases (Table 3). While these plans are prepared by DWQ, their
implementation and the protection of water quality entail the coordinated efforts of many
agencies, local governments and stakeholder groups across the state. The first cycle of plans was
completed in 1998, but each plan is updated at five-year intervals.
Figure 3 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2002 to 2007)

Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning

The goals of basinwide planning are to:
ƒ Identify water quality problems and restore full use to Impaired waters.
ƒ Identify and protect high value resource waters.
ƒ Protect unimpaired waters yet allow for reasonable economic growth.

DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives:
ƒ Collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies.
ƒ Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity.
ƒ Evaluate cumulative effects of pollution.
ƒ Improve public awareness and involvement.
ƒ Regulate point and nonpoint sources of pollution where other approaches are not successful.

Introduction xx

Table 2 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007)

Basin DWQ Biological
Data Collection
Draft for Public
Review
Plan Receives
EMC Approval
Begin NPDES
Permit Issuance
Chowan Summer 2000 5/2002 7/2002 11/2002
Pasquotank Summer 2000 5/2002 7/2002 12/2002
Neuse Summer 2000 5/2002 7/2002 1/2003
Broad Summer 2000 11/2002 2/2003 7/2003
Yadkin-Pee Dee Summer 2001 1/2003 3/2003 9/2003
Lumber Summer 2001 9/2003 12/2003 7/2004
Tar-Pamlico Summer 2002 12/2003 3/2004 9/2004
Catawba Summer 2002 7/2004 9/2004 12/2004
French Broad Summer 2002 2/2005 4/2005 9/2005
New Summer 2003 8/2005 10/2005 3/2006
Cape Fear Summer 2003 4/2005 8/2005 4/2006
Roanoke Summer 2004 4/2006 8/2006 1/2007
White Oak Summer 2004 9/2006 12/2006 6/2007
Savannah Summer 2004 11/2006 2/2007 8/2007
Watauga Summer 2004 12/2006 3/2007 9/2007
Hiwassee Summer 2004 11/2006 2/2007 8/2007
Little Tennessee Summer 2004 1/2007 4/2007 10/2007
Note: A basinwide plan was completed for all 17 basins during the first cycle (1993 to 1998). This schedule
represents the second and third cycle for each.

Table 3 Five-Year Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan

Years 1 through 2

Water Quality Data Collection and
Identification of Goals and Issues
• Identify sampling needs
• Conduct biological monitoring activities
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
• Coordinate with local stakeholders and other agencies to continue to
implement goals within current basinwide plan
Years 2 through 3

Data Analysis and Collect
Information from State and Local
Agencies
• Gather and analyze data from sampling activities
• Develop use support ratings
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
• Work with state and local agencies to establish goals and objectives
• Identify and prioritize issues for the next basin cycle
• Develop preliminary pollution control strategies
• Coordinate with local stakeholders and other agencies
Years 3 through 5

Preparation of the Draft
Basinwide Plan, Public Review,
Approval of Plan,
Issue NPDES Permits
and
Begin Implementation of Plan
• Develop draft basinwide plan based on water quality data, use support
ratings, and recommended pollution control strategies
• Circulate draft basinwide plan for review and present draft plan at
public review
• Revise plan after public review period
• Submit plan to Environmental Management Commission for approval
• Issue NPDES permits
• Coordinate with other agencies and local interest groups to prioritize
implementation actions
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities

Introduction xxi

Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning

Basinwide planning and management benefits water quality by:

ƒ Focusing resources on one river basin at a time.
ƒ Using sound ecological planning and fostering comprehensive NPDES permitting by
working on a watershed scale.
ƒ Ensuring better consistency and equitability by clearly defining the program's long-
term goals and approaches regarding permits and water quality improvement
strategies.
ƒ Fostering public participation to increase involvement and awareness about water
quality.
ƒ Integrating and coordinating programs and agencies to improve implementation of
point and nonpoint source pollution reduction strategies.

Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations

For more information on the above documents, DWQ activities or contacts, visit
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/ or call [phone] and ask for the basin planner responsible
for your basin of interest. Feel free to contact the appropriate Regional Office for additional
information (Figure 4). For general questions about the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, contact the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748.

How You Can Get Involved

To assure that basinwide plans are accurately written and effectively implemented, it is important
for citizens and local stakeholders to participate in all phases of the planning process. You may
contact the basinwide planner responsible for your basin anytime during the plan’s development.
Upon request, the basin planner can also present water quality information and basin concerns to
local stakeholder groups.

To make the plan more inclusive, DWQ is coordinating with the local Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCD), council of governments, NC Cooperative Extension Service, the
county Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and stakeholder groups to develop
language and identify water quality concerns throughout the basin. Citizens can be involved
during this phase of the plan by contacting the local soil and water conservation district or
cooperative extension service.

During the public comment period, the draft plan is available online and by request for a period
of at least 30 days. DWQ welcomes written comments and questions during this phase of the
planning process and will incorporate comments when appropriate.

Some Other Reference Materials

There are several reference documents and websites that provide additional information about
basinwide planning and the basin’s water quality:

Introduction xxii

ƒ A Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Management in North Carolina (August 2000). This
document includes general information about water quality issues and programs to address
these issues. It is intended to be an informational document on water quality. Visit the
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/ to download the document.
ƒ French Broad River Basinwide Assessment Report (June 2003). This technical report
presents physical, chemical and biological data collected in the French Broad River basin.
The report is prepared by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Environmental Sciences
Branch and is available on-line at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/.
ƒ French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (May 1995) and the
French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (May 2000). These first basinwide
plans for the French Broad River basin present historic water quality data, information and
recommended management strategies for the first two five-year basin planning cycles.
ƒ North Carolina's Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management: Program
Description. (Creager, C.S. and J.P. Baker, 1991). NCDENR DWQ, Raleigh, NC.

How to Read the Basinwide Plan

Chapters 1 - 7: Subbasin and Watershed Information

• Summarizes information and data by subbasin, including:
• Recommendations from the previous basin plan.
• Achievements, current priority issues and concerns.
• Impaired waters and waters with notable impacts.
• Goals and recommendations for the next five years by subbasin.

Chapter 8 - 16

• Presents information on various topics of interest for the protection and
restoration of water quality in the basin, including:
• Stream classifications, population and land cover changes.
• Stressors to water quality.
• Agricultural, forestry and permitting activities in the basin.
• Water and natural resources.
• Water quality initiatives.

Appendices
• Population and land use changes over time, local governments in the basin.
• Describes water quality data collected by DWQ, use support methodology and
303(d) listing methodology.
• Lists NPDES dischargers and individual stormwater permits.
• Provides workshop summaries, points of contact, and a glossary of terms and
acronyms.

Introduction xxiii

Chapter 1
French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01
Including the: West Fork, North Fork and Middle Forks of the French Broad River, Little River,
French Broad River, Peter Weaver and Morgan Mill Creeks

1.1 Subbasin Overview

Originating in Transylvania County, the headwaters of the
French Broad and Little Rivers are in this subbasin. The
headwater tributaries are generally high gradient streams
capable of supporting viable trout populations. Most of
this subbasin is forested, and half of the land area is
permanently protected as part of the Pisgah National
Forest. By the year 2020, population within Henderson
and Transylvania counties is expected to increase by 28.7
and 14.7 percent, respectively. Of particular concern is
residential and urban development occurring in the
surrounding areas of Brevard and Rosman. Since 1990,
Brevard alone has experienced a 26.0 percent increase in
population. Consequently, streams in these areas may be
negatively impacted by sediment and streambank erosion
commonly associated with development activities.

There are 15 individual NPDES wastewater discharge
permits in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of
32.98 MGD. The largest are RFS Ecusta, Inc. (27.5
MGD), City of Brevard WWTP (2.5 MGD), and AGFA
Corporation (2.4 MGD). Refer to Appendix VI for more
information on NPDES permit holders. Issues related to
compliance with NPDES permit conditions are discussed
below in Section 1.3 for Impaired waters and in Section
1.4 for other waters. Information regarding population growth and trends can be found in
Appendix I. There are no registered animal operations in this subbasin.

Subbasin 04-03-01 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 215 mi2
Land area: 214 mi2
Water area: 1 mi2

Population
2000 Est. Pop.: 22,079 people
Pop. Density: 89 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 89%
Water: <1%
Urban: 2%
Cultivated Crop: 3%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 6%

Counties
Henderson and Transylvania

Municipalities
Brevard and Rosman

A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 5. Table 4 contains a summary of assessment units and lengths, streams
monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results, along with use support ratings for waters
in this subbasin. Refer to Appendix X for a complete listing of monitored waters and more
information about use support ratings.

There were 24 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and four fish community samples
(Figure 5 and Table 4) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from
three ambient monitoring stations. Refer to the 2003 French Broad River Basinwide Assessment
Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Appendix IV for more information on
monitoring.

Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 1
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040301Table 4
Length/Area
A-1 nce19.7 B-1SSFRENCH BROAD RIVER6-(1)2002Miles E
A-3 nce8.8 S SFRENCH BROAD RIVER6-(27)c Miles
1.7 SB-7SNDMorgan Mill Creek (Kaiser Lake)6-10-1a 2000Miles NI
0.2 SB-8SNDMorgan Mill Creek (Kaiser Lake)6-10-1b 2000Miles NI
0.1 SB-6NR NDMorgan Mill Creek (Kaiser Lake)6-10-1c 2001Miles NR
2.3 SB-14SNDPeter Weaver Creek6-10a 2000Miles NI
2.3 SB-10SNDPeter Weaver Creek 2001Miles NI
2.3 SB-15SNDPeter Weaver Creek 2001Miles NI
0.8 SB-11NR NDPeter Weaver Creek6-10b 2001Miles NR
4.1 SB-2SNDCherryfield Creek6-11 2001Miles NI
2.6 SB-5SNDMason Creek6-11-3 2001Miles NI
1.4 SB-17SNDWest Fork French Broad River6-2-(0.5)a 2001Miles NI
0.6 SB-13INDWest Fork French Broad River6-2-(0.5)b 2001Miles F
5.0 SB-16SNDWest Fork French Broad River6-2-(0.5)c 2001Miles G
SF-14.8 B-2SNDWest Fork French Broad River6-2-(7.5)2002 1997Miles E NR
2.8 SB-1SNDCarson Creek6-20b 2002Miles E
1.2 SB-4SNDFlat Creek6-2-10 2002Miles E
1.5 SB-18NR NDWoodruff Branch6-2-12 1998Miles NR
10.1 B-3SNDNorth Fork French Broad River6-3-(6.5)2002Miles E
10.1 SB-9SNDNorth Fork French Broad River 2002Miles G
A-2 nce14.8 B-5SSLittle River (Cascade Lake)6-38-(1)2002Miles G
F-14.9 B-6SNDLittle River6-38-(20)2002 2002Miles GF GF
F-25.4 SB-12SNDCrab Creek6-38-23 2000 2002Miles NI G
F-25.4 SB-19SNDCrab Creek 2000 2002Miles G G
4.1 B-4SNDMiddle Fork French Broad River6-5 2002Miles E
Monday, July 25, 2005 040301
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040301Table 4
Length/Area
Assessment Unit # - Portion of DWQ Classified Index where monitoring is applied to assign a use support rating.
Use Categories:Monitoring data type: Use Support Ratings 2004:
AL - Aquatic Life F - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent S - Supporting nce - no criteria
REC - Recreation B - Benthic Community Survey G - Good I - Impaired ce - criteria exce
SF - Special Fish Community Study GF - Good-Fair NR - Not Rated
SB - Special Benthic Community Study F - Fair ND - No Data
A - Ambient Monitoring Site P - Poor
NI - Not Impaired

Ambient DataBioclassifcations:
Monday, July 25, 2005 040301

Waters in the following sections are identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). This
number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database, 303(d)
Impaired waters list, and the various tables in this basin plan. The assessment unit number is a
subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the
end of the AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter
indicates that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.

Use support ratings for all waters in subbasin 04-03-01 are summarized in Section 1.2.
Recommendations, current status and future recommendations for previously or newly Impaired
waters are discussed in Section 1.3. Waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Section 1.4. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Section 1.5.
Refer to Appendix X for a complete list of monitored waters and for more information about use
support ratings.

1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 04-03-01 in the aquatic life, recreation,
fish consumption and water supply categories. There are no fish consumption advisories in this
subbasin; therefore, all waters are No Data in the fish consumption category. In the water supply
category, all waters are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional
water treatment plant consultants.

There were 96.8 stream miles (23.1 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category. Approximately 0.6 stream miles (<1 percent) are Impaired. Refer to Table
5 for a summary of use support ratings for waters in subbasin 04-03-01.

1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2000) or are
newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either
remain on the state’s 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2006 303(d) list.
The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Appendix VII.

1.3.1 West Fork French Broad River [AU# 6-2-(0.5)b]

2000 Recommendations
The 1995 basinwide plan identified 0.5 miles of the West Fork French Broad River below the
Whitewater Trout Farm as partially supporting. The plan recommended that a special study of
trout farms be conducted to determine if current permit conditions are adequate to protect water
quality. This site was not sampled during the 2000 basin cycle and remains on the 303(d) list of
Impaired waters.

Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 5

Table 5 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-01

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 93.8 mi 0.0 43.2 mi 0.0
Impaired 0.6 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 2.4 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 96.8 mi
0.0 ac 0.0 43.2 mi
0.0 ac 0.0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 192.3 mi
82.7 ac 0.0 0.0 29.6 mi
97.6 ac
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 4.1 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
No Data 125.4 mi
97.6 ac
418.6 mi
180.3 ac
375.4 mi
180.3 ac 0.0
Total 321.8 mi
180.3 ac
418.6 mi
180.3 ac
375.3 mi
180.3 ac
29.6 mi
97.6 ac
Totals
All Waters* 418.6 mi
180.3 ac
418.6 mi
180.3 ac
418.6 mi
180.3 ac
29.6 mi
97.6 ac
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.

Current Status
A 0.6-mile segment is currently Impaired due to a Fair bioclassification at site SB-13. In 2001,
DWQ conducted a special study in the headwaters of the West Fork French Broad River. From
this study, DWQ was able to determine that area trout farms are still having an impact on water
quality despite the improvements in operations to reduce nutrient inputs by altering trout feed
and capturing more solids. In addition to trout farm discharges, other factors including poor
riparian habitats and livestock access to tributaries are also affecting water quality. The West
Fork French Broad River has clear indicators of water quality problems, specifically nutrient
enrichment evidenced by algae growth and an atypical fish community (NCDENR-DWQ,
November 2003).

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to work with Whitewater Trout Farm (also known as KB Farms) to reduce
impacts to water quality through the NPDES general permit. It is recommended that local
agencies work with landowners to install best management practices (BMPs) to improve the
riparian zone and limit livestock access to streams.

Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 6

1.3.2 Peter Weaver Creek [AU# 6-10a and b]

2000 Recommendations
Peter Weaver Creek, from Morgan Mill Creek to the French Broad River, was partially
supporting for its use and was placed on the 303(d) list. More comprehensive benthic
macroinvertebrate surveys were needed for DWQ to determine the extent of water quality
problems and if the impacts were from a trout farm located on Morgan Mill Creek or other
nonpoint sources. DWQ proposed to implement a water quality monitoring program in the
watershed to identify which pollutants were causing the problems. Depending on the results of
the intensive sampling, existing individual NPDES permit holders may be required to conduct
upstream/downstream monitoring, and general NPDES permit holders may be required to obtain
individual NPDES permits.

Current Status
Peter Weaver Creek, from source to Morgan Mill Creek (2.3 miles), is currently Supporting due
to Not Impaired bioclassifications at sites SB-10, SB-14 and SB-15. Based on sampling criteria,
the lower segment of the creek, from Morgan Mill Creek to the French Broad River (0.8 miles),
is Not Rated at site SB-11. Observations made at the time of sampling, however, indicate that
the biological community has degraded and may be responding to habitat and water quality
problems associated with trout farm discharges and nonpoint runoff from residential areas,
including a recreational vehicle park. Drought conditions may also be impacting this sampling
site.

Samples at sites SB-10, SB-11, SB-14 and SB-15 were collected as part of a Watershed
Assessment and Restoration Program (WARP) study on Peter Weaver and Morgan Mill (see
Section 1.3.3) Creeks (NCDENR-DWQ, June 2002). This intensive survey collected the
following data: benthic macroinvertebrate; stream habitat assessment; morphology and riparian
zone condition; stream chemistry; and characterization of watershed land use conditions and
pollution sources. The study determined that impacts in Peter Weaver Creek are due to: organic
loading from a trout farm located on Morgan Mill Creek; prevention of downstream movement
of aquatic invertebrates at the water intake dam of the trout farm; and habitat degradation
manifested by sedimentation and substrate instability.

2005 Recommendations and Water Quality Initiatives
As part of the WARP study on Peter Weaver and Morgan Mill Creeks, management strategies
were developed to restore the Impaired waters. The following are recommendations to improve
water quality in both creeks:

ƒ Local agencies should work with landowners to install BMPs focusing on livestock
operations and exclusion.
ƒ Stream restoration and streambank stabilization practices should be implemented with
priority given to Peter Weaver and Morgan Mill Creeks.
ƒ Sediment and erosion control practices should be improved. The NC Division of
Land Resources (DLR) or Transylvania County should develop guidelines that better
protect waters from the impacts of home and road development on steep slopes.
Improved mechanisms for addressing the impacts of disturbances of less than one
acre should also be developed. Staffing levels must be sufficient to support effective
enforcement. Eroding bare areas along road banks and at home sites should be
Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 7

stabilized with vegetation or regraded to an appropriate slope so that vegetation can
be established.
ƒ DWQ should continue monitoring to identify sources of high metal concentrations in
area tributaries. Once identified, these sources should be eliminated, if possible.
ƒ Transylvania County or the NC Division of Environmental Health (DEH) should
survey residences for straight pipes and work with owners to eliminate them.
ƒ A watershed education program should be developed and implemented with the goal
of targeting homeowners in order to reduce current stream damage and prevent future
degradation.

In addition to the above, DWQ in coordination with the NC Cooperative Extension Service
(NCCES) has reexamined the waste management plan of the Morgan Mill Trout Farm. DWQ
and NCCES made the following recommendations: reconstruct the intake structure; change the
sediment flushing schedule and structure; modify the settling ponds; switch from an automatic
feeding system to a manual feeding schedule with high yield food; and consider decreasing the
size of the operation. DWQ and NCCES will continue to monitor the trout farm and assist in
implementing the recommendations listed above.

1.3.3 Morgan Mill Creek [AU# 6-10-1a, b and c]

2000 Recommendations
Morgan Mill Creek, from the trout farm (US 64) to Peter Weaver Creek, was partially supporting
for its use and was placed on the 303(d) list. Refer to Section 1.3.2 above for more information
regarding Morgan Mill Creek.

Current Status
Morgan Mill Creek, from source to river mile 1.92, is currently Supporting due to Not Impaired
bioclassifications at sites SB-7 and SB-8. Based on current sampling criteria, the lower segment
of the creek, from river mile 1.92 to Peter Weaver Creek (0.1 mile), is currently Not Rated at site
SB-6. Observations made at the time of sampling indicate that the biological community in this
lower segment of Morgan Mill Creek has degraded in response to habitat and water quality
problems. Drought conditions may also be impacting this sampling site.

The June 2002 WARP study for Peter Weaver Creek (see Section 1.3.2) also pertains to Morgan
Mill Creek. Like Peter Weaver Creek, organic loading from Morgan Mill Trout Farm,
prevention of downstream movement of aquatic invertebrates at the water intake dam, and
habitat degradation, including sedimentation and substrate instability, are the limiting factors for
the biological community.

2005 Recommendations and Water Quality Initiatives
DWQ will continue to monitor the water quality in Morgan Mill Creek. It is recommended that
local agencies work with landowners to install the appropriat BMPs to improve the riparian zone
and limit livestock access to streams. Since much of the stream is channelized with unstable
streambanks, stream restoration activities are also desirable. For additional recommendations
and management strategies, refer to Peter Weaver Creek (Section 1.3.2).

Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 8

1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts

The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality
problems and concerns were documented for these waters during this assessment. Attention and
resources should be focused on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate
water quality improvements. DWQ will notify local agencies of these water quality concerns
and work with them to conduct further assessments and to locate sources of water quality
protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality issues and voluntary actions
are useful tools to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. Nonpoint
source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VIII.

1.4.1 Little River [AU# 6-38-(20)]

2000 Recommendations
Little River, from Cascade Lake Dam to the French Broad River (4.8 miles), was monitored by
DWQ for benthic macroinvertebrates. Samples showed impacts to the aquatic habitats and water
quality, both of which are likely associated with agricultural activities. BMPs are encouraged to
reduce potential nonpoint pollution impacts.

Current Status
Little River, from Cascade Lake Dam to the French Broad River (4.9 miles), is currently
Supporting due to Good-Fair bioclassifications at sites B-6 and F-1. This site consistently
receives a Good-Fair, but usually has the fewest numbers of fish collected during sampling. The
substrate of the stream has become more embedded since this site was last monitored in 1997,
making sediment a concern for this stream. This watershed could also be impacted by
agricultural activities that accelerate erosion and instream habitat degradation. Agricultural
BMPs are encouraged to reduce future impacts.

Cascade Lake hydroelectric dam is located approximately 4 miles upstream of the sampling sites.
In July 2002, the owner, Cascade Power Company, surrendered the license to operate the facility
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The facility will no longer generate
electricity, and the project will operate as a "run-of-river" with all flow going into the old bypass
section. For more information, see Section 14.2.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Little River. DWQ will also work with local agencies to identify
sediment sources and assist agency personnel to locate monies for water quality protection
funding. It is recommended that local agencies work to install BMPs and implement a sediment
and erosion control program. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has identified
Little River as an area that supports listed and otherwise rare and sensitive aquatic species. Care
should be taken to protect these species and their aquatic habitats.

Water Quality Initiatives
Since 1998, over $516,000 worth of BMPs have been installed throughout Transylvania County
using money from the NC Agriculture Cost Share Program (NCACSP), the NRCS
Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP), the Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF), and Section 319. Using funds from CWMTF, the Transylvania County Soil and
Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 9

Water Conservation District (SWCD) completed a watershed assessment for the Little River
watershed. The project inventoried 4.9 miles of the Little River and determined and prioritized
stream restoration and BMP opportunities. Streambank stabilization and livestock exclusion
projects are currently in progress.

In addition to the efforts underway by Transylvania County SWCD, the Henderson County
SWCD has installed 16,166 feet of fence, 13 watering tanks and 2 stream crossings along
tributaries of the Little River. NCACSP provided funding in the amount of $40,903 for these
projects.

Because of the potential water quality problems noted in Little River, it has been identified by
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) as one of 28 local watersheds in the basin with
the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will
be given higher priority than nontargeted watersheds for implementation of NCEEP restoration
projects.

1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-01

This section identifies those surface waters given an Excellent bioclassification, and therefore,
may be eligible for reclassification to a High Quality Water (HQW) or an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW). It should be noted that these are streams that were sampled by DWQ during this
basinwide cycle. There may be other tributaries eligible for reclassification in addition to the
ones listed below. For more information regarding water quality standards and classifications,
refer to Chapter 8.

1.5.1 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification

French Broad River [AU# 6-(1)]
The French Broad River, from source to Nicholson Creek (19.7 miles), is Supporting due to an
Excellent bioclassification at site B-1. The current DWQ classification is B Tr.

Carson Creek (AU# 6-20b)
Carson Creek, from Carson Creek dam to the French Broad River (2.8 miles), is Supporting due
to an Excellent bioclassification at site SB-1. The current DWQ classification is B Tr.

Flat Creek (AU# 6-2-10)
Flat Creek, from source to the West Fork French Broad River (1.2 miles), is Supporting due to an
Excellent bioclassification at site SB-4. The current DWQ classification is C Tr.

Middle Fork French Broad River (AU# 6-5)
The Middle Fork French Broad River, from source to the French Broad River (4.1 miles), is
Supporting due to an Excellent bioclassification at site B-4. The current DWQ classification is B
Tr.
Chapter 1 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-01 10

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:

ƒ Feasible and cost-effective stormwater retrofit projects should be implemented
throughout the developed portions of the watershed.
ƒ A program to address toxic inputs from developed areas should be created and
implemented including source reduction and stormwater treatment methods.
ƒ Stream channel restoration activities.
ƒ BMPs to prevent pesticides from entering streams, including practices applicable to
apple orchards.
ƒ BMPs to minimize livestock access to streams.
ƒ 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

ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.

ƒ Educate citizens and businesses on stormwater issues and BMPs; create an awards
program.
ƒ Develop or refine stormwater management and floodplain development ordinances.
ƒ 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.

ƒ Promote innovative pest management practices to minimize pesticide drift.
ƒ 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).

ƒ Restore the most critically eroding streams and restore native vegetation along all
streams.
ƒ Educate landowners about the importance of riparian buffers.
ƒ 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.

ƒ Consider the benefits of a local sediment and erosion control program.
ƒ Educate excavators and the public about how to control erosion.
ƒ 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

Chapter 3
French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03
Including the: Davidson River, Boylston Creek, Mills River and North Fork Mills River

3.1 Subbasin Overview

Much of the land in this subbasin lies within the Pisgah
National Forest or Pisgah Game Lands. Much of the
subbasin outside the national forest is agricultural,
consisting primarily of dairy farms and row crops. There
are no large urban areas within this subbasin, although
some development exists along the major highway
corridors (NC 280 and NC 191). By the year 2020,
overall county population is expected to increase by 28.7
and 14.7 percent in Henderson and Transylvania counties,
respectively.
Subbasin 04-03-03 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 141 mi2
Land area: 141 mi2
Water area: 0 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 20,009 people
Pop. Density: 145 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 89%
Surface Water: <1%
Urban: <1%
Cultivated Crop: 2%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 8%

Counties
Henderson and Transylvania

Municipalities
Brevard and Mills River

Since the previous plan, the Town of Mills River has
incorporated several areas and new sewer lines were
installed along sections of Mills River. This extension
will likely spur development throughout the area;
therefore, special care should be given to site design to
minimize the impacts of sedimentation and erosion on
water quality. Managing growth is particularly important
because most of the South Fork Mills River watershed is
classified as outstanding resource waters (ORW), and
most of the Davidson River watershed is classified as
high quality waters (HQW). Refer to Appendix I for
more information regarding population growth and trends
and to Chapter 8 for water classifications and standards.

There are eight NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin; none are major
dischargers. Refer to Appendix VI for identification and more information on individual NPDES
permit holders. There are two registered animal operations in this subbasin.

A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 7. Table 8 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 nine benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and two fish community samples
(Figure 7 and Table 8) collected during this assessment period. Data were also collected from
two ambient monitoring stations. Refer to the 2003 French Broad River Basinwide Assessment
Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Appendix IV for more information on
monitoring.
Chapter 3 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03 38
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040303Table 8
Length/Area
5.4 B-1SNDDavidson River6-34-(1)2002Miles E
0.2 B-1SNDDavidson River6-34-(15.5)2002Miles E
A-11 nce3.3 B-1SSDavidson River6-34-(17)2002Miles E
F-16.1 B-2SNDBoylston Creek6-52-(6.5)2002 2002Miles GF G
1.0 B-3SNDMills River6-54-(1)a 2002Miles G
SF-1 A-12 nce1.8 B-3SSMills River6-54-(1)b 2002 1997Miles G E
0.7 SB-1SNDMills River6-54-(4.5)2002Miles GF
1.8 B-5SNDMills River6-54-(5)2002Miles GF
0.7 B-5SNDMills River6-54-(6.5)2002Miles GF
2.9 B-4SNDNorth Fork Mills River6-54-2-(4)2002Miles E
2.5 SB-2SNDNorth Fork Mills River6-54-2-(9)2002Miles G
4.2 SB-3SNDSouth Fork Mills River6-54-3-(17.5)2002Miles G
2.5 SB-4SNDBradley Creek6-54-3-17-(4.5)1997Miles 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 040303

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 04-03-03 are summarized in Section 3.2.
Recommendations, current status and future recommendations for previously or newly Impaired
waters are discussed in Section 3.3. Waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Section 3.4. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Section 3.5.
Refer to Appendix X for a complete list of monitored waters and more information on use
support ratings.

3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 04-03-03 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 30.6 stream miles (13.7 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category; none of which are Impaired. Refer to Table 9 for a summary of use
support ratings by use category for waters in subbasin 04-03-03.

3.3 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.

3.3.1 Mills River [AU# 6-54-(1)a and b, 6-54-(4.5), 6-54-(5) and 6-54-(6.5)]

2000 Recommendations
Mills River, from SR 1337 to the French Broad River (4.6 miles), was Impaired due to a noted
impact to benthic macroinvertebrates. The impact was likely associated with agricultural
nonpoint sources of pollution, particularly those associated with pesticides applied on tomato
farms. DWQ will rely on local initiatives to address pesticide and nonpoint source pollution.

Chapter 3 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03 41

Table 9 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-03

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 30.6 mi 0.0 5.1 mi 0.0
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 30.6 mi
0.0 ac 0.0 5.1 mi
0.0 ac 0.0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 172.3 mi 0.0 0.0 160.4 mi
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 1.8 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
No Data 18.4 mi 223.1 mi 218.0 mi 0.0
Total 192.5 mi
0.0 ac
223.1 mi
0.0 ac
218.0 mi
0.0 ac
160.4 mi
0.0 ac
Totals
All Waters* 223.1 mi
0.0 ac
223.1 mi
0.0 ac
223.1 mi
0.0 ac
160.4 mi
0.0 ac
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.

Current Status
The entire Mills River (6.0 miles) is currently Supporting for its designated uses due to Good and
Good-Fair bioclassification ratings at sites B-3, SB-1 and B-5. Site SF-1 received an Excellent
bioclassification. Despite the overall Good and Good-Fair bioclassification, however, DWQ
noted an increase in sedimentation during a special study in 2002. Increases in sediment can
lead to degraded instream habitats. Probable sources for this sediment increase include
development and agricultural activities along NC 280 and NC 191 (NCDENR-DWQ, April
2003).

In addition to DWQ data, a ten-year report by VWIN concludes that the Mills River watershed
exhibits the most consistent water quality (Good bioclassification and VWIN monitored sites)
(Section 3.3.2). VWIN notes, however, that past biological monitoring by DWQ has shown
significant degradation in the lower section and that this degradation was most likely associated
with pesticide use (Maas et al., April 2003). One agrichemical handling facility was constructed
in a central location along the river through a Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF)
grant. The use of these buildings can reduce the amount of pesticides reaching the river, and this
may account for the observed water quality improvements in Mills River during 2002. Refer to
Water Quality Initiatives below for more information.

Due to the current bioclassification and continual efforts by local initiatives to improve water
quality in the Mills River watershed, DWQ will recommend to the U.S. Environmental
Chapter 3 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03 42

Protection Agency (EPA) that the Mills River be removed from the next 303(d) Impaired waters
list for 2006.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the Mills River watershed and work with the
Mills River Partnership Planning Committee and Land-of-Sky Regional Council of Governments
to implement the following recommendations and achieve the water quality goals listed below.
It is recommended that an Integrated Pollution Source Index (IPSI) be developed through the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for this watershed. This watershed assessment tool is a
geographical information database that utilizes a number of physical factors to aid in identifying
and prioritizing issues affecting water quality. An IPSI will help prioritize the following
recommendations, which are included in the Mills River Watershed Management Strategy
(2002).

(1) Land Conversion: Implement appropriate measures to encourage and assist landowners to
retain forestland, farmland, riparian areas, wetlands, and other open spaces in the watershed.

ƒ Strengthen Henderson County’s Farmland Preservation Program.
ƒ Enhance state and federal forest management programs to help retain private
forestland.
ƒ Market available farmland and forestland to farmers and foresters.
ƒ Find new markets or tourism niches for farmers.
ƒ Allow and encourage agricultural uses within all zoning districts.
ƒ Coordinate planning efforts to redirect activities to outside of the water supply
watershed.
ƒ Adopt sustainable development policies.
ƒ Identify targeted areas for land conversion and focus protection efforts on these
areas.
ƒ Encourage conservation easements through a coordinated conservation plan.
ƒ Limit impervious surface to 10% of the watershed (4,695 acres).
ƒ Recommendations to protect water quality should be part of the development
design and approval process.

(2) Hazardous Material Spill Control: Enhance programs to prevent and/or respond effectively
to hazardous material incidents and prevent the shutdown of water supplies and services to
thousands of customers.

ƒ Develop a detailed inventory of hazardous materials in the watershed.
ƒ Use the inventory to update the county’s emergency response plan. Provide
necessary training and equipment.
ƒ Ask NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to consider constructing an
effective spill containment catch basins along NC 191/280.
ƒ Ask Duke Power Company to consider alternatives for controlling vegetation
within transmission line right-of-ways.
ƒ Educate landowners and business operators about hazardous materials, spill
prevention, and proper application and disposal techniques.
ƒ Establish programs for the collection of hazardous materials.
Chapter 3 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03 43

ƒ Develop educational material and brochures for homeowners on the proper
handling and containment of hazardous household materials (i.e., propane,
gasoline, heating oil tanks, etc.).

(3) Erosion and Sedimentation Control: Implement a variety of programs to reduce sediment
loading to watershed streams from all sources.

ƒ Develop a joint project with NCDOT to pave eroding dirt and gravel roads,
stabilize eroding road banks and drainage ditches, and install sediment catch
basins at the end of drainage ditches.
ƒ Provide technical and financial assistance to landowners to address erosion
problems on their land.
ƒ Use a checklist for permitting development projects to enhance compliance with
state regulations and distribute educational materials.
ƒ Educate homeowners about their responsibilities under the sediment control rules
and develop educational materials.
ƒ Host Clear Water Contractor trainings in Henderson County.
ƒ Conduct an environmental education training for elected officials.
ƒ Work with Henderson County to consider hiring a full-time sedimentation
control specialist.
ƒ Complete all necessary erosion control projects on US Forest Service lands.
ƒ Conduct sediment monitoring.
ƒ Develop a countywide sediment and erosion control plan.

(4) Stormwater Quality and Quantity Control: Implement appropriate measures to prevent or
mitigate the water quantity and quality impacts of stormwater runoff in the watershed.

ƒ Conduct training sessions for developers, design professionals, and local
government officials on stormwater management principles and practices.
ƒ Work with NCDOT to improve stormwater management on existing and new
roads. Fund demonstration projects and encourage additional training for staff
and contractors.
ƒ Use calcium chloride for road and driveway de-icing.
ƒ Secure funding for stormwater BMP demonstration projects.
ƒ Educate landowners and residents regarding stormwater impacts and BMPs.

(5) Riparian Buffer Preservation and Restoration: Work with willing landowners to restore and
preserve effective riparian buffers along all waterbodies in the watershed.

ƒ Buffers should be at least 50 feet wide on the mainstem of the Mills River and
North/South Forks and should be 20 to 50 feet in width on the tributaries.
ƒ Continue landowner outreach program.
ƒ Offer free or low cost trees and recruit volunteers to plant them.

(6) Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control: Expand existing programs to address
agricultural NPS pollution, especially programs to eliminate problems associated with
pesticide use.

Chapter 3 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03 44

(7) Wastewater Management: Manage existing and future wastewaters to prevent or
mitigate impacts on water quality and public health.

(8) Groundwater: Expand the current level of knowledge of groundwater resources and
contamination in the watershed and take appropriate protective measures.

(9) Landowner Education and Participation: Inform landowners of watershed protection
issues, best management practices and seek their assistance in protecting water
quality.

For more detailed information regarding the above recommendations, refer to the Mills River
Watershed Management Strategy (Mills River Partnership Planning Committee and Land-of-Sky
Regional Council of Governments, 2002).

Water Quality Initiatives
The mission of the Mills River Watershed Protection Project is to improve the water quality in
the Mills River in a way that also benefits landowners. The project began with two grants that
were approved by the CWMTF in 1999 to protect land adjacent to the mainstem and two forks of
the Mills River. The first grant, awarded to the Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy, covered
the acquisition of conservation easements. The second grant was for buffer plantings,
streambank stabilization, and agrichemical handling facilities. In this project, over 13,000 feet of
stream were protected with buffers and easements; five streambank reaches were stabilized, and
one agrochemical handling facility was built. The agrochemical facility is located in a central
location for easy access and old “spray” areas are no longer in use. Additional money not used
for the agrichemical handling facilities was used to stabilize over 10 miles of logging roads, as
well as build two feed-waste barns, four watering tanks, two stock trails, and 4,000 feet of
fencing for cattle. Representatives from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
and the Henderson County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) continually provide
additional agricultural cost share assistance to landowners in the Mills River watershed.

During the end of 2002, an EPA Source Water Protection grant was acquired by the Land-of-Sky
Regional Council of Governments to implement workshops, meetings and inventories related to
the following issues: land conversion, hazardous spills, erosion, stormwater and general
watershed education in the Mills River area. In 2003, a Section 319 grant was approved for
Henderson County to do additional work in the watershed. A stormwater monitoring program
was implemented with 16 suspended sediment sampling stations. Two are located on Brandy
Branch and four on Foster Creek with the remaining stations strategically placed in Mills River.
In addition, two stormwater wetlands have been built and four riparian buffers have been
planted.

Many other best management practices (BMPs) are in various stages of development including
additional wetlands, a rain garden, water supply road signs, streambank stabilization, and
stormwater brochures. For more information on the Mills River Watershed Protection Project,
visit http://www.hendersoncountync.org/soil/millsriverweb1.html.

Chapter 3 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03 45

3.3.2 Brandy Branch [AU # 6-54-6]

2000 Recommendations
Brandy Branch was listed as Impaired due to nonpoint sources of pollution likely associated with
agricultural and residential land use. 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. A more in-depth
water quality study is needed to identify land use activities or streambank problems causing
degradation.

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Brandy Branch was included in the Mills River TMDL study but could not be monitored due to
lack of flow due to drought conditions during the time of sampling. DWQ will monitor this
stream during the next basinwide cycle. Brandy Branch will remain on the 303(d) of Impaired
waters.

Water Quality Initiatives
Brandy Branch is part of the Mills River watershed and is being addressed through the Mills
River Partnership. Refer to Mills River 2005 Recommendations and Water Quality Initiatives
listed above.

3.4 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.

3.4.1 Davidson River [AU # 6-34-(1), 6-34-(15.5), 6-34-(17), 6-34-(21)]

2000 Recommendations
Processing from the lower Davidson River, RFS Ecusta, a division of P.H. Glatfelter Inc., was
withdrawing 20.5 MGD. The river, under 7Q10 conditions, could be impacted from this
withdrawal. Ecusta initiated a recycling effort to significantly reduce water withdrawals during
the last planning cycle. DWQ will continue to monitor the Davidson River for improvements.

Current Status
The Davidson River, from source to the Olin Corporation Water Supply Dam (11.5 miles),
received a bioclassification of Excellent at site B-1. The lower segment, from the Water Supply
Dam to the French Broad River (1.4 miles), was not monitored. The river has historically
received Excellent bioclassification ratings; however, there was a slight decline in the aquatic
community during the last sampling period due to reduced flow likely associated with drought
Chapter 3 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03 46

conditions during the time of sampling. Davidson River drains Pisgah National Forest, as well
as areas known for their heavy recreational use.

During this planning cycle, the Ecusta paper mill closed (2002), and the property was sold to
New Tech Environmental Incorporated (2003). There was a concern over the continuance of
environmental systems (i.e., wastewater and landfill leachate treatment) during the ownership
lapse, but all systems are in good condition and running. The facility is now operated by the
Ecusta Development Business Corporation (EDBC) and includes an industrial park. EDBC
produces raw pulp material, and the company is in the process of securing permits for operation
and sludge disposal. During operation, EDBC withdraws approximately 3 to 7 MGD from the
Davidson River, and they do not anticipate the need to significantly increase water use at this
time. EDBC will have a minimal impact on the Davidson River, as their wastewater is
discharged to the French Broad River.

VWIN data collected along Davidson River corroborates DWQ ratings with an upstream rating
of Excellent and a downstream rating of Good. Conductivity levels were higher downstream and
the highest of all sampling sites in Transylvania County, but levels did not exceed the regional
average (Maas et al., June 2003).

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the Davidson River watershed and work with
EDBC to ensure that they are operating according to their permit. It is recommended that local
planning efforts be undertaken to manage growth and protect water quality in this watershed,
particularly adjacent to the national forest. It is recommended that Transylvania County and/or
Brevard develop local stormwater and sediment and erosion control programs to address
concerns generated due to changing land use. It is recommended that a public request be made
so DWQ can pursue a reclassification of the Davidson River [AU# 6-34-(17)] to HQW based on
the Excellent bioclassification.

3.4.2 Boylston Creek [AU#6-52-(6.5)]

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Boylston Creek, from 0.3 miles upstream of Murray Branch to the French Broad River (6.1
miles), received a bioclassification of Good-Fair at site B-2 and a Good at site F-1. Land use in
the surrounding watershed is predominantly agricultural and includes row crops and feedlots.
This site has historically received a Good-Fair bioclassification (1992, 1997 and 2002) and
impacts are likely associated with nonpoint source runoff. Drought conditions during the time of
sampling likely reduced the effects of nonpoint source pollution, but severely eroded
streambanks were observed and the substrate consists mostly of sand and gravel (both of which
affect aquatic habitats). It is recommended that local agencies work with landowners to assess
the need for and prioritize the installation of BMPs to improve the riparian zones and restore the
streambanks along Boylston Creek.

Chapter 3 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03 47

3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-03

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.

3.5.1 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification

Davidson River [AU# 6-34-(15.5) and 6-34-(17)]
The current DWQ classification for AU# 6-34-(15.5) and 6-34-(17) is WS-V, B Tr. This is a
2.7-mile stretch from Avery Creek to the Olin Corporation water supply dam. The headwaters of
the Davison River flow through the Pisgah National Forest and sampling in 1997 and 2002
indicate excellent water quality. The upstream segment [AU # 6-34-(1)] is classified as WS-V,
B Tr HQW. Refer to section 3.41 for more information.

Chapter 3 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-03 48

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

Chapter 5
French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05
Including the: Pigeon River, West and East Fork Pigeon River, Richland Creek, Fines Creek,
Crabtree Creek, Hyatt Creek, Plott Creek, Raccoon Branch, Hurricane Creek,
Lake Junaluska and Walters Lake

5.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin includes undeveloped land within the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Pisgah National
Forest, Pisgah Game Lands and the Shining Rock
Wilderness Area. The largest urban areas are
Waynesville, Lake Junaluska, Clyde, Maggie Valley and
Canton. By the year 2020, population throughout
Haywood County is expected to increase by 15.9%. For
more information regarding population growth and
trends, refer to Appendix I.
Subbasin 04-03-05 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 532 mi2
Land area: 531 mi2
Water area: 1 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 52,212 people
Pop. Density: 98 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 84%
Surface Water: <1%
Urban: 1%
Cultivated Crop: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 14%

Counties
Haywood

Municipalities
Canton, Clyde, Maggie Valley and
Waynesville

There are 16 NPDES wastewater discharge permits in
this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 37.1 MGD.
The largest are Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. (BRPP)
(29.9 MGD), the Town of Waynesville WWTP (6.0
MGD), and the Town of Maggie Valley WWTP (1.0
MGD). Significant issues related to compliance with
NPDES permit conditions are discussed below.
Currently, there are two individual NPDES stormwater
permits in this subbasin. Canton, Clyde, Waynesville, as
well as Haywood County, will be required to develop
stormwater programs under Phase II. Refer to Appendix
VI for identification and more information on individual
NPDES permit holders and to Section 13.2 for
information related to stormwater programs. There are
eight registered animal operations in this subbasin.

A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 9. Table 12 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 19 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and 19 fish community samples
(Figure 9 and Table 12) collected during this assessment period. Data were collected from eight
ambient monitoring stations and two lakes assessments. 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 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 59
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040305Table 12
Length/Area
A-15 nce4.8 S SPIGEON RIVER5-(1)Miles
A-15 nce0.8 B-1SSPIGEON RIVER5-(6.5)2002Miles GF
0.5 B-1SNDPIGEON RIVER (Waterville Lake below
elevation 2258)
5-(7)a 2002Miles GF
A-16 nce6.4 B-4ISPIGEON RIVER (Waterville Lake below
elevation 2258)
5-(7)b 2002Miles P
A-20 nce7.2 B-5SSPIGEON RIVER (Waterville Lake below
elevation 2258)
5-(7)d 2002Miles GF
Lake Monitoring nce773.1 NR NDPIGEON RIVER (Waterville Lake below
elevation 2258)
5-(7)e Acres
A-21 nce12.0 B-6SSPIGEON RIVER (Waterville Lake below
elevation 2258)
5-(7)f 2002Miles G
SF-1 A-17 Bacteria8.0 NR IRichland Creek (Lake Junaluska)5-16-(1)a 2001Miles NR
SF-2 A-17 Bacteria8.0 NR IRichland Creek (Lake Junaluska)2001Miles NR
SF-3 A-17 Bacteria2.3 I IRichland Creek (Lake Junaluska)5-16-(1)b 2001Miles P
SF-3 A-17 Bacteria0.7 I IRichland Creek (Lake Junaluska)5-16-(1)c 2001Miles P
A-17 Bacteria0.9 B-7SIRichland Creek (Lake Junaluska)5-16-(1)d 2002Miles G
SF-4 A-17 Bacteria2.0 B-8IIRichland Creek (Lake Junaluska)5-16-(1)e 2002 2001Miles F P
Lake Monitoring pH200.0 I NDRichland Creek (Lake Junaluska)5-16-(1)f Acres
F-11.6 I NDRichland Creek5-16-(16)a 2002Miles P
0.7 B-9SNDRichland Creek5-16-(16)b 2002Miles GF
SF-82.9 NR NDFarmer Branch5-16-11 2001Miles NR
SF-72.7 NR NDShelton Branch5-16-13 2001Miles NR
SF-64.7 I NDRaccoon Creek5-16-14 2001Miles F
SF-52.4 NR NDFactory Branch5-16-15 2001Miles NR
SF-92.5 NR NDWinchester Creek5-16-3 2001Miles NR
1.8 SB-1SNDNolen Creek5-16-4 2002Miles NI
0.9 SB-3NR NDHyatt Creek5-16-6a 2002Miles NR
SF-152.6 SB-2SNDHyatt Creek5-16-6b 2002 2001Miles NI NR
SF-102.5 NR NDCherry Cove Creek5-16-7-2 2001Miles NR
Monday, July 25, 2005 040305
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040305Table 12
Length/Area
SF-142.9 NR NDShiny Creek5-16-7-3 2001Miles NR
SF-112.4 NR NDOld Bald Creek5-16-7-6 2001Miles NR
SF-122.2 NR NDRocky Branch5-16-7-9-(1)2001Miles NR
SF-120.2 NR NDRocky Branch5-16-7-9-(2)2001Miles NR
SF-131.8 NR NDMedford Branch5-16-8-1 2001Miles NR
F-23.3 S NDCrabtree Creek5-22 2002Miles GF
SF-16 A-18 nce14.6 B-11SSJonathans Creek5-26-(7)2002 1997Miles G GF
SF-16 A-18 nce14.6 B-12SSJonathans Creek 2002 1997Miles E GF
SF-16 A-18 nce14.6 B-10SSJonathans Creek 2002 1997Miles E GF
A-14 nce7.8 B-2SSWest Fork Pigeon River (Lake Logan)5-2a 2002Miles E
13.0 B-3SNDEast Fork Pigeon River5-3-(6.5)2002Miles E
F-39.7 B-13INDFines Creek5-32 2002 2002Miles GF F
A-19 nce8.1 B-14SSCataloochee Creek5-41 2002Miles E
5.4 SB-5SNDHurricane Creek5-44 2002Miles G
3.3 SB-6SNDChestnut Branch5-59-22 2002Miles E
1.2 SB-4SNDRough Creek5-8-4-(2)1997Miles 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 040305

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 04-03-05 are summarized in Section 5.2.
Recommendations, current status and future recommendations for previously or newly Impaired
waters are discussed in Section 5.3. Waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Section 5.4. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Section 5.5.
Refer to Appendix X for a complete list of monitored waters and more information on
Supporting monitored waters.

5.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 04-03-05 in the aquatic life, recreation,
fish consumption and water supply categories. A fish consumption advisory is in effect for
Waterville (Walters) Lake. Women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15 are
advised not to eat common carp caught in the lake. For all others, a limited-consumption
advisory applies and advises that common carp be limited to one meal per month. No other fish
advisories have been issued. 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 146.8 stream miles (19.9 percent) and 973.1 acres (87.2 percent) monitored during
this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There are 27.4 stream miles (3.7 percent)
Impaired in this same category. In addition, nearly 14 stream miles (2.0 percent) are Impaired
for recreational use. Refer to Table 13 for a summary of use support ratings for waters in
subbasin 04-03-05.

5.3 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 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 63

Table 13 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 04-03-05

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 88.0 mi 0.0 61.6 mi 0.0
Impaired 27.4 mi
200.0 ac 773.1 ac 13.8 mi 0.0
Not Rated 31.4 mi
773.1 ac 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 146.8 mi
973.1 ac
0.0 mi
773.1 ac
75.4mi
0.0 ac 0.0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 393.5 mi 0.0 0.0 264.5 mi
91.9 ac
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 53.8 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
No Data 143.3 mi
142.8 ac
737.4 mi
342.8 ac
662.0 mi
1,115.9 ac 0.0
Total 590.6 mi
142.8 ac
737.8 mi
342.8 ac
662.0 mi
1,115.9 ac
264.5 mi
91.9 ac
Totals
All Waters* 737.4 mi
1,115.9 ac
737.4 mi
1,115.9 ac
737.4 mi
1,115.9 ac
264.5 mi
91.9 ac
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.

5.3.1 Pigeon River [AU# 5-(7)b]

2000 Recommendations
Seven miles of the Pigeon River was Impaired due to point and nonpoint source pollution. Blue
Ridge Paper Products (BRPP) had improved its manufacturing process to eliminate the release of
the chemical dioxin, a by-product of the paper making process. DWQ will participate in a Joint
Watershed Advisory Group and continue to monitor the river as additional improvements are
made. Local initiatives are needed to address the nonpoint source impacts to the river from the
towns of Canton and Clyde and outlying nonurban areas.

Current Status
Pigeon River [AU# 5-(1), 5-(6.5) and 5-(7)a], from source to 0.15 miles downstream of West
Park Street in Canton (6.1 miles), is Supporting due to a Good-Fair bioclassification at site B-1.
This site has been sampled 13 times since 1983, and the bioclassification has varied between
Good-Fair and Excellent due to year-to-year differences in flow and habitat. Much of the nearby
land is used for agricultural purposes, but an increasing number of vacation homes are being
built in the upper reaches of the watershed.

Chapter 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 64

Pigeon River [AU# 5-(7)b], from 0.15 miles downstream of West Park Street in Canton to SR
1642 (Main Street in Clyde) (6.4 miles), is currently Impaired in the aquatic life category due to
a Poor bioclassification at site B-4. The sampling site is located approximately 5 miles
downstream of Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. (BRPP) and has been sampled 12 times since
1984. Historically, this site has received Fair and Poor bioclassifications, but improvements in
BRPP’s processes were evident in samples collected in 1992 (improvement from Poor to Fair)
and 1997 (improvement from Fair to Good-Fair). In 2002, however, the bioclassification
decreased to Poor. This decrease is likely associated with drought conditions during the time of
sampling. Pools were absent; riffles were minimal, and aquatic weeds were abundant. These
factors, along with low flow conditions and the subsequent lack of dilution of the BRPP effluent
likely impacted the benthic community. Conductivity was also high at the time of sampling. A
review of data from the DWQ ambient monitoring station (A-16) showed that the mean
conductivity has been steadily increasing at the site since 1998. This site also receives nonpoint
urban and stormwater runoff from the towns of Canton and Clyde. This nonpoint runoff could
also impact the benthic community in this stretch of the river.

In addition to DWQ sampling, EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. (EA) collected
fish and macroinvertebrate samples along the Pigeon River and three major tributaries (Jonathan
Creek, Fines Creek and Richland Creek) in the summer of 2000. The study was prepared for
BRPP following NCDENR protocols and examined the overall fish and macroinvertebrate
communities in the watershed. The EA survey was compared to a 1995 survey and found that:
1) the number of smallmouth bass had increased 10 fold; 2) darters were found where they were
absent in 1995; and 3) species richness had improved downstream of the BRPP discharge.
Macroinvertebrate communities ranged from Fair, Good-Fair, and Good with a Good
bioclassification on both Jonathan Creek and Fines Creek and a Fair bioclassification on
Richland Creek (EA, May 2001). DWQ sampling and use support ratings for Jonathan Creek,
Fines Creek and Richland Creek are presented below.

A Settlement Agreement was reached in 1997 on a modified color variance and NPDES permit
for BRPP. The following agencies participated in the agreement: the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA); the states of North Carolina and Tennessee; Cocke County and the
City of Newport, TN; the Tennessee Environmental Council; the American Canoe Association;
and BRPP. The intent of the agreement was to address the Pigeon River color issue without
litigation. The goal was to reach an annual average color loading of 48,000-52,000 lbs/day by
May 1, 2001. This goal was met. All of the BMP projects as required in the agreement are
complete and operational. Additional color reduction measures were completed and others are
ongoing. Contingency plans for low flow periods were in place and operational.

Pursuant to the agreement, North Carolina and Tennessee were required to establish a Joint
Watershed Advisory Group to foster joint planning and public input on decisions affecting the
Pigeon River. This group has been meeting since 2000. BRPP has also been working with a
Community Advisory Committee composed of community leaders in Haywood County (North
Carolina), Cocke County (Tennessee), and the State of North Carolina.

Overall, the water quality in the Pigeon River has improved dramatically over the last 15 years.
Annual fish tissue monitoring for dioxin in the Pigeon River is conducted by BRPP and Carolina
Power and Light Company (CP&L). This monitoring is required as part of the BRPP discharge
Chapter 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 65

permit issued by DWQ and as a condition of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) license for CP&L. In the past, there has been a limited-consumption advisory for
common carp in effect for the Pigeon River from the Town of Canton to the North Carolina-
Tennessee state line (approximately 26 miles, including Waterville Lake). In 2001, the NC
Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) revised this advisory due to declining
dioxin concentrations in fish. The advisory was removed from common carp caught in the river,
but remains in effect for Waterville (Walters) Lake. NCDHHS suggests that women of
childbearing age and children under the age of 15 avoid eating carp caught from the lake. For all
others, consumption of carp should be limited to no more than one meal per month. Swimming,
boating and other recreational activities are not affected by this advisory. Visit the NCDHHS
website for more information at www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish.

In addition, the State of Tennessee had a historical limited-consumption advisory for common
carp, catfish species, and redbreast sunfish in effect for the Pigeon River within the State of
Tennessee downstream to the confluence with the French Broad River. Due to monitoring
conducted from 1996 to 2002, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC), Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) recommended that the Fish Consumption
Advisory be removed (TDEC-DWPC, October 2002). This advisory has been lifted; however,
the Pigeon River (5 miles) remains on the Tennessee 303(d) list for color.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Pigeon River to study the sources and impact of increasing
conductivity. DWQ will continue to work closely with BRPP to minimize the impact of its
discharge and continue its involvement in the Joint Watershed Advisory Group. Additional
provisions during times of drought should be reviewed and perhaps revised in the next permit
cycle for BRPP to protect water quality in Pigeon River. In addition, DWQ recommends erosion
and sedimentation control measures be taken in areas of the watershed that are under
development.

Water Quality Initiatives
Haywood Waterways Association (HWA) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to maintaining
and improving the water quality of the Pigeon River. It focuses on reducing nonpoint source
pollution by offering education and outreach programs and working through a variety of
voluntary initiatives, concentrating on individual landowners. HWA partnered with TVA to
conduct a nonpoint source inventory (IPSI) of Haywood County using low-elevation infrared
photography and interpretation. TVA digitized multiple layers of GIS information obtained from
the photo interpretation. Nonpoint sources such as septic systems, illegal dumps sites, eroding
roads and streambanks, pastureland and animal access to streams were identified. This
information was used by TVA to apply a nutrient loading model to calculate a nutrient budget for
the Haywood County portion of the Pigeon River watershed. HWA and the Haywood County
Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) then used the TVA model and IPSI data to
develop and implement strategies for water quality improvements. A Watershed Action Plan
(HWA, 2002) was written detailing the inventory results and 19 strategies were recommended to
improve water quality in the watershed.

Using the IPSI data, TVA and HWA were able to identify the most heavily impacted
subwatersheds, identify and rank the nonpoint sources, and identify landowners where the
nonpoint sources were located. EPA 319 and Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF)
Chapter 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 66

grants were secured for sediment and water quality monitoring, educational publications, and a
variety of best management practices (BMPs) projects on lands with participating landowners.
BMP projects include: fencing livestock from streams; improving high-use areas and stock trails
adjacent to the streams; streambank stabilization; improving riparian buffers; and a stormwater
management project in a rural subdivision. Financial incentives in the form of reduced cost or
no-cost BMP work are offered to the landowners in return for long-term management
agreements or conservation easements. For more information on HWA and to review the
Watershed Action Plan, visit www.haywoodwaterways.org.

5.3.2 Waterville (Walters) Lake [AU # 5-(7)e]

2000 Recommendations
Waterville (Walters) Lake was Impaired due to eutrophic conditions (i.e., algal blooms,
chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen violations, and nutrients). Support methodology changed since
the 303(d) listing for Waterville Lake, and based on previous results, the lake is Supporting for
its uses. Despite this change, however, a fish advisory remains in effect for catfish and carp, and
the lake remains on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Current Status
Waterville (Walters) Lake, from White Oak Road to Waterville Reservoir Dam (773.1 acres), is
currently Not Rated in the aquatic life category. Waterville Lake receives runoff from urban and
agricultural areas, which includes the Richland Creek, Jonathans Creek and Fines Creek
watersheds. Samples collected from Waterville Lake showed evidence of eutrophication.
Parameters of concern include chlorophyll a, elevated surface dissolved oxygen, and pH. There
was also increased algae growth, specifically blue-green algae in the reservoir, during the
summer of 2002. The elevated levels of chlorophyll a, conductivity and dissolved gasses may be
attributed to drought conditions during the time of sampling. Low flow combined with limited
dilution of upstream discharge effluents and nonpoint sources may also be contributing to the
eutrophic conditions.

Waterville Lake remains under a fish consumption advisory for common carp. NCDHHS
revised the advisory in 2001 and suggests that women of childbearing age and children under the
age of 15 avoid eating carp caught from the lake. For all others, consumption of carp should be
limited to no more than one meal per month. Swimming, boating and other recreational
activities are not affected by this advisory. Sampling by DWQ and CP&L shows that dioxin
concentrations in all species of fish collected from the lake have decreased since the early 1990s.
Dioxin levels in common carp, however, remain above the North Carolina limit. Waterville
Lake is on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters due to the fish consumption advisory. See
Section 5.3.1 for more information.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Waterville (Walters) Lake. In addition, DWQ
will work with Progress Energy (CP&L) and BRPP to develop a Quality Assurance and Project
Plan (QAPP) so that their data can be used by DWQ in determining use support ratings in the
future.

Chapter 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 67

Water Quality Initiatives
Local efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution are being led through a partnership between
Haywood County SWCD, the Southwestern NC Resource Conservation & Development
(RC&D) Council, and HWA. Since 2000, BMPs have been installed throughout the Pigeon
River watershed including areas around Waterville (Walters) Lake. In addition, the Pigeon River
Fund has also been a major contributor to water quality projects since 1996. Progress Energy
provides capital for the fund, which was created during the relicensing of the Waterville
(Walters) Lake Dam. The fund provides grants for projects that improve water quality, restore
fish and wildlife habitat, create public access, and promote water quality awareness.

5.3.3 Richland Creek [AU # 5-16-(1)a, b, c, d and e; 5-16-(16)a]

2000 Recommendations
Richland Creek, from below the Lake Junaluska Dam to the Pigeon River (2.4 miles), was
Impaired in the aquatic life category due to a Fair bioclassification. Impacts were associated
with both point and nonpoint sources, including runoff from urban and agricultural areas, road
development, and eroding streambanks. Biological impairment and habitat degradation continue
to be primary concerns throughout the Richland Creek watershed. DWQ will continue to
monitor the creek and Lake Junaluska and work with local initiatives to restore water quality.

Current Status
Richland Creek, from source to the backwaters of Lake Junaluska (13.9 miles), is currently
Impaired in the recreation category based on elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels. Richland
Creek, from US Route 23 to Depot Street (3.0 miles) and from Shelton Branch to the backwaters
of Lake Junaluska (2.0 miles), is also Impaired in the aquatic life category due to a Poor
bioclassification at site SF-3 and SF-4 and a Fair bioclassification at site B-8, respectively. The
segment of Richland Creek from Lake Junaluska Dam to Jones Cove Branch (1.6 miles) is also
Impaired in the aquatic life category because of a Poor bioclassification at site F-1. DWQ
monitoring data and information presented in a special study indicates that there are long-term
water quality impacts from nonpoint source pollution associated with urbanization,
sedimentation, and erosion (NCDENR-DWQ, September 2001). Richland Creek is located in
one of the most heavily developed areas of Haywood County and the Pigeon River watershed.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Richland Creek. DWQ will also work with the DWQ regional
staff, the Town of Waynesville, and Haywood County to identify the source of the elevated fecal
coliform bacteria levels. DWQ also encourages the Town of Waynesville to complete source
tracking and sewer system mapping to identify damaged or leaking sewer lines.

Water Quality Initiatives
HWA has developed five-year goals for the Richland Creek subwatershed of the Pigeon River as
part of their Watershed Action Plan (2002). These include: stabilizing 23,000 feet of eroding
streambank and 26 miles of eroding road banks; improving 921 acres of pasture thus removing
10 animal access points to streams; and improving 10 miles of riparian corridors. These goals
would theoretically result in a 37 percent reduction of sediment entering Richland Creek and
eventually Lake Junaluska. The Haywood County SWCD, the Southwestern NC RC&D
Council, and HWA have secured CWMTF grant money to implement the watershed action plan
in Richland Creek. DWQ encourages the efforts of HWA and will partner with them as they
Chapter 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 68

implement management strategies throughout the watershed. Refer to Section 5.3.1 for more
information regarding HWA.

Because of the water quality impairment noted above, Richland 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.

5.3.4 Lake Junaluska [AU # 5-16-(1)f]

2000 Recommendations
A progressive program to implement nonpoint source pollution controls was recommended to
reduce the nutrient and sediment loading and the need for future dredging. An initiative by the
HWA was underway to inventory nonpoint source pollution in the watershed. Local support of
the recommendations produced by this study is critical to correcting the water quality of Lake
Junaluska.

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Lake Junaluska (200 acres) has had chronic problems with sediment inputs from the surrounding
watershed and is considered Impaired in the aquatic life category due to eutrophication (pH
standards violation). As a result of the sediment inputs, significant funds have been spent
periodically dredging the lake. DWQ assessed an enforcement action against the Lake Junaluska
Assembly in November 1998 after the lake was mistakenly drained lower than was intended. A
plume of sediment from the lake bottom flowed down the entire length of lower Richland Creek
to the Pigeon River, burying fish and habitat. The reservoir continues to suffer from
sedimentation problems.

Lake Junaluska also had elevated surface dissolved oxygen and pH values. Both of these may
have contributed to increased algae growth in 2002. The local Watershed Action Plan by HWA
(2002) suggests reducing the sediment loading to a rate that can be managed over time. It is
recommended those BMPs that emphasis sediment and erosion control be installed in this
watershed. As Lake Junaluska is part of the Richland Creek watershed, refer to Richland Creek
2005 Recommendations and Water Quality Initiatives (Section 5.3.3) for more information.

5.3.5 Fines Creek [AU # 5-32]

2000 Recommendations
Fines Creek was experiencing notable impacts from agricultural activities, as well as runoff from
nonurban development. The Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) has also noted
sediment and nutrient impacts (Maas et al., November 1999). This watershed could benefit from
implementation of BMPs directed towards these inputs. DWQ will notify local agencies of
water quality concerns in Fines Creek. DWQ will also work with local agencies to conduct
additional monitoring and assist agency personnel with locating sources of water quality
protection funding.

Chapter 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 69

Current Status
Fines Creek, from the source to the Pigeon River (9.7 miles), is currently Impaired in the aquatic
life category because of a Fair bioclassification at site F-3. This site also received a Good-Fair
bioclassification at site B-13. This creek has some high quality aquatic habitat, but the fish
community suffers from chronic impairment. Fines Creek drains primarily agricultural land
(much of which is used for pasture) and exhibits nutrient enrichment and high conductivity.

VWIN monthly chemistry data corroborated many of the DWQ biological data conclusions
(Maas et al., January 2004). This watershed has very high nutrient and turbidity values, some of
the highest in a seven-county VWIN monitoring area. VWIN and HWA identified habitat
degradation and sedimentation as major concerns for Fines Creek. According to the Watershed
Action Plan (HWA, 2002), many of the streams in the watershed have been channelized and
have little to no riparian vegetation.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Fines Creek and potentially add a monitoring site
in Rush Fork Creek during the next sampling cycle. DWQ will work with local agencies,
including HWA and VWIN, to address the nutrient and turbidity issues in this watershed and
assist in identifying additional funding sources for water quality protection. In addition, DWQ
recommends that local agencies work with landowners to install BMPs to improve the riparian
zone and limit livestock access to streams.

Water Quality Initiatives
HWA, Haywood County SWCD, and the Southwestern NC RC&D Council have secured EPA
319 grant money for BMP projects along Fines Creek. HWA has set a goal of reducing nonpoint
source pollution by 35 percent over the next five years throughout the Fines Creek watershed.
These funds will also be used to restore streambanks, improve pasture conditions, and address
animal access points. Fines Creek is part of the Watershed Action Plan (2002) developed by
HWA. Refer to Section 5.3.1 for more information.

Because of the water quality impairments noted above, Fines 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.

5.3.6 Raccoon Creek [AU # 5-16-14]

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Raccoon Creek, from source to Richland Creek (4.7 miles), is currently Impaired in the aquatic
life category because of a Fair bioclassification at site SF-6. This stream drains an area of
suburban and commercially developed land, as well as some agricultural lands. Raccoon Branch
suffers from habitat degradation, which includes steep, eroding banks. HWA has been
continually monitoring sedimentation rates in Raccoon Creek for the last two years; however, the
results are inconclusive. It is recommended that local agencies and HWA work with landowners
to install BMPs to improve the riparian zone and conduct stream restoration activities.

Chapter 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 70

5.3.7 Hyatt Creek [AU # 5-16-6a and b]

2000 Recommendations
Hyatt Creek 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 IV for more information on the state’s 303(d) methodology and
listing requirements.

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Hyatt Creek, from source to Richland Creek (3.5 miles), is currently Not Rated in the aquatic life
category because of a Not Rated bioclassification at sites SB-3 and SF-15. Another site (SB-2)
received a Not Impaired bioclassification. Due to its small size, Hyatt Creek did not receive a
use support rating. The small size of the stream is likely due to drought conditions during the
time of sampling. Several impacts were noted, however, and include lack of pools and instream
habitat, high sediment loadings, and minimal riparian vegetation. It is recommended that local
agencies work with landowners to install BMPs to improve the riparian zone and limit livestock
access to streams.

Water Quality Initiatives
HWA, Haywood County SWCD, and the Southwestern NC RC&D Council have secured
CWMTF grant money for BMP projects along Hyatt Creek. Since Hyatt Creek is part of the
Richland Creek watershed, refer to the Richland Creek Water Quality Initiatives (Section 5.3.3)
for more information.

Because of the water quality impairment noted above, Hyatt 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.

5.4 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.

5.4.1 Plott Creek [AU # 5-16-9]

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Plott Creek, from source to Richland Creek (4.7 miles), has not been monitored by DWQ.
However, HWA believes that Plott Creek may encounter problems associated with planned
Chapter 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 71

development activities in the surrounding area (HWA, 2002). Currently, 76 percent of this
watershed is forested; however, road data indicate that 60 percent of the land will be developed
as low density residential in the coming years. This change in the amount of impervious surface
could have potential negative water quality impacts. It is recommended that Haywood County
continue programs to minimize water quality impacts during development activities in order to
reduce the amount of sediment that is entering the watershed. In addition, the existing forested
areas adjacent to Plott Creek and its tributaries should remain for water quality protection.

Water Quality Initiatives
Because of the potential water quality problems noted above, Plott 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. NCEEP will partner
with the Haywood Waterways Association when working in this watershed.

5.4.2 Jonathan Creek [AU # 5-26-(7)]

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Jonathan Creek, from 0.4 miles downstream of Fines Creek to the Pigeon River (14.6 miles), is
currently Supporting in the aquatic life category due to Excellent bioclassifications at sites B-10
and B-12, a Good bioclassification at site B-11, and a Good-Fair bioclassification at SF-16. This
creek has been sampled since 1992, and monitoring data continually indicate excellent water
quality. The site assigned the Good bioclassification receives the discharge of the Maggie
Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The discharge may have had an effect on water
quality during this assessment period due to the low flow conditions caused by a four-year
drought (1998 to 2002).

Jonathan Creek drains through the Town of Maggie Valley, which includes both commercial and
residential areas, as well as agricultural land. It is recommended that local agencies work with
landowners to install BMPs to improve the riparian zone, targeting the residential areas of the
watershed, as well as the agricultural areas. Protecting the riparian corridor and minimizing the
impact of development in this watershed are other recommendations discussed in the local
Watershed Action Plan (HWA, 2002).

Water Quality Initiatives
Because of the excellent water quality noted above, Jonathan 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 projects in order to protect the existing ecosystem. This
watershed will be given higher priority than nontargeted watersheds for implementation of
NCEEP restoration projects.

5.4.3 Crabtree Creek [AU# 5-22]

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Crabtree Creek, from the source to the Pigeon River (3.3 miles), is currently Supporting in the
aquatic life category because of a Good-Fair bioclassification at site F-2. During the time of
sampling, a few habitat concerns were noted in Crabtree Creek, including narrow riparian zones
and eroding banks. There are also places where cattle have direct access to the stream. It is
Chapter 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 72

recommended that local agencies continue to work with landowners on the importance of water
quality protection and continue assisting with BMP installation to improve the riparian zone and
limit livestock access to streams.

5.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-05

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.

5.5.1 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification

Jonathan Creek [AU# 5-26-(7)]
Jonathan Creek, from 0.4 miles downstream of Fines Creek to the Pigeon River (14.6miles) is
currently Supporting due to Excellent and Good bioclassifications at sites B-10, B12, and B-11.
The current DWQ classification is C Tr. Refer to section 5.4.2 for more information.

West Fork Pigeon River (AU# 5-2a)
The West Fork Pigeon River, from source to the backwaters of Lake Logan (7.8 miles), is
Supporting due to an Excellent bioclassification at site B-2. The current DWQ classification is
WS-III, Tr.

East Fork Pigeon River [AU# 5-3-(6.5)]
The East Fork Pigeon River, from a point 0.5 miles upstream of Bee Branch to the Pigeon River
(13.0 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent bioclassification at site B-3. The current DWQ
classification is WS-III, Tr.
Chapter 5 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-05 73

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

Chapter 7
French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-07
Including the: Little Creek, Bald Mountain Creek, Cane River and Price Creek

7.1 Subbasin Overview

The southern portion of this subbasin lies within the
Pisgah National Forest, and the Town of Burnsville is the
largest municipality. By the year 2020, the overall
population of Yancey County is projected to increase by
16.7 percent. Refer to Appendix I for more information
regarding population growth and trends.

There is one NPDES wastewater discharge permit holder
in this subbasin. It is held by the Town of Burnsville
WWTP with a total permitted flow of 0.8 MGD. Refer to
Appendix VI for identification and more information on
individual NPDES permit holders. There are no
registered animal operations listed for this subbasin.

A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and
water quality monitoring stations is presented in Figure
11. Table 16 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 four benthic macroinvertebrate and three fish
community samples (Figure 11 and Table 16) 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.
Subbasin 04-03-07 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 153 mi2
Land area: 153 mi2
Water area: 0 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 8,964 people
Pop. Density: 57 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 87%
Surface Water: <1%
Urban: <1%
Cultivated Crop: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 12%

Counties
Yancey

Municipalities
Burnsville

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 04-03-07 are summarized in Section 7.2.
Recommendations, current status and future recommendations for previously or newly Impaired
waters are discussed in Section 7.3. Waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Section 7.4. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Section 7.5.
Chapter 7 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-07 82
DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin
Assessment
Unit #Name AL Benthic Community Fish Community Ambient DataREC
040307Table 16
Length/Area
21.6 SB-2SSCane River7-3-(13.7)a 2002Miles E
A-26 turbidity 20%3.5 B-1INDCane River7-3-(13.7)b 2002Miles E
F-18.0 S NDPrice Creek7-3-21 2002Miles G
SF-28.0 S NDPrice Creek 1997Miles GF
4.2 SB-1SNDBanks Creek7-3-21-4 2002Miles NI
SF-18.0 B-2SNDBald Mountain Creek7-3-32 2002 1997Miles E NR
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 040307

Table 17 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Category in Subbasin 04-03-07

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 41.7 mi 0.0 21.6 mi 0.0
Impaired 3.5 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 45.2 mi
0.0 ac 0.0 21.6 mi
0.0 ac 0.0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 168.7 mi 0.0 0.0 55.9 mi
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No Data 3.7 mi 217.6 mi 196.0 mi 0.0
Total 172.4 mi
0.0 ac 217.6 mi 196.0 mi 55.9 mi
Totals
All Waters* 217.6 mi
0.0 ac
217.6 mi
0.0 ac
217.6 mi
0.0 ac
55.9 mi
0.0 ac
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.

Refer to Appendix X for a complete list of monitored waters and more information on use
support ratings.

7.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 04-03-07 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 45.2 stream miles (20.8 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category. Of these, 3.5 stream miles (<2 percent) are Impaired. Refer to Table 17
for a summary of use support ratings for waters in subbasin 04-03-07.

Chapter 7 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-07 85

7.3 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.

7.3.1 Little Creek (AU# 7-3-33)

2000 Recommendations
Little Creek was listed on the 2000 (not yet approved) 303(d). 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.

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Little Creek was delisted from the state’s 2000 303(d) Impaired waters list. Refer to Appendix
VII for more information on the state’s 303(d) methodology and listing requirements. Little
Creek was previously rated for sediment based on erroneously evaluated information. Using
updated use support methodology, Little Creek was removed from the 303(d) list and is no
longer considered Impaired.

7.3.2 Cane River [AU#7-3-(13.7)b]

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Although the benthic macroinvertebrate data from Cane River near Sioux received an Excellent
bioclassification at site B-1, the ambient station at site A-26 found high turbidity levels.
Therefore, this section of Cane River, from Big Creek to the North Toe River (3.5 miles), is
Impaired due to exceeded turbidity criteria. Cane River is classified as a trout stream and has a
turbidity standard of 10 NTU. No more than 10 percent of the monthly samples collected during
this assessment period should exceed the standard. At site A-26, 20.4 percent of the samples
exceeded the turbidity standard.

DWQ will continue to monitor Cane River and work with local agencies to identify the source(s)
of turbidity. During land-disturbing/construction activities, water quality should be considered,
and BMPs should be installed to minimize or prevent future impacts to water quality in the Cane
River watershed. A TMDL management strategy should be developed in the future for the
turbidity violation. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has identified Cane River
as an area that supports listed and otherwise rare and sensitive aquatic species. Care should be
taken to protect these species and their aquatic habitat.

Chapter 7 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-07 86

7.4 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.

7.4.1 Price Creek (AU# 7-3-21)

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Price Creek, from source to Cane River (8.0 miles), is Supporting based on a Good
bioclassification at site F-1. Compared to the samples collected in 1997 (SF-2), the fish
community was more diverse, but ten species were represented by only one or two individuals,
reducing the percentage of species with multiple age classes to the second lowest site in the
basin. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the Price Creek watershed and work with
local agencies to maintain the fish population.

Water Quality Initiatives
Because of the potential water quality problem noted above, Price Creek has been identified by
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (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.

7.4.2 Bald Mountain Creek (AU# 7-3-32)

Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Bald Mountain Creek, from source to Cane River (8.0 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site B-2 and a Not Rated bioclassification at site SF-1. Bald Mountain Creek
has been sampled three times for benthic macroinvertebrates and has continually improved from
Good-Fair (1992) to Good (1997) to the most recent Excellent (2002) bioclassification. Water
quality and habitat conditions are likely influenced by nonpoint source runoff from agriculture,
forest and rural residential properties. The stream is also receiving runoff from SR 1408, which
parallels the creek for most of its length. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Bald
Mountain Creek.

7.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-03-07

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.

Chapter 7 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-07 87

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.

7.5.1 Bald Creek (AU#7-3-22)

The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) plans to widen US 19/19E to a multilane
highway from future I-26 (existing US 19/23) in Madison County to SR 1186 west of Micaville
in Yancey County. The total project length is 21 miles. In order to assess existing water quality
concerns, Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc. (Equinox) completed a
preliminary watershed characterization assessment for NCEEP during the winter of 2004. The
characterization assessment identified inadequate wastewater treatment, habitat degradation, and
poor riparian and stream habitats as the primary water quality concerns in this watershed
(NCDENR-NCEEP, February 2004b).

Bald Creek is a small rural watershed (approximately 18 square miles) in an area of steep ridges
and valleys. Many of the stream valleys have been cleared for homes, gardens and small farms.
Streams in the watershed often have very little woody riparian vegetation and course through
fields or a landowner’s yard. Almost all of the streams in this watershed are designated trout
waters. Fish monitoring by Equinox revealed very limited trout populations in many of these
streams, and noted that instream habitats have been degraded by channelization, removal of
riparian vegetation, and sedimentation. For a copy of the preliminary watershed characterization
assessment, visit www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Bald_Creek/bald_creek_phase_I_doc_final.pdf. A more
detailed assessment is scheduled for completion in late 2005.

In 1999, the NC Department of Environmental Health (NCDEH) Wastewater Discharge
Elimination (WaDE) Program surveyed household waste systems in the Bald Creek watershed.
Thirty-two (32) percent of households had waste systems that were inadequate because the
systems were associated with straight piped waste, failing septic systems, and/or unpermitted pit
privys. Eighteen (18) percent of households had blackwater straight pipes. Often, noncompliant
systems had grey water and blackwater pipes, but NCDEH only recorded what was seen as the
worst problems on site. To date, 15 repairs have been completed and were funded through grants
from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF). Repairs have also been made in
many of the subwatersheds, but there are still many more that need to be fixed (NCDENR-
NCEEP, February 2004b). It is recommended that additional funds be made available to
improve wastewater treatment in this watershed. For more information on this survey and the
impacts of straight piping on water quality, see Section 7.5.2.

New residential development is occurring in this watershed and will likely continue with the
completion of the new highway project. Sedimentation could pose a significant water quality
problem. It is recommended that construction activities follow any existing sedimentation and
erosion control programs, and developers adequately design their sites to minimize stormwater
runoff (NCDENR-NCEEP, February 2004b). Many of the tributaries to Bald Creek (including
Possumtrot and Elk Wallow Creek) are designated Trout (Tr) waters by DWQ. Under the NC
Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act (SPCA), development along trout waters must maintain
Chapter 7 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-07 88

either an undisturbed zone of 25 feet or of sufficient width to confine visible siltation within 25
percent of the buffer zone nearest the development/construction activities. Refer to Section 8.1.2
for more information. It is also recommended that education efforts be undertaken to make sure
that local governments and citizens are aware of this regulation and follow it during construction
activities. It is also recommended that Yancey County develop a local sediment and erosion
control program to minimize the impact of development on water quality.

7.5.2 Straight Pipes

In this subbasin, wastewater from many households is not treated at wastewater treatment plants
associated with NPDES discharge permits. The wastewater from these households is treated on
the property through the use of septic systems. Older or improperly maintained septic systems
can fail to properly treat waste and "bubble" or leak to the surface. Wastewater from some
homes in this area illegally discharge directly to streams through what is known as a "straight
pipe". Wastewater from these failing or illegal systems can make its way to streams or
contaminate groundwater. The discharge of untreated or partially treated sewage can be
extremely harmful to humans and the aquatic environment.

According to a 1999 household survey of 313 homes in this Bald Creek watershed, the Toe River
Health District, as part of the Toe River Clean Water Project, obtained the following data
(NCDENR-NCEEP, February 2004b):

ƒ 163 Properly functioning systems
ƒ 76 Malfunctioning systems
ƒ 42 Blackwater pipes
ƒ 29 Grey water pipes
ƒ 3 Failing Septic Systems
ƒ 2 Unpermitted Pit Privies

For more information on straight pipes, wastewater and/or failing septic systems, see Chapter 13.
Information is also available by contacting the environmental health section of the county health
department (Appendix VIII) or the NCDEH On-Site Wastewater Section (OSWW) WaDE
Program by calling 1-866-223-5718 or by visiting http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/oww/Wade/wade.htm.

7.5.3 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification

Cane River [AU# 7-3-(13.7)a]
Cane River, from the Town of Burnsville Water Supply Intake to Big Creek (21.6 miles), is
Supporting due to an Excellent bioclassification at site SB-2. The current DWQ classification is
C Tr.

Bald Mountain Creek [AU# 7-3-32]
Bald Mountain Creek, from source to Cane River (8.0 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site B-2. The current DWQ classification is C Tr. Refer to Section 7.4.2 for
more information.

Chapter 7 – French Broad River Subbasin 04-03-07 89

Chapter 8
North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications

8.1 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards

North Carolina’s Water Quality Standards Program adopted classifications and water quality
standards for all the state’s river basins by 1963. The program remains consistent with the
Federal Clean Water Act and its amendments. Water quality classifications and standards have
also been modified to promote protection of surface water supply watersheds, high quality
waters, and the protection of unique and special pristine waters with outstanding resource values.

8.1.1 Statewide Classifications

All surface waters in the state are assigned a primary classification that is appropriate to the best
uses of that water. In addition to primary classifications, surface waters may be assigned a
supplemental classification. Most supplemental classifications have been developed to provide
special protection to sensitive or highly valued resource waters. Table 18 briefly describes the
best uses of each classification. A full description is available in the document titled
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina
(NCDENR-DWQ, August 2004). Information on this subject is also available at DWQ’s website
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu.

Table 18 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications

PRIMARY FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER CLASSIFICATIONS*
Class Best Uses
C and SC Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation.
B and SB Primary recreation and Class C uses.
SA Waters classified for commercial shellfish harvesting.
WS Water Supply watershed. There are five WS classes ranging from WS-I through WS-V. WS classifications
are assigned to watersheds based on land use characteristics of the area. Each water supply classification has
a set of management strategies to protect the surface water supply. WS-I provides the highest level of
protection and WS-V provides the least protection. A Critical Area (CA) designation is also listed for
watershed areas within a half-mile and draining to the water supply intake or reservoir where an intake is
located.
SUPPLEMENTAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Class Best Uses
Sw Swamp Waters: Recognizes waters that will naturally be more acidic (have lower pH values) and have lower
levels of dissolved oxygen.
Tr Trout Waters: Provides protection to freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout.
HQW High Quality Waters: Waters possessing special qualities including excellent water quality, Native or Special
Native Trout Waters, Critical Habitat areas, or WS-I and WS-II water supplies.
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters: Unique and special surface waters which are unimpacted by pollution and
have some outstanding resource values.
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters: Areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant growth
resulting from nutrient enrichment.
* Primary classifications beginning with a "S" are assigned to saltwaters.
Chapter 8 – North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications Introduction 90

8.1.2 Statewide Water Quality Standards

Each primary and supplemental classification is assigned a set of water quality standards that
establish the level of water quality that must be maintained in the waterbody to support the uses
associated with each classification. Some of the standards, particularly for HQW and ORW
waters, outline protective management strategies aimed at controlling point and nonpoint source
pollution. These strategies are discussed briefly below. The standards for C and SC waters
establish the basic protection level for all state surface waters. The other primary and
supplemental classifications have more stringent standards than for C and SC, and therefore,
require higher levels of protection.

Some of North Carolina’s surface waters are relatively unaffected by pollution sources and have
water quality higher than the standards that are applied to the majority of the waters of the state.
In addition, some waters provide habitat for sensitive biota such as trout, juvenile fish, or rare
and endangered aquatic species.

High Quality Waters (Class HQW)
There are 273.6 stream miles of HQW waters in the
French Broad River basin (Figure 12). Special
HQW protection management strategies are
intended to prevent degradation of water quality
below present levels from both point and nonpoint
sources. HQW requirements for new wastewater
discharge facilities and facilities which expand
beyond their currently permitted loadings address
oxygen-consuming wastes, total suspended solids,
disinfection, emergency requirements, volume,
nutrients (in nutrient sensitive waters) and toxic
substances.

For nonpoint source pollution, development
activities which require a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan in accordance with rules
established by the NC Sedimentation Control Commission or an approved local erosion and
sedimentation control program, and which drain to and are within one mile of HQWs, are
required to control runoff from the development using either a low density or high density
option. The low density option requires a 30-foot setback between development activities and
the stream; whereas, the high density option requires structural stormwater controls. In addition,
the Division of Land Resources (DLR) requires more stringent erosion controls for land-
disturbing projects within one mile of and draining to HQWs.
Criteria for HQW Classification

• Waters rated as Excellent based on
DWQ’s chemical and biological
sampling.
• Streams designated as native or special
native trout waters by the Wildlife
Resources Commission.
• Waters designated as primary nursery
areas or other functional nursery areas
by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
• Waters classified by DWQ as WS-I,
WS-II or SA.

Outstanding Resource Waters (Class ORW)
There are 263.0 stream miles of ORW waters in the French Broad River basin (Figure 12).
These waters have excellent water quality (rated based on biological and chemical sampling as
with HQWs) and an associated outstanding resource.

Chapter 8 – North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications Introduction 91

The requirements for ORW waters are more
stringent than those for HQWs. Special
protection measures that apply to North
Carolina ORWs are set forth in 15A NCAC
2B .0225. At a minimum, no new
discharges or expansions are permitted, and
a 30-foot setback or stormwater controls for
new developments are required. In some
circumstances, the unique characteristics of
the waters and resources that are to be
protected require that a specialized (or customized) ORW management strategy be developed.
The ORW rule defines outstanding resource values
as including one or more of the following:

• an outstanding fisheries resource;
• a high level of water-based recreation;
• a special designation such as National Wild and
Scenic River or a National Wildlife Refuge;
• within a state or national park or forest; or
• a special ecological or scientific significance.

Primary Recreation (Class B)
There are 294.7 freshwater acres and 185.0 stream miles classified for primary recreation in the
French Broad River basin. Waters classified as Class B are protected for primary recreation,
include frequent and/or organized swimming, and must meet water quality standards for fecal
coliform bacteria. Sewage and all discharged wastes into Class B waters much be treated to
avoid potential impacts to the existing water quality.

Trout Waters
There are 272.2 freshwater acres and 2,132.5 stream miles classified as Trout (Tr) waters in the
French Broad River basin. Different water quality standards for some parameters, such as
dissolved oxygen, temperature and turbidity, have been developed to protect freshwaters for
natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. These water quality standards result in
more restrictive limits for wastewater discharges to trout water streams. There are no watershed
development restrictions associated with the Tr classification; however, the NC Division of Land
Resources (DLR), under the NC Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act (SPCA), has
requirements for protecting trout streams from land-disturbing activities. The SPCA states that
“waters that have been classified as trout waters by the Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) shall have an undisturbed zone either 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to confine
visible siltation within the twenty-five percent (25%) of buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing
activity, whichever is greater” [G.S. 113A-57(1)]. This rule applies to all named and unnamed
tributaries flowing to the affected trout water stream. For more information regarding land-
disturbing activities along designated trout streams, refer to the DLR website at
www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/.

The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) administers a state fishery management
classification known as the Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters. It provides for public
access to streams for fishing and regulates fishing activities (seasons, size limits, creel limits, and
bait and lure restrictions). Although many of these waters are also classified Tr by DWQ, this is
not the same classification.

Water Supply Watersheds (Class WS)
There are 710.9 freshwater stream miles and 566.4 freshwater acres currently classified for water
supply in the French Broad River basin (Figure 13). The purpose of the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Program is to provide a proactive drinking water supply protection
program for communities. Local governments administer the program based on state minimum
requirements. There are restrictions on wastewater discharges, development, landfills and
Chapter 8 – North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications Introduction 93

residual application sites to control the impacts of point and nonpoint sources of pollution to
water supplies.

There are five water supply classifications (WS-I to WS-V) that are defined according to the land
use characteristics of the watershed. The WS-I classification carries the greatest protection for
water supplies. No development is allowed in these watersheds. Generally, WS-I lands are
publicly owned. WS-V watersheds have the least amount of protection and do not require
development restrictions. These are either former water supply sources or sources used by
industry. WS-I and WS-II classifications are also HQW by definition because requirements for
these levels of water supply protection are at least as stringent as those for HQWs. Those
watersheds classified as WS-II through WS-IV require local governments having jurisdiction
within the watersheds to adopt and implement land use ordinances for development that are at
least as stringent as the state’s minimum requirements. A minimum 30-foot setback is required
on perennial streams in those watersheds in low density areas; a minimum 100 feet setback is
required in high density areas. The French Broad River basin currently contains WS-I, WS-II,
WS-III and WS-IV water supply watersheds.

8.2 Reclassification of Surface Waters

The classification of a surface water may be changed if a request is submitted by a local
government, watershed group, or a local citizen. DWQ reviews each request for reclassification
and conducts an assessment of the surface water to determine if the reclassification is
appropriate. If it is determined that a reclassification is justified, the request must proceed
through the state rule-making process. To initiate a reclassification, the “Application to Request
Reclassification of NC Surface Waters” must be completed and submitted to DWQ’s
Classification and Standards Unit. For more information on requests for reclassification and
contact information, visit http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/.

8.2.1 Pending and Recent Reclassifications in the French Broad River Basin

In Chapters 1 through 7, DWQ identified those surface waters as having Excellent
bioclassification, and therefore, may be eligible for reclassification. There may also be many
other surface waters eligible for reclassification that were not identified with the subbasin
chapters. Both private and public stakeholders play an important role in the reclassification
process and are responsible for filing formal requests with DWQ for reclass consideration. The
following waters have been reclassified or have been identified by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) as potential areas for reclassification.

Richland Creek [AU# 5-16-(1)] and several of the tributaries in the upper watershed were
reclassified and given the supplemental classification of Tr. Rules associated with the Tr
classification became effective September 1, 2004. Refer to Section 5.3.3 for more information
related to Richland Creek in the Pigeon River watershed.

Although the biological indices may not support reclassification at this time, the WRC believes
that portions of the Little River (AU# 6-38) will be eligible for reclassification to HQW in the
future. Little River supports listed and otherwise rare and sensitive aquatic species.

Chapter 8 – North Carolina Water Quality Standards and Classifications Introduction 94

Chapter 9
Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality

9.1 General Sources of Pollution

Human activities can negatively impact
surface water quality, even when the
activity is far removed from the
waterbody. With proper management of
wastes and land use activities, these
impacts can be minimized. Pollutants that
enter waters fall into two general
categories: point sources and nonpoint
sources.
Point Sources

Piped discharges from:
• Municipal wastewater treatment plants
• Industrial facilities
• Small package treatment plants
• Large urban and industrial stormwater systems

Point sources are typically piped discharges and are controlled through regulatory programs
administered by the state. All regulated point source discharges in North Carolina must apply for
and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the state.

Nonpoint sources are from a broad range of land use activities. Nonpoint source pollutants are
typically carried to waters by rainfall, runoff or snowmelt. Sediment and nutrients are most often
associated with nonpoint source pollution. Other
pollutants associated with nonpoint source
pollution include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance
that may be washed off the ground or deposited
from the atmosphere into surface waters.

Unlike point source pollution, nonpoint pollution
sources are diffuse in nature and occur
intermittently, depending on rainfall events and
land disturbance. Given these characteristics, it is difficult and resource intensive to quantify
nonpoint contributions to water quality degradation in a given watershed. While nonpoint source
pollution control often relies on voluntary actions, the
state has many programs designed to reduce nonpoint
source pollution.
Nonpoint Sources

• Construction activities
• Roads, parking lots and rooftops
• Agriculture
• Failing septic systems and straight pipes
• Timber harvesting
• Hydrologic modifications
Cumulative Effects

While any one activity may not have a
dramatic effect on water quality, the
cumulative effect of land use activities
in a watershed can have a severe and
long-lasting impact.

Every person living in or visiting a watershed
contributes to impacts on water quality. Therefore,
each individual should be aware of these contributions
and take actions to reduce them.

Chapter 9 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 96

9.2 Managing the Impacts of Growth, Development, and Stormwater
Runoff

9.2.1 Introduction

Urban growth poses one of the greatest threats to aquatic resources more than any other human
activity. The impacts on rivers, lakes and streams as development surrounding metropolitan
areas consumes neighboring forests and fields can be significant and permanent if stormwater
runoff is not controlled. Greater numbers of homes, stores and businesses require greater
quantities of water. Growing populations not only require more water, but they also lead to the
discharge and runoff of greater quantities of waste and pollutants into the state’s streams and
groundwater. Thus, just as demand and use increase, some of the potential water supply is lost
(Orr and Stuart, 2000).

In addition, as watershed vegetation is replaced with impervious surfaces in the form of paved
roads, buildings, parking lots, and residential homes and driveways, the ability of the
environment to absorb and diffuse the effects of natural rainfall is diminished. Urbanization
results in increased surface runoff and correspondingly earlier and higher peak streamflows after
rainfall. Flooding frequency is also increased. These effects are compounded when small
streams are channelized (straightened) or piped and storm sewer systems are installed to increase
transport of drainage waters downstream. Bank scour from these frequent high flow events tends
to enlarge urban streams and increase suspended sediment. Scouring also destroys the variety of
habitat in streams, leading to degradation of benthic macroinvertebrate populations and loss of
fisheries (EPA, 1999).

Most of the impacts result in habitat degradation (Chapter 10), but urban runoff also carries a
potentially toxic cocktail including oil and grease from roads and parking lots, street litter and
pollutants from the atmosphere. Cumulative impacts from developing and urban areas can cause
severe impairment to urban streams.

9.2.2 Effects of Growth and Development in the French Broad River Basin

Although the French Broad River basin is not one of the fastest developing basins in the state,
the effects of development are impacting water quality. Seven of the eight counties in the basin
experienced growth rates in excess of 13 percent in the last decade of the 20th century. The
sparsely developed watersheds of the northern portion of the basin generally contain streams
with high water quality, excellent aquatic species populations, and Supporting use support
ratings. Water quality declines dramatically in streams in the central watersheds, where
urbanization is focused around urban centers and interstate corridors. It is no surprise that the
greatest concentration of Impaired streams lies in the areas of Asheville and Hendersonville,
including the urbanizing corridors along interstate highways.

Populations of counties that are wholly or partly contained within the basin increased by over
70,000 people between 1990 and 2000. Appendix I presents projected population growth by
county for the French Broad River basin from 2000 to 2020. Buncombe, Haywood and
Henderson counties are growing the fastest in the basin. The county populations are expected to
grow by more than 122,000 to almost 575,000 people by 2020. Flat Rock, Fletcher and
Chapter 9 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 97

Hendersonville had very high growth rates. Black Mountain also increased population
substantially in the last ten years. Although the French Broad River basin population is growing
slower than some other river basins, there will be increased drinking water demands and
wastewater discharges. There will also be loss of natural areas and increases in impervious
surfaces associated with construction of new homes and businesses.

The overall population of the basin based on 2000 Census data is 393,795, with approximately
139 persons/square mile. Population density estimated by subbasin is presented in Appendix I.

Refer to Appendix II for local governments’ listing and Appendix III for land cover changes
related to urbanization.

In the past, the French Broad River basin was blessed with an abundance of surface water that
supported the industrial expansion of the mid-20th century and the current domestic expansion.
Even today, there is sufficient water to serve its diverse domestic, agricultural, industrial, energy
production and recreational needs except in periods of severe drought. But, it is those periods of
drought that point to the impending threats to the availability of good quality water. Clean water
can likely be provided in sufficient quantity to supply the future needs of the basin, but only with
inspired foresight, planning and management.

9.2.3 The Role of Local Governments

A summary of necessary management actions needed by local authorities is provided here,
followed by discussions on large, watershed management issues. These actions are necessary to
address current sources of impairment and to prevent future degradation in all streams. The
intent of these recommendations is to describe the types of actions necessary to improve stream
conditions, not to specify particular administrative or institutional mechanisms for implementing
remedial practices. Those types of decisions must be made at the local level.

Because of uncertainties regarding how individual remedial actions cumulatively impact stream
conditions and how aquatic organisms will respond to improvements, the intensity of
management efforts necessary to bring about a particular degree of biological improvement
cannot be established in advance. The types of actions needed to improve biological conditions
can be identified, but the mix of activities that will be necessary – and the extent of improvement
that will be attainable – will only become apparent over time as an adaptive management
approach is implemented. Management actions are suggested below to address individual
problems, but many of these actions are interrelated (NCDENR-DWQ, June 2003a).

Actions one through five are important to restoring and sustaining aquatic communities in the
watershed, with the first three recommendations being the most important.

(1) Feasible and cost-effective stormwater retrofit projects should be implemented
throughout the watershed to mitigate the hydrologic effects of development (increased
stormwater volumes and increased frequency and duration of erosive and scouring flows).
This should be viewed as a long-term process. Although there are many uncertainties, costs
in the range of $1 million per square mile can probably be anticipated.
ƒ Over the short-term, currently feasible retrofit projects should be identified
and implemented.
Chapter 9 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 98

ƒ In the longer term, additional retrofit opportunities should be implemented in
conjunction with infrastructure improvements and redevelopment of existing
developed areas.
ƒ Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from EPA initiatives,
such as Section 319 funds, or the North Carolina Clean Water Management
Trust Fund.

(2) A watershed scale strategy to address toxic inputs should be developed and
implemented, including a variety of source reduction and stormwater treatment
methods. As an initial framework for planning toxicity reduction efforts, the following
general approach is proposed:
ƒ Implementation of available BMP opportunities for control of stormwater
volume and velocities. As recommended above to improve aquatic habitat
potential, these BMPs will also remove toxics from stormwater.
ƒ Development of a stormwater and dry weather sampling strategy in order to
facilitate the targeting of pollutant removal and source reduction practices.
ƒ Implementation of stormwater treatment BMPs, aimed primarily at pollutant
removal, at appropriate locations.
ƒ Development and implementation of a broad set of source reduction activities
focused on: reducing non-storm inputs of toxics; reducing pollutants
available for runoff during storms; and managing water to reduce storm
runoff.

(3) Stream channel restoration activities should be implemented in target areas, in
conjunction with stormwater retrofit BMPs, in order to improve aquatic habitat.
Before beginning stream channel restoration, a geomorphologic survey should be conducted
to determine the best areas for stream channel restoration. Additionally, it would probably be
advantageous to implement retrofit BMPs before embarking on stream channel restoration, as
restoration is probably best designed for flows driven by reduced stormwater runoff. Costs
of approximately $200 per foot of channel should be anticipated (Haupt et al., 2002 and
Weinkam et al., October 2001). Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from
federal sources, such as EPA’s Section 319 funds, or state sources including North Carolina
Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF).

(4) Actions recommended above (e.g., stormwater quantity and quality retrofit BMPs) are likely
to reduce nutrient/organic loading and associated impacts to some extent. Activities
recommended to address this loading include the identification and elimination of illicit
discharges; education of homeowners, commercial applicators, and others regarding proper
fertilizer use; street sweeping; catch basin clean-out practices; and the installation of
additional BMPs targeting BOD and nutrient removal at appropriate sites.

(5) Prevention of further channel erosion and habitat degradation will require effective post-
construction stormwater management for all new development in the study area.

(6) Effective enforcement of sediment and erosion control regulations will be essential to the
prevention of additional sediment inputs from construction activities. Development of
improved erosion and sediment control practices may be beneficial.
Chapter 9 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 99

(7) Watershed education programs should be implemented and continued by local governments
with the goal of reducing current stream damage and preventing future degradation. At a
minimum, the program should include elements to address the following issues:
ƒ Redirecting downspouts to pervious areas rather than routing these flows to
driveways or gutters;
ƒ Protecting existing woody riparian areas on all streams;
ƒ Replanting native riparian vegetation on stream channels where such
vegetation is absent; and
ƒ Reducing and properly managing pesticide and fertilizer use.

9.2.4 Maintain and Develop Riparian Buffers

The presence of intact riparian buffers and/or wetlands in urban areas can reduce the impacts of
urban development. Establishment and protection of buffers should be considered where
feasible, and the amount of impervious cover should be limited as much as possible. Wide
streets, large cul-de-sacs, and long driveways and sidewalks lining both sides of the street are all
features of urban development that create excess impervious cover and consume natural areas.

Preserving the natural streamside vegetation (riparian buffer) is one of the most economical and
efficient BMPs. Forested buffers in particular provide a variety of benefits including filtering
runoff and taking up nutrients, moderating water temperature, preventing erosion and loss of
land, providing flood control and helping to moderate streamflow, and providing food and
habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife (NCDENR-DWQ, February 2004). To obtain a
free copy of DWQ’s Buffers for Clean Water brochure, call [phone], ext. 558.

9.2.5 Protecting Headwaters

Many streams in a given river basin are only small trickles of water that emerge from the ground.
A larger stream is formed at the confluence of these trickles. This constant merging eventually
forms a large stream or river. Most monitoring of fresh surface waters evaluates these larger
streams. The many miles of small trickles, collectively known as headwaters, are not directly
monitored and in many instances are not even indicated on maps. These streams account for
approximately 80 percent of the stream network and provide many valuable services for quality
and quantity of water delivered downstream (Meyer et al., September 2003). However,
degradation of headwater streams can (and does) impact the larger stream or river.

There are three types of headwater streams: perennial (flow year-round), intermittent (flow
during wet seasons), and ephemeral (flow only after precipitation events). All types of
headwater streams provide benefits to larger streams and rivers. Headwater streams control
flooding, recharge groundwater, maintain water quality, reduce downstream sedimentation,
recycle nutrients, and create habitat for plants and animals (Meyer et al., September 2003).

In smaller headwater streams, fish communities are not well developed and benthic
macroinvertebrates dominate aquatic life. Benthic macroinvertebrates are often thought of as
"fish food" and, in mid-sized streams and rivers, they are critical to a healthy fish community.
However, these insects, both in larval and adult stages, are also food for small mammals, such as
river otter and raccoons, birds and amphibians (Erman, 1996). Benthic macroinvertebrates in
Chapter 9 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 100

Figure 14 Diagram of Headwater Streams within a Watershed Boundary

headwater streams also perform the important function of breaking down coarse organic matter,
such as leaves and twigs, and releasing fine organic matter. In larger rivers, where coarse
organic matter is not as abundant, this fine organic matter is a primary food source for benthic
macroinvertebrates and other organisms in the system (CALFED, 1999). When the benthic
macroinvertebrate community is changed or extinguished in an area, even temporarily, as occurs
during land use changes, it can have repercussions in many parts of both the terrestrial and
aquatic food web.

Headwater streams also provide a source of insects for repopulating downstream waters where
benthic macroinvertebrate communities have been eliminated due to human alterations and
pollution. Adult insects have short life spans and generally live in the riparian areas surrounding
the streams from which they emerge (Erman, 1996). Because there is little upstream or stream-
to-stream migration of benthic macroinvertebrates, once headwater populations are eliminated,
there is little hope for restoring a functioning aquatic community. In addition to
macroinvertebrates, these streams support diverse populations of plants and animals that face
similar problems if streams are disturbed. Headwater streams are able to provide these important
ecosystem services due to their unique locations, distinctive flow patterns, and small drainage
areas.

Because of the small size of headwater streams, they are often overlooked during land use
activities that impact water quality. All landowners can participate in the protection of
headwaters by keeping small tributaries in mind when making land use management decisions
on the areas they control. This includes activities such as retaining vegetated stream buffers,
minimizing stream channel alterations, and excluding cattle from streams. Local rural and urban
planning initiatives should also consider impacts to headwater streams when land is being
developed. For a more detailed description of watershed hydrology and watershed management,
refer to EPA’s Watershed Academy website at
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/watershedmgt/principle1.html.

Chapter 9 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 101

9.2.6 Reduce Impacts of Future Development

Proactive planning efforts at the local level are needed to assure that development is done in a
manner that maintains water quality. These planning efforts will need to find a balance between
water quality protection, natural resource management and economic growth. Growth
management requires planning for the needs of future population increases, as well as developing
and enforcing environmental protection measures. These actions are critical to water quality
management and the quality of life for the residents of the basin.

Areas adjacent to the high growth areas of the basin are at risk of having Impaired biological
communities. These biological communities are important to maintaining the ecological
integrity in the French Broad River basin. These streams will be important as sources of benthic
macroinvertebrates and fishes for reestablishment of biological communities in nearby streams
that are recovering from past impacts or are being restored.

To prevent further impairment to aquatic life in streams in urbanizing watersheds local
governments should:

(1) Identify waters that are threatened by development.
(2) Protect existing riparian habitat along streams.
(3) Implement stormwater BMPs during and after development.
(4) Develop land use plans that minimize disturbance in sensitive areas of watersheds.
(5) Minimize impervious surfaces including roads and parking lots.
(6) Develop public outreach programs to educate citizens about stormwater runoff.

Action should be taken at the local level to plan for new development in urban and rural areas.

For more detailed information regarding
recommendations for new development found in the
text box (right), refer to EPA’s website at
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/protection,
the Center for Watershed Protection website at
www.cwp.org, and the Low Impact Development
Center website at www.lowimpactdevelopment.org.
Additional public education is also needed in the
French Broad River basin in order for citizens to
understand the value of urban planning and
stormwater management. DWQ recently developed a
booklet that discusses actions individuals can take to
reduce stormwater runoff and improve stormwater
quality entitled Improving Water Quality In Your
Own Backyard. To obtain a free copy, call (919)
733-5083, ext. 558. For an example of local
community planning, visit the website at
Planning Recommendations
for New Development

• Minimize number and width of
residential streets.
• Minimize size of parking areas
(angled parking & narrower slots).
• Place sidewalks on only one side of
residential streets.
• Minimize culvert pipe and
hardened stormwater conveyances.
• Vegetate road right-of-ways,
parking lot islands and highway
dividers to increase infiltration.
• Plant and protect natural buffer
zones along streams and tributaries.
http://www.charmeck.org/Home.htm.
Chapter 9 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 102

Chapter 10
Water Quality Stressors

10.1 Stressor Identification

10.1.1 Introduction and Overview

Water quality stressors are identified when impacts have been noted to biological (fish and
benthic) communities or water quality standards have been violated. Stressors apply to one or
more use support category and may be identified for Impaired, as well as Supporting but
impacted/noted waters. In many cases, identifying stressors is challenging because direct
measurements of the stressor may be difficult or prohibitively expensive. DWQ staff use field
observations from sample sites, special studies, and data from ambient monitoring stations to
identify stressors. It is important to identify stressors and potential sources of stressors so that
water quality programs can target limited resources to address these issues.

Most stressors to the biological community are a complex grouping of many different stressors.
Individually, they may not degrade water quality or aquatic habitat, but together they can
severely degrade both water quality and aquatic habitat. During naturally severe conditions,
such as droughts or floods, any individual stressor or group of stressors may have more severe
impacts to aquatic life than during normal climatic conditions. The most common source of
stressors is from altered watershed hydrology.

10.1.2 Stressor Sources

Sources of stressors are most often associated with land use in a watershed, as well as the quality
and quantity of any treated wastewater that may be entering a stream. Sources of stressors most
often come from a watershed where the hydrology is altered enough to allow the stressor to be
easily delivered to a stream during a rain event along with unnaturally large amounts of water.
DWQ identifies the source of a stressor as specifically as possible depending on the amount of
information available in a watershed. Most often, the source is based on the predominant land
use in a watershed.

Stressors sources identified in the French Broad River basin during this assessment period
include urban or impervious surface areas, construction sites, road building, agriculture, and
forestry. Point source discharges are also considered a water quality stressor source.

10.2 Habitat Degradation

Instream habitat degradation is identified in the use support summary (Appendix X) where there
is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or a negative change in habitat. This term includes
sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, loss of pools or riffles,
loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour. Good instream habitat is necessary for aquatic life
to survive and reproduce. Streams that typically show signs of habitat degradation are in
watersheds that have a large amount of land-disturbing activities (construction, mining, timber
Chapter 10 – Water Quality Stressors 103

harvest and agricultural activities) or a large percentage of impervious surfaces. A watershed in
which most of the riparian vegetation has been removed from streams or channelization has
occurred also exhibits instream habitat degradation. Streams that receive a discharge quantity
that is much greater than the natural flow in the stream often have degraded habitat as well.
Some Best Management Practices

Agriculture
• No till or conservation tillage practices
• Strip cropping and contour farming
• Leaving natural buffer areas around
small streams and rivers

Construction
• Using phased grading/seeding plans
• Limiting time of exposure
• Planting temporary ground cover
• Using sediment basins and traps

Forestry
• Controlling runoff from logging roads
• Replanting vegetation on disturbed areas
• Leaving natural buffer areas around
small streams and rivers
Determining the cause and quantifying amounts of
habitat degradation is very difficult in most cases.
To assess instream habitat degradation in most
streams would require extensive technical and
monetary resources and perhaps even more
resources to restore the stream. Although DWQ and
other agencies are starting to address this issue,
local efforts are needed to prevent further instream
habitat degradation and to restore streams that have
been Impaired by activities that cause habitat
degradation. As point sources become less of a
source of water quality impairment, nonpoint
sources that pollute water and cause habitat
degradation need to be addressed to further improve
water quality in North Carolina’s streams and rivers.

10.2.1 Sedimentation

Introduction
Soil erosion, transport and redeposition are among the most essential natural processes occurring
in watersheds. However, land-disturbing activities such as the construction of roads and
buildings, crop production, livestock grazing and timber harvesting can accelerate erosion rates
by causing more soil than usual to be detached and moved by water. If best management
practices (BMPs) are not used effectively, accelerated erosion can strip the land of its topsoil,
decreasing soil productivity and causing sedimentation in streams and rivers (NCDEHNR-DLR,
1998). Sedimentation is the process by which eroded soil is deposited into waters. Sediment
that accumulates on the bottom of streams and rivers smothers aquatic insects that fish feed upon
and buries fish habitat that is vital to reproduction. Sediment filling rivers and streams decreases
their storage volume and increases the frequency of floods (NCDEHNR-DLR, 1998).

Suspended sediment can decrease primary productivity (photosynthesis) by shading sunlight
from aquatic plants, affecting the overall productivity of a stream system. Suspended sediment
also has several effects on various fish species including avoidance and redistribution, reduced
feeding efficiency, and therefore, reduced growth by some species, respiratory impairment,
reduced tolerance to diseases and toxicants, and increased physiological stress (Roell, June
1999). Suspended sediment also increases the cost of treating municipal drinking water.

One of the most commonly noted types of habitat degradation in the French Broad River basin
was a result of sediment entering streams from adjacent land uses. During 2002 basinwide
monitoring, DWQ aquatic biologists reported streambank erosion and sedimentation throughout
the French Broad River basin. Lower bioclassification ratings were assigned because of
sedimentation; bottom substrate was embedded by silt and/or pools were partially filled with
Chapter 10 – Water Quality Stressors 104

sediment. Unstable and/or undercut (eroding) streambanks were also noted in explanation of
lower ratings (NCDENR-DWQ, June 2003b).

Land Clearing Activities
Erosion and sedimentation can be controlled during most land-disturbing activities by using
appropriate BMPs. In fact, substantial amounts of erosion can be prevented by planning to
minimize the (1) amount and (2) time the land is exposed. DWQ’s role in sediment control is to
work cooperatively with those agencies that administer sediment control programs in order to
maximize the effectiveness of the programs and to protect water quality. Where programs are
not effective, as evidenced by a violation of instream water quality standards, and where DWQ
can identify a source, then appropriate enforcement action can be taken. Generally, this entails
requiring the landowner or responsible party to install acceptable BMPs.

As a result of new stormwater rules enacted by EPA in 1999, construction or land development
activities that disturb one acre or more are required to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit. An
erosion and sediment control plan must also be developed and approved for these sites under the
state’s Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA) administered by the NC Division of Land
Resources. Site disturbances of less than one acre are required to use BMPs, but an approved
plan is not required.

Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act of 1973 (G.S. Chapter 113A, Article 4 referred to as "SPCA"). However, forestry
operations may be exempted from the permit requirements in the SPCA, if the operations meet
compliance standards outlined in the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A
NCAC 1I .0101-.0209, referred to as "FPGs") and General Statutes regarding stream obstruction
(G.S. 77-13 and G.S. 77-14). More information on forestry in the French Broad River basin is
available in Chapter 12 and on the Water Quality Section of the Division of Forest Resources
(DFR) website at http://www.dfr.state.nc.us.

For agricultural activities that are not subject to the SPCA, sediment controls are carried out on a
voluntary basis through programs administered by several different agencies (see Appendix VIII
for further information).

Stronger Rules for Sediment Control
The Division of Land Resources (DLR) has the primary responsibility for assuring that erosion is
minimized and sedimentation is reduced during construction activities. In February 1999, the
NC Sedimentation Control Commission adopted significant changes for strengthening the
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program (NCDEHNR-DLR, July-September 1999) as
follows:

ƒ Allows state and local erosion and sediment control programs to require a pre-
construction conference when one is deemed necessary.
ƒ Reduces the number of days allowed for establishment of ground cover from 30
working days to 15 working days and from 120 calendar days to 90 calendar
days. (Stabilization must now be complete in 15 working days or 90 calendar
days, whichever period is shorter.)
ƒ Provides that no person may initiate a land-disturbing activity until notifying the
agency that issued the plan approval of the date the activity will begin.
Chapter 10 – Water Quality Stressors 105

ƒ Allows assessment penalties for significant violations upon initial issuance of a
Notice of Violation (NOV).

Additionally, during its 1999 session, the NC General Assembly passed House Bill 1098 to
strengthen the Sediment Pollution Control Act of 1973 (SPCA). The bill made the following
changes to the Act (NCDEHNR-DLR, July-September 1999):

ƒ Increases the maximum civil penalty for violating the SPCA from $500 to $5000
per day.
ƒ Provides that a person may be assessed a civil penalty from the date a violation is
detected if the deadline stated in the Notice of Violation is not met.
ƒ Provides that approval of an erosion control plan is conditioned on compliance with
federal and state water quality laws, regulations and rules.
ƒ Provides that any erosion control plan that involves using ditches for the purpose of
dewatering or lowering the water table must be forwarded to the Director of DWQ.
ƒ Amends the General Statutes governing licensing of general contractors to provide
that the State Licensing Board for General Contractors shall test applicants’
knowledge of requirements of the SPCA and rules adopted pursuant to the Act.
ƒ Removes a cap on the percentage of administrative costs that may be recovered
through plan review fees.

For information on North Carolina’s Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program or to report
erosion and sedimentation problems, visit the new website at http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/ or you
may call the NC Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section at [phone].

Recent Review of Sediment Control Research
The two most popular sediment control devices are silt fences and sediment basins. In 2001,
DWQ staff conducted a review of peer-reviewed research publications and consulted with
experts at NC State University (NCSU) to investigate the effectiveness of current sediment and
erosion control practices. In addition, engineering calculations have been conducted to obtain
theoretical effectiveness of sediment basins and silt fences. Research conducted in North
Carolina showed that construction sites in North Carolina produce 10 to 188 tons per acre per
year of sediment. Such wide variation might be attributed to the significant spatial and temporal
differences in rainfall intensity and duration, soil characteristics, slope, and the type of soil cover.
DLR currently uses the assumption that (on average) construction sites produce 84 tons/acre-
year. For comparison, erosion in undisturbed natural systems is only 0.1-0.2 tons/acre-year.

Currently, sediment basins are designed to have 1,800 cubic feet of storage space for each acre of
disturbed land and a surface area based on the flow from all areas draining to the sediment basin.
Based on the reference review and consultation, DWQ has concluded that these basins have
numerous deficiencies, including:

ƒ Insufficient volume.
ƒ Inadequate cleaning frequency. (In many cases, effectiveness of the basins is
significantly reduced because they are not maintained.)
ƒ Short-circuiting. (In many cases, inlet and outlet in basins are constructed in very
close proximity, which results in a shorter than predicted retention time.)
Chapter 10 – Water Quality Stressors 106

ƒ Water to be drained from the surface where concentration of the sediment is the
lowest.
ƒ Basins need to be designed with consideration of total drainage area. Water from
undisturbed areas should be diverted around the basins. (In many cases, basins
are treating runoff from the entire drainage area, which is significantly larger than
that of cleared land.)

New research indicates that use of new technologies such as installation of baffles in the
sediment basins, application of flocculents, and use of skimmers can significantly increase
efficiency of sedimentation basins. Research funded by the Sedimentation Control Commission
(SCC) and the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) at NCSU demonstrated that turbidity
levels can approach the current turbidity standard of 50 NTU (for waters not classified Tr) in
runoff if these devices are used. However, the most important factor in reducing sedimentation
is timely cover of cleared land with mulches that are adequately tacked. It has been conclusively
proven that use of ground cover (temporary or permanent) dramatically reduces erosion rates.

10.2.2 Loss of Riparian Vegetation

During 2002 basinwide sampling, DWQ biologists reported degradation of aquatic communities
at numerous sites throughout the French Broad River basin in association with narrow or
nonexistent zones of native riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation loss was common in rural
and residential areas as well as in urban areas (NCDENR-DWQ, June 2003b).

Removing trees, shrubs and other vegetation to plant grass or place rock (also known as riprap)
along the bank of a river or stream degrades water quality. Removing riparian vegetation
eliminates habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates that are food for trout and other fish. Rocks
lining a bank absorb the sun’s heat and warm the water. Some fish require cooler water
temperatures as well as the higher levels of dissolved oxygen cooler water provides. Trees,
shrubs and other native vegetation cool the water by shading it. Straightening a stream, clearing
streambank vegetation, and lining the banks with grass or rock severely impact the habitat that
aquatic insects and fish need to survive.

Livestock grazing with unlimited access to the stream channel and banks can cause severe
streambank erosion resulting in degraded water quality. Although they often make up a small
percentage of grazing areas by surface area, riparian zones (vegetated stream corridors) are
particularly attractive to cattle that prefer the cooler environment and lush vegetation found
beside rivers and streams. This concentration of livestock can result in increased sedimentation
of streams due to "hoof shear", trampling of bank vegetation, and entrenchment by the
destabilized stream. Despite livestock’s preference for frequent water access, farm veterinarians
have reported that cows are healthier when stream access is limited (EPA, 1999).

Establishing, conserving and managing streamside vegetation (riparian buffer) is one of the most
economical and efficient BMPs. Forested buffers in particular provide a variety of benefits
including filtering runoff and taking up nutrients, moderating water temperature, preventing
erosion and loss of land, providing flood control and helping to moderate streamflow, and
providing food and habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife (NCDENR-DWQ, February
2004). To obtain a free copy of DWQ’s Buffers for Clean Water brochure, call [phone],
ext. 558.
Chapter 10 – Water Quality Stressors 107

10.2.3 Loss of Instream Organic Microhabitats

Organic microhabitat (leafpacks, sticks and large wood)
and edge habitat (root banks and undercut banks) play
very important roles in a stream ecosystem. Organic
matter in the form of leaves, sticks and other materials
serve as the base of the food web for small streams.
Additionally, these microhabitats serve as special
niches for different species of benthic
macroinvertebrates, providing food and/or habitat. For
example, many stoneflies are found almost exclusively
in leafpacks and on small sticks. Some beetle species
prefer edge habitat, such as undercut banks. If these
microhabitat types are not present, there is no place for
these specialized macroinvertebrates to live and feed. The absence of these microhabitats in
some streams in the French Broad River basin is directly related to the absence of riparian
vegetation. Organic microhabitats are critical to headwater streams, the health of which is linked
to the health of the entire downstream watershed.

Typical Channel Modifications

• Removal of any obstructions,
natural or artificial, that inhibit a
stream’s capacity to convey
water (clearing and snagging).
• Widening, deepening or
straightening of the channel to
maximize conveyance of water.
• Lining the bed or banks with
rock or other resistant materials.

10.2.4 Channelization

Channelization refers to the physical alteration of naturally occurring streams and riverbeds.
Typical modifications are described in the text box. Although increased flooding, bank erosion
and channel instability often occur in downstream areas after channelization has occurred, flood
control, reduced erosion, increased usable land area, greater navigability and more efficient
drainage are frequently cited as the objectives of channelization projects (McGarvey, 1996).

Direct or immediate biological effects of channelization include injury and mortality of benthic
macroinvertebrates, fish, shellfish/mussels and other wildlife populations, as well as habitat loss.
Indirect biological effects include changes in benthic macroinvertebrate, fish and wildlife
community structures, favoring species that are more tolerant of or better adapted to the altered
habitat (McGarvey, 1996).

Restoration or recovery of channelized streams may occur through processes, both naturally and
artificially induced. In general, streams that have not been excessively stressed by the
channelization process can be expected to return to their original forms. However, streams that
have been extensively altered may establish a new, artificial equilibrium (especially when the
channelized streambed has been hardened). In such cases, the stream may become locked in an
endless cycle of erosion and entrenchment. Once the benefits of channelization are outweighed
by the costs, both in money and environmental integrity, channel restoration efforts are likely to
be taken (McGarvey, 1996).

Channelization of streams within the continental United States is extensive and promises to
become even more so as urban development continues. Overall estimates of lost or altered
riparian habitats within US streams are as high as 70 percent. Unfortunately, the dynamic nature
of stream ecosystems makes it difficult (if not impossible) to quantitatively predict the effects of
channelization (McGarvey, 1996). Channelization has occurred historically in parts of the
Chapter 10 – Water Quality Stressors 108

French Broad River basin and continues to occur in some watersheds, especially in small
headwater streams.

10.2.5 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation

In March 2002, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) sent a letter to the
Sedimentation Control Commission (SCC) outlining seven recommendations for improving
erosion and sedimentation control, based on a comprehensive performance review of the
turbidity standard conducted in 2001 by DWQ staff. Specifically, the recommendations are that
the EMC and SCC:

(1) Evaluate, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, whether statutory authority
is adequate to mandate temporary ground cover over a percentage of the uncovered area
at a construction site within a specific time after the initial disturbance of the area. If it is
found that statutory authority does not exist, then the EMC and SCC should prepare
resolutions for the General Assembly supporting new legislation to this effect.

(2) Prepare resolutions supporting new legislation to increase the maximum penalty allowed
in the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act from $5,000 to $25,000 for the initial
response to a noncompliant site.

(3) Jointly support a review of the existing Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual by DLR. This review should include, but not be limited to, a redesign of
the minimum specifications for sedimentation basins.

(4) Evaluate, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, whether the statutory
authority is adequate for effective use of the "Stop Work Order" tool and, if found not to
be adequate, to prepare resolutions for the General Assembly supporting new legislation
that will enable staff to more effectively use the "Stop Work Order" tool.

(5) Support increased research into and experimentation with the use of polyacrylamides
(PAMs) and other innovative soil stabilization and turbidity reduction techniques.

(6) Jointly support and encourage the awarding of significant monetary penalties for all
activities found to be in violation of their Stormwater Construction General Permit, their
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, or the turbidity standard.

(7) Hold those individuals who cause serious degradation of the environment through
excessive turbidity and sedimentation ultimately responsible for restoration of the area.

DWQ will continue to work cooperatively with DLR and local programs that administer
sediment control in order to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and to take appropriate
enforcement action when necessary to protect or restore water quality. However, more voluntary
implementation of BMPs is needed for activities that are not subject to these rules in order to
substantially reduce the amount of widespread sedimentation present in the French Broad River
basin. Additionally, more public education is needed basinwide to educate landowners about the
value of riparian vegetation along small tributaries and the impacts of sedimentation to aquatic
life.
Chapter 10 – Water Quality Stressors 109

Funding is available through numerous federal and state programs for landowners to restore
and/or protect riparian buffer zones along fields or pastures, develop alternative watering sources
for livestock, and fence animals out of streams (refer to Chapters 11 and 16). EPA’s Catalog of
Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection (Document 841-B-99-003) outlines some of
these and other programs aimed at protecting water quality. A copy may be obtained by calling
the National Center for Environmental Publications and Information at [phone] or by
visiting the website at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/fund.html. Local contacts for
various state and local agencies are listed in Appendix VIII.

10.3 Fecal Coliform Bacteria

Fecal coliform bacteria live in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals (humans, as well as
other mammals) and are excreted in their waste. Fecal coliform bacteria do not actually pose a
danger to people or animals; however, where fecal coliform are present, other disease-causing
bacteria may also be present. Water that is polluted by human or animal waste can harbor other
pathogens that may threaten human health.

Fecal coliform bacteria, and other potential pathogens associated with waste from warm-blooded
animals, are not necessarily harmful to fish and aquatic insects; however, they can potentially
impact human health. High levels of fecal coliform bacteria can indicate high levels of sewage
or animal wastes that could make water unsafe for human contact (e.g., swimming). Pathogens
associated with fecal coliform bacteria can cause diarrhea, dysentery, cholera and typhoid fever
in humans. Some pathogens can also cause infection in open wounds. High levels of fecal
coliform bacteria may indicate contamination that increases the risk of contact with other
harmful pathogens in surface waters. In the French Broad River basin, data from DWQ’s
ambient monitoring stations in subbasins 04-03-02 and 04-03-05 (Chapters 1 and 5) show high
levels of fecal coliform bacteria in portions of the French Broad River mainstem and Richland
Creek. Both are Impaired in the recreation use support category.

Throughout the state, there are many waters that have high levels of fecal coliform bacteria
associated mostly with stormwater runoff in urban areas. Under favorable conditions, fecal
coliform bacteria can survive in bottom sediments for an extended period of time (Howell et al.,
1996; Sherer et al., 1992; Schillinger and Gannon, 1985). Therefore, concentrations of bacteria
measured in the water column can reflect both recent inputs, as well as the resuspension of older
inputs.

Reducing fecal coliform bacteria in wastewater requires a disinfection process, which typically
involves the use of chlorine and other disinfectants. Although these materials may kill the fecal
coliform bacteria and other pathogenic disease-causing bacteria, they also kill bacteria essential
to the proper balance of the aquatic environment, and thereby, endanger the survival of species
dependent on those bacteria.

Water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria are intended to ensure safe use of waters for
recreation and shellfish harvesting (refer to Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2B .0200).
The North Carolina fecal coliform standard for freshwater is 200 colonies/100ml based on the
Chapter 10 – Water Quality Stressors 110

geometric mean of at least five consecutive samples taken during a 30-day period and not to
exceed 400 colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of the samples during the same period.
Sources of Fecal Coliform
in Surface Waters

• Urban stormwater
• Wild animals and domestic pets
• Improperly designed or managed
animal waste facilities
• Livestock with direct access to
streams
• Improperly treated discharges of
domestic wastewater, including
leaking or failing septic systems
and straight pipes
A number of factors beyond the control of any state
regulatory agency contribute to elevated levels of
disease-causing bacteria. Therefore, the state does not
encourage swimming in surface waters. To assure that
waters are safe for swimming indicates a need to test
waters for pathogenic bacteria. Although fecal
coliform standards have been used to indicate the
microbiological quality of surface waters for
swimming and shellfish harvesting for more than 50
years, the value of this indicator is often questioned.
Evidence collected during the past several decades
suggests that the coliform group may not adequately
indicate the presence of pathogenic viruses or parasites
in water.

The detection and identification of specific pathogenic bacteria, viruses and parasites such as
Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Shigella are expensive, and results are generally difficult to
reproduce quantitatively. Also, to ensure the water is safe for swimming would require a whole
suite of tests for many organisms, as the presence/absence of one organism would not document
the presence/absence of another. This type of testing program is not possible due to resource
constraints.

Chapter 10 – Water Quality Stressors 111

Chapter 11
Agriculture and Water Quality

11.1 Animal Operations

In 1992, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted a rule modification (15A
NCAC 2H.0217) establishing procedures for managing and reusing animal wastes from intensive
livestock operations. The rule applies to new, expanding or existing feedlots with animal waste
management systems designed to serve animal populations of at least the following size: 100
head of cattle, 75 horses, 250 swine, 1,000 sheep or 30,000 birds (chickens and turkeys) with a
liquid waste system.

Key Animal Operation Legislation (1995-2003)

1995 Senate Bill 974 requires owners of swine facilities with 250 or more animals to hire a certified operator.
Operators are required to attend a six-hour training course and pass an examination for certification. Senate Bill
1080 established buffer requirements for swine houses, lagoons and land application areas for farms sited after
October 1, 1995.

1996 Senate Bill 1217 required all facilities (above threshold populations) to obtain coverage under a general permit,
beginning in January 1997, for all new and expanding facilities. DWQ was directed to conduct annual
inspections of all animal waste management facilities. Poultry facilities with 30,000+ birds and a liquid waste
management system were required to hire a certified operator by January 1997 and facilities with dry litter
animal waste management systems were required to develop an animal waste management plan by January
1998. The plan must address three specific items: 1) periodic testing of soils where waste is applied; 2)
development of waste utilization plans; and 3) completion and maintenance of records on-site for three years.
Additionally, anyone wishing to construct a new or expand an existing swine farm must notify all adjoining
property owners.

1997 House Bill 515 placed a moratorium on new or existing swine farm operations and allows counties to adopt
zoning ordinances for swine farms with a design capacity of 600,000 pounds (SSLW) or more. In addition,
owners of potential new and expanding operations are required to notify the county (manager or chair of
commission) and local health department, as well as adjoining landowners. NCDENR was required to develop
and adopt economically feasible odor control standards by March 1, 1999.

1998 House Bill 1480 extended the moratorium on construction or expansion of swine farms. The bill also requires
owners of swine operations to register with DWQ any contractual relationship with an integrator.

1999 House Bill 1160 extended (again) the moratorium on new construction or expansion of swine farms, required
NCDENR to develop an inventory of inactive lagoons. The Bill requires owners/operators of an animal waste
treatment system to notify the public in the event of a discharge to surface waters of the state of 1,000 gallons or
more of untreated wastewater.

2000 Attorney General Easley reached a landmark agreement with Smithfield Foods, Inc. to phase out hog lagoons
and implement new technologies that will substantially reduce pollutants from hog farms. The agreement
commits Smith field to phase out all anaerobic lagoon systems on 276 company-owned farms. Legislation will
be required to phase out the remaining systems statewide within a 5-year period (State of Environment Report
2000).

2001 House Bill 1216 extended (again) the moratorium on new construction or expansion of swine farms.
Chapter 11 – Agriculture and Water Quality 112

Table 19 summarizes, by subbasin, the number of registered livestock operations, total number
of animals, number of facilities, and total steady state live weight (SSLW) as of September 2003.
These numbers reflect only operations required by law to be registered, and therefore, do not
represent the total number of animals in each subbasin.

Overall the majority of registered animal operations are found in the upper portion of the basin.
Registered animal operations where recent data show problems are discussed in the appropriate
subbasin chapter.

Table 19 Registered Animal Operations in the French Broad River Basin (September 2003)

Cattle Poultry Swine
Total Total Total
Subbasin No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State
Facilities Animals Live Weight*Facilities Animals Live Weight*Facilities Animals Live Weight*
04-03-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04-03-02 7 2,810 3,886,000 0 0 0 1 2,000 283,400
04-03-03 2 425 595,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
04-03-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04-03-05 8 1,215 1,701,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
04-03-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04-03-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 17 4,450 6,182,000 0 0 0 1 2,000 283,400
* Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) is in pounds, after a conversion factor has been applied to the number of swine, cattle or
poultry on a farm. Conversion factors come from the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service
guidelines. Since the amount of waste produced varies by hog size, this is the best way to compare the sizes of the farms.

11.2 Impacted Streams in Agricultural Areas

In the French Broad River basin, the majority of agricultural land is in pasture use. There are
also a variety of specialty crop farms in this river basin including tomatoes, peppers and apple
orchards. Impacts to streams from agricultural activities can include excessive nutrient loading,
pesticide and herbicide contamination, bacterial contamination, and sedimentation. In several
watersheds, water quality data are indicating toxicity impacts to the aquatic biological
community attributable to the use of pesticides on these specialty operations. For more
information, refer to the discussion related to Mud Creek (Chapter 2) and the Mills River
(Chapter 3).

Overall, there has been a decrease in agricultural land use throughout the watershed. From 1982
to 1997, pasture use has decreased by 7.7% (18,000 acres). Cultivated and uncultivated crop
areas decreased by 28.0% and 45.5% (23,500 and 15,700 acres), respectively (USDA-NRCS,
June 2001). Impacts to water quality from agricultural sources may decrease over the next basin
cycle. It should be noted, however, that there has been an increase in urban/built-up areas in
many municipalities throughout the river basin. Refer to Appendix III for more information
regarding land use changes.
Chapter 11 – Agriculture and Water Quality 113

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will identify streams where agricultural land use may be impacting water quality and
aquatic habitat. This information will be related to local Division of Soil and Water
Conservation and NRCS staff to investigate the agricultural impacts in these watersheds and to
recommend BMPs to reduce impacts. DWQ recommends that funding and technical support for
agricultural BMPs continue and increase. Refer to Appendix VIII for agricultural nonpoint
source agency contact information.

11.3 Agricultural Best Management Practices Funding Opportunities

11.3.1 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP)

The Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP) provides technical, educational and
financial assistance to eligible farmers to address soil, water and related natural resource
concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. The
program provides assistance to farmers in complying with federal and state environmental laws
and encourages environmental enhancement. The purposes of the program are achieved through
the implementation of a conservation plan that includes structural, vegetative and land
management practices on eligible land. Five to ten-year contracts are made with eligible
producers. Cost share payments may be made to implement one or more eligible structural or
vegetative practice, such as animal waste management facilities, terraces, filter strips, tree
planting and permanent wildlife habitat. Incentive payments can be made to implement one or
more land management practices, such as nutrient management, pest management and grazing
land management.

Fifty percent of the funding available for this program will be targeted at natural resource
concerns relating to livestock production. The program is carried out primarily in priority areas
that may be watersheds, regions or multistate areas and for significant statewide natural resource
concerns that are outside of geographic priority areas. EQIP’s authorized budget of $1.3 billion
is prorated at $200 million per year through the year 2002.

NRCS district contacts for the French Broad River basin are provided in Appendix VIII or visit
the website at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/ for more information.

11.3.2 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program

The North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program was established in 1984 to help reduce the
sources of agricultural nonpoint source pollution to the state’s waters. The program helps
owners and renters of established agricultural operations improve their on-farm management by
using BMPs. These BMPs include vegetative, structural or management systems that can
improve the efficiency of farming operations while reducing the potential for surface and
groundwater pollution. The Agriculture Cost Share Program is a voluntary program that
reimburses farmers up to 75 percent of the cost of installing an approved BMP. The Division of
Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) implements the program. The cost share funds are paid to
the farmer once the planned control measures and technical specifications are completed. The
annual statewide budget for BMP cost sharing is approximately $6.9 million. From 1999 to
Chapter 11 – Agriculture and Water Quality 114

2003, $1,562,128 was provided for projects in counties wholly or partially in the French Broad
River basin. Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) contacts for the French Broad River
basin are included in Appendix VIII or visit the website at
http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/agcostshareprogram.html for more information.

11.3.3 Agricultural Sediment Initiative

In 2000, the NC Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the NC Soil and
Water Conservation Commission initiated an effort to assess stream channels and watersheds of
streams on the state’s 2000 303(d) list due to sediment where agriculture was included as a
potential source. The primary objective of the Agricultural Sediment Initiative was to evaluate
303(d) listed waters in order to assess the severity of sedimentation associated with agricultural
activities within the watershed and to develop local strategies for addressing sedimentation. The
initiative involved 47 Impaired stream segments in 34 counties and 11 river basins.

In 2001, the Soil and Water Conservation Commission allocated additional Agriculture Cost
Share Funds to districts to address agricultural sediment. In 2002, the districts in the French
Broad River basin received an additional $110,000 to implement agricultural BMPs in selected
watersheds, and an additional $30,000 was allocated in 2003.

Table 20 summarizes the results of the completed Agricultural Sediment Surveys for five
watersheds in three counties in the French Broad River basin. District staff requested
approximately $2,840,000 for restoration and protection work in four of the watersheds.

Table 20 Summary of Agricultural Sediment Initiative Surveys

Stream County Problems
Identified
Funds Requested
by District
Richland Creek Haywood Cropland erosion, pasture/hayland overuse, urban
development, road construction, streambank erosion $100,000
Hyatt Creek Haywood Streambank erosion, road construction, urban
development, livestock in stream $385,000
Mud Creek Henderson New development, road construction, streambank
erosion $725,000
Right Fork Cane Creek Henderson New development, streambank erosion in urban
areas, small amount of mining $765,000
Hominy Creek Buncombe Streambank erosion, urban development, road
construction, large stone quarry $865,000

Chapter 11 – Agriculture and Water Quality 115

Chapter 12
Forestry in the French Broad River Basin

12.1 Forestland Ownership

Controlling 72 percent of the approximately one million acres of forestland, North Carolina’s
non-industrial, private forest landowners own a majority of the forests found in the French Broad
River basin (Figure 15). Less than 1 percent of the forestland is actually owned by the forest
industry. The remaining 27 percent is under public ownership (Brown, January 2004). Publicly
owned forestland primarily consists of the Pisgah National Forest, Nantahala National Forest,
and the Great Smokey Mountains National Park. For more information about forestland
ownership or a copy of the most recent statistics for North Carolina, visit the USDA Forest
Service Southern Research Station webpage at http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/.

72% Nonindustrial
Landowners Forest
<1% Forest Industry
21% National Forest 6% State Owned/Local
Governments
Figure 15 Ownership of Forestland in the French Broad River Basin

12.1.1 Forest Management

Forest management is an economic driver within the French Broad River basin. For the period
of September 1997 through August 2002, nearly 2,850 acres of privately-owned forestland in the
basin were planted in trees, with a majority of these acres utilizing cost shared funding through
various North Carolina or federal programs. Over 900 forest management plans were developed
to support sustainable forests on 43,600 acres of forestland owned by non-industrial, private
landowners within this same time period. Currently, there are 23 tracts, containing nearly 3,500
acres certified as Forest Stewardship Forests within the basin. Furthermore, the Forest Legacy
Program has invested close to $500,000 in the French Broad River basin to purchase easements
and property to maintain sustainable forestland and protect water quality. For more information
on forest management, visit the website at www.dfr.state.nc.us.

Chapter 12 – Forestry in the French Broad River Basin 116

12.1.2 Urban Forestry

The City of Asheville and Town of Brevard have been certified as Tree City USA communities
for well over 20 years. Since 1997, The Urban Forestry and Community Development Grant
Program has invested nearly $200,000 into 21 community-based urban forestry projects in the
basin. These projects include urban forestry education, teacher training, forest inventories, tree
planting, and urban forest management. Urban forestry is a vital component in reducing runoff
by promoting green space and integrating trees into traditional cityscapes.

12.1.3 Forest Utilization

From the most recent wood product utilization data available (September 2003), 14 different
businesses reside in the French Broad River basin that are considered "Primary Processors" of
forestry-related raw material (i.e., sawmill, veneer mill, oriented strand board mill, chip mill,
paper mill, etc.). Twenty-nine primary processor businesses purchase forestry-related raw
material from the basin, which represents fewer than 10 percent of the primary processors
located in North Carolina.

12.2 State Forests (SFs)/Educational State Forests (ESFs)

North Carolina’s ESFs are designed to teach the public, especially school children, about the
forest environment. Each ESF features self-guided trails that include information kiosks,
exhibits, tree identification signs, a forest education center, forestry BMP demonstration areas,
and a talking tree trail. Specially trained rangers are available to conduct classes for school and
other youth groups. Teachers or group leaders choose from a selection of 30-minute programs
that cover all aspects of the forest environment - from soil, water and wildlife to timber and
forest management. More information on the Division of Forest Resources (DFR) SFs and ESFs
can be found on the website at www.dfr.state.nc.us.

In Henderson County, DFR manages over 10,000 acres at Dupont State Forest. This forest is
managed for many benefits including protection of unique natural communities, forestry
demonstration and research, watershed protection, wildlife, hunting and fishing, and protection
of cultural resources. Over 120,000 visit Dupont State Forest annually for its waterfalls, trails,
fishing, restricted hunting and scheduled programs.

Also in Henderson County, DFR manages approximately 235 acres at Holmes Educational State
Forest, thus, providing buffer protection to Crab Creek. The forest is managed as an outdoor
classroom for school groups and the general public, as well as for sustainable forestry and group
camping.

12.3 Forestry Water Quality Regulations in North Carolina

12.3.1 Forest Practices Guidelines for Water Quality (FPGs)

Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act of 1973 (G.S. Ch.113A Art.4 referred to as "SPCA") and amendments thereof.
However, forestry operations are exempt from the permit requirements of the SPCA, if the
Chapter 12 – Forestry in the French Broad River Basin 117

operations comply with performance standards outlined in the Forest Practices Guidelines
Related to Water Quality (15A NCAC 1I .0101 - .0209, referred to as "FPG’s") and North
Carolina General Statutes that address stream obstruction (G.S.77-13 and G.S.77-14). Detailed
information on maintaining compliance with the FPGs is available on the Water Quality Section
of the DFR website at www.dfr.state.nc.us.

DFR is delegated the authority, by the Division of Land Resources (DLR), to monitor and
evaluate forestry operations for compliance with these aforementioned laws. In addition, DFR
works to resolve FPG compliance questions brought to its attention through citizen complaints.
Violations of the FPG performance standards that cannot be resolved by DFR are referred to
DLR for enforcement action. During a five-year period beginning September 1997, DFR
conducted 434 FPG inspections of forestry and/or timber harvesting activities in the basin;
approximately 72 percent of the sites inspected were in compliance with the FPGs. Six sites
were later referred to DLR for noncompliance enforcement.

12.3.2 Other Forestry Related Water Quality Regulations

In addition to the FPGs, DFR monitors the implementation and compliance of the following in
this basin:

ƒ The US Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Section 404 Dredge and Fill
exemption for forestry activities.

ƒ The USACE’s 15 Best Management Practices to satisfy the exemption related to
forest road construction in wetlands.

ƒ The USACE’s six (6) Best Management Practices for mechanical site preparation
in support of pine plantation silviculture in southeastern wetlands.

12.3.3 Water Quality Foresters

One Water Quality Forester covers a large portion of the French Broad River basin. Created in
1999, Water Quality Forester positions are assigned to seven of the DFR’s 13 districts across the
state. The Water Quality Foresters conduct FPG inspections, develop pre-harvest plans, and
provide training opportunities for landowners, loggers and the public regarding soil conservation
and water quality protection practices related to forestry. Service foresters and county rangers
also handle water quality issues in the remainder of the basin, along with their other forest
management and fire control responsibilities. Contact information for each district and/or county
can be found on DFR’s website at www.dfr.state.nc.us.

12.3.4 Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Implementing forestry BMPs is strongly encouraged by the DFR in order to efficiently and
effectively protect the water resources of North Carolina. The Forestry Best Management
Practices Manual (NCDENR-DFR, September 1989) describes recommended techniques that
should be used to help comply with the state’s forestry laws and help protect water quality. Also
known as the “Blue Book”, this manual is currently undergoing its first revision since adoption
in 1989. Revisions to the manual are led by the DENR appointed Technical Advisory
Chapter 12 – Forestry in the French Broad River Basin 118

Committee (TAC). The second edition of the manual will be printed in a condensed pocket-
sized version, as well as a comprehensive desktop text. The pocket-sized, condensed version
will allow for greater distribution and on-site use by loggers and equipment operators. More
information on forestry BMPs can be found at DFR’s website at www.dfr.state.nc.us.

Among the BMP’s promoted for timber harvesting is the use of bridgemats for establishing
temporary stream crossings. DFR provides bridgemats for short-term loan to loggers for use in a
major portion of French Broad River basin. DFR’s Bridgemat Loan and Education Program is
an educational and protection project which promotes the benefits of using portable bridges for
stream crossings, in lieu of using other techniques such as culverts or hard-surface crossings,
both which have a greater potential to result in stream sedimentation. Grant awards from the
EPA Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program have funded all bridgemat purchases for
this loan program. It is recommended that additional bridgemats be made available for forestry
activities in the French Broad River basin. Further information on DFR's Bridgemat Loan
Program can be found on the DFR website at www.dfr.state.nc.us.

Since the last basin plan was issued, DFR has implemented the following in an ongoing effort to
improve compliance with forest regulations and, in turn, minimize nonpoint source pollution
from forestry operations:

(1) Established one Water Quality Forester position in the French Broad River
basin.
(2) Implemented internal and external water quality training programs specific to
FPG and BMP performance.
(3) Established the Forestry Nonpoint Source Unit at the Raleigh Central Office.
(4) Completed North Carolina's Forestry BMP Implementation Survey (2000-2003)
field data collection and Interim Report. Final Report development is ongoing.
(5) Expanded the Bridgemat Loan and Education Program and completed a three-
year summary report.
(6) Encouraged the use of Forestry BMPs through the ProLogger education and
water quality programs offered by the North Carolina Forestry Association.
(7) Undertaking revision of the North Carolina's Forestry BMP Manual (2nd
Edition).
(8) Established a new water quality website for the forestry community and North
Carolina citizens.

DFR continues its efforts to protect water quality through education and training programs,
demonstrations and research projects. Projects that address forestry NPS pollution prevention
can be found on the website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/What_is_NPS/forestry.htm. Progress reports
on these projects will be made available at the DFR website (www.dfr.state.nc.us).

Chapter 12 – Forestry in the French Broad River Basin 119

Chapter 13
Wastewater and Stormwater Programs

13.1 NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Summary

Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe,
ditch or other well-defined point of discharge are
broadly referred to as 'point sources'. Wastewater point
source discharges include municipal (city and county)
and industrial wastewater treatment plants and small
domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools,
commercial offices, residential subdivisions and
individual homes. Stormwater point source discharges
include stormwater collection systems for
municipalities that serve populations greater than 100,000 and stormwater discharges associated
with certain industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and
obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits
are issued under the NPDES program, which is delegated to DWQ by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The primary pollutants associated
with point source discharges are:

* oxygen-consuming wastes,
* nutrients,
* color, and
* toxic substances including chlorine,
ammonia and metals.

Currently, there are 137 permitted
wastewater discharges in the French Broad
River basin. Table 21 provides summary
information (by type and subbasin) about
the discharges. Various types of
dischargers listed in the table are described
in the inset box. Facilities are mapped in
each subbasin chapter. For a complete
listing of permitted facilities in the basin,
refer to Appendix VI.
Types of Wastewater Discharges

Major Facilities: Wastewater Treatment Plants with
flows ≥1 MGD (million gallons per day); and some
industrial facilities (depending on flow and potential
impacts to public health and water quality).
Minor Facilities: Facilities not defined as Major.
100% Domestic Waste: Facilities that only treat
domestic-type waste (from toilets, sinks, washers).
Municipal Facilities: Public facilities that serve a
municipality. Can treat waste from homes and
industries.
Nonmunicipal Facilities: Non-public facilities that
provide treatment for domestic, industrial or
commercial wastewater. This category includes
wastewater from industrial processes such as
textiles, mining, seafood processing, glass-making
and power generation, and other facilities such as
schools, subdivisions, nursing homes, groundwater
remediation projects, water treatment plants and
non-process industrial wastewater.

The majority of NPDES permitted
wastewater flow into the waters of the
French Broad River basin are from major
municipal wastewater treatment plants
(WWTP). Nonmunicipal discharges also
contribute substantial wastewater flow into
the French Broad River basin. Facilities,
large or small, where recent data show
problems with a discharge are discussed in
each subbasin chapter.

Chapter 13 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 120

Table 21 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the French Broad
River Basin (September 2003)

French Broad River Subbasin
Facility Categories 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Total
Total Facilities 15 67 8 11 16 19 1 137
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 32.976 55.423 0.245 0.984 37.132 14.493 0.80 142.05
Major Discharges 3 30034 013
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 32.4 49.6 0.0 0.0 36.9 10.99 0.0 129.89
Minor Discharges 12 64 8 11 13 15 1 124
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.576 5.823 0.245 0.984 0.232 3.503 0.80 12.16
100% Domestic Waste 8 54 7 5 11 6 0 91
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.441 1.339 0.065 0.066 0.232 0.056 0.0 2.20
Municipal Facilities 2 20423 114
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 2.59 44.8 0.0 0.915 7.0 2.395 0.80 58.50
Nonmunicipal Facilities 13 65 8 7 14 16 0 123
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 30.386 10.623 0.245 0.069 30.132 12.098 0.0 83.55

13.2 DWQ Stormwater Programs

There are many different stormwater programs administered by DWQ. One or more of these
programs affects many communities in the French Broad River basin. The goal of the DWQ
stormwater discharge permitting regulations and programs is to prevent pollution from entering
the waters of the state via stormwater runoff. These programs try to accomplish this goal by
controlling the source(s) of pollutants. These programs include NPDES Phase I and II,
HQW/ORW stormwater requirements, and requirements associated with the Water Supply
Watershed Program. Local governments that are or may be affected by these programs are
presented in Table 22.

13.2.1 NPDES Phase I

Phase I of the EPA stormwater program started with Amendments to the Clean Water Act
(CWA) in 1990. Phase I required NPDES permit coverage to address stormwater runoff from
medium and large stormwater sewer systems serving populations of 100,000 or more. There are
no NPDES Phase I stormwater permits issued to communities in the basin.

Phase I also had requirements for ten categories of industrial sources to be covered under
stormwater permits. Industrial activities which require permitting are defined in categories
ranging from sawmills and landfills to manufacturing plants and hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal facilities. Construction sites disturbing greater than five acres are also
Chapter 13 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 121

required to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit under Phase I of the EPA stormwater program.
Excluding construction stormwater general permits, there are 139 general stormwater permits
and 6 individual stormwater permits. Refer to the subbasin chapters for more information on
stormwater programs and permits and a complete listing of individual permits in Appendix VI.

13.2.2 NPDES Phase II

The Phase II stormwater program is an extension of the Phase I program that will include permit
coverage for smaller municipalities and cover construction activities down to one acre. The local
governments permitted under Phase II will be required to develop and implement a
comprehensive stormwater management program that includes six minimum measures.

(1) Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts.
(2) Public involvement/participation.
(3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination.
(4) Construction site stormwater runoff control.
(5) Post-construction stormwater management for new development and
redevelopment.
(6) Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations.

Construction sites greater than one acre will also be required to obtain an NPDES stormwater
permit under Phase II of the EPA stormwater program in addition to erosion and sedimentation
control approvals.

Twelve municipalities and one county (Table 22) in the basin are automatically required (based
on 1990 US Census Designated Urban Areas and results of the 2000 US Census) to obtain a
NPDES stormwater permit under the Phase II rules. These local governments were required to
submit applications for NPDES stormwater permits by March 2003. DWQ is currently
developing criteria that will be used to determine whether other municipalities should be
required to obtain a NPDES permit and how the program will be implemented. DWQ is also
working to finalize state rules to implement the Phase II stormwater rules as required by the
EPA.

2004 Recommendations
DWQ recommends that the local governments that will be permitted under Phase II proceed with
permit applications and develop programs that can go beyond the six minimum measures.
Implementation of Phase II, as well as the other stormwater programs, should help to reduce
future impacts to streams in the basin. Local governments, to the extent possible, should identify
sites for preservation or restoration. DWQ and other NCDENR agencies will continue to
provide information on funding sources and technical assistance to support local government
stormwater programs.

13.2.3 State Stormwater Program

The State Stormwater Management Program was established in the late 1980s under the
authority of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and North
Carolina General Statute 143-214.7. This program, codified in 15A NCAC 2H .1000, affects
development activities that require either an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (for disturbances
Chapter 13 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 122

of one or more acres) or a CAMA major permit within one of the 20 coastal counties and/or
development draining to Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or High Quality Waters (HQW).
The State Stormwater Management Program requires developments to protect these sensitive
waters by maintaining a low density of impervious surfaces, maintaining vegetative setbacks,
and transporting runoff through vegetative conveyances. Low density development thresholds
vary from 12-30 percent built-upon area (impervious surface) depending on the classification of
the receiving stream. If low density design criteria cannot be met, then high density
development requires the installation of structural best management practices (BMPs) to collect
and treat stormwater runoff from the project. High density BMPs must control the runoff from
the 1 or 1.5-inch storm event (depending on the receiving stream classification) and remove 85
percent of the total suspended solids.

Table 22 shows the seven counties in the French Broad River basin where permits may be
required under the state stormwater management program. All development requiring an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (for disturbances of one or more acres) must obtain a
stormwater permit.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue implementing the state stormwater program with the other NCDENR
agencies and local governments. Local governments should develop local land use plans that
minimize impervious surfaces in sensitive areas. Communities should integrate state stormwater
program requirements, to the extent possible, with other stormwater programs in order to be
more efficient and gain the most water quality benefits for protection of public health and aquatic
life.

13.3 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules

Current Status
The purpose of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program is to provide a proactive
drinking water supply protection program for communities. Local governments administer the
program based on state minimum requirements. There are restrictions on wastewater discharges,
development, landfills and residual application sites to control the impacts of point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. The program attempts to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff by
utilizing low density development or stormwater treatment in high density areas.

All communities in the French Broad River basin in water supply watersheds have EMC
approved water supply watershed protection ordinances (Table 22).

2005 Recommendations
DWQ recommends continued implementation of local water supply protection ordinances to
ensure safe and economical treatment of drinking water. Communities should also integrate
water supply protection ordinances with other stormwater programs, to the extent possible, in
order to be more efficient and gain the most water quality benefits for both drinking water and
aquatic life.

Chapter 13 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 123

Table 22 Communities in the French Broad River Subject to Stormwater Requirements

NPDES
State
Stormwater
Program
Water Supply
Watershed Stormwater
Requirements
Local Government Phase I Phase II
Municipalities
Newland X
Sugar Mountain X
Asheville X X
Biltmore Forest X
Black Mountain X
Montreat X X
Weaverville X
Woodfin X
Canton X X
Clyde X
Hazelwood
Maggie Valley X
Waynesville X X
Flat Rock
Fletcher X
Hendersonville X
Laurel Park X X
Hot Springs X
Mars Hill X
Marshall
Bakersville
Brevard X
Spruce Pine
Burnsville
Rosman
Mills River X
Counties
Avery X
Buncombe X X
Haywood X X X
Henderson X X
Madison X X
Mitchell X X
Transylvania X X
Yancey X X

Chapter 13 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 124

13.4 Septic Systems and Straight Piping

In the French Broad River basin, wastewater from many households is not treated at wastewater
treatment plants associated with NPDES discharge permits, but is treated on the property through
the use of permitted septic systems. Wastewater from some of these homes illegally discharges
directly to streams through what is known as a "straight pipe". In other cases, wastewater from
failing septic systems makes its way to streams or contaminates groundwater. Straight piping
and failing septic systems are illegal discharges of wastewater into waters of the state.

With on-site septic systems, the septic tank unit treats some wastes, and the drainfield associated
with the septic tank provides further treatment and filtration of the pollutants and pathogens
found in wastewater. A septic system that is operating properly does not discharge untreated
wastewater to streams and lakes or to the ground’s surface where it can run into nearby surface
waters. Septic systems are a safe and effective long-term method for treating wastewater if they
are sited, sized and maintained properly. If the tank or drainfield are improperly located or
constructed, or the systems are not maintained, nearby wells and surface waters may become
contaminated, causing potential risks to human health. Septic tanks must be properly installed
and maintained to ensure they function properly over the life of the system. Information about
the proper installation and maintenance of septic tanks can be obtained by calling the
environmental health sections of the local county health departments (Appendix VIII contains
contact information).

The discharge of untreated or partially treated sewage can be extremely harmful to humans and
the aquatic environment. Pollutants from illegally discharged household wastewater contain
chemical nutrients, disease pathogens and endocrine disrupting chemicals. Although DWQ
ambient monitoring of the waters in the French Broad River basin show a relatively small
percentage of fecal coliform bacteria samples exceeding state standards for primary recreation,
smaller streams may contain a higher concentration of bacteria and other pollutants. The
economies of the counties in this basin are highly dependent upon river recreation, especially for
tourists and seasonal residents. Concerns were expressed at public workshops for the French
Broad River basin about the possibility of failing septic systems and straight pipes, as well as the
number of septic systems that are currently being permitted each year.

In order to protect human health and maintain water quality, straight pipes must be eliminated
and failing septic systems must be repaired. The Wastewater Discharge Elimination (WaDE)
Program is actively helping to identify and remove straight pipes (and failing septic systems) in
the western portion of North Carolina. This program uses door-to-door surveys to locate straight
pipes and failing septic systems, and offers deferred loans or grants to homeowners who have to
eliminate the straight pipes by installing a septic system. The program also offers deferred loans
and grants to repair malfunctioning septic systems. Buncombe County, Henderson County,
Madison County, Transylvania County and the Toe River Health Departments have obtained
grant money to conduct similar surveys. The results of the recent surveys are presented in Table
23.

Chapter 13 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 125

Table 23 Results of Recent WaDE Surveys in the French Broad River Basin

Lead
Agency
WaDE/
Buncombe County
Health Department
Madison County
Health Department
Toe River
Health District
WaDE/
CWMTF/EPA
Initiative
Project Dates 01/00-03/02 03/98-05/03 04/99-12/03 06/02-04/04
Terms of Funding 1 year 2 years 3 years 3 years
Homes Visited 2,027 ~10,000 ~1,100 3,351
Inspections
Completed 1,844 5,360 707 2,098
Violations Found 265 996 213 268
Corrections with
Assistance 12 143 127 15
Total Corrections 151 446 194 96

2005 Recommendations
Efforts to create a permanent statewide septic maintenance and repair program similar to the
straight pipe and failing septic system initiative currently active in western NC should be
pursued. The WaDE Program in collaboration with the Local Health Departments should
request additional funding from the CWMTF (Section 16.3.2) and Section 319 Program (Section
16.2.1) to continue the straight pipe elimination program for the French Broad River basin.
Additional monitoring of fecal coliform throughout tributary watersheds where straight pipes and
failing septic systems are a potential problem should be conducted in order to narrow the focus
of the surveys. For more information on the WaDE Program, contact the DENR On-Site
Wastewater Section, NC Division of Environmental Health, toll free at 1-866-223-5718 or visit
their website at http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/oww/Wade/wade.htm.

Additionally, precautions should be taken by local septic system permitting authorities to ensure
that new systems are sited and constructed properly and that an adequate repair area is also
available. Educational information should also be provided to new septic system owners
regarding the maintenance of these systems over time. DWQ has developed a booklet that
discusses actions individuals can take to reduce stormwater runoff and improve stormwater
quality entitled Improving Water Quality In Your Own Backyard. The publication includes a
discussion about septic system maintenance and offers other sources of information. To obtain a
free copy, call [phone], ext. 558.

The following website also offers good information in three easy to follow steps:
http://www.wsg.washington.edu/outreach/mas/water_quality/septicsense/septicmain.html.

Chapter 13 – Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 126

Chapter 14
Water Resources

14.1 River Basin Hydrologic Units

Under the federal system, the French Broad River basin is made up of hydrologic areas referred
to as cataloging units (USGS 8-digit hydrologic units). The French Broad River basin is made
up of three whole cataloging units: the Upper French Broad River, Pigeon River and Nolichucky
River. Cataloging units are further divided into smaller watershed units (14-digit hydrologic
units or local watersheds) that are used for smaller scale planning like that done by NCEEP
(Section 16.3). There are 89 local watershed units in the basin. Table 24 compares the three
systems. A map identifying the hydrologic units and subbasins can be found in Appendix I.

Table 24 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the French Broad River Basin

Watershed Name
and
Major Tributaries
DWQ
Subbasin
6-Digit
Codes
USGS
8-Digit
Hydrologic
Units
USGS
14-Digit Hydrologic Units
Local Watersheds*
Upper French Broad River
East Fork French Broad River
North Fork French Broad River
West Fork French Broad River
Little River

Cane Creek
Hominy Creek
Mud Creek
Sandymush Creek
Swannanoa River

Davidson River
Mills River

Big Ivy Creek (River)
Big Laurel Creek
Spring Creek

04-03-01

04-03-02

04-03-03

04-03-04
06010105

070010, 010010, 010020, 010030, 010040, 010050,
010055, 010060, 010080, 020010, 030010, 030020,
030030, 030040, 040010, 040020, 050010, 060010,
060020, 060030, 070020, 070030, 070040, 080010,
080020, 080030, 090010, 090020, 090030, 090040,
010070, 020015, 020020, 020030, 080040, 100010,
100020, 100030, 100040, 110010, 110020, 110030,
110040, 110050, 120010, 120020, 120030, 120040,
130010, 130020, 130030, 130040, 140010
Pigeon River
East Fork Pigeon River
West Fork Pigeon River
Big Creek
Cataloochee Creek
Jonathan Creek
Richland Creek

04-03-05

06010106

010010, 010020, 010030, 010040, 020010, 020020,
020030, 020040, 020050, 020060, 020070, 030010,
030020, 030030, 030040
Nolichucky River
Big Rock Creek
North Toe River
South Toe River

Cane River

04-03-06

04-03-07
06010108 010010, 010020, 010030, 010040, 020010, 020020,
020030, 030010, 040010, 050010, 060010, 060020,
100010, 100020, 100030, 120010, 070010, 080010,
080020, 080030, 080040
* Numbers from the 8-digit and 14-digit column make the full 14-digit HU. Example: 06010105070010 is one 14-digit HU.
Chapter 14 – Water Resources 127

14.2 Minimum Streamflow

One of the purposes of the Dam Safety Law is to ensure maintenance of minimum streamflows
below dams. Conditions may be placed on dam operations specifying mandatory minimum
releases in order to maintain adequate quantity and quality of water in the length of a stream
affected by an impoundment. The Division of Water Resources (DWR), in conjunction with the
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), recommends conditions relating to release of flows to
satisfy minimum instream flow requirements. The Division of Land Resources (DLR) issues the
permits. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses all dams associated with
hydropower.

Hydroelectric Dams
There are five operational dams in the French Broad River basin, including three on the French
Broad River, one on Ivy Creek, and one on the Pigeon River. Information on each of these dams
is presented below.

Craggy Dam is required by FERC to provide a tiered release of 460 cfs from July through
January, and 860 cfs the remainder of the year. This dam operates in a run-of-river (non-
peaking) mode and bypasses 3,200 feet of natural channel. It is located just downstream of the
Beaverdam Creek confluence, and the facility is owned and operated by Buncombe County
Metropolitan Sewer District.

Capitola Dam has no minimum release requirement according to their FERC license. This dam
operates in a run-of-river (non-peaking) mode and bypasses 1,000 feet of natural channel. It is
located just upstream of Marshall, and the facility is owned and operated by the French Broad
Electric Membership Corporation.

Redmon Dam has no minimum release requirement according to their FERC license. The dam is
operates in a run-of-river (non-peaking) mode and has no bypass stream channel. It is located
just downstream of Marshall and the facility is owned and operated by Progress Energy.

Ivy River (Creek) Dam is located in AU# 6-96-(11.7). This facility is required by FERC to
provide a 7Q10 flow of 16 cfs. A calibrated gage is required to monitor downstream flows. This
dam operates in a run-of-river (non-peaking) mode and has no bypass channel. It is located 2.2
miles upstream of the mouth of Ivy Creek and is owned by Sithe Energies, Inc.

The Walters hydroelectric facility is located in AU# 5-(7) and is operated by Progress Energy.
This facility is required by FERC to provide a minimum flow of 100 cfs one mile below the
powerhouse at Brown’s Bridge in Tennessee. A gage is required at Brown’s Bridge to monitor
flows. From the dam to the powerhouse, the facility bypasses 12 miles of natural channel. The
powerhouse is located at the Pigeon River confluence with Big Creek on the North Carolina-
Tennessee border.

Scheduled recreational releases are also required at Walters. The Schedule One recreational
release is 1,200 cfs from 1:00 pm to 6:00 pm on two weekdays during each week, and 12:00 pm
to 6:00 pm on Saturdays between the Saturday of the Memorial Day weekend and the Saturday
of the Labor Day weekend. The Schedule Two recreational release is 1,200 cfs from 2:00 pm to
Chapter 14 – Water Resources 128

6:00 pm on not less than three weekdays per week during the two weeks prior to the Memorial
Day weekend and the two weeks after the Labor Day weekend. The release schedule may be
modified based on recreational use. The utility is to provide a toll-free phone number to provide
information on the recreational flow releases.

No minimum release will be required in the bypassed natural channel until water quality and
biological criteria are met. In lieu of a minimum flow, the utility will contribute funds to the
Pigeon River Fund (www.pigeonriverfund.org) that will be administered by the Pigeon River
Committee. In exchange for contributions to the fund, the Secretary of DENR will not seek a
minimum release from the dam for ten years. When water quality and biological criteria are met,
the established minimum release into the bypassed channel will be 30 cfs during May and June,
and 20 cfs during the remainder of the year.

The Cascade Power Company surrendered the license to operate the Cascade hydroelectric
facility on the Little River [AU# 6-38-(1)]. During operation, the facility was required to
provide a 7Q10 flow of 23 cfs below the dam. A calibrated gage was established to monitor the
flow requirement. The dam release was required to provide water in a run-of-river mode, and it
bypassed 1,016 feet of natural stream channel when in operation.

Lake Junaluska located on Richland Creek [AU# 5-16-(16)] previously was a hydroelectric dam.
In 1995, The Lake Junaluska Assembly surrendered its license exemption to produce power to
FERC. The Assembly is still required to release water from the dam in a run-of-river mode. The
Assembly agreed to a lake management plan with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission that
allows the lake to be drawn down beginning on November 15 to a level not to exceed 2,448 feet
mean sea level and return to full pool by April 15. A 7Q10 flow of 27.7 cfs or inflow, whichever
is less, should be maintained below the dam during refill.

Water Supply Impoundments, Withdrawals and/or Miscellaneous Dams
There are additional impoundments that are not licensed hydroelectric dams in this basin. The
following are water supply impoundments, withdrawals and/or miscellaneous dams.

ƒ The Town of Waynesville’s water supply reservoir is located on Allen Creek
[AU# 5-16-7-(8.5)]. The dam has a 7Q10 release requirement of 3.5 cfs. A
calibrated flume is used to make the release.
ƒ On the Little East Fork Pigeon River [AU# 5-2-12-(5.5)] a trout hatchery is
permitted to withdraw water only when 6.5 cfs is maintained downstream of the
point of withdrawal. A calibrated gage is required to monitor flows.
ƒ A trout hatchery diversion on Shope Creek (AU# 6-78-3) was permitted with an
installed orifice sized for a 7Q10 release of 0.28 cfs.
ƒ Long Valley Lake on Long Valley Branch (AU# 6-75) has a flow requirement of
0.36 cfs.
ƒ Eagle Lake Dam on Phillips Creek (AU# 6-26-1) has a flow requirement of 0.5
cfs.
ƒ Cove Dam on an unnamed tributary of Swannanoa River near Oteen has a flow
requirement of 0.2 cfs.

Chapter 14 – Water Resources 129

Instream Flow Studies
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) participated in several instream flow studies during
this cycle in the French Broad River basin. The studies and their findings are described below.

DWR conducted an instream flow study on Jonathan Creek [AU# 5-26-(5.5) and 5-26-(7)].
DWR along with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and the Maggie Valley
Sanitary District reviewed a proposal for an expansion of the water treatment plant from 1.5
MGD to 3.0 MGD. The withdrawal from Jonathan Creek could increase to 3.0 MGD if an 8 cfs
flow is maintained downstream of the intake. The installation of a calibrated gage will be
required with this expansion, and withdrawal from Campbell Creek [AU# 5-26-8-(2.5)] would
remain unchanged.

DWR, the WRC, and the City of Hendersonville participated in an instream flow study for Mills
River [AU# 6-54-(4.5) and 6-54-(5)]. The study was the result of a proposal to relocate the city’s
water intake upstream of Highway 191/280. The study found that the city could withdraw 12
MGD without restriction, but withdrawals up to a maximum of 24 MGD would require a
minimum flow of 30 cfs.

Further analysis examining the net habitat benefits was conducted for the city’s proposal for a
plant capacity of 18 MGD. This study indicated that the city could withdraw up to 18 MGD
without restrictions in January through June, with an 8 cfs release from the upstream
impoundments on North Fork Mills River and Bradley Creek. If there were no withdrawals from
the upstream impoundments, then up to 14.2 MGD could be withdrawn in July through
December without restrictions. In July through December, withdrawals up to 18 MGD were
permissible if North Fork Mills River and Bradley Creek ran free, and the following targets were
met below the downstream intake: 30 cfs (July and December); 40 cfs (August, October and
November); and 42 cfs (September). Hendersonville must establish a gage downstream of their
intake to monitor flows when their maximum daily withdrawal equals or exceeds 14 MGD.

Anticipating events that may temporarily prevent the use of the downstream source, such as in
the event of a spill, the upstream impoundments may be used at any time. Conservation efforts
or interconnection purchases should be used to maintain the 8 cfs downstream requirement.
During storms, if nonpoint contaminants prevent use of the downstream source, the upstream
impoundments may be used as long as the 8 cfs downstream flow can be maintained and more
than 160 cfs (mean annual flow) is maintained at the US Geological Survey gage (#03446000).

The City of Hendersonville uses impoundments on North Fork Mills River [AU# 6-54-2-(1)] and
Bradley Creek [AU# 6-54-3-17-(0.5)] as water supply sources. The city withdraws a combined
volume of 5.5 MGD on average. The DWR participated in a study on these waters with the NC
WRC, the US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, and the City of Hendersonville. The
study was used, in part, to issue a special use permit for Hendersonville from the U.S. Forest
Service. All parties agreed upon an 8 cfs release below each of the water supply impoundments
with gages to monitor the releases.

Chapter 14 – Water Resources 130

14.3 Interbasin Transfers

In addition to water withdrawals (discussed above), water users in North Carolina are also
required to register surface water transfers with the Division of Water Resources (DWR) if the
amount is 100,000 gallons per day or more. In addition, persons wishing to transfer two million
gallons per day (MGD) or more, or increase an existing transfer by 25 percent or more, must first
obtain a certificate from the Environmental Management Commission (G.S. 143-215.22I). The
river basin boundaries that apply to these requirements are designated on a map entitled Major
River Basins and Sub-Basins in North Carolina, on file in the Office of the Secretary of State.
These boundaries differ from the 17 major river basins delineated by DWQ. Table 25
summarizes interbasin transfers within the French Broad River basin.

In determining whether a certificate should be issued, the state must determine that the overall
benefits of a transfer outweigh the potential impacts. Factors used to determine whether a
certificate should be issued include:

• The necessity, reasonableness and beneficial effects of the transfer;
• The detrimental effects on the source and receiving basins, including effects on water supply
needs, wastewater assimilation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, hydroelectric power
generation, navigation and recreation;
• The cumulative effect of existing transfers or water uses in the source basin;
• Reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer; and
• Any other facts and circumstances necessary to evaluate the transfer request.

A provision of the interbasin transfer law requires that an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement be prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Policy
Act as supporting documentation for a transfer petition. For more information on interbasin
transfers, visit the website at http://www.ncwater.org or call DWR at [phone].

Table 25 Estimated Interbasin Transfers in the French Broad River Basin (1997)

Supplying
System
Receiving
System
Source
Subbasin
Receiving
Subbasin
Estimated
Transfer (MGD)
Hendersonville Hendersonville French Broad River Broad River <0.1
Hendersonville Saluda French Broad River Broad River 0.151

14.4 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought

Water quality problems associated with rainfall events usually involve degradation of aquatic
habitats because the high flows may carry increased loadings of substances like metals, oils,
herbicides, pesticides, sand, clay, organic material, bacteria and nutrients. These substances can
be toxic to aquatic life (fish and insects) or may result in oxygen depletion or sedimentation.
During drought conditions, these pollutants become more concentrated in streams due to reduced
flow. Summer months are generally the most critical months for water quality. Dissolved
oxygen is naturally lower due to higher temperatures, algae grow more due to longer periods of
sunlight, and streamflows are reduced. In a long-term drought, these problems can be greatly
Chapter 14 – Water Resources 131

exacerbated, and the potential for water quality problems to become catastrophic is increased.
This section discusses water quality problems that can be expected during low flow conditions.

The frequency of acute impacts due to nonpoint source pollution (runoff) is actually minimized
during drought conditions. However, when rain events do occur, pollutants that have been
collecting on the land surface are quickly delivered to streams. When streamflows are well
below normal, this polluted runoff becomes a larger percentage of the water flowing in the
stream. Point sources may also have water quality impacts during drought conditions even
though permit limits are being met. Facilities that discharge wastewater have permit limits that
are based on the historic low flow conditions. During droughts, these wastewater discharges
may make up a larger percentage of the water flowing in a stream than during normal climatic
and streamflow conditions. These discharges may also contribute to lowered dissolved oxygen
concentrations and increased levels of other pollutants during drought conditions.

As streamflows decrease, there is less habitat available for aquatic insects and fish, particularly
around lake shorelines. There is also less water available for irrigation and for water supplies.
The dry conditions and increased removal of water for these uses further increases strain on the
resource. With lesshabitat, naturally lower dissolved oxygen levels and higher water
temperatures, the potential for large kills of fish and aquatic insects is very high. These
conditions may stress the fish to the point where they become more susceptible to disease and
where stresses that normally would not harm them result in mortality.

These are also areas where longer retention times due to decreased flows allow algae to take full
advantage of the nutrients present resulting in algal blooms. During the daylight hours, algae
greatly increase the amount dissolved oxygen in the water, but at night algal respiration and die
off can cause dissolved oxygen levels to drop low enough to cause fish kills. Besides increasing
the frequency of fish kills, algae blooms can also cause difficulty in water treatment resulting in
taste and odor problems in finished drinking water.

Chapter 14 – Water Resources 132

Chapter 15
Natural Resources

15.1 Ecological Significance of the French Broad River Basin

The French Broad River basin once had one of the most diverse aquatic faunas in the state; now
it is one of the most heavily altered basins in western North Carolina. Flat, low elevation areas
such as floodplains and other wetlands have been especially affected. Because of these impacts,
many aquatic animals are no longer found in the basin, including several freshwater mussels,
such as the oyster mussel, Cumberland mocassinshell, and purple lilliput. Fish likely to be
absent from the basin include longhead darter, wounded darter, and spotfin chub. In addition to
fish thought to be extirpated, many species of fish have not been seen in more than 20 years,
including river carpsucker, lake sturgeon, blueside darter, longear sunfish, mountain madtom,
and dusky darter. Despite these impacts, many of the aquatic and wetland communities of the
French Broad River basin are nationally significant and a number of significant remnants persist.

15.2 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species

For information on any of the species listed in Table 26, visit the NC Natural Heritage Program
website at www.ncnhp.org.

Table 26 List of Rare Animals Associated with Aquatic and Wetland Habitats in the French
Broad River Basin (September 2003)

Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Major
Group
State
Status
Federal
Status
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender Amphibian SC FSC
Necturus maculosus Common mudpuppy Amphibian SC
Stygobromus carolinensis Yancey sideswimmer Crustacean SR FSC
Percina macrocephala Longhead darter Fish SC FSC
Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum Fish T
Hiodon tergisus Mooneye Fish SC
Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker Fish SC
Percina burtoni Blotchside darter Fish E
Noturus flavus Stonecat Fish E
Erimystax insignis Blotched chub Fish SR FSC
Etheostoma vulneratum Wounded darter Fish SC
Percina caprodes Logperch Fish T
Cottus carolinae Banded sculpin Fish T
Polyodon spathula Paddlefish Fish E FSC
Acipenser fulvescens Lake sturgeon Fish SC FSC
Cyprinella monacha Spotfin chub Fish T T
Etheostoma jessiae Blueside darter Fish SC
Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio lamprey Fish SR
Chapter 15 – Natural Resources 133

Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish Fish SR
Stizostedion canadense Sauger Fish SR
Noturus eleutherus Mountain madtom Fish SC
Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner Fish T
Percina sciera Dusky darter Fish E
Percina squamata Olive darter Fish SC FSC
Etheostoma acuticeps Sharphead darter Fish T
Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey Fish T
Matrioptila jeanae A caddisfly Insect SR
Ephemerella berneri A mayfly Insect SR
Barbaetis benfieldi Benfield's bearded small minnow mayfly Insect SR
Attaneuria ruralis A stonefly Insect SR
Macdunnoa brunnea A mayfly Insect SR
Isoperla frisoni A stonefly Insect SR
Bolotoperla rossi A stonefly Insect SR
Micrasema burksi A caddisfly Insect SR
Drunella longicornis A mayfly Insect SR
Heterocloeon petersi A mayfly Insect SR
Micrasema sprulesi A caddisfly Insect SR
Macromia margarita Mountain river cruiser Insect SR FSC
Rhyacophila mainensis A caddisfly Insect SR
Fusconaia subrotunda Long-solid Mollusk SR
Alasmidonta viridis Slippershell mussel Mollusk E
Lasmigona holstonia Tennessee heelsplitter Mollusk E FSC
Lampsilis fasciola Wavy-rayed lampmussel Mollusk SC
Pleurobema oviforme Tennessee clubshell Mollusk E FSC
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe Mollusk E E
Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster mussel Mollusk EX E
Medionidus conradicus Cumberland mocassinshell Mollusk EX
Toxolasma lividus Purple lilliput Mollusk EX FSC
Villosa iris Rainbow Mollusk SC
Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed salamander Amphibian SC
Eurycea longicauda Longtail salamander Amphibian SC
Ambystoma talpoideum Mole salamander Amphibian SC
Glyptemys (Clemmys) muhlenbergii Bog turtle Reptile T T(S/A)
Rare Species Listing Criteria
E = Endangered (those species in danger of becoming extinct)
T = Threatened (considered likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future)
SR = Significantly Rare (those whose numbers are small and whose populations need monitoring)
SC = Species of Special Concern
FSC = Federal Species of Concern (those under consideration for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act)
T(S/A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance
EX = Extirpated
Chapter 15 – Natural Resources 134

15.3 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the French Broad River Basin

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) of the Office of Conservation and
Community Affairs compiles a list of Significant Natural Heritage Areas as required by the
Nature Preserves Act. The list is based on the program’s inventory of natural diversity in the
state. Natural areas are evaluated based on the number and quality occurrences of rare plant and
animal species, rare or high quality natural communities, and special animal habitats. The global
and statewide rarity of these elements and their quality at a site is compared with other
occurrences to determine a site’s significance. Sites included on this list are the best
representatives of the natural diversity of the state, and therefore, have priority for protection.
Inclusion on the list does not imply that any protection or public access to the site exists.

Sites that directly contribute to the maintenance of water quality in the French Broad River basin
are highlighted on the map and in the following text. The NHP has identified more than 180
individual natural areas in the French Broad River basin. Some of the more important sites are
discussed below, and the locations of several are shown in Figure 16.

Black and Craggy Mountains
This extensive region of high mountains includes Mount Mitchell and several other peaks over
6,000 feet. It is one of the largest NHP areas in the basin and contains many rare plant and
animal species associated with high elevations. Much of the site is in public ownership, and
many of the identified natural areas are contiguous and of high quality. The Craggy Mountains,
in particular, include large stands of old-growth forest.

Roan Mountain Massif
The Roan Mountain Massif is one of the biologically richest areas in the southern Appalachians.
The eastern part of the site contains a series of grassy balds that is collectively the largest and
best example remaining in the Southern Appalachians. Numerous rare plant and animal species
are found in the balds and associated communities, such as high elevation seeps. The western
part of the site contains one of the few large remnants of southern Appalachian spruce-fir forest.
Also present are numerous high elevation rocky summits, which supports a large number of rare
plants. High quality northern hardwood forests, boulderfield forests, beech gaps, and other forest
communities are present lower on the slopes.

Nolichucky/Toe/Cane Rivers
The Nolichucky and its three main tributaries are home to many rare aquatic animals. For
example, the wavy-rayed lamp mussel is only found in the Nolichucky and Little Tennessee
River watersheds. The Cane River contains several rare animals, most notably, almost the entire
North Carolina population of sharphead darter. The South Toe River supports the only extant
North Carolina population of the blotchside darter. Several nearby bogs and marshes in the Celo
area contain rare plants. The lower stretches of the North Toe and Nolichucky Rivers provide
habitat for the olive darter, logperch, and tangerine darter, as well as the federally endangered
Appalachian elktoe mussel.

Chapter 15 – Natural Resources 135

Great Balsam Mountains/Pisgah Ridge
This area includes sites in the higher parts of the Great Balsam Mountains and Pisgah Ridge.
Many high quality, though common, natural communities are found in the area, as well as rarer
communities such as bogs and granitic domes. A large number of regional endemic and northern
disjunct species are present, along with several globally rare species.

Southern Appalachian Bogs
This basin contains a number of Southern Appalachian bogs and swamp forest-bog complexes,
many of them nationally significant. Examples of these wetlands include: Bat Fork Bog, East
Flat Rock Bog Remnant, Franklin Bog, King Creek Bog, McClures Bog, Sevenmile Ridge
Swamp Forest-Bog Complex, and Sugar Mountain Natural Area. Before the Hendersonville area
was extensively developed, this area was probably the largest expanse of mountain wetlands in
North Carolina. Although most of the remaining sites are now just remnants, very significant
wetlands still exist at Buck Forest and Pink Beds. Many of the rare, federally listed plants in the
French Broad River basin are associated with these wetlands.

Buck Forest
Much of Buck Forest is protected by DuPont State Forest. Buck Forest includes a large
collection of rare natural communities. Significant features include Southern Appalachian bogs,
swamp forest-bog complexes, and several swamp pink populations. Many of the rare plants in
Buck Forest are associated with the wetland communities.

Pigeon River Gorge
The Pigeon River Gorge contains a number of rare species. Here, cove forests support a
population of the globally imperiled pirate bush and the mock orange and yellowwood. This
area was heavily impacted by construction of Interstate 40 through the length of the gorge.

Hot Springs Window
The French Broad River flows through the Hot Springs Window, a geologic "window" through
which two rock types unusual for the state, dolomites and mudstones, are exposed. Associated
with the unusual rock types are many plants and natural communities rare in North Carolina.

15.4 Significant Aquatic Habitats in French Broad River Basin

The NHP also collaborates with other agencies and organizations to identify Significant Aquatic
Habitats in North Carolina. They are stream segments or other bodies of water that contain
significant natural resources, such as a high diversity of rare aquatic animal species. The impact
from lands adjacent to and upstream of these reaches determines their water quality and the
viability of their aquatic species. The identification of a natural area conveys no protection;
these lands are the responsibility of the landowner. The Significant Aquatic Habitats of the
French Broad River basin include the following; several of which are shown on Figure 16.

South Toe River Aquatic Habitat
The state significant South Toe River drains the east slopes of the Black Mountains and west
slopes of the Blue Ridge. Rare animals found include: Appalachian elktoe; blotchside darter;
olive darter; hellbender; and two caddisflies. This is the location for the only extant blotchside
darter population known in North Carolina.
Chapter 15 – Natural Resources 136

North Toe River/Nolichucky River Aquatic Habitat
This segment of the river is nationally significant, providing habitat for several rare fish
including: the sharphead darter, olive darter, blotched chub, logperch; and two mussels, the
Appalachian elktoe and wavy-rayed lampmussel.

Cane River Aquatic Habitat
This state significant river contains several rare fish, most notably essentially the entire North
Carolina population of sharphead darter. Other rare fish found here are striped shiner, blotched
chub, stonecat, and olive darter. The hellbender has also been found in the Cane River, as well
as Appalachian elktoe.

Cataloochee Creek Aquatic Habitat and Catheys Creek Aquatic Habitat
These habitat areas are regionally significant waterways, important for their assemblages of rare
stream insects. Cataloochee Creek is in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, while
Catheys Creek is in Transylvania County.

Little River Aquatic Habitat
Little River Aquatic Habitat in Transylvania County is significant because the area supports a
population of the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel. The Little River is also one
of only two sites in the state for Tennessee clubshell, which is also federally endangered. The
rare mountain river cruiser (a dragonfly species) is also known from this river.

Mills River/South Fork Mills River Aquatic Habitat
This state significant site provides habitat for a number of rare aquatic animals, fish, mollusks
and insects including: the hellbender; the blotched chub and blueside darter; and the
Appalachian elktoe, slippershell mussel, and Tennessee heelsplitter. This site supports the only
known population of the Tennessee heelsplitter in the state. An aquatic amphibian, the
mudpuppy, was reported in this site in 1950s, but has not been seen recently. Its current status is
unknown.

West Fork French Broad River Aquatic Habitat
This state significant river segment provides habitat for a number of rare aquatic species
including hellbenders, two stoneflies, and two caddisflies.

West Fork Pigeon River Aquatic Habitat
This state significant site contains a good population of the federally endangered Appalachian
elktoe mussel, as well as hellbenders.

Spring Creek Aquatic Habitat
The state significant Spring Creek and its tributaries drain most of western Madison County
before emptying into the French Broad River at Hot Springs. A number of rare fish species are
known in this creek, including the American brook lamprey, Ohio lamprey, banded sculpin,
spotfin chub, wounded darter, logperch, dusky darter, olive darter, and freshwater drum. Several
are now extirpated from Spring Creek, and many are found nowhere else in North Carolina.

Lower French Broad River Aquatic Habitat
This regionally significant site extends from the confluence of Ivy Creek downstream to the
Tennessee border. Historically, it provided habitat for a variety of aquatic animals, including
Chapter 15 – Natural Resources 138

hellbenders, banded sculpin, lake sturgeon, paddlefish (last observed 1983), mooneye, river
carpsucker, mountain madtom, logperch, olive darter, sauger, freshwater drum (last observed
1987), loggerhead musk turtle, and eastern spiny softshell. As part of the Tennessee Valley river
system, the French Broad provides habitat for numerous fish species found in no other river
systems in North Carolina. Some of these fish have been extirpated (e.g., native muskellunge,
longhead darter, lake sturgeon, Tennessee snubnose darter, and mountain madtom).

15.5 Public Conservation Lands

Figure 16 also shows public conservation lands within the French Broad River basin. The basin
contains significant public lands, both in terms of area and ecological value. The National Park
Service manages Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway, both of
which have substantial acreage in the French Broad River basin. The Carl Sandburg Home
National Historic Site accounts for another 271 acres of National Park Service land in the French
Broad River basin. The US Forest Service oversees the Pisgah National Forest, which include
the 7,500-acre Middle Prong and 18,600-acre Shining Rock Wilderness Areas.

State-owned lands include the Division of Forest Resources' 10,200-acre DuPont State Forest, an
area very popular with naturalists and recreational users. The Division of Parks and Recreation
manages the 1,575-acre Mount Mitchell State Park, and the Wildlife Resources Commission
manages the 3,307-acre Cold Mountain Game Land. Two other state agencies, the Department
of Transportation and the Department of Agriculture, have been working to preserve wetlands in
the basin, such as Southern Appalachian bogs. The Department of Agriculture owns portions of
Bat Fork Bog and Ochlawaha Bog, while DOT has been working on Franklin Bog, Mud Creek
and many other sites. Mountain wetlands are often small, so it is significant that between these
two agencies, more than 200 acres have been permanently protected.

Key partners in future protection efforts will be private, nonprofit land trusts, such as the
Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, the Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy, and
the Nature Conservancy. Although not shown on the map, these organizations have protected
significant areas in the French Broad River basin. Using innovative tools such as conservation
easements, these organizations work with landowners in a number of ways to protect important
natural areas and the "open space" of agricultural lands.

A prime example of the use of conservation easements is the Asheville Watershed Easement,
where the Conservation Trust for North Carolina helped the city protect its water supply in
perpetuity. Not too long ago, the American Farmland Trust helped protect the Big Tom Wilson
Preserve, an area of 8,517 acres encompassing the upper part of the Cane River watershed. Land
trusts also purchase and hold land as preserves. The Nature Conservancy owns and manages
much of McClure’s Bog, and the Carolina Mountain Lands Conservancy owns and manages part
of the Ochlawaha Bog. In 2002, the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, with help
from the CWMTF, protected important riparian areas along Rough Creek and other tributary
streams that are part of the Canton watershed. The work that these private organizations do is
helping to improve quality of life for residents of the French Broad River basin. Conservation
organizations will continue to work with landowners in a number of ways to protect important
natural areas, as well as the "open space" of the mountains.

Chapter 15 – Natural Resources 139

Chapter 16
Water Quality Initiatives

16.1 The Importance of Local Initiatives

As the Basinwide Planning Program completes its third cycle of plan development, there are
many efforts being undertaken at the local level to improve water quality. Information about
local efforts particular to a watershed or subbasin is included in Chapters 1-7. DWQ encourages
local agencies and organizations to learn about and become active in their watersheds.

In an effort to provide water quality information and gain public input, DWQ held public
workshops in Asheville, Hendersonville, Burnsville and Waynesville during November 2003.
The purpose of the workshops was to inform people of the 2005 update plan and to seek input
prior to finalizing the plan. Participants provided comments on specific waters in the French
Broad River basin and generalized issues related to urbanization and land use changes, water
supply quantity and protection, enforcement, permitting, monitoring, and funding sources. Refer
to Appendix IX for specific comments received during the public workshops.

An important benefit of local initiatives is that local people make decisions that affect change in
their own communities. There are a variety of limitations local initiatives can overcome
including: state government budgets, staff resources, lack of regulations for nonpoint sources,
the rule-making process, and many others.

These local organizations and agencies are able to combine professional expertise in a watershed.
This allows groups to holistically understand the challenges and opportunities of different water
quality efforts. Involving a wide array of people in water quality projects also brings together a
range of knowledge and interests, and encourages others to become involved and invested in
these projects. By working in coordination across jurisdictions and agency lines, more funding
opportunities are available, and it is easier to generate necessary matching or leveraging funds.
This will potentially allow local entities to do more work and be involved in more activities
because their funding sources are diversified. The most important aspect of these local
endeavors is that the more localized the project, the better the chances for success.

The collaboration of these local efforts is key to water quality improvements. There are good
examples of local agencies and groups using these cooperative strategies throughout the state.
The following local organizations and agencies (Table 27) are highlighted to share their efforts
towards water quality improvement. Specific projects are described in the subbasin chapters
(Chapters 1–7).

DWQ applauds the foresight and proactive response to potential water quality problems acted
upon by these local efforts. Federal and state government agencies are interested in assisting
local governments and citizen groups in developing their water quality management programs.
The distribution of several grantors is discussed in the following sections.

Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 140

Table 27 Local Water Quality Initiatives

Land-of-Sky Regional Council of Governments
Office Location: Asheville, North Carolina

A multi-county, local government planning and development organization, LOS is one of 18 such organizations in
the state and serves Region B (Buncombe, Henderson, Madison and Transylvania counties). The mission of LOS
is to work with local, state and federal agencies, regional leaders, and the community to foster desirable economic,
social and ecological conditions in the region. For more information, contact:

Bill Eaker
Director, Environmental Programs
Phone: [phone] x118
Email: [e-mail]

http://www.landofsky.org/
Current and Continuing Projects:

Haywood Waterways Association (HWA)
Office Location: Waynesville, North Carolina

A nonprofit association dedicated to maintaining and improving the water quality of the Pigeon River, HWA
focuses on reducing nonpoint pollution in the Pigeon River watershed. HWA works through a variety of voluntary
initiatives including educational programs, greenways, information and work sessions, erosion control workshops,
and obtaining grants and other resources to address nonpoint pollution. HWA is funded by contributions from
members, grants and donations. HWA is guided by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with representatives
from federal, state and local agencies as well as many volunteers from a variety of backgrounds and expertise.
HWA and its partner organizations (the SWCD, NRCS, and the Southwestern RC&D) have collaborated on 35
successful grant applications, providing almost $2.4 million for water quality projects in Haywood County. For
more information, contact:

Ron Moser
HWA Director
Office Phone: [phone]
Home Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

www.haywoodwaterways.org

Current and Continuing Projects:
ƒ Participation and supporting member of the French Broad Voluntary Buffer Partnership, the Mills River
Partnership, the Mud Creek Restoration Project, and the Ross Creek Urban Restoration Project.
ƒ Using EPA Section 205(j) grant money, published a guide to stormwater management for local officials and
contractors.
ƒ Participating in Phase II Stormwater Management planning, education, and training.
ƒ Water quality and sediment monitoring, publications and BMP projects along Hyatt Creek, Fines Creek and
Richland Creek (subbasin 04-03-05). Grant money provided by EPA Section 319 and CWMTF.
ƒ Educational activities related to soil erosion. Printed brochure entitled "It’s Not Just Dirt" using funding
provided by the Pigeon River Fund. Also publishing a brochure entitled “Stewardship Begins in Our Own
Backyards: A Landowner’s Guide to Protecting Land and Streams” using EPA Section 319 and CWMTF
grant monies.
ƒ Continually publish and distribute newspaper inserts related to the Pigeon River watershed and water quality
issues throughout the watershed.
ƒ Sponsors of several local activities including Kids-in-the-Creek, VWIN, the Haywood Environmental
Initiative, and Summer Camps.
ƒ Assisting municipalities in the implementation of their Phase II Storm Water Management Programs.
Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 141

RiverLink, Inc.
Office Location: Asheville, North Carolina

A regional, nonprofit organization, RiverLink focuses on the economic and environmental revitalization of the
French Broad River and its tributaries as a place to live, work and play. RiverLink’s activities are governed by a
Board of Directors recruited from Buncombe, Henderson, Transylvania and Madison counties, and it is continually
seeking grant opportunities to fund various water quality initiatives along the French Broad River and its
tributaries. For more information, contact:

RiverLink, Inc. Phone: [phone] www.riverlink.org
Current and Continuing Projects:

Pigeon River Fund
Office Location: Asheville, North Carolina

The Pigeon River Fund exists to improve the streams and rivers of Haywood, Buncombe and Madison counties.
The fund supports activities that improve surface water quality, enhance fish and wildlife management areas,
expand public access, and increase citizen awareness of their roles in protecting water resources. Since 1996, the
fund has awarded $1.7 million, which has leveraged more than $6 million in additional state and federal grants to
help the citizens of the regions of Western North Carolina. For more information and grant guidelines, contact:

Bob Wagner
Pigeon River Fund
Phone: [phone] www.pigeonriverfund.org

Volunteer Water Information Network Program (VWIN)
Participants: Environmental Quality Institute (EQI) of University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNCA), HWA,
RiverLink, ECO, Brevard College (Transylvania County), Haywood Community College, Madison SWCD
Funding: Pigeon River Fund, Henderson County, Metropolitan Sewerage District, Dornick Foundation,
Volunteers

VWIN is a water quality monitoring program where trained volunteers collect water from 224 sites throughout
Buncombe, Henderson, Madison and Transylvania counties; 139 of these sites are in the French Broad River basin.
Samples are analyzed in a state certified lab at UNCA for parameters such as turbidity, suspended solids, pH,
alkalinity, conductivity and heavy metals such as zinc, copper and lead. For more information, contact:

Marilyn Westphal
VWIN Program Coordinator
Phone: [phone] http://www.unca.edu/eqi/vwin.htm
ƒ Supports greenway development throughout the basin and encourages private development along the
riverfront based on open space design guidelines. Where allowed, these areas will be used for educational
and demonstration purposes.
ƒ Continually looking for opportunities to partner with private landowners to restore and conserve "degraded"
mountain wetland sites within Buncombe and Henderson counties.
ƒ Publishes a bimonthly newsletter about water quality issues throughout the French Broad River basin.
ƒ Serves a supporting member and partner with the French Broad River Voluntary Buffer Partnership and raises
funds for the UNCA VWIN program.
ƒ Providing information, education and training to local developers (Clean Water Contractors). Geared toward
businesses engaged in earth moving and construction activities, the program has provided information on
erosion and sediment control.
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 142

Environmental and Conservation Organization (ECO)
Office Location: Hendersonville, North Carolina

ECO is a nonprofit organization devoted to conserving and preserving the natural heritage of the mountain region.
Seeking to think globally and act locally, ECO works to preserve and protect streams and wetlands, wildlife and
natural habitats. ECO addresses environmental community concerns through educational program development,
recreational programs, environmental service projects for the community, and encourages civic responsibility in
economic and democratic processes. For more information, contact:

Mary Jo Padgett
Executive Director

Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]

www.main.nc.us/eco/about.html
Current and Continuing Projects:
Quality Forward
Office Location: Asheville, North Carolina

Quality Forward is a volunteer-based organization working to enhance the environment and quality of life for the
citizens of Asheville and Buncombe County through awareness building, community activities and partnership.
Planting over 5,000 trees in Buncombe County. Quality Forward coordinated the Swannanoa River Riparian
Greenway Project (Biltmore Village) and is also involved in many river improvement projects. For more
information, contact:

Quality Forward Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]

www.qualityforward.org/

Current and Continuing Projects:
French Broad River Voluntary Buffer Partnership
Participants: LOS, Land Trusts, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Local Governments, Landowners,
State/Federal Resource Management Agencies including NCDENR
Funding: CWMTF, NCDENR, TVA

Under grants from the CWMTF and TVA, LOS initiated the Voluntary Buffer Partnership to develop a
comprehensive plan for protecting and restoring riparian buffers along the mainstem of the French Broad River in
four counties. The partnership has developed a "toolbox" of possible buffer protection/restoration options and is
continually working with landowners to stabilize streambanks and preserve buffers using conservation easements.
For more information, contact:

Bill Eaker
Land-of-Sky Regional
Council of Governments
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]

http://www.landofsky.org/
ƒ Coordinates the Henderson County VWIN stream monitoring program and participates by bio-monitoring 28
VWIN sites semi-annually.
ƒ Participates in the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council, Mills River Partnership, and the French Broad
River Voluntary Buffer Partnership.
ƒ Coordinates the Big Sweep and Adopt-A-Stream programs in Henderson County.
ƒ Programs include adopt-a-stream, the annual Big Sweep river cleanup and Clean Streams Days in Buncombe
County.
ƒ Environmental education programs that teach school and youth groups about water quality monitoring and
benthic macroinvertebrate sampling.
ƒ Newsletters and publications about the natural heritage and beauty of Buncombe County and the surrounding
areas.
Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 143

Current and Continuing Projects:
Mills River Partnership
Participants: Henderson County SWCD, NRCS, LOS, USDA Forest Service, Regional Water Authority, City of
Hendersonville, Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy, UNCA VWIN, City of Asheville, Town of Mills River,
ECO
Funding: CWMTF, USDA Forest Service, Regional Water Authority, City of Hendersonville, Cross Creek
Foundation, EPA, Trout Unlimited, Mountain Valley RC&D Council, City of Asheville

The Mills River Partnership is comprised of various stakeholders who have partnered to improve water quality in
the lower Mills River and Wash Creek while maintaining the outstanding quality of the other streams in the
watershed. The Partnership is a nonregulatory organization devoted to working with landowners in the watershed.
Each project is designed with the individual needs of the landowner in mind. All projects are voluntary and are
paid for through grants awarded to the Mills River Project. For more information, contact:

Shaun Moore
Henderson County Soil and
Water Conservation District
(SWCD)
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]

http://www.henderson.lib.nc.us/county/soil
/millsriverweb1.html
Participants: LOS, DWQ, EEP, TVA, City of Hendersonville, Henderson County Cooperative Extension, VWIN,
Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy
Funding: CWMTF and DENR

The Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council was established in 2000 to provide a forum for local stakeholder
participation in the development of the Watershed Protection Plan for Mud Creek. The council’s mission is to
improve and protect water quality throughout the Mud Creek watershed. To do this, the council has developed a
restoration plan and implementation strategy to improve water quality, increase public awareness and appreciation
of the watershed, promote farmland conservation and the restoration of wetlands, and set water quality priorities.
For more information on the Restoration Council and the Mud Creek Project, contact:

Diane Silver
NC Cooperative Extension Service
Henderson County Center

Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]

www.ces.ncsu.edu/henderson/mudcreek

ƒ Distributes water quality issues and project newsletters to over 800 landowners along the river.
ƒ Conducting an assessment of the buffer conditions in Buncombe and Madison counties. Seventy-five sites
have already been identified in Transylvania and Henderson counties as being affected by active streambank
erosion.
Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council

16.2 Federal Initiatives

16.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration and
restoration projects. Approximately $1 million is available annually through base funding for
demonstration and education projects across the state. An additional $2 million is available
annually through incremental funding for restoration projects. All projects must provide non-
federal matching funds of at least 40 percent of the project’s total costs. Project proposals are
reviewed and selected by the North Carolina Nonpoint Source Workgroup, made up of state and
federal agencies involved in regulation or research associated with nonpoint source pollution.
Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 144

Information on the North Carolina Section 319 Grant Program application process is available
online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/application_process.htm.

There are 12 projects in the French Broad River basin that have been funded through the Section
319 Program between 1997 and 2002, many of which have basinwide applications (Table 28).
Many are demonstration projects and educational programs that allow for the dissemination of
information to the public through established programs at NC State University and the NC
Cooperative Extension Service. Other projects fund stream restoration activities that improve
water quality.

Descriptions of projects and general Section 319 Program information are available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/Section_319_Grant_Program.htm.

Table 28 Projects Funded Through Clean Water Act Section 319

FY Project
Name Agency Description
1999 Mountain Nurseries Transylvania CES Innovative BMP Demonstration
1999 Nature Trail Revitalization Transylvania County Educational
1999 Upper French Broad BMPs NCSU Water Quality
Group (WQG) BMP Implementation
1999 Newfound Creek Buncombe SWCD BMP Implementation
1999 Minimizing Water Quality Impacts
of Mountain Construction Projects NCSU Soil Science BMP Demonstration
2000 French Broad River Watershed
Education Training Center
NCSU WQG,
Transylvania CES Education and BMP installation
2000
BMP Implementation of Impaired
Streams of the Swannanoa River
Watershed
RiverLink Education and BMP installation
2000
Haywood County NPS Pollution
Inventory / Watershed Improvement
Project
Southwestern RC&D
Council Education and BMP installation
2001 Mills River Watershed Protection Henderson County –
Mills River Partnership Whole watershed protection project
2002 Clyde and Junaluska Elementary
Outdoor Classroom Haywood SWCD Educational
2002 Stormwater Wetlands in Asheville NCSU WQG Innovative BMP Demonstration
2002
Bent Creek Stream Restoration and
Stormwater Best Management
Practices
NCSU WQG Stream Restoration

Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 145

16.3 State Initiatives

16.3.1 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program

The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) (formerly the North Carolina
Wetlands Restoration Program) is a non-regulatory program responsible for implementing
wetland and stream restoration projects throughout the state. The focus of the program is to
improve watershed functions in the 17 river basins across the state by restoring wetlands, streams
and riparian buffers within selected local watersheds. These vital watershed functions include
water quality protection, floodwater retention, fisheries and wildlife habitat, and recreational
opportunities. The NCEEP is not a grant program. Instead, the program funds local restoration
projects directly through a combination of NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and non-
NCDOT in-lieu fee programs.

Restoration sites are targeted through the development and use of Watershed Restoration Plans
(formerly called "Basinwide Wetland and Riparian Restoration Plans"). The restoration plans
are developed, in part, using information compiled in DWQ's Basinwide Water Quality Plans
and Basinwide Assessment Reports. The NCEEP Plans evaluate resource data and existing
water quality initiatives within local watersheds in order to select "Targeted Local Watersheds".
Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) are areas with the greatest need and opportunity for stream
and wetland restoration efforts, and where NCEEP resources can be most efficiently focused for
maximum restoration benefit. The NCEEP Watershed Restoration Plans are updated every five
years on the same timeline as DWQ's Basinwide Water Quality Plans.

The selection of TLWs (at the scale of NRCS 14-digit Hydrologic Units, or HUs) does not
necessarily restrict the location of NCEEP restoration project sites. However, these targeted
HUs are given higher priority than nontargeted HUs in considering the selection of NCEEP
candidate restoration project sites. TLWs are simply local watersheds where stream, wetland
and riparian buffer restoration projects will make the most sense in the context of overall
watershed and wetlands protection.

The NCEEP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs
or environmental groups. For example, the NCEEP’s efforts can complement projects funded
through the Section 319 Program. Integrating wetlands or riparian area restoration components
with Section 319-funded or proposed projects will often improve the overall water quality and
habitat benefits of the project. The NCEEP actively seeks landowners within the French Broad
River basin that have restorable wetland, riparian and stream sites.
For more information about the NCEEP and its Watershed Restoration Plans, contact Hal Bryson
at [phone] or visit the NCEEP website at http://www.nceep.net/.

Table 29 lists the NCEEP’s TLWs (stream names and 14-digit HU codes) in the French Broad
River basin. This table also indicates the pertinent factors that led to the selection of each TLW.
The TLWs are selected on the basis of available data indicating the need and opportunity for
local stream and wetlands restoration projects. Factors such as water quality problems, degraded
aquatic habitat, cleared riparian buffers, significant natural areas or species, and increasing
development pressures in the watershed are weighted heavily in determining these priority
Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 146

watersheds. Also, the presence of existing or planned water quality or habitat restoration
projects in the same local watershed can be a significant factor in the choice of these watersheds.
In some cases, NCEEP has used the water quality information alone (e.g., use impairment,
potential increases in nonpoint source pollution) to support the selection of a specific TLW.
Targeted local watersheds are mapped in Figure 17.

The NCEEP is also working to develop comprehensive Local Watershed Plans. These locally-
based plans develop comprehensive watershed assessments to identify causes and sources of
nonpoint source impairment. They also identify and prioritize wetland areas, stream reaches,
riparian buffer areas and BMPs that will provide significant water quality and habitat
improvements and other environmental benefits to local watersheds. The NCEEP will
coordinate with local community groups, local governments and others to develop and
implement these plans.

Selection of a watershed as a TLW does not mean that a Local Watershed Plan will be initiated
in that area. Local Watershed Plans are developed in areas that have extensive future mitigation
needs, while TLWs are selected as part of the NCEEP planning process for the Basinwide
Watershed Restoration Plans. There are currently three local watershed-planning efforts
underway in the French Broad River Basin and they are described below (NCDENR-NCEEP,
April 2005).

French Broad Local Watershed Plans
Local watershed planning was initiated in the Mud Creek watershed to identify watershed
functional deficits and assets with an emphasis on water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat,
and hydrology. The local watershed plan (LWP) was finished in 2003 and is included in the
work plan and management strategies of the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council.
NCEEP is scheduled to construct two wetlands and restore 2,000 linear feet of streambank in
2005. For more information about the Mud Creek watershed, refer to Section 2.3.1.

Two other watersheds targeted for LWP development are South Hominy Creek and Bald Creek.
Preliminary watershed characterization studies (Phase I assessments) have been completed for
both watersheds and are moving into Phase II of the planning effort. The end result will yield
wetland, stream and riparian buffer enhancement and restoration projects, BMP projects, as well
as policy and protection recommendations. The technical assessment for these efforts will be
completed in 2005. See Sections 2.3.10 and 7.5.1, respectively, for more information on either
of these watersheds.

16.3.2 Clean Water Management Trust Fund

The CWMTF offers approximately $40 million annually in grants for projects within the broadly
focused areas of restoring and protecting state surface waters and establishing a network of
riparian buffers and greenways. In the French Broad River basin, 38 projects have been funded
for a total of $44,679,794 (Table 30). For more information on the CWMTF or these grants, call
[phone] or visit the website at www.cwmtf.net.

Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 147

Table 29 NCEEP Targeted Local Watersheds (2004)

Subbasin Local Watershed
Name and HU code
Impaired
Stream(s)
Downward
Trend in
W. Quality
Public
Water
Supply
ORW
or
HQW
Aquatic
NHP
Elements
Planned
Projects
Muncipality(ies)
Phase I or II
Resource Professional
Comments
04-03-01 French Broad, Kings Creek
06010105010050 Yes Yes No No No EEP
DWQ WARP Brevard DWQ Biological Assessment
Narrow riparian zones
East Fork French Broad
River
06010105010040
No No No Yes Yes SWCD No
DWQ Biological Assessment
Increasing development along
Highway 276 corridor, poor
quality riparian zone
04-03-02 Lower Mud Creek
06010105030030 Yes No No No No EEP
LWP
Hendersonville
Phase II
04-03-02 Clear Creek
06010105030040 Yes Yes No No No EEP
LWP
Hendersonville
Phase II
04-03-02 Upper Mud Creek
06010105030020 Yes No No No Yes EEP
LWP
Hendersonville
Phase II
DWQ Biological Assessment
Bat Fork (Mud Creek tributary)
has 45% of streams channelized
and only 15% have adequate
buffer on both sides of the stream.
04-03-02
Avery Creek
County Line Creek
06010105050010
No No No No Yes EEP Biltmore Forest
Phase II

04-03-02 South Hominy, Beaverdam
06010105060020 No No No No No EEP
LWP No
04-03-02 Hominy Creek
06010105060030 Yes No No No No DWQ TMDL Asheville
Phase II
DWQ Biological Assessment
Narrow riparian zone
04-03-02 Newfound Creek
06010105090020 Yes No Yes No No SWCD
TVA-IPSI No
DWQ Biological Assessment
Severe bank erosion, poor
riparian buffer
04-03-02 Ross Creek
06010105070040 Yes No No No No
Pigeon River
Grant Funds
TVA-IPSI
Asheville
Phase II
Cane Creek
06010105040010 Yes Yes No No Yes No
04-03-02 Upper Swannanoa
06010105070020 Yes Yes No No Yes Black Mountain
Phase II
Existing,
04-03-01
04-03-02
Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 148

Subbasin Local Watershed
Name and HU code
Impaired
Stream(s)
Downward
Trend in
W. Quality
Public
Water
Supply
ORW
or
HQW
Aquatic
NHP
Elements
Existing,
Planned
Projects
Muncipality(ies)
Phase I or II
Resource Professional
Comments
04-03-02 Swannanoa River
06010105070030 Yes No No
319 funds
Yes No CWMTF
TVA-IPSI
Asheville
Phase II
04-03-03 Mills River 06010105020020 Yes Yes Yes No Yes DWQ TMDL
319 funds No
04-03-04

Little Ivy Creek
06010105110020 Yes No No Yes Yes Yes DWQ TMDL,
TVA-IPSI
DWQ Biological Assessment
Minimal riparian buffers
04-03-05 East Fork Pigeon River
06010106010010 No Yes No Yes No No
Public Interest in restoration
projects due to 2004
hurricane/flood damage
04-03-05 Crabtree Creek
06010106020010 No No No No No No
Pigeon River
Trust Fund
(Ag BMPs)
DWQ Biological Assessment
Degraded riparian zones
04-03-05 Fines Creek
06010106020040 Yes No No No No
Haywood
Waterways
Association
(Ag BMPs)
No
DWQ Biological Assessment
Fish community shows evidence
of chronic impairment
04-03-05 Upper Richland Creek
06010105030010 Yes No Yes Yes Yes
CWMTF
(watershed
acquisition)
Waynesville
Phase II

04-03-05
Richland Creek
Plott Creek, Hyatt Creek
06010106030010
Yes Yes No No No CWMTF
(restoration)
Waynesville
Phase II
DWQ Biological Assessment
Habitat degradation
04-03-05 Jonathan Creek
06010106020030 No No No Yes No Yes
DWQ Biological Assessment
Cattle access.
Poor riparian buffers
Cane Creek
06010108040010 Yes Yes No No Yes No
04-03-06 Jacks Creek
06010108050010 Yes
DWQ Biological Assessment
No No No No No Open canopy, poor riparian
buffers
04-03-06 Upper North Toe River
06010108010010 No No No No No No Equinox Env. Consultants
Poor riparian buffers
04-03-06
Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 149

Subbasin Local Watershed
Name and HU code
Impaired
Stream(s)
Downward
Trend in
W. Quality
Public
Water
Supply
ORW
or
HQW
NHP
Elements
Existing,
Planned
Projects
Resource Professional
Comments
04-03-06 Middle North Toe River
06010108010020 No No Yes No Yes No Equinox Env. Consultants
Poor riparian buffers
04-03-06 North Toe River
06010108010030 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
04-03-06 Big Rock Creek
06010108060010 No DWQ Biological Assessment No No No Yes NCWRC No Narrow riparian buffers
04-03-07 Price Creek
06010108080010 No Yes No No No No
04-03-07 Bald Mountain Creek
06010108080020 No No No No Yes LWP No
Aquatic Muncipality(ies)
Phase I or II

Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 150

Table 30 Projects in the French Broad River Basin Funded by the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund (December 2003)

Project
Number
Application
Name
Proposed
Project Description
Amount
Funded
1997A-012 Waynesville - Acquisition /
Allens Creek
Acquire 379 acres of land in a water supply
watershed (Allens Ck in French Broad River basin) $500,000
1997A-030
Buncombe Co SWCD
Nonpoint Source Plan /
Newfound Creek
Fund a Resource Coordinator position in the
Newfound Creek watershed to inventory nonpoint
sources of pollution and coordinate implementation
of best management practices.
Riverlink –
Acq and Greenway /
French Broad River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 30 acres along
the French Broad River and develop a riparian
greenway along it.
$250,000
1997A-138
Land of Sky COG –
Acq Planning /
French Broad River
$110,000
Establish a riparian corridor protection team for the
French Broad River. Team will assess current
conditions along the river corridor, develop a plan
for preserving and managing the corridor, and lay
the groundwork for future riparian acquisitions.
1997B-404 NC Council of Trout Unlimited –
S Fk Mills River Trail Restoration $25,000Eliminate runoff and chronic sedimentation from
about 20 miles of South Fork Mills River Trail.
Village of Flat Rock – Construct sewer collection system (184,000 GPD) to
eliminate over 400 failing septic systems and 4
private wastewater treatment plants. Waste will be
pumped to the City of Hendersonville's WWTP.
$551,695
Madison County –
Revolving Fund /
Failing Septic Systems
$903,000
1998A-201 Conservation Fund - Crawford
Creek Conservation Easements
Acquire through permanent conservation easements
885 acres along Crawford Creek. $1,148,000
1998A-416
NCSU – Stream Restoration /
Upper French Broad River and
tribs
Restore streams and install stormwater control at
four sites along HWQ and ORW waters of French
Broad River.
Toe R. Health District –
Failing Septic Systems
$791,500
1998B-007
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission –
Acq / Lake Logan
Acquire through fee simple purchase 4,374 acres
around Lake Logan and its tributaries. CWMTF
funds would be used to purchase 500-foot buffers
(2,158 acres) along the tributaries to Lake Logan.
$3,800,000
1998B-302
Madison Co DSWC –
Beef Cattle BMPs /
Little Ivy River
Install livestock watering systems, stabilize
streambanks, and construct feed and waste
management structures.
$400,000
$118,866
1997A-045
1997B-604 Wastewater Collection System /
King Creek
1997B-613
Funds a revolving loan and grant fund for the repair
of failing septic tanks and straight piping throughout
the county. Anticipates repair or replacement of 150
systems for low-moderate income families in
proximity to surface waters.
$300,000
1998A-605 Revolving Fund /
Capitalize a revolving loan fund to repair failing
septic tanks and straight piping, within 500 feet of
relatively high quality waters in three economically
distressed counties (Avery, Yancey and Mitchell).
Initial goal of fixing 150 systems.
Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 152

1998B-303
Reg Water Auth Asheville and
Carolina Mtn Land Conserv -
Acq/Restor / NPS Mgmt –
Mills River
Acquire 50 acres of buffer, replace streamside
pesticide mixing stations with state-of-art pesticide
handling facilities outside the floodplain, and
revegetate over 7 miles of buffer in Mills River
watershed.
$730,000
1998B-701
Elisha Mitchell Audubon Soc -
Wetland Restor /
Beaverdam Creek
Remove stormwater culvert and construct wetlands
to treat parking lot drainage (12+ acres). Also
restore existing wetlands and ecotones.
$139,700
1999A-005
NC Div Forest Resources -
Dupont Forest Acq /
Little River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 2,223 acres in
the DuPont State Forest along the Little River and its
tributaries.
$24,600,000
1999A-408
Land of Sky COG - Acq /
Planning / Restoration Design /
French Broad
Acquire 53 acre Gordan Tract. Stabilize 1,500 feet
of streambank. Funds to prepare streambank
stabilization designs for additional sites.
$388,025
1999B-502
Hendersonville –
WWTP Upgrade /
Collection Sys Construction
Design and construct expanded 4.8-MGD WWTP.
Provide tie-on to 14 or more permitted WWTPs and
rescind permits. Tie on at least 400 currently
operated septic tanks. Relocate and improve city's
main pump station at Berkeley Rd.
$627,000
2000A-401
Madison County –
Bank Stabilization /
Barnard Park
Harden and stabilize 320 linear feet of eroding
streambank using bio-engineering methods.
Establish or enhance vegetation along 600 feet of the
French Board River.
$50,000
2000A-402
Marshall -
Bank Stabilization /
French Broad River
Stabilize 1,400 feet of riverbank on the downstream
half of Blannahassett Island in the French Broad
River.
$338,598
2000A-604 Henderson County –
Wastewater Collection System
Extend sewer service (3.2 miles) to unsewered areas
of the Mills River watershed by collecting
wastewater from 5 small WWTPs and providing
sewer service to an area with high septic failure rate.
$500,000
2000B-017
Riverlink –
Greenway Feasibility Study /
French Broad River
Conduct planning and preacquisition activities on 10
contiguous tracts along the French Broad River.
Section options and/or appraisal on northern-most
tracts.
$25,000
2000B-018
Southern Appalachian Highlands
Conservancy –
Fall Branch / Roaring Creek Acq
Acquire through fee simple purchase 184 acres along
Fall Branch and Roaring Creek. $333,280
2000B-402
Southwestern NC RC&D –
Stream Rest and Storm /
Lake Junaluska
Restore 11,500 feet of stream (natural channel
design). Construct stormwater demonstration
project, eliminate 5 animal access points to streams,
and monitor sediment in Richland Creek.
$677,555
2000B-411 Univ Botan Gardens at Asheville –
Restoration / Stormwater
Design and construct natural channel design stream
restoration project along 2,300 feet of stream.
Design and construct water detention structure to
filter UNCA campus runoff.
$100,000
Transylvania Co SWCD -
Watershed Assessment /
Little River
Conduct an inventory along 4.9 miles of the Little
River that specifies stream restoration and best
management practice (BMP) needs. Prioritize
stream restoration and BMP opportunities.
$25,0002000B-803
Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 153

2000M-001 Environmental and Conservation
Organization Minigrant
Provide funds to cover preacquisition costs for 75
acres that border Bat Fork. $19,600
2001B-046
Richard L. Hoffman Foundation –
Acquisition /
White Oak Creek
Acquire through fee simple purchase 197 acres along
the White Oak Creek. Includes greenway,
environmental educational park, and water quality
demonstration components.
$94,000
2001B-405
RiverLink –
Restoration /
Swannanoa River
Restore streambanks along 10,000 linear feet of the
Swannanoa River; establish 29 acres of riparian
buffers using permanent conservation easements;
and monitor water quality.
$1,508,000
2002A-028
Southern Appalachian Highlands
Conservancy –
Acq / Rough Creek
Acquire permanent conservation easement on 870
acres along Rough Creek. CWMTF funds would
purchase easement on 416 riparian acres.
$689,000
2002B-003
Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust –
Acq /
French Broad Tracts
Provide funds to cover transaction costs for donated
conservation easements on two tracts. A total of 290
acres will be put under permanent conservation
easments along the Isaacs Branch and the South Toe
River.
$100,000
2002B-401
Buncombe SWC District –
Restoration /
Newfound Creek
Fund a two-year effort to install best management
practices for agricultural and urban sources of
sediment and fecal coliform bacteria in the
Newfound Creek watershed.
$415,000
2002B-704
UNC Asheville –
Stormwater /
French Broad River
Construct a stormwater wetland on the UNC-
Asheville campus to treat drainage from 81 acres
that flows to the French Broad River. Monitor water
quality results.
$70,000
2003A-039
Southern Appalachians Highlands
Conservancy – Acq /
Flat Creek Watershed
Purchase a permanent conservation easement on
2,463 acres along Flat Creek, Slaty, Little Slaty Big
Piney and Little Piney Branches. Property has over
15 miles of HQW streams and is adjacent to the
Pisgah National Forest.
$3,928,000
2003A-405
Southwestern NC RC&D, Inc. –
Rest /
Pigeon River
Design, permit and prepare easements for natural
channel stream restoration on 3,870 linear feet of
Richlands Creek and the Pigeon River. Includes
design cost of a stormwater wetland.
$207,000
Total Funded $44,679,794
Notes:
(1) The total funded amount excludes funded projects that were subsequently withdrawn by the applicant.
(2) Several regional and statewide projects were funded in areas that include the French Broad River basin. The projects
include various riparian corridor planning projects, a straight pipe and septic system discharge elimination program and a
Watershed Assessment and Restoration Program.

Chapter 16 – Water Quality Initiatives 154

References

Brown, Mark. January 2004. Forest Statistics for North Carolina. Southern Research Station
Resource Bulletin SRS-88. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Forest Service:
Asheville, NC.

Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation District (BCSWCD). December 2000. Newfound
Creek Watershed Non-Point Source Strategy Plan: Preliminary Plan. Asheville, NC.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 1999. Monitoring, Research, and Assessment Components for
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities. Sacramento, CA.
http://calfed.ca.gov/programs/cmarp/a7a13.html

Creager, C.S. and J.P. Baker. 1991. North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality
Management: Program Description. Division of Environmental Management. Water
Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.

EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. (EA). May 2001. A Study of the Aquatic
Resources of the Pigeon River during 2000. Prepared for Blue Ridge Paper Products,
Inc. (BRPP). Deerfield, IL.

Erman, N.A. 1996. Status of Aquatic Invertebrates in: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project:
Final Report to Congress, Vol II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management
Options. University of California. Davis Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Haupt, M., J. Jurek, L. Hobbs, J. Guidry, C. Smith and R. Ferrell. 2002. A Preliminary Analysis
of Stream Restoration Costs in the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program. Paper
presented at the conference Setting the Agenda for Water Resources Research. April 9,
2002. Raleigh, NC.

Haywood Waterways Association (HWA). 2002. A Watershed Action Plan: Options for
Improving Our Water Quality. Pigeon River Watershed. Waynesville, NC.

Howell, J.M., M.S. Coyne and P.L. Cornelius. 1996. Effect of Sediment Particle Size and
Temperature on Fecal Bacteria Mortality Rates and the Fecal Coliform/Fecal
Streptococci Ratio. J Environ Qual. 21:1216-1220.

Land-of-Sky Regional Council of Governments. 2001. The Ross Creek Urban Watershed
Restoration Strategy. Asheville, NC.

Maas, R.P., S.C. Patch, M.J. Westphal, T.Pandolfo and R.M. Shoemaker. January 2004. Water
Quality Trends of Haywood County: Seven-Year Report. Volunteer Water Information
Network (VWIN). University of North Carolina at Asheville. Environmental Quality
Institute. Technical Report #04-123.

References 155

Maas, R.P., S.C. Patch, M.J. Westphal, C.S. Modlin, T.Pandolfo and R.M. Shoemaker. June
2003. Stream Water Quality in Western North Carolina: Transylvania County Volunteer
Water Information Network Year-Seven Report. VWIN. University of North Carolina at
Asheville. Environmental Quality Institute. Technical Report #03-113.

Maas, R.P., S.C. Patch, M.J. Westphal, J.L. Druhan, C.S. Modlin, T.Pandolfo and R.M.
Shoemaker. May 2003. Water Quality Trends in Madison County: Year-Ten Report.
VWIN. University of North Carolina at Asheville. Environmental Quality Institute.
Technical Report #03-112.

Maas, R.P., S.C. Patch, M.J. Westphal, J.L. Druhan, C.S. Modlin, T.Pandolfo and R.M.
Shoemaker. April 2003. Water Quality in the Mountains: Henderson County Volunteer
Water Information Network Year-Ten Report. VWIN. University of North Carolina at
Asheville. Environmental Quality Institute. Technical Report #03-110.

Maas, R.P., S.C. Patch, M.J. Westphal, D.M. Childers, D.A. Losure and R. Stanton. June 2002.
Twelve-Year Spatial and Temporal Trends of Buncombe County Streams. VWIN.
University of North Carolina at Asheville. Environmental Quality Institute. Technical
Report #02-096.

Maas, R.P., S.C. Patch, M.J. Westphal, E.A. Cook, C.C. Maurer and C.J. Walker. November
1999. Water Quality Trends of Haywood County: Three-Year Report. VWIN.
University of North Carolina at Asheville. Environmental Quality Institute. Technical
Report #99-066.

McGarvey, Daniel J. 1996. Stream Channelization. Bibliography of Environmental Literature.
Wittenberg University. Environmental Geology. Springfield, Ohio.
http://www4.wittenberg.edu/academics/geol/progcrs/geol220/mcgarvey/index.shtml.

Meyer, J.M., L.A. Kaplan, D. Newbold, D.L. Strayer, C.J. Woltemade, J.B. Zedler, R. Beilfuss,
Q. Carpenter, R. Semlitsch, M.C. Watzin and P.H. Zedler. September 2003. Where
Rivers are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands.
American Rivers and Sierra Club. Washington, DC.

Mills River Partnership Planning Committee and Land-of-Sky Regional Council of
Governments. 2002. The Mills River Watershed Management Strategy. Asheville, NC.

Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council. April 2003. Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Mud Creek Watershed. Asheville, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). DWQ.
August 2004. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters
and Wetlands of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCA 2B
.0220. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. February 2004. Buffers for Clean Water. Raleigh, NC.

References 156

____. DWQ. November 2003. Fish Community Assessment of the West Fork French Broad
River Above and Below Whitewater Trout Farm. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. June 2003a. Assessment Report: Biological Impairment in the Upper Swift Creek
Watershed, Neuse River Basin, Wake County, NC. Prepared for Clean Water
Management Trust Fund (CWMTF). Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. June 2003b. French Broad River Basin Basinwide Assessment Report. Raleigh,
NC.

____. DWQ. May 2003. 2002 TMDL Macroinvertebrate Sampling of the Little Ivy Creek
Watershed. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. April 2003. Biological Monitoring of Mills River – TMDL Studies. Raleigh, NC.
____. DWQ. March 2003. Biological Monitoring of Ross Creek – TMDL Studies. Raleigh,
NC.
____. DWQ. January 2003. Swannanoa River Survey. Raleigh, NC.
____. DWQ. October 2002b. Biological Monitoring of the Mud Creek Watershed. Raleigh,
NC.

____. DWQ. October 2002a. Biological Monitoring of Hominy Creek and Hyatt Creek –
TMDL Studies. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. June 2002. Assessment Report: Biological Impairment in the Morgan Mill and
Peter Weaver Creek Watershed. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. January 2002. Biomonitoring, Bent Creek, Buncombe County. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. September 2001. Richland Creek Reclassification Study. Raleigh, NC.

____. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). April 2005. French Broad
River Basin Watershed Restoration Plan. Raleigh, NC.

____. NCEEP. February 2004a. Local Watershed Plan for the French Broad River Basin:
South Hominy Creek Watershed. Technical Memorandum 1: Preliminary Findings and
Recommendations Report. Prepared by Buck Engineering. Charlotte, NC.
____. NCEEP. February 2004b. Bald Creek Local Watershed Plan Phase I: Watershed
Characterization. Prepared by Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
(Equinox). Asheville, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
Division of Land Resources (DLR). Land Quality Section. July-September 1999.
Sediments: Newsletter of the North Carolina Sediment Control Commission. Vol. 6 No.
3. Raleigh, NC. http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/.
References 157

References 158

____. DLR. Land Quality Section. 1998. What is Erosion and Sedimentation? Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD).
Division of Forest Resources (DFR). September 1989. Forestry Best Management
Practices Manual. Raleigh, NC. www.dfr.state.nc.us.

Orr, D.M., Jr. and A.W. Stuart. 2000. The North Carolina Atlas. The University of North
Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.

Roell, Michael J. June 1999. Sand and Gravel Mining in Missouri Stream Systems: Aquatic
Resource Effects and Management Alternatives. Missouri Department of Conservation.
Conservation Research Center. Columbia, MO.

Schillinger, J.E. and J.J. Gannon. 1985. Bacterial Adsorption and Suspended Particles in Urban
Stormwater. Journal WPCF. 57:384-389.

Sherer, B.M., J.R. Miner, J.A. Moore and J.C. Buckhouse. 1992. Indicator Bacterial Survival in
Stream Sediments. J Environ Qual. 21:591-595.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Division of Water Pollution
Control (DWPC). October 2002. Dioxin Levels in Pigeon River Fish. Prepared by G.M.
Denton and D.H. Arnwine. Nashville, TN.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
North Carolina State Office. June 2001. 1997 National Resources Inventory. Raleigh,
NC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Watershed Academy Website:
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/.

Weinkam, C., R. Shea, C. Shea, C. Lein and D. Harper. October 2001. Urban Stream
Restoration Programs of Two Counties in the Baltimore-Washington DC Area. Paper
presented at the Fourth Annual North Carolina Stream Restoration Conference, Stream
Repair and Restoration: A Focus on the Urban Environment. Raleigh, NC.

Appendix I

Population and Growth Trends
in the
French Broad River Basin

Appendices

Population and Growth Trends

Below are three different ways of presenting population information for the French Broad River
basin. Population estimates are first presented for the entire basin using 2000 county population
data and estimates of the percentage of the county within each subbasin. County population
data are presented to project county growth estimates based on Office of State Planning
information (June and September 2004). Data presented by municipality summarize information
on past growth of large urban areas in the basin. While the three different sets of information
cannot be directly compared, general conclusions are apparent by looking at the information.
Counties with the highest expected growth are associated with the largest municipal areas and
the most densely populated subbasins in the basin.

Basin Population and Population Density

Information on basin population and subbasin population density is useful in determining which
streams are likely to exhibit more impacts as a result of population growth. This information is
presented to estimate overall river basin population and population density by subbasin. It is
assumed that county populations (as presented below) are distributed evenly throughout each
county; therefore, subbasins that are within counties with large urban areas may overestimate the
actual population in that portion of the basin. The overall population of the basin based on 2000
census block data is 393,795, with approximately 139 persons/square mile. Population density
estimated by subbasin is presented in the following map.

County Population and Growth Trends

Information on county population projections is presented here for counties that are wholly or
partly contained within the basin; however, river basin boundaries do not directly coincide with
county boundaries. Therefore, this information is intended to present only an estimate of
expected population growth in counties that have some land area in this basin. For more
information on county population estimates, contact the Office of State Planning website at
http://demog.state.nc.us/.

County
Percent of
County in
Basin ♦
1990
Population
2000
Population
Estimated %
Growth
1990-2000
Estimated
Population
2020
Estimated %
Growth
2000-2020
Avery 38 14,867 17,167 13.4 20,523 16.4
Buncombe 93 174,357 206,310 15.5 268,001 23.0
Haywood 100 46,948 54,033 13.1 66,059 18.2
Henderson 71 69,747 89,193 21.8 127,044 29.8
Madison 100 16,953 19,635 13.7 23,972 18.1
Mitchell 100 14,433 15,687 8.0 17,508 10.4
Transylvania 82 25,520 29,334 13.0 33,997 13.7
Yancey 100 15,419 17,774 13.2 21,145 15.9
Subtotals 378,244 449,133 15.8 578,249 22.3
♦ Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA), 1997.
A-I-1

Municipal Population and Growth Trends

The table below presents population data from Office of State Planning for municipalities with
populations greater than 2,000 persons, located wholly or partly within the basin. These data
represent 12 of the 24 municipalities in the basin.

Municipality County 1980
Population
1990
Population
2000
Population
Percent Change
(1980-90)
Percent Change
(1990-2000)
Asheville Buncombe 54,022 61,855 68,889 14.5 11.4
Black Mountain Buncombe 4,083 5,533 7,511 35.5 35.7
Brevard Transylvania 5,323 5,388 6,789 1.2 26.0
Canton Haywood 4,631 3,790 4,029 -18.2 6.3
Flat Rock Henderson ….. 1,619 2,565 ….. 58.4
Fletcher Henderson 2,233 2,787 4,185 24.8 50.2
Hendersonville Henderson 6,862 7,284 10,569 6.1 45.1
Mars Hill Madison 2,126 1,611 1,764 -24.2 9.5
Spruce Pine Mitchell 2,282 2,010 2,030 -11.9 1.0
Waynesville Haywood 8,576 8,438 9,232 -1.6 9.4
Weaverville Buncombe 1,495 2,107 2,416 40.9 14.7
Woodfin Buncombe 3,260 2,736 3,162 -16.1 15.6
• - The numbers reported reflect municipality population; however, these municipalities are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for municipalities located wholly or partially within the basin.
A-I-2

Appendix II

Local Governments and
Planning Jurisdictions
in the
French Broad River Basin

Appendices

Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin

The French Broad River basin encompasses all or portions of eight counties and 24
municipalities. The following table provides a listing of these local governments, along with the
regional planning jurisdiction (Council of Governments). Only one municipality is located in
more than one major river basin.

County Region Municipalities
Avery D Newland, Sugar Mountain*
Buncombe B Asheville, Biltmore Forest, Black Mountain, Montreat, Weaverville, Woodfin
Haywood A Canton, Clyde, Maggie Valley, Waynesville
Henderson B Flat Rock, Fletcher, Hendersonville, Laurel Park
Madison B Hot Springs, Mars Hill, Marshall
Mitchell D Bakersville, Spruce Pine
Transylvania B Brevard, Rosman
Yancey D Burnsville
* Located in more than one major river basin.
Note: Counties adjacent to and sharing a border with a river basin are not included as part of that basin if only a trace amount of
the county (<2 percent) is located in that basin, unless a municipality is located in that county.

Region Name Location
A Southwestern Commission Bryson City
B Land of the Sky Regional Council Asheville
D High Country Council of Governments Boone
A-II-1

Appendix III

Land Cover
in the
French Broad River Basin

Appendices

Land Cover

Land cover can be an important way to evaluate the effects of land use changes on water quality.
Unfortunately, the tools and database to do this on a watershed scale are not yet available. The
information below describes two different ways of presenting land cover in the French Broad
River basin.

Land cover information from the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis (CGIA) is useful in providing a snapshot of land cover in the basin from 1993 to 1995.
This information is also available in a GIS format so it can be manipulated to present amounts of
the different land covers by subbasin or at the watershed scale. Land cover information from the
National Resources Inventory (NRI) published by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) is presented only at a larger scale (8-digit hydrologic unit), but the collection methods
allow for between year comparisons. The two datasets cannot be compared to evaluate land
cover data. This information is presented to provide a picture of the different land covers and
some idea of change in land cover over time. In the future, it is hoped that land cover
information like the GIS formatted dataset will be developed to make more meaningful
assessments of the effects of land use changes on water quality. This dataset would also be
useful in providing reliable and small-scale information on land cover changes that can be used
in water quality monitoring, modeling and restoration efforts.

Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA) Land Cover

The North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database contains land cover information for the
French Broad River basin based on satellite imagery from 1993-1995. CGIA developed 24
categories of statewide land cover information. For the purposes of this report, those categories
have been condensed into five broader categories as described in the table below. The chart of
the following page provides an illustration of the relative amount of land area that falls into each
major cover type for the French Broad River basin.

Land Cover Type Land Cover Description
Urban Greater than 50 percent coverage by synthetic land cover (built-upon area)
and municipal areas.
Cultivated Cropland Areas that are covered by crops that are cultivated in a distinguishable pattern.
Pasture/Managed Herbaceous Areas used for the production of grass and other forage crops and other
managed areas such as golf courses and cemeteries. Also includes upland
herbaceous areas not characteristic of riverine and estuarine environments.
Forest/Wetland Includes salt and freshwater marshes, hardwood swamps, shrublands and all
kinds of forested areas (such as needleleaf evergreens, deciduous hardwoods).
Water Areas of open surface water, areas of exposed rock, and areas of sand or silt
adjacent to tidal waters and lakes.

A-III-1

1% Urban/Built-Up Areas
14% Pasture/Managed Herbaceous Land Cover
1% Cultivated Crop
1% Water
83% Forest/Wetland

National Resources Inventory (NRI) Land Cover Trends

Land cover information in this section is from the most current NRI, as developed by the NRCS
(USDA-NRCS, June 2001). The NRI is a statistically based longitudinal survey that has been
designed and implemented to assess conditions and trends of soil, water and related resources on
the Nation’s nonfederal rural lands. The NRI provides results that are nationally and temporally
consistent for four points in time -- 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997.

In general, NRI protocols and definitions remain fixed for each inventory year. However, part of
the inventory process is that the previously recorded data are carefully reviewed as
determinations are made for the new inventory year. For those cases where a protocol or
definition needs to be modified, all historical data must be edited and reviewed on a point-by-
point basis to make sure that data for all years are consistent and properly calibrated. The
following excerpt from the Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory provides
guidance for use and interpretation of current NRI data:

The 1997 NRI database has been designed for use in detecting significant changes in resource
conditions relative to the years 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997. All comparisons for two points in
time should be made using the new 1997 NRI database. Comparisons made using data
previously published for the 1982, 1987 or 1992 NRI may provide erroneous results because of
changes in statistical estimation protocols, and because all data collected prior to 1997 were
simultaneously reviewed (edited) as 1997 NRI data were collected.

The following table summarizes acreage and percentage of land cover from the 1997 NRI for the
major watersheds within the basin, as defined by the USGS 8-digit hydrologic units, and
compares the coverages to 1982 land cover. Definitions of the different land cover types are also
presented.

A-III-2

MAJOR WATERSHED AREAS
Upper French Pigeon Nolichucky %
Broad River River River 1997 TOTALS 1982 TOTALS change
Acres Acres Acres Acres % of Acres % of since
LAND COVER (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s)TOTAL (1000s) TOTAL 1982
Cult. Crop 36.8 3.5 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 38.4 2.1 61.9 3.4 -38.0
Uncult. Crop 13.3 1.3 3.5 1.0 2.0 0.5 18.8 1.0 34.5 1.9 -45.5
Pasture 148.6 14.1 39.6 11.2 29.0 7.3 217.2 12.0 235.2 13.0 -7.7
Forest 484.2 46.0 117.6 33.2 243.8 61.3 845.6 46.9 905.1 50.2 -6.6
Urban & Built-Up 141.6 13.5 30.6 8.6 23.4 5.9 195.6 10.8 105.6 5.9 85.2
Federal 184.1 17.5 152.7 43.1 79.5 20.0 416.3 23.1 401.2 22.2 3.8
Other 44.1 4.2 8.3 2.3 19.9 5.0 72.3 4.0 60.7 3.4 19.1
Totals 1052.7 100.0 353.9 100.0 397.6 100.0 1804.2 100.0 1804.2 100.0
% of Total Basin 58.3 19.6 22.0 100.0
SUBBASINS 04-03-01 04-03-02 04-03-05 04-03-06
04-03-03 04-03-04 04-03-07
8-Digit
Hydraulic Units 06010105 06010106 06010108
* Watershed areas as defined by the 8-Digit Hydraulic Units do not necessarily coincide with subbasin titles used by DWQ.
Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service - 1982 and 1997 NRI

Type Description
Cultivated Cropland Harvestable crops including row crops, small-grain and hay crops, nursery and orchard
crops, and other specialty crops.
Uncultivated Cropland Summer fallow or other cropland not planted.
Pastureland Includes land that has a vegetative cover of grasses, legumes and/or forbs, regardless of
whether or not it is being grazed by livestock.
Forestland At least 10 percent stocked (a canopy cover of leaves and branches of 25 percent or
greater) by single-stemmed trees of any size which will be at least 4 meters at maturity,
and land bearing evidence of natural regeneration of tree cover. The minimum area for
classification of forestland is 1 acre, and the area must be at least 1,000 feet wide.
Urban and
Built-up Areas
Includes airports, playgrounds with permanent structures, cemeteries, public
administration sites, commercial sites, railroad yards, construction sites, residences, golf
courses, sanitary landfills, industrial sites, sewage treatment plants, institutional sites,
water control structure spillways and parking lots. Includes highways, railroads and
other transportation facilities if surrounded by other urban and built-up areas. Tracts of
less than 10 acres that are completely surrounded by urban and built-up lands.
Other Rural Transportation: Consists of all highways, roads, railroads and associated rights-
of-way outside urban and built-up areas; private roads to farmsteads; logging roads; and
other private roads (but not field lanes).
Small Water Areas: Waterbodies less than 40 acres; streams less than 0.5 mile wide.
Census Water: Large waterbodies consisting of lakes and estuaries greater than 40
acres and rivers greater than 0.5 mile in width.
Minor Land: Lands that do not fall into one of the other categories.
Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service - 1982 and 1997 NRI
A-III-3

Data from 1982 are also provided for a comparison of change over 15 years. During this period,
urban and built-up land cover increased by 90,000 acres. Uncultivated cropland and pastureland
decreased by 34,000 acres. Forest and cultivated cropland cover significantly decreased by
60,000 and 24,000 acres, respectively. Most land cover change is accounted for in the Upper
French Broad River hydrologic unit that includes rapidly growing areas in Buncombe and
Henderson counties. Below is a graph that presents changes in land cover between 1982 and
1997.

-38.0 -45.5
-7.7 -6.6
85.2
3.8
19.1
-80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Cult. Crop Uncult. Crop Pasture Forest Urban &
Built-up
Federal Other
Land Cover Type
La
n
d

C
o
v
e
r

C
h
a
n
g
e
s

(
%
)
Source: USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001
A-III-4

Appendix IV

DWQ Water Quality
Monitoring Programs
in the
French Broad River Basin

Appendices

DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the French Broad River Basin

Staff in the Environmental Sciences Branch (ESB) and
Regional Offices of DWQ collect a variety of
biological, chemical and physical data. The following
discussion contains a brief introduction to each
program, followed by a summary of water quality data
in the French Broad River basin for that program. For
more detailed information on sampling and assessment
of streams in this basin, refer to the Basinwide
Assessment Report for the French Broad River basin,
available from the Environmental Sciences Branch
website at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling [phone].
DWQ monitoring programs for the
French Broad River Basin include:

• Benthic Macroinvertebrates
• Fish Assessments
• Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
• Lake Assessment
• Ambient Monitoring System

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring

Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates
of rivers and streams. These organisms are primarily aquatic insect larvae. The use of benthos
data has proven to be a reliable monitoring tool, as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
subtle changes in water quality. Since macroinvertebrates have life cycles of six months to over
one year, the effects of short-term pollution (such as a spill) will generally not be overcome until
the following generation appears. The benthic community also integrates the effects of a wide
array of potential pollutant mixtures.

Criteria have been developed to assign a bioclassification to each benthic sample based on the
number of different species present in the pollution intolerant groups of Ephemeroptera
(Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies) and Trichoptera (Caddisflies), commonly referred to as EPTs.
A Biotic Index (BI) value gives an indication of overall community pollution tolerance. Different
benthic macroinvertebrate criteria have been developed for different ecoregions (mountains,
piedmont, coastal plain and swamp) within North Carolina and bioclassifications fall into five
categories: Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair and Poor.

Overview of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data

There were 57 benthic samples collected during this assessment period. The following table lists
the total bioclassifications (by subbasin) for all benthos sites in the French Broad River basin.
Benthos sampling may slightly overestimate the proportion of Fair, Poor and Severe stress sites,
as DWQ special studies often have the greatest sampling intensity (number of sites/stream) in
areas where it is believed that water quality problems exist. Many streams also ceased flowing
during the summer drought of 2002. For detailed information regarding the samples collected
during this assessment period, refer to the tables at the end of this appendix.

A-IV-1

Summary of Bioclassifications for All Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sites (using the
most recent rating for each site) in the French Broad River Basin

Subbasin Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Total
04-03-01 4 1 1 0 0 6
04-03-02 0 3 4 6 1 14
04-03-03 2 1 2 0 0 5
04-03-04 3 3 3 0 0 9
04-03-05 5 3 5 0 1 14
04-03-06 3 3 0 1 0 7
04-03-07 2 0 0 0 0 2
Total (#) 19 14 15 7 2 57
Total (%) 33.3 24.6 26.3 12.3 3.5 100

Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities in Small Streams

The benthic macroinvertebrate community of small streams is naturally less diverse than the
streams used to develop the current criteria for flowing freshwater streams. The benthic
macroinvertebrate database is being evaluated and a study to systematically look at small
reference streams in different ecoregions is being developed with the goal of finding a way to
evaluate water quality conditions in such small streams.

Presently, a designation of Not Impaired may be used for flowing waters that are too small to be
assigned a bioclassification (less than 4 meters in width) but meet the criteria for a Good-Fair or
higher bioclassification using the standard qualitative and EPT criteria. This designation will
translate into a use support rating of Supporting. However, DWQ will use the monitoring
information from small streams to identify potential impacts to small streams even in cases when
a use support rating cannot be assigned.

DWQ will use this monitoring information to identify potential impacts to these waters even
though a use support rating is not assigned. DWQ will continue to develop criteria to assess
water quality in small streams.

Fish Assessments

Historical studies of fish communities in the French Broad River basin were conducted primarily
by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) in the 1960s and late 1970s.
Several streams were sampled by DWQ during the past basinwide planning cycle (1994), and
two samples were collected in 1999. Scores are assigned to these samples using the North
Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI). The NCIBI uses a cumulative assessment of twelve
parameters or metrics. Each metric is designed to contribute unique information to the overall
assessment. The scores for all metrics are then summed to obtain the overall NCIBI score.

A-IV-2

Overview of Fish Community Data

Fish community samples have been collected at 22 sites in the French Broad River basin during
this assessment period. The following table lists the most recent ratings since 1990, by subbasin,
for all fish community sites. For detailed information regarding the samples collected during this
assessment period, refer to the tables at the end of this Appendix.

Summary of NCIBI Categories for All Freshwater Fish Community Sites (using the most recent
rating for each site) in the French Broad River Basin

Subbasin Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Total
04-03-01 0 1 1 0 0 2
04-03-02 0 8 1 0 2 11
04-03-03 0 1 0 0 0 1
04-03-04 2 0 1 0 0 3
04-03-05 0 0 1 1 1 3
04-03-06 1 0 0 1 0 2
04-03-07 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total (#) 3 11 4 2 3 23
Total (%) 13.0 47.8 17.4 8.7 13.0 100.0

French Broad River Basin Fish Kills

DWQ has systematically tracked reported fish kill events across the state since 1996. From
September 1,1997 to August 31,2002, DWQ field investigators reported 5 fish kill events in the
French Broad River basin.

Total fish mortality was relatively low in this basin, as all fish kills were caused by an identified
event. The largest fish kill event in the basin occurred in 1998 when rapid draining of Lake
Junaluska for maintenance work caused a kill of 50,000 bass, sunfish, carp, catfish and goldfish.
The rapid drop in the lake level caused silt suspension and decreased levels of dissolved oxygen
(DO) and resulted in a kill below the dam in Richland Creek. For more information on fish kills
in North Carolina, refer to http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Fishkill/fishkillmain.htm

Overview of Fish Tissue Sampling

There is only one site where fish tissue sampling is conducted in the French Broad River basin.
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. (formerly Champion International Corporation) and Progress
Energy (formerly Carolina Power & Light Company) perform annual monitoring of fish tissue
for dioxins in the Pigeon River watershed including Walters Lake as a requirement of their
NPDES permit and FERC license. The purpose of this long-term monitoring program is to
determine if concentrations of dioxin (TCDD) and furan in several fish species would decline
after the implementation in 1989 of the dioxin reduction program at Blue Ridge Paper 's
bleached Kraft pulp and paper mill. The mill is located on the Pigeon River in the Town of
A-IV-3

Canton, 20.7 miles upstream of Walters Lake. Common carp still exceed the North Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services value of 4.0 ppt in issuing fish consumption
advisories. There is still a state issued consumption advisory on common carp in the Pigeon
River between Canton and the North Carolina-Tennessee state line. Monitoring of common carp
will continue until the advisory is lifted. More detailed information regarding this advisory can
be found in subbasin 04-03-05 (Chapter 5).

Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring

Acute and/or chronic toxicity tests are used to determine toxicity of discharges to sensitive
aquatic species (usually fathead minnows or the water flea, Ceriodaphnia dubia). Results of
these tests have been shown by several researchers to be predictive of discharge effects on
receiving stream populations. Many facilities are required to monitor whole effluent toxicity
(WET) by their NPDES permit or by administrative letter. Other facilities may also be tested by
DWQ’s Aquatic Toxicology Unit (ATU). Per Section 106 of the Clean Water Act, the ATU is
required to test at least 10 percent of the major discharging facilities over the course of the
federal fiscal year (FFY). However, it is ATU’s target to test 20 percent of the major dischargers
in the FFY. This means that each major facility would get evaluated over the course of their
five-year permit. There are no requirements or targets for minor dischargers.

The ATU maintains a compliance summary for all facilities required to perform tests and
provides monthly updates of this information to regional offices and DWQ administration.
Ambient toxicity tests can be used to evaluate stream water quality relative to other stream sites
and/or a point source discharge.

Forty-three NPDES permits in the French Broad River basin currently require WET testing.
Thirty-seven permits have a WET limit; the other six facilities permits specify monitoring but do
not have a limit. Across the state, the number of facilities required to perform WET has
increased steadily since 1987, the first year that WET limits were written into permits in North
Carolina. Consequently, compliance rates have also risen. Since 1996, the compliance rate has
stabilized at approximately 90 percent. The following graph summaries WET monitoring
compliance in the French Broad River basin from 1987 to 2002. Facilities with toxicity
problems during the most recent two-year review period are discussed in subbasin chapters.

A-IV-4

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
19
8
7
19
8
8
19
8
9
19
9
0
19
9
1
19
9
2
19
9
3
19
9
4
19
9
5
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
Year
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
No. Facilities % Meeting Permit Limit

Lakes Assessment Program

Six lakes in the French Broad River basin (Lake Julian, Burnett Reservoir, Lake Kenilworth,
Allen Creek Reservoir, Lake Junaluska and Walters Lake) were sampled as part of the Lakes
Assessment Program in summer of 2002. Lakes with noted water quality impacts are discussed
in the appropriate subbasin chapter.

Ambient Monitoring System

The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and estuarine stations
strategically located for the collections of physical and chemical water quality data. North
Carolina has more than 378 water chemistry monitoring stations statewide, including 25 stations
in the French Broad River basin. Between 23 and 32 parameters are collected monthly at each
station. The locations of these stations are listed in the following table and shown on individual
subbasin maps. Notable ambient water quality parameters are discussed in the subbasin
chapters. Refer to 2003 French Broad River Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html for more detailed analysis of ambient water quality monitoring
data.

A-IV-5

Locations of Ambient Monitoring Stations in the French Broad River Basin by Subbasin

Subbasin/
Map Code
Station
Number
Waterbody/
Location County Class
04-03-01
E0150000 French Broad R at NC 178 at Rosman Transylvania B Tr
E1130000 Little R near Cedar Transylvania C Tr
E1270000 French Broad R at SR 1503 at Blantyre Transylvania WS-IV & B
04-03-02
E2120000 Mud Cr at SR 1508 near Balfour Henderson C
E2730000 French Broad R at SR 3495 near Skyland Buncombe B
E3520000 Hominy Cr at SR 3413 near Asheville Buncombe C
E4030000 Beetree Cr near Swannanoa Buncombe WS-I HQW
E4170000 Swannanoa R at NC 25 at Asheville Buncombe C
E4280000 French Broad R at SR 1348 at Asheville Buncombe B
E4770000 French Broad R at SR 1634 at Alexander Buncombe B
04-03-03
E0850000 Davidson R at US 64 near Brevard Transylvania WS-V & B Tr
E1490000 Mills R at End of SR 1337 near Mills River Henderson WS-II Tr HQW
04-03-04
E5120000 French Broad R at Blennerhassett Island at Marshall Madison B
04-03-05
E5410000 W Fk Pigeon R upstream Lake Logan near Hazelwood Haywood WS-III Tr
E5495000 Pigeon R at NC 215 near Canton Haywood WS-III Tr CA
E5600000 Pigeon R at SR 1642 at Clyde Haywood C
E6110000 Richland Cr at SR 1184 near Waynesville Haywood B
E6300000 Jonathans Cr at US 276 near Cove Creek Haywood C Tr
E6450000 Cataloochee Cr at SR 1395 near Cataloochee Haywood C Tr ORW
E6480000 Pigeon R at SR 1338 near Hepco Haywood C
E6500000 Pigeon R at Waterville Haywood C
04-03-06
E7000000 N Toe R at US 19E near Ingalls Avery WS-IV Tr
E8100000 N Toe R at SR 1162 at Penland Mitchell C Tr
E8200000 S Toe R at SR 1168 near Celo Yancey B Tr ORW
E9990000 Nolichucky R beside SR 1321 at Poplar Mitchell B
04-03-07
E9800000 Cane R at SR 1417 near Sioux Yancey C Tr

A-IV-6

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Collected in the French Broad River Basin, 1983 – 2003
(Current basinwide sampling sites are in bold print.)

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
04-03-01
French Broad R SR 1129 Transylvania 6-(1) 07/08/02 96 54 3.62 2.99 Excellent
07/08/97 92 51 3.48 2.76 Excellent
07/06/92 108 51 3.84 2.59 Excellent
08/07/90 98 43 3.90 2.82 Excellent
03/15/89 107 57 3.53 2.54 Excellent
08/09/88 96 48 4.11 3.13 Excellent
07/21/86 98 47 4.00 2.89 Excellent
08/24/84 87 37 4.03 3.03 Good
08/22/84 83 31 4.19 3.22 Good
W Fk French
Broad R off NC 281 Transylvania 6-2-(0.5) 10/01/01 43 28 2.45 1.85 Not Rated
09/12/00 45 29 2.13 1.82 Excellent
08/06/90 82 45 2.67 1.96 Excellent
05/14/90 96 55 2.67 1.79 Excellent
W Fk French
Broad R SR 1306 Transylvania 6-2-(0.5) 10/01/01 59 19 5.82 2.77 Fair
09/12/00 69 15 6.47 3.09 Fair
08/06/90 51 15 5.97 3.70 Fair
05/14/90 72 33 4.95 2.89 Good-Fair
W Fk French
Broad R NC 281 Transylvania 6-2-(0.5) 10/01/01 93 41 4.46 2.66 Good
08/06/90 78 32 4.95 3.85 Good-Fair
05/14/90 97 44 4.54 3.13 Good
03/15/89 --- 27 --- 3.54 Good-Fair
W Fk French
Broad R SR 1312 Transylvania 6-2-(0.5) 02/11/92 99 53 3.14 1.97 Excellent
05/21/87 49 49 2.49 2.49 Excellent
10/31/84 94 42 3.89 2.72 Good
W Fk French
Broad R US 64 Transylvania 6-2-(7.5) 07/09/02 91 51 3.02 2.32 Excellent
07/07/97 94 50 3 2.13 Excellent
07/06/92 87 47 3.49 2.35 Excellent
02/11/92 110 57 3.45 2.37 Excellent
03/14/89 87 50 3.36 2.49 Excellent
Parker Cr SR 1310 Transylvania 6-2-4 03/15/89 --- 44 --- 2.56 Good
Flat Cr SR 1319 Transylvania 6-2-10 07/08/02 --- 38 --- 2.44 Excellent
N Flat Cr SR 1319 Transylvania 6-2-10-1 03/14/89 --- 38 --- 2.77 Good
Woodruff Br near US 64 Transylvania 6-2-12 03/22/98 --- 22 --- 1.82 Not Rated
N Fk French
Broad R NC 215 Transylvania 6-3-(6.5) 03/13/89 --- 45 --- 1.98 Excellent
N Fk French
Broad R SR 1326 Transylvania 6-3-(6.5) 07/09/02 76 34 4.38 2.98 Good
03/13/89 --- 36 --- 2.84 Good
N Fk French
Broad R SR 1322 Transylvania 6-3-(6.5) 07/09/02 79 41 3.52 2.74 Excellent
07/07/97 76 41 3.34 2.54 Excellent
07/06/92 85 42 3.41 2.46 Excellent
03/14/89 89 44 3.65 2.72 Excellent
Tucker Cr SR 1325 Transylvania 6-3-10 03/14/89 --- 35 --- 2.69 Good-Fair
M Fk French
Broad R NC 178 Transylvania 6-5 03/14/89 --- 35 --- 1.75 Good
M Fk French
Broad R SR 1131 Transylvania 6-5 07/08/02 --- 51 --- 2.15 Excellent
E Fk French Broad
R SR 1105 Transylvania 6-6 03/16/89 --- 51 --- 1.96 Excellent
E Fk French Broad
R SR 1107 Transylvania 6-6 03/16/89 107 54 3.04 2.25 Excellent
S Pr Glady Fk SR 1105 Transylvania 6-6-7-1 05/21/87 --- 29 --- 3.13 Good-Fair
Galloway Cr US 64, ab
landfill Transylvania 6-8 05/21/87 --- 16 --- 2.61 Not Rated
Galloway Cr US 64, be
landfill Transylvania 6-8 05/21/87 --- 10 --- 3.00 Not Rated
A-IV-7

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
Peter Weaver Cr SR 1329 Transylvania 6-10 07/24/01 44 24 2.44 1.93 Not Rated
Peter Weaver Cr P-W Creek
Rd Transylvania 6-10 08/30/00 37 16 4.58 4.15 Not Rated
Peter Weaver Cr Ab SR 1195 Transylvania 6-10 07/24/01 60 24 5.41 4.48 Not Rated
Peter Weaver Cr SR 1195 Transylvania 6-10 07/24/01 43 10 5.82 4.79 Not Rated
08/30/00 57 18 5.90 5.19 Not Rated
05/16/00 60 25 5.88 4.67 Not Rated
07/07/97 --- 12 --- 5.35 Fair
Morgan Mill Cr SR 1331 Transylvania 6-10-1 08/30/00 44 24 3.00 2.29 Not Rated
Morgan Mill Cr SR 1388 Transylvania 6-10-1 08/30/00 58 20 5.74 3.99 Not Rated
Morgan Mill Cr SR 1195 Transylvania 6-10-1 07/24/01 45 14 6.18 5.38 Not Rated
Cherryfield Cr SR 1332 Transylvania 6-11 08/31/00 60 36 2.46 2.09 Not Rated
Cherryfield Cr SR 1128 Transylvania 6-11 07/24/01 83 41 4.24 3.20 Not Rated
08/31/00 69 30 3.89 2.85 Not Rated
Mason Cr SR 1392 Transylvania 6-11-3 07/23/01 62 31 2.94 1.52 Not Rated
08/31/00 51 31 2.38 1.88 Not Rated
Catheys Cr SR 1338, Transylvania 6-16-(8.5) 03/13/89 --- 58 --- 2.02 Excellent
05/21/87 --- 49 --- 1.79 Excellent
Carson Cr SR 1103 Transylvania 6-20 07/09/02 --- 35 --- 3.12 Good
Norton Cr US 64 Transylvania 6-28-2 05/21/87 --- 14 --- 4.82 Not Rated
Williamson Cr SR 1541 Transylvania 6-32 05/21/87 --- 44 --- 2.42 Good
Little R US 276 Transylvania 6-38-(1) 05/21/87 --- 38 --- 3.02 Good
Little R SR 1560 Transylvania 6-38-(1) 07/09/02 --- 35 --- 3.50 Good
Little R
off SR 1536,
above High
Falls
Transylvania 6-38-(20) 08/04/87 83 19 6.41 4.97 Fair
08/05/85 82 22 5.85 4.66 Fair
Laurel Cr SR 1536 Transylvania 6-38-17 05/22/87 --- 44 --- 2.10 Good
Little R Be High Falls Transylvania 6-38-(20) 07/24/89 81 32 4.63 3.87 Good
Little R SR 1533 Transylvania 6-38-(20) 07/11/02 --- 24 --- 4.23 Good-Fair
07/08/97 --- 25 --- 4.25 Good-Fair
07/07/92 --- 26 --- 4.18 Good-Fair
Crab Cr SR 1532 Transylvania 6-38-23 10/03/01 76 30 4.97 4.08 Good-Fair
10/26/00 95 43 4.71 3.62 Good
05/22/87 --- 38 --- 2.94 Good
UT Crab Cr SR 1127 Henderson 6-38-23 10/26/00 53 29 3.46 2.35 Not Rated

04-03-02
French Broad R SR 1503 Transylvania 6-(27) 07/22/86 57 21 5.77 4.30 Fair
08/18/83 55 20 5.85 4.44 Fair
Gash Cr SR 1322 Henderson 6-47 09/18/86 40 5 7.58 5.94 Not Rated
Gash Cr US 64 Henderson 6-47 09/18/86 21 1 8.07 5.77 Not Rated
Gash Cr SR 1203 Henderson 6-47 09/18/86 26 1 8.31 6.22 Not Rated
Gash Cr SR 1205 Henderson 6-47 08/28/02 34 3 7.42 6.6 Not Rated
06/04/96 50 6 7.21 5.28 Not Rated
08/18/86 19 7 6.12 4.54 Not Rated
Mill Pond Cr SR 1309 Henderson 6-51 08/28/02 35 6 5.64 5.14 Not Rated
06/04/96 47 14 6.07 5.01 Not Rated
French Broad R NC 280 Buncombe 6-(54.5) 09/10/02 65 25 5.60 4.46 Good-Fair
07/08/97 76 32 5.38 4.48 Good-Fair
07/08/92 86 41 5.08 4.17 Good
07/26/90 79 33 5.35 3.98 Good-Fair
08/04/87 77 29 5.46 4.29 Good-Fair
French Broad R SR 1348 Buncombe 6-(54.5) 07/10/02 73 30 4.76 3.97 Good
07/09/97 72 32 5.02 4.02 Good-Fair
07/23/92 73 32 5.23 4.30 Good-Fair
08/03/87 70 23 5.25 4.01 Good-Fair
08/13/85 52 18 5.74 4.37 Fair
08/18/83 55 18 6.11 4.66 Fair
French Broad R SR 1634 Buncombe 6-(54.5) 07/10/02 57 18 5.79 4.85 Fair
07/09/97 55 18 5.55 4.68 Good-Fair
07/23/92 53 19 6.08 4.79 Fair
07/24/90 61 19 5.73 4.33 Fair
08/03/87 67 25 5.72 4.17 Good-Fair
Mud Cr SR 1125 Henderson 6-55 10/03/01 53 22 4.42 4.08 Not Rated
10/25/00 52 24 4.25 3.65 Not Rated
A-IV-8

Waterbody Location Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
Mud Cr SR 1126 6-55 10/03/01 44 15 5.56 5.11 Not Rated
10/25/00 37 6 6.66 4.61 Not Rated
07/11/00 61 16 6.21 5.34 Not Rated
09/08/97 --- 2 --- 6.99 Not Rated
Mud Cr SR 1164 6-55 10/04/01 49 11 6.29 5.71 Fair
Mud Cr SR 1647
County
Henderson

Henderson
Henderson 6-55 10/03/01 39 10 6.69 5.92 Poor
68 22 5.79 4.74 Fair
43 5 6.82 6.28 Poor
Mud Cr SR 1508, ab
WWTP Henderson 6-55 59 14 6.35 5.31 Fair
40 5 7.09 6.24 Poor
--- 10 --- 5.52 Poor
53 10 6.99 5.59 Poor
Mud Cr SR 1508, be
WWTP Henderson 6-55 46 12 6.59 5.46 Fair
47 8 7.08 5.84 Poor
--- 7 --- 6.36 Poor
31 3 7.74 7.17 Poor
Mud Cr US 25 Henderson 6-55 57 10 7.06 5.70 Poor
54 12 6.71 5.70 Fair
Bat Fk SR 1807 Henderson 6-55-8-1 --- 2 --- 2.55 Not Rated
Bat Fk US 176 Henderson 6-55-8-1 44 6 7.61 5.99 Not Rated
Bat Fk SR 1809 Henderson 6-55-8-1 37 14 5.48 5.08 Not Rated
19 2 8.61 1.29 Not Rated
Bat Fk SR 1803 Henderson 6-55-8-1 25 4 7.73 6.65 Not Rated
Bat Fk be Dunn Cr Henderson 6-55-8-1 45 9 6.33 6.12 Not Rated
Bat Fk SR 1779 Henderson 6-55-8-1 49 7 6.92 6.02 Not Rated
50 9 6.93 6.06 Fair
48 7 6.97 6.31 Fair
--- 2 --- 7.64 Poor
King Cr US 25 Henderson 6-55-8-1-2-(2) 36 10 5.25 5.36 Not Rated
Devils Fk SR 1006 Henderson 6-55-8-2 27 4 5.80 5.61 Not Rated
51 7 6.30 5.95 Not Rated
46 8 6.06 5.29 Not Rated
36 8 6.25 6.48 Not Rated
Devils Fk US 64 Henderson 6-55-8-2 43 5 7.83 6.24 Poor
Clear Cr SR 1591 Henderson 6-55-11-(1) 47 14 4.71 3.82 Not Rated
38 10 5.52 2.85 Not Rated
Clear Cr SR 1587 Henderson 6-55-11-(1) 65 23 4.52 3.29 Good-Fair
35 12 5.53 4.37 Fair
Clear Cr SR 1586 Henderson 6-55-11-(1) 38 4 6.84 6.38 Poor
54 8 6.27 5.07 Poor
42 5 6.26 5.04 Poor
47 12 6.26 4.79 Fair
Laurel Fk Nr SR 1592 Henderson 6-55-11-2 43 21 3.28 2.11 Good
53 28 3.08 2.70 Excellent
31 31 2.19 2.19 Good
Cox Cr off SR 1569 Henderson 6-55-11-3 46 22 3.20 2.43 Not Rated
Cox Cr SR 1587 Henderson 6-55-11-3 50 14 5.27 4.21 Not Rated
48 13 4.53 3.16 Not Rated
57 16 4.82 2.84 Not Rated
--- 10 --- 3.17 Poor
Puncheon Camp
Cr SR 1591 Henderson 6-55-11-4 22 22 3.12 3.12 Not Rated
Clear Cr SR 1513 Henderson 6-55-11-(5) 48 10 6.17 5.04 Fair
71 15 6.11 4.47 Fair
36 8 5.44 4.50 Poor
56 14 5.95 5.30 Fair
--- 8 --- 5.10 Poor

07/11/00
09/08/97
07/11/00
09/08/97
07/07/92
09/12/85
07/12/00
09/08/97
07/07/92
09/12/85
07/13/00
09/09/97
04/11/89
04/11/89
07/10/00
04/11/89
04/12/89
07/23/01
07/23/01
07/10/00
09/09/97
04/11/89
10/25/00
10/04/01
03/03/01
07/13/00
10/25/00
07/13/00
10/23/00
06/15/93
10/24/00
06/15/93
10/03/01
03/14/01
07/12/00
06/15/93
10/03/01
10/24/00
06/15/93
10/23/00
10/03/01
03/14/01
10/23/00
06/16/93
06/16/93
10/03/01
03/13/01
10/26/00
07/12/00
07/08/97
07/07/92 --- 9 --- 5.28 Poor
Mill Cr SR 1586 Henderson 6-55-11-7 10/03/01 42 8 5.13 4.27 Not Rated
03/14/01 46 10 5.56 4.65 Not Rated
10/23/00 25 11 4.90 4.54 Not Rated
Kyles Cr SR 1579 Henderson 6-55-11-8 10/03/01 60 17 4.72 3.22 Not Rated
03/14/01 88 37 4.35 3.11 Not Rated
Harper Cr SR 1582 Henderson 6-55-11-11 10/24/00 56 26 3.62 2.68 Excellent
A-IV-9

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
Cane Cr SR 2800 Buncombe 6-57-(1) 08/25/99 80 36 4.43 3.82 Good
Cane Cr SR 1006 Henderson 6-57-(9) 07/11/02 --- 11 --- 4.27 Fair
07/08/97 26 26 4.22 4.22 Good-Fair
07/07/92 27 27 4.34 4.34 Good-Fair
Bent Cr ab Boyd’s Br Buncombe 6-67-(1) 11/05/01 35 35 2.55 2.55 Excellent
Bent Cr be Boyd's Br Buncombe 6-67-(1) 11/07/01 31 31 2.53 2.53 Excellent
Boyd's Br near mouth Buncombe 6-67-6 11/05/01 30 30 1.98 1.98 Excellent
Bent Cr be WWTP Buncombe 6-67-(7) 11/07/01 51 18 4.39 2.83 Good-Fair
Wesley Cr ab rip-rap
area Buncombe 6-67-10 11/06/01 48 21 4.13 3.04 Not Rated
Wesley Cr be rip-rap
area Buncombe 6-67-10 11/07/01 48 22 4.05 2.90 Not Rated
Dingle Cr US 25 ab
Gerber Buncombe 6-71 02/10/87 --- 10 --- 5.22 Not Rated
Dingle Cr US 25 be
Gerber Buncombe 6-71 02/10/87 --- 2 --- 4.34 Not Rated
UT Dingle Cr Blue Ridge
Parkway #1 Buncombe 6-71 02/10/87 --- 16 --- 2.12 Not Rated
Dingle Cr Blue Ridge
Parkway #2 Buncombe 6-71 02/10/87 --- 14 --- 3.03 Fair
Hominy Cr US 19/23 Buncombe 6-76 05/15/02 62 35 4.27 3.97 Good
Hominy Cr SR 1141 Buncombe 6-76 01/18/89 --- 18 --- 3.19 Fair
Hominy Cr NC 151 Buncombe 6-76 05/14/02 71 36 4.37 3.90 Good
09/10/97 71 32 5.18 4.13 Good-Fair
07/09/92 --- 28 --- 3.31 Good
Hominy Cr NC 112 Buncombe 6-76 05/16/02 60 29 4.82 4.28 Good-Fair
09/09/97 63 16 5.84 4.84 Fair
07/09/92 --- 11 --- 3.94 Fair
Hominy Cr SR 3412 Buncombe 6-76 05/16/02 65 21 5.62 4.95 Fair
09/09/97 63 13 6.48 5.19 Fair
07/10/97 --- 13 --- 4.12 Fair
07/09/92 --- 8 --- 3.76 Poor
Web Br SR 1130 Buncombe 6-76-4 05/14/02 --- 24 --- 4.26 Not Rated
S Hominy Cr NC 151 Buncombe 6-76-5 05/15/02 --- 38 --- 2.99 Good
S Hominy Cr NC 151 Buncombe 6-76-5 08/28/02 --- 26 --- 2.72 Good-Fair
05/14/02 72 35 3.76 3.17 Good
05/15/00 64 34 4.10 3.77 Good
09/10/97 38 8 6.34 5.31 Poor
07/09/92 --- 20 --- 3.24 Good-Fair
Stony Fk NC 151 Buncombe 6-76-5-3 05/15/02 65 39 2.49 2 Good
Beaverdam Cr SR 3449 Buncombe 6-76-5-8 05/15/02 63 44 2.25 1.83 Excellent
Beaverdam Cr off SR 3449 Buncombe 6-76-5-8 05/15/02 62 34 3.97 3.25 Good
Pole Cr SR 1220 Buncombe 6-76-6 05/14/02 --- 23 --- 3.16 Not Rated
Bill Moore Cr SR 3439 Buncombe 6-76-7 05/14/02 67 38 2.94 2.60 Not Rated
Moore Cr Brookside
Circle Buncombe 6-76-8 05/14/02 30 9 5.63 4.75 Fair
Canie Cr Bear Cr Rd Buncombe 6-76-12 05/16/02 33 3 7.51 7.51 Poor
Swannanoa R SR 2500 Buncombe 6-78 08/27/02 62 19 5.42 4.22 Fair
10/06/87 56 19 5.82 4.68 Fair
Swannanoa R SR 2436 Buncombe 6-78 08/27/02 --- 22 --- 4.75 Good-Fair
10/07/87 50 18 5.49 4.65 Good-Fair
Swannanoa R SR 2416 Buncombe 6-78 08/27/02 75 24 5.86 4.58 Fair
10/07/87 60 22 5.17 4.26 Fair
Swannanoa R Azalea Rd Buncombe 6-78 01/11/93 78 31 5.24 4.33 Good-Fair
Swannanoa R Azalea Park Buncombe 6-78 08/27/02 21 21 4.36 4.36 Good-Fair
Swannanoa R NC 81/240 at
River Rd Buncombe 6-78 03/24/88 70 24 5.88 4.18 Fair
10/06/87 68 24 5.87 4.42 Good-Fair
07/24/87 76 29 5.62 4.57 Good-Fair
A-IV-10

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
Swannanoa R US 25 Buncombe 6-78 08/28/02 73 26 5.79 4.70 Good-Fair
07/09/97 62 28 5.44 4.26 Good-Fair
07/08/92 72 27 5.74 4.43 Good-Fair
07/27/89 60 15 6.28 4.47 Fair
03/24/88 47 8 7 5.96 Poor
10/05/87 54 17 6.40 5.07 Fair
07/24/87 73 33 5.25 4.21 Good-Fair
08/12/85 41 9 7.44 5.48 Poor
Flat Cr above Big
Piney Br Buncombe 6-78-6-(1) 12/11/91 35 35 1.54 1.54 Excellent
Flat Cr US 70 Buncombe 6-78-6-(4) 12/14/99 62 31 4.10 3.03 Good-Fair
10/06/87 --- 15 --- 4.02 Fair
Big Slaty Br near NC 9 Buncombe 6-78-6-2 12/11/91 --- 34 --- 1.50 Excellent
Little Slaty Br near NC 9 Buncombe 6-78-6-3 12/11/91 --- 37 --- 1.55 Excellent
Big Piney Br near NC 9 Buncombe 6-78-6-5 12/11/91 --- 32 --- 1.37 Excellent
Wolfpit Br
near High
Top Colony
Rd
Buncombe 6-78-10-(1) 12/10/91 --- 26 --- 1.35 Excellent
N Fk Swannanoa
R
SR 2576, ab
Grovestone Buncombe 6-78-11-(13) 10/08/87 --- 14 --- 3.85 Fair
N Fk Swannanoa
R
US 70, be
Grovestone Buncombe 6-78-11-(13) 08/27/02 --- 22 --- 4.01 Good-Fair
10/07/87 --- 12 --- 4.46 Fair
Laurel Br Private road Buncombe 6-78-11-16 02/13/92 58 32 2.88 1.70 Excellent
Beetree Cr SR 2416 Buncombe 6-78-15-(1) 10/06/87 --- 19 --- 3.72 Good-Fair
Beetree Cr SR 2427 Buncombe 6-78-15-(1) 03/17/86 72 39 3.59 2.83 Excellent
Beetree Cr SR 2429 Buncombe 6-78-15-(6) 10/07/87 --- 15 --- 3.01 Good-Fair
Bull Cr SR 2408 Buncombe 6-78-18 10/08/87 --- 27 --- 3.47 Good
Christian Cr Buckeye
Cove Rd Buncombe 6-78-19 01/12/99 55 32 2.95 2.16 Good
SR 2838 Buncombe 10/05/87 --- 17 --- 4.53 Good-Fair
Grassy Br off SR 2403 Buncombe 6-78-20 12/14/99 --- 14 --- 4.10 Not Rated
Gashes Cr SR 3071 Buncombe 6-78-21 05/25/94 61 20 4.71 2.93 Good-Fair
Haw Cr Ab US 70 Buncombe 6-78-22 12/15/99 --- 12 --- 3.54 Not Rated
Ross Cr Chunn's Cove
Rd. Buncombe 6-78-23 06/26/02 43 16 4.33 3.26 Not Rated
01/12/99 34 15 3.75 2.94 Not Rated
Ross Cr US 70 Buncombe 6-78-23 06/26/02 29 6 7.03 5.57 Not Rated
01/12/99 21 2 8.07 6.16 Poor
Sweeten Cr Biltmore
Village Buncombe 6-78-24 12/15/99 --- 3 --- 6.42 Not Rated
Sweeten Cr US 25A Buncombe 6-78-24 10/05/87 --- 1 --- 5.50 Not Rated
Newfound Cr SR 1296 Buncombe 6-84 06/12/89 74 38 3.93 3.02 Excellent
06/09/88 94 39 4.29 3.53 Excellent
Newfound Cr SR 1297 Buncombe 6-84 06/12/89 56 16 6.63 4.90 Not Rated
06/09/88 62 17 6.46 4.87 Not Rated
Newfound Cr SR 1378 Buncombe 6-84 04/23/86 50 12 6.72 4.76 Fair
Newfound Cr SR 1622 Buncombe 6-84 07/12/02 70 23 6.16 4.97 Fair
05/18/99 98 38 5.35 4.34 Good-Fair
07/09/97 --- 20 --- 4.97 Good-Fair
07/27/89 59 17 7.10 5.50 Fair
06/12/89 52 7 7.64 6.28 Poor
04/10/89 47 7 7.31 5.65 Poor
02/15/89 40 3 7.96 6.77 Poor
06/09/88 65 13 7.33 6.18 Poor
04/23/86 43 10 6.62 5.13 Poor
Reems Cr off SR 1003 Buncombe 6-87-(1) 07/10/02 --- 38 --- 3.30 Excellent
Reems Cr NC 251 Buncombe 6-87-(10) 07/10/02 --- 27 --- 3.69 Good-Fair
07/09/97 --- 30 --- 3.33 Good
07/23/92 --- 20 --- 3.37 Good-Fair
Flat Cr SR 1740 Buncombe 6-88 07/11/02 --- 22 --- 3.91 Good-Fair
04/24/86 75 24 4.94 3.55 Good-Fair
Sandymush Cr SR 1114 Madison 6-92-(9) 07/10/02 --- 32 --- 3.50 Good
07/10/97 --- 30 --- 4.02 Good
07/22/92 --- 36 --- 4.30 Excellent
07/22/92 --- 36 --- 4.30 Excellent
A-IV-11

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
04-03-03
Davidson R US 276 Transylvania 6-54-(15.5) 7/22/02 36 36 3.35 3.35 Excellent
Transylvania 7/22/97 113 52 3.76 2.65 Excellent
Transylvani a
Henderson 7/7/92 45 45 1.83 1.83 Excellent
Boylston Cr SR 1314 6-52-(0.5) 7/22/02 59 27 4.62 3.56 Good-Fair
Henderson 7/21/97 71 23 5.53 4.36 Good-Fair
Henderson 7/7/92 --- 26 --- 4.65 Good-Fair
Mills R SR 1337 Henderson 6-54-(1) 6/25/02 74 39 4.39 3.12 Good
Henderson 7/21/97 115 53 3.46 2.35 Excellent
Henderson 8/2/94 --- 43 --- 2.45 Excellent
Henderson 7/8/92 88 51 3.21 2.31 Excellent
Henderson 7/24/90 105 51 3.68 2.52 Excellent
Henderson 8/8/88 84 37 4.04 2.82 Excellent
Henderson 8/11/88 --- 32 --- 2.34 Good
Henderson 7/22/86 90 48 3.62 2.81 Excellent
Henderson 8/20/84 90 45 3.44 2.57 Excellent
N Fk Mills R FS Rd 5000 Henderson 6-54-2-(4) 9/10/97 54 34 3.17 2.63 Good
N Fk Mills R FS Rd 1206,
Ab Rocky Br Henderson 6-54-2-(4) 6/25/02 --- 40 --- 1.94 Excellent
At Rocky Br Henderson 6-54-2-(4) 7/21/97 --- 41 --- 1.66 Excellent
FS Rd 1206,
Ab Rocky Br Henderson 6-54-2-(4) 6/14/93 93 47 3.03 2.03 Excellent
Wash Cr off SR 1345 Henderson 6-54-2-6 6/14/93 73 47 2.22 1.80 Excellent
N Fk Mills R SR 1341 Henderson 6-54-2-(9) 6/25/02 70 31 4.62 3.3 Good
Henderson 6/14/93 102 50 2.99 2.19 Excellent
Henderson 7/12/85 91 37 3.92 2.81 Excellent
Bradley Cr FS Rd 1206 Transylvania 6-54-3-17 4/16/91 --- 55 --- 1.68 Excellent

FS Rd 1206
ab State Rock
Cr
Transylvania 4/16/91 --- 47 --- 1.85 Excellent

FS Rd 1206
ab Yellow
Gap Cr
Transylvania 7/10/91 --- 38 --- 1.52 Excellent
FS Rd 1206 Transylvania 4/16/91 --- 60 --- 1.61 Excellent
Bradley Fk FS Rd be
Laurel Cr Henderson 6-54-3-17 9/10/97 66 40 2.43 1.75 Excellent
S Fk Mills R SR 1340 Henderson 6-54-3-(17.5) 6/25/02 70 35 4.35 3.08 Good
Henderson 6/15/93 113 57 3.12 2.31 Excellent
Mills R SR 1353 Henderson 6-54-(5) 6/24/02 58 28 5.54 3.95 Good-Fair
Henderson 11/7/01 --- 6 --- 5.08 Poor
Henderson 10/7/98 19 2 6.69 5.96 Poor
Henderson 7/21/97 78 24 5.17 3.31 Good-Fair
Henderson 8/2/94 31 5 6.04 4.43 Poor
Henderson 6/15/93 90 40 4.18 2.80 Good
Henderson 7/8/92 81 35 4.19 3.14 Good
UT Mills R SR 1336 Henderson 6-54-(5) 10/18/94 19 19 2.65 2.65 Good-Fair
UT Mills R Greenhouse Henderson 6-54-(5) 12/15/92 4 0 8.43 0 Poor
UT Mills R SR 1338 Henderson 6-54-(5) 12/15/92 43 15 5.63 3.85 Fair
Brandy Br NC 191, ab
WTP Henderson 6-54-6 10/18/94 49 10 6.62 5.70 Fair
04-03-04
French Broad R NC 213 Madison 6-(54.5) 6/26/02 81 26 5.86 4.59 Good-Fair
7/7/97 52 25 4.81 3.94 Good-Fair
7/23/92 67 25 5.39 4.64 Good-Fair
7/24/90 49 18 5.54 4.73 Good-Fair
8/9/88 71 22 5.90 4.76 Fair
7/23/86 79 31 5.45 3.98 Good-Fair
8/13/85 62 18 5.68 4.52 Good-Fair
8/29/84 41 16 5.38 4.45 Good-Fair
8/18/83 54 19 5.61 4.37 Good-Fair
Ivy Cr (R) SR 2150 Buncombe 6-96-(0.5) 7/9/02 --- 32 --- 4.13 Good
7/7/97 --- 27 --- 2.78 Good-Fair
7/22/92 --- 38 --- 3.47 Excellent
Ivy Cr (R) SR 2153 Buncombe 6-96-(0.5) 8/31/93 100 41 4.67 3.75 Good
A-IV-12

Waterbody Location County Index No. ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
Dillingham Cr SR 2173 ab
Stoney Cr Buncombe 6-96-1-(1) --- 31 --- 2.32 Good
Dillingham Cr SR 2173, be
Stoney Cr Buncombe 6-96-1-(1) 86 36 4.40 3.17 Good
Stony Cr SR 2178 Buncombe 6-96-1-5 77 33 3.35 2.38 Good

Carter Cr
At mouth, ab
confl w
Mineral Cr
Buncombe 6-96-1-5-1 --- 29 --- 1.92 Excellent
Mineral Cr off SR 2178 Buncombe 6-96-1-5-2 --- 29 --- 1.39 Excellent
Paint Fk SR 1531 Madison 6-96-2 68 29 4.86 3.76 Not Rated
Paint Fk SR 1539 Madison 6-96-2 70 29 5.09 4.01 Not Rated
N Fk Ivy Cr SR 2027 Buncombe 6-96-3 --- 35 --- 2.70 Good
Little Ivy Cr SR 1547 Madison 6-96-10 62 15 6.49 4.97 Fair
--- 24 --- 3.52 Good-Fair
--- 27 --- 4.21 Good-Fair
Little Ivy Cr SR 1610 Madison 6-96-10 78 27 6.19 4.60 Good-Fair
--- 16 --- 3.91 Fair
--- 35 --- 3.87 Good
M Fk Little Ivy Cr SR 1526 Madison 6-96-10-1 61 27 4.90 3.60 Not Rated
M Fk Little Ivy Cr US 19 Madison 6-96-10-1 48 19 6.29 4.43 Not Rated
California Cr SR 1348 Madison 6-96-10-2 52 28 3.03 2.24 Not Rated
California Cr SR 1349 Madison 6-96-10-2 --- 31 --- 2.28 Good
California Cr SR 1541 Madison 6-96-10-2 42 13 5.77 4.26 Not Rated
53 29 3.91 2.97 Good-Fair
Big Br off SR 1540 Madison 6-96-10-5 45 15 5.52 4.73
Big Br SR 1549 Madison 6-96-10-5 36 9 5.74 4.68 Not Rated
UT Big Br NC 213 Madison 6-96-10-5 32 6 7.03 4.76 Not Rated
Ivy Cr (R) SR 1565 Madison 6-96-(11.7) 85 39 5.10 3.90 Good
Ivy Cr (R) US 25/70 Madison 6-96-(11.7) 80 30 4.92 3.77 Good-Fair
59 28 4.72 3.54 Good-Fair
--- 33 --- 3.31 Good
87 36 4.67 3.63 Good
Gabriel Cr SR 1559. last
bridge Madison 6-96-12 --- 21 --- 3.86 Good-Fair
Bull Cr NC 213 Madison 6-96-16 --- 25 --- 3.46 Good-Fair
Hunter Cr Ab old
reservoir Madison 6-106-2-(1) --- 30 --- 1.65 Excellent
Big Laurel Cr SR 1503 Madison 6-112 --- 45 --- 2.37 Excellent
--- 33 --- 2.31 Good
Big Laurel Cr SR 1318 Madison 6-112 80 42 3.31 2.86 Excellent
65 37 2.73 2.39 Excellent
Big Laurel Cr SR 1318/1314 Madison 6-112 --- 33 --- 1.98 Good
Big Laurel Cr NC 208 Madison 6-112 90 46 4.68 3.55 Good
--- 36 --- 2.66 Excellent
--- 38 --- 3.00 Excellent
Puncheon Fk SR 1503 Madison 6-112-5
Date
8/31/93
8/31/93
8/30/93

8/30/93
8/30/93
5/30/02
5/30/02
9/1/93
5/29/02
1/21/97
8/31/93
5/29/02
7/7/97
7/22/92
5/30/02
5/29/02
5/28/02
1/22/97
5/28/02
1/22/97
5/29/02
5/29/02
5/28/02
8/31/93
6/26/02
7/7/97
9/2/93
7/22/92
8/31/93
8/31/93
12/10/91
7/8/02
7/8/97
7/8/02
1/21/97
1/21/97
5/30/02
7/8/97
8/19/92
7/8/02 --- 40 --- 2.83 Excellent
7/8/97 --- --- 2.24 Good
Shelton Laurel Cr NC 208 Madison 6/27/02 --- 32 --- 3.64 Good
7/8/97 --- 31 --- Good
8/19/92 32 --- 2.90 Good
5/16/90 --- 44 --- 2.55 Excellent
Hickory Fk SR 1310 Madison 6-112-26-7 5/16/90 --- 43 1.90 Excellent
W Pr Hickory Fk SR 1310 Madison 6-112-26-7-1 --- 38 --- 1.62 Excellent
E Pr Hickory Fk Madison 6-112-26-7-2 5/16/90 --- 32 --- 1.35
L Laurel Cr NC 208 Madison 6-112-26-13 5/31/02 59 2.77
31
6-112-26
3.13
---

---
5/16/90
FS Rd 465 Excellent
32 2.00 Not Rated
Spring Cr NC 209 Madison 6-118-(27) 6/27/02 --- 37 --- 3.33 Excellent
7/8/97 --- 31 --- 3.04 Good
8/19/92 --- 26 --- 2.75 Good-Fair
A-IV-13

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
04-03-05
Pigeon R off NC 215 Haywood 5- (1) 7/24/84 87 37 4.63 3.49 Good

Pigeon R NC 215 Haywood 5- (1) 7/25/02 59 30 4.93 3.82 Good-Fair
Haywood 12/15/99 69 36 4.33 3.50 Good
Haywood 7/22/97 94 44 3.82 2.94 Excellent
Haywood 9/7/95 74 29 4.59 3.04 Good-Fair
Haywood 8/2/94 70 30 4.47 3.36 Good
Haywood 1/10/93 86 34 4.41 2.95 Good
Haywood 8/19/92 84 37 4.52 3.45 Good
Haywood 8/11/88 --- 34 --- 3.25 Good
Haywood 8/10/88 85 33 5.15 3.69 Good-Fair
Haywood 2/22/88 87 35 4.56 3.56 Good
Haywood 7/25/86 80 38 4.77 3.82 Good
Haywood 7/24/84 82 32 4.30 2.71 Good
Haywood 8/17/83 86 29 5.13 3.73 Good-Fair
W Fk Pigeon R SR 1216 Haywood 5-2 7/25/02 37 37 2.47 2.47 Excellent
Haywood 7/22/97 50 50 1.58 1.58 Excellent
Haywood 1/12/93 81 47 2.52 1.73 Excellent
Haywood 7/11/91 --- 44 --- 1.85 Excellent
Haywood 5/16/90 48 48 1.83 1.83 Excellent
UT W Fk Pigeon R near NC 215 Haywood 5-2 5/16/90 --- 34 --- 1.26 Excellent
Tom Cr near NC 215 Haywood 5-2-5 12/9/91 --- 35 --- 1.52 Excellent
Haywood 7/11/91 --- 30 --- 1.13 Excellent
M Pr W Fk Pigeon
R at mouth Haywood 7/11/91 --- 39 --- 1.55 Excellent
Haywood 4/17/91 --- 42 --- 1.40 Excellent
Haywood 5-2-7 5/16/90 --- 42 --- 1.70 Excellent
R Pr M Pr W Fk
Pigeon R
At road
crossing,
mouth
Haywood 5-2-7-7 4/17/91 --- 42 --- 1.37 Excellent
Haywood 12/9/91 --- 36 --- 1.75 Excellent
Haywood 7/11/91 --- 34 --- 1.65 Excellent
Haywood 5/16/90 --- 36 --- 1.50 Excellent
UT L E Fk Pigeon R
near Shining
Rock
Wilderness
Haywood 5-2-12-(0.5) 4/17/91 --- 38 --- 1.45 Excellent
L E Fk Pigeon R SR 1129 Haywood 5-2-12-(5.5) 4/17/91 --- 51 --- 1.50 Excellent
E Fk Pigeon R US 276 Haywood 5-3-(6.5) 7/22/02 --- 40 --- 2.80 Excellent
Haywood 7/22/97 109 50 3.54 2.43 Excellent
Haywood 7/25/84 86 38 4.22 2.81 Good
Pigeon R SR 1642 Haywood 5-(7) 9/10/02 49 9 6.84 5.27 Poor
Haywood 12/15/99 55 18 5.94 4.34 Fair
Haywood 7/23/97 78 25 5.96 4.42 Good-Fair
Haywood 9/7/95 44 16 6.02 5.38 Fair
Haywood 8/2/94 44 13 6.14 5.29 Fair
Haywood 8/19/92 63 16 6.74 4.41 Fair
Haywood 9/11/89 47 7 6.80 4.39 Poor
Haywood 9/11/89 --- 5 --- 5.21 Poor
Haywood 8/10/88 31 4 7.83 5.19 Poor
Haywood 2/22/88 51 12 6.86 4.70 Poor
Haywood 7/24/86 34 2 8.23 3.59 Poor
Haywood 8/25/84 39 5 7.65 5 Poor
Pigeon R SR 1625, be
Richland Cr Haywood 5-(7) 8/3/94 54 15 6.11 4.77 Fair
Pigeon R near Crabtree Haywood 5-(7) 2/22/88 53 16 6.24 4.11 Fair
Pigeon R SR 1338 Haywood 5-(7) 9/9/02 56 19 5.60 4.36 Good-Fair
Haywood 7/23/97 78 27 5.44 4.18 Good-Fair
Haywood 8/3/94 57 22 5.40 4.71 Good-Fair
Haywood 8/10/88 49 14 6.11 4.01 Fair
Haywood 2/23/88 46 24 4.95 3.99 Good-Fair
Pigeon R at Counterfeit
Br Haywood 5-(7) 3/18/92 77 41 4.25 2.97 Good
Haywood 4/22/92 94 43 4.46 2.90 Good
A-IV-14

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
Pigeon R at Hurricane
Cr Haywood 5-(7) 3/18/92 74 30 5.59 3.82 Good-Fair
Haywood 4/22/92 74 28 5.80 4.50 Good-Fair
Pigeon R off I-40 Haywood 5-(7) 7/25/02 75 38 4.96 3.98 Good
Haywood 7/24/97 81 40 4.77 3.13 Good
Haywood 8/3/94 58 27 4.37 3.61 Good
Haywood 7/25/90 57 22 4.76 3.97 Good-Fair
Haywood 7/27/89 62 28 5.24 4.31 Good-Fair
Haywood 8/10/88 67 24 4.89 3.61 Good-Fair
Haywood 8/7/87 58 25 5.06 3.75 Good-Fair
Haywood 7/24/86 67 28 4.77 3.95 Good-Fair
Haywood 8/12/85 57 17 5.85 4.06 Fair
Haywood 8/24/84 68 30 4.82 3.58 Good
Haywood 8/17/83 66 24 5.41 3.68 Good-Fair
Rough Cr near SR 1616 Haywood 5-8-4-(1) 9/11/97 --- 29 --- 1.22 Excellent
Richland Cr Bus 23 Haywood 5-16-(1) 7/29/02 --- 31 --- 2.91 Good
Haywood 7/25/97 --- 23 --- 2.79 Good-Fair
Haywood 8/18/92 --- 17 --- 3.51 Fair
Richland Cr SR 1184 Haywood 5-16-(1) 7/24/02 --- 19 --- 4.29 Good-Fair
Haywood 7/24/97 --- 24 --- 3.22 Good-Fair
Haywood 8/18/92 --- 26 --- 3.38 Good-Fair
Haywood 8/10/88 42 11 6.24 5.30 Fair
Haywood 8/12/85 28 9 6.07 4.07 Poor
Haywood 8/17/83 42 9 7.19 4.10 Poor

UT Richland Cr J&J Farm Rd Haywood 5/18/99 11 2 6.40 4.99 Not Rated
UT Richland Cr off SR 1157 Haywood 5/18/99 --- 26 --- 1.87 Good
Nolen Cr off SR 1158 Haywood 5-16-4 5/15/02 42 29 2.32 2.21 Not Rated
Hyatt Cr SR 1159, ds Haywood 5-16-6 4/18/84 30 10 6.21 4.09 Fair
SR 1159, us Haywood 4/18/84 41 17 5.65 3.87 Good-Fair
SR 1161 Haywood 5/13/02 36 20 3.29 2.63 Not Rated
SR 1165 Haywood 5/13/02 40 22 4.25 3.91 Not Rated
Shiny Cr Ab Allen Res. Haywood 5-16-7-3 7/25/97 --- 43 --- 1.30 Excellent
Rocky Br SR 1219 Haywood 5-16-7-9 (1) 12/9/91 --- 35 --- 1.38 Excellent
Richland Cr SR 1519 Haywood 5-16-(16) 7/25/02 45 20 5.42 4.46 Good-Fair
Haywood 7/25/97 --- 15 --- 4.42 Fair
Haywood 8/18/92 --- 14 --- 4.47 Fair
Jonathans Cr SR 1306 Haywood 5-26-(7) 7/24/97 --- 46 --- 1.50 Excellent
Haywood 8/18/92 --- 41 --- 1.85 Excellent
Jonathans Cr SR 1305 Haywood 5-26-(7) 7/24/02 --- 36 --- 1.89 Excellent
Jonathans Cr SR 1322 Haywood 5-26-(7) 7/25/02 --- 36 --- 3.57 Excellent
Haywood 7/24/97 --- 41 --- 2.67 Excellent
Haywood 8/18/92 --- 33 --- 3.30 Good
Jonathans Cr SR 1349 Haywood 5-26-(7) 9/9/02 --- 34 --- 3.84 Good
Haywood 7/24/97 --- 39 --- 3.11 Excellent
Haywood 8/18/92 --- 23 --- 3.70 Good-Fair
Fines Cr SR 1355 Haywood 5-32 7/24/02 --- 24 --- 3.52 Good-Fair
Haywood 7/23/97 --- 27 --- 2.63 Good-Fair
Haywood 8/17/92 --- 19
---
102 50
Haywood
Haywood 7/25/90 95 51
--- 3.74 Good-Fair
Cataloochee Cr SR 1395 Haywood 5-41 7/24/02 45 --- 1.64 Excellent
Haywood 7/23/97 2.72 1.68 Excellent
Haywood 8/17/92 84 42 3.03 1.87 Excellent
Haywood 7/11/91 80 48 2.72 2.02 Excellent
Haywood 7/27/89 43 43 1.90 1.90 Excellent
Haywood 7/27/89 101 53 3.02 1.94 Excellent
Haywood 1/24/90 85 51 2.34 1.83 Excellent
Haywood 1/24/90 47 47 1.68 1.68 Excellent
4/11/90 86 56 2.30 1.85 Excellent
3.16 1.86 Excellent
Haywood 10/23/90 86 47 2.74 1.82 Excellent
Haywood 7/24/86 102 47 3.51 2.09 Excellent
Haywood 8/24/84 96 42 3.37 1.92 Excellent
A-IV-15

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
Cataloochee Cr near SR 1395,
ab Palmer Cr Haywood 5-41 1/24/90 --- 45 --- 1.52 Excellent
UT Rough Fk near SR 1395 Haywood 5-41-1 4/18/91 --- 47 --- 1.66 Excellent
Palmer Cr near SR 1395 Haywood 5-41-2 4/18/91 --- 46 --- 1.51 Excellent
Pretty Hollow Cr near SR 1395 Haywood 5-41-2-4 4/18/91 --- 47 --- 1.56 Excellent
Lower Double Br
ab
Cataloochee
Cr
Haywood 5-41-6 1/24/90 57 36 1.94 1.34 Excellent
Haywood 4/11/90 57 36 2.25 1.41 Excellent
Haywood 7/25/90 54 31 2.89 1.73 Excellent
Haywood 10/23/90 63 37 2.64 1.48 Excellent
L Cataloochee Cr SR 1397 Haywood 5-41-10 1/24/90 --- 40 --- 1.95 Excellent
Hurricane Cr
FS Rd off I-
40 at Mile
Marker 13
Haywood 5-44 7/23/02 --- 32 --- 1.93 Good
Cold Springs Cr Gov't Rd,
near Cmpgd. Haywood 5-45 3/18/92 78 45 2.89 1.80 Excellent
Haywood 4/23/92 84 48 2.98 2.13 Excellent
Big Cr SR 1322 in
GSMNP Haywood 5-59 7/24/97 --- 47 --- 1.38 Excellent
Chestnut Br SR 1322 in
GSMNP Haywood 7/23/02 --- 28 --- 1.93 Good
04-03-06
Nolichucky R SR 1321 Mitchell 7 7/9/02 89
N Toe R
70
46 12
63 22
43 4.37 3.62 Good
7/9/97 71 37 4.03 3.62 Good
7/21/92 87 41 4.23 3.41 Good
7/23/90 83 38 4.44 3.41 Good
8/9/88 93 35 4.95 3.89 Good
7/23/86 84 37 4.95 3.74 Good
8/14/85 72 28 4.79 3.53 Good-Fair
8/29/84 68 31 4.55 3.89 Good
8/9/83 78 34 4.60 3.96 Good
Roaring Cr US 19E Avery 7-2-15 7/10/02 --- 37 --- 1.73 Excellent
Jones Cr SR 1100 Avery 7-2-24 9/11/85 75 29 3.75 2.23 Good
N Toe R US 19E Avery 7-2-(27.3) 7/10/02 89 39 4.92 3.86 Good
7/10/97 72 42 4.06 3.56 Good
7/21/92 99 41 4.32 3.24 Good
8/8/89 93 34 4.50 3.78 Good
2/14/89 58 29 4.50 3.23 Good
8/8/88 34 34 2.83 2.83 Good
8/4/87 92 38 4.67 3.36 Good
8/15/85 85 35 4.89 3.57 Good
8/28/84 84 36 4.28 3.17 Good
N Toe R be Brushy Cr Avery 7-2-(27.7) 2/14/89 59 35 4.19 2.99 Good
N Toe R be indusmin Mitchell 7-2-(27.7) 9/11/85 50 18 5.71 3.50 Fair
NC 226,
below
Feldspar
Mitchell 7-2-(27.7) 9/11/85 64 22 5.27 3.87 Good-Fair
N Toe R SR 1121, ab
Feldspar Mitchell 7-2-(27.7) 9/11/85 83 31 4.78 3.26 Good
N Toe R SR 1151 Mitchell 7-2-(27.7) 8/15/85 61 17 6.30 3.92 Fair
N Toe R SR 1162 Mitchell 7-2-(27.7) 7/10/02 60 22 5.90 4.15 Fair
7/9/97 70 34 4.74 3.72 Good
7/20/92 78 23 5.25 3.36 Good-Fair
8/7/89 63 24 5.58 3.50 Good-Fair
8/3/87 61 20 5.95 3.72 Fair
8/8/88 --- 10 --- 2.88 Poor
7/23/86 22 5.93 3.71 Fair
8/14/85 6.20 3.67 Fair
8/28/84 5.42 3.43 Good-Fair

A-IV-16

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
N Toe R SR 1314 Yancey 7-2-(27.7) 7/9/02 75 36 4.88 3.81 Good
7/9/97 74 40 4.66 4.17 Good
7/21/92 94 42 4.83 4.07 Good
Brushy Cr ab landfill Avery 7-2-29 2/14/89 --- 27 --- 2.36 Good-Fair
Brushy Cr be landfill Avery 7-2-29 2/14/89 --- 24 --- 3.40 Good-Fair
Little Bear Cr be Indusmin Mitchell 7-2-46-1 9/10/85 9 2 7.60 4.30 Poor
Little Bear Cr near NC 226
ab Indusmin Mitchell 7-2-46-1 9/10/85 31 8 4.74 2.76 Fair
Big Crabtree Cr SR 1002 Mitchell 7-2-48 7/20/92 --- 32 --- 2.06 Good
Big Crabtree Cr US 19E Mitchell 7-2-48 7/11/02 --- 37 --- 3.02 Excellent
7/10/97 --- 40 --- 2.24 Excellent
S Toe R ab NC 80 Yancey 7-2-52-(1) 1/17/91 --- 51 --- 2.01 Excellent
S Toe R 6/18/90 --- 41 --- 2.05 Excellent
S Toe R be NC 80 Yancey 7-2-52-(1) 1/17/91 --- 44 --- 1.70 Good
S Toe R 6/18/90 --- 46 --- 2.12 Excellent
S Toe R SR 1167 Yancey 7-2-52-(1) 7/11/02 100 50 3.49 2.57 Excellent
7/10/97 82 40 3.24 2.49 Excellent
7/20/92 102 48 3.55 2.56 Excellent
8/9/88 113 48 4.10 2.87 Excellent
8/13/85 99 42 3.97 3.21 Excellent
8/19/83 100 41 4.30 3.23 Good
S Toe R SR 1168 Yancey 7-2-52-(1) 1/29/96 71 48 2.32 1.90 Excellent
S Toe R SR 1205 Yancey 7-2-52-(1) 1/29/96 43 35 1.85 1.55 Excellent
1/29/96 56 44 2.04 1.54 Excellent
L Crabtree Cr SR 1144 Yancey 7-2-52-33 7/10/02 68 29 4.67 2.95 Good-Fair
R Fk Cane Cr SR 1206 Mitchell 7-2-59-1 7/11/02 76 41 3.27 2.48 Excellent
Big Rock Cr NC 197 Mitchell 7-2-64 7/9/02 --- 36 --- 2.97 Excellent
7/9/97 --- 34 --- 2.38 Good
7/21/92 --- 43 --- 2.71 Excellent
04-03-07
Cattail Cr SR 1102 Yancey 7-3-9 1/30/96 39 26 2.27 1.51 Good
Cane R US 19W Yancey 7-3-(13.7) 7/9/02 91 46 4.38 3.63 Excellent
7/9/97 84 46 4.35 3.54 Excellent
7/21/92 93 48 4.36 3.48 Excellent
8/7/89 81 37 4.44 3.72 Good
8/3/87 77 34 4.55 3.65 Good
8/14/85 62 23 5.17 3.63 Good-Fair
8/19/83 70 27 5.11 3.81 Good-Fair
Cane R US 19E Yancey 7-3-(13.7) 7/10/02 105 49 4.77 3.59 Excellent
Banks Cr SR 1118 Yancey 7-3-21-4 7/11/02 37 25 2.92 2.10 Not Rated
Bald Mountain Cr SR 1408 Yancey 7-3-32 7/9/02 --- 40 --- 2.77 Excellent
7/8/97 --- 32 --- 2.47 Good
7/21/92 --- 26 --- 3.37 Good-Fair

A-IV-17

Fish Community Structure Data Collected in the French Broad River Basin, 1993 – 2003
(Current basinwide sampling sites are in bold print.)

Subbasin/Waterbody Location County Index No. Date NCIBI Score NCIBI Rating
04-03-01
West Fk French Broad R SR 1309 Transylvania 6-2-(7.5) 10/23/97 --- Not Rated
Little R SR 1533 Transylvania 6-38-(20) 06/03/02 40 Good-Fair
10/23/97 46 Good-Fair
Crab Cr SR 1532 Transylvania 6-38-23 06/03/02 50 Good
04-03-02
Mud Cr SR 1647 Henderson 6-55 06/04/02 22 Poor
09/16/97 20 Poor
Bat Fork SR 1779 Henderson 6-55-8-1 06/04/02 14 Poor
09/16/97 24 Poor
Clear Cr SR 1587 Henderson 6-55-11-(1) 10/02/01 44 Good-Fair
Clear Cr SR 1586 Henderson 6-55-11-(1) 10/02/01 36 Fair
Clear Cr SR 1513 Henderson 6-55-11-(5) 10/02/01 44 Good-Fair
Cane Cr US 25 Henderson 6-57-5 06/04/02 50 Good
09/16/97 46 Good-Fair
Hominy Cr NC 151 Buncombe 6-76 09/24/02 40 Good-Fair
09/17/97 50 Good
NC 151/SR 3449 South Hominy Cr Buncombe 6-76-5 09/23/02 50 Good
04/09/97 48 Good
Swannanoa R SR 2435 Buncombe 6-78 06/18/02 48 Good
09/19/97 40 Good-Fair
Swannanoa R US 25 Buncombe 6-78 06/28/93 32 Poor
Beetree Cr SR 2427 Buncombe 6-78-15-(6) 06/25/97 32 Poor
Newfound Cr SR 1641 Buncombe 6-84 06/17/02 48 Good
04/09/97 28 Poor
Reems Cr NC 251 Buncombe 6-87-(10) 06/18/02 50 Good
09/17/97 52 Good
11/17/93 44 Good-Fair
Flat Cr SR 1742 Buncombe 6-88 06/18/02 50 Good
04/10/97 56 Good
Sandymush Cr SR 1107 Madison 6-92-(9) 06/19/02 48 Good
09/17/97 50 Good
11/16/93 50 Good
Turkey Cr SR 1629 Buncombe 6-92-13 06/17/02 48 Good
04-03-03
Boylston Cr SR 1314 Henderson 6-52-(6.5) 06/04/02 52 Good
09/15/97 56 Good
Mills R SR 1337 Henderson 6-54-(1) 09/15/97 58 Excellent
10/19/94 --- Not Rated
06/29/93 --- Not Rated
04-03-04
(Big) Ivy Cr SR 2150 Buncombe 6-96-(0.5) 06/18/02 60 Excellent
09/18/97 58 Excellent
11/17/93 60 Excellent
Ivy R US 25/70 Madison 6-96-(11.7) 11/16/93 52 Good
Bull Cr SR 1574 Madison 6-96-16 06/19/02 40 Good-Fair
Big Laurel Cr NC 208 Madison 6-112 09/18/97 46 Good-Fair
Shelton Laurel Cr NC 208/212 Madison 6-112-26 06/20/02 58 Excellent
06/03/97 58 Excellent
Little Laurel Cr NC 208 Madison 6-112-26-13 05/04/99 58 Excellent
09/29/98 60 Excellent
04-03-05
Richland Cr SR 1160/1168 Haywood 5-16-(1) 07/17/01 --- Not Rated
Richland Cr Bus US 23 Haywood 5-16-(1) 07/17/01 --- Not Rated
Richland Cr Boyd Ave Haywood 5-16-(1) 07/17/01 28 Poor
A-IV-18

Subbasin/Waterbody Location County Index No. Date NCIBI Score NCIBI Rating
Richland Cr SR 1184 Haywood 5-16-(1) 07/17/01 28 Poor
Richland Cr Walnut Trail Rd Haywood 5-16-(16) 09/24/02 32 Poor
10/22/97 38 Fair
Winchester Cr off SR 1157 Haywood 5-16-3 07/18/01 --- Not Rated
Hyatt Cr SR 1165 Haywood 5-16-6 07/18/01 --- Not Rated
Cherry Cove Cr above reservoir Haywood 5-16-7-2 07/19/01 --- Not Rated
Shiny Cr above reservoir Haywood 5-16-7-3 07/19/01 --- Not Rated
Old Bald Cr above reservoir Haywood 5-16-7-6 07/19/01 --- Not Rated
Rocky Br SR 1147 & 1219 Haywood 5-16-7-9-(2) 07/18/01 --- Not Rated
Medford Br off SR 1140 Haywood 5-16-8-1 07/18/01 --- Not Rated
Farmer Br Brown & Georgia Ave Haywood 5-16-11 07/18/01 --- Not Rated
Shelton Br Marshall St Haywood 5-16-13 07/16/01 --- Not Rated
Raccoon Cr Bus US 23 Haywood 5-16-14 07/16/01 34 Fair
Factory Br US 19 Haywood 5-16-15 07/16/01 --- Not Rated
Crabtree Cr NC 209 Haywood 5-22 09/24/02 40 Good-Fair
06/03/97 28 Poor
Jonathan Cr US 276 Haywood 5-26-(7) 10/22/97 46 Good-Fair
11/16/93 48 Good
Fines Cr SR 1355 Haywood 5-32 09/24/02 38 Fair
10/22/97 34 Fair
04-03-06
North Toe R SR 1121 Avery 7-2-(0.5) 06/23/97 46 Good-Fair
Big Crabtree Cr SR 1002 Mitchell 7-2-48 05/04/99 58 Excellent
09/30/98 58 Excellent
06/24/97 58 Excellent
Cane Cr SR 1211 Mitchell 7-2-59 06/24/97 34 Fair
Jacks Cr SR 1337 Yancey 7-2-63 06/21/02 38 Fair
10/20/97 34 Fair
Big Rock Cr NC 226 Mitchell 7-2-64 09/30/98 50 Good
Pigeonroost Cr SR 1349/NC 197 Mitchell 7-2-69 06/21/02 58 Excellent
10/20/97 60 Excellent
04-03-07
Price Cr SR 1126/1136 Yancey 7-3-21 06/20/02 52 Good
10/21/97 46 Good-Fair
Bald Mountain Cr SR 1408 Yancey 7-3-32 10/21/97 --- Not Rated

A-IV-19

Appendix V

Other Water Quality Data
in the
French Broad River Basin

Appendices

Other Water Quality Research

North Carolina actively solicits "existing and
readily available" data and information for each
basin as part of the basinwide planning process.
Data meeting DWQ quality assurance objectives are
used in making use support determinations. Data
and information indicating possible water quality
problems are investigated further. Both quantitative
and qualitative information are accepted during the
solicitation period.

High levels of confidence must be present in order
for outside quantitative information to carry the
same weight as information collected from within
DWQ. This is particularly the case when
considering waters for the Impaired categories in
the Integrated Report (303(d) list). Methodology
for soliciting and evaluating outside data is
presented in North Carolina’s 2002 Integrated
Report, which is available on-line at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/Docs_303/2002/2002 Integrated
Rept.pdf. The next data solicitation period for the French Broad River is planned for fall 2006.
DWQ data solicitation includes
the following:

• Information, letters and photographs
regarding the uses of surface waters for
boating, drinking water, swimming,
aesthetics and fishing.
• Raw data submitted electronically and
accompanied by documentation of
quality assurance methods used to collect
and analyze the samples. Maps showing
sampling locations must also be included.
• Summary reports and memos, including
distribution statistics and accompanied
by documentation of quality assurance
methods used to collect and analyze the
data.
Contact information must accompany all
data and information submitted.

Any data submitted to DWQ from other water sampling programs conducted in the French Broad
River basin have been reviewed. Data that meet quality and accessibility requirements were
considered for use support assessments and the 303(d) list. These data are also used by DWQ to
adjust the location of biological and chemical monitoring sites. In particular, DWQ has reviewed
and considered information developed through the Volunteer Water Information Network
(VWIN) as managed by the UNC-Asheville Environmental Quality Institute. Other programs or
research that developed data or information are presented in individual subbasin chapters.

Each county with monitoring stations has a coordinator to organize and train volunteers and to
ensure that all stations are monitored monthly. The Asheville Metropolitan Sewerage District is
the lead coordinator in Buncombe County and the program is funded internally. Additional
special project monitoring sites have been added through funding by Land-of-Sky Regional
Council, the Elisha Mitchell Audubon Society, and the Buncombe Soil and Water Conservation
District. The Haywood Waterways Association is the lead coordinator in Haywood County and
the program is funded through the Pigeon River Fund. The Environmental and Conservation
Organization (ECO) is the lead coordinator in Henderson County and the program is funded
through the Henderson County Board of Commissioners, the Dornick Foundation, and the Town
of Lake Lure. The Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District is the lead coordinator
in Madison County and the program is funded through the Pigeon River Fund and the Dornick
Foundation. Brevard College is the lead coordinator in Transylvania County and the program is
funded through the Dornick Foundation. The subbasin chapters discuss streams where VWIN
monitoring revealed water quality impacts.

A-V-1

In the French Broad River basin, VWIN monitors 141 sites, which are listed in the following
table. These sites generally agree with DWQ ambient monitoring data, but were not used
directly in use support assessments. VWIN has collected at least seven years of monthly data for
most sites and over ten years of monthly data for many sites. Parameters monitored include
major nutrients, turbidity, suspended solids, pH, alkalinity, conductivity and heavy metals such
as zinc, copper and lead.

County Stream
Name
Sampling
Location
Buncombe Big Ivy Forks of Ivy
Little Ivy Forks of Ivy
Lower Sandymush Creek NC 64 – Buncombe / Madison Border
Upper Sandymush Creek Garret Cove Road
Sandymush Creek Willow Creek Road
Ox Creek Ox Creek Road
Lower Newfound Creek Jenkins Valley Road
Reems Creek Ox Creek Road
French Broad River Ledges Park / NC 251
Reems Creek US 25 / 70
Reed Creek UNCA Botanical Gardens
Glenn Creek UNCA Botanical Gardens
Beaverdam Creek Merrimon Avenue / Beaver Lake
Bee Tree Creek Beetree Road near Owen Lake
Swannanoa River Near Beetree Road at Owen Lake
Bull Creek Old Farm School Road
Hominy Creek NC 151
South Hominy Creek NC 151
Bent Creek Bent Creek Park on NC 191
French Broad River Bent Creek Park on NC 191
French Broad River Corcoran Park / Glenn Bridge Road
Flat Creek Lower Flat Creek Road and Edna Roberts Road
Cane Creek HWY 74 and Cane Creek Road
Ashworth Creek HWY 74 and Cane Creek Road
Cane Creek Mills Gap Road
Robinson Creek Cane Creek Road near Mills Gap Road
Swannanoa River NC 81
Haw Creek NC 81
Reems Creek Reems Creek Road
Ivy Creek Buckner Branch Road
Paint Fork Paint Fork Road in Barnardsville
Ivy Creek Dillingham Road
A-V-2

French Broad River Jean Webb Park / Riverside Drive
Swannanoa River Railroad bridge near NC 70
South Turkey Creek Turkey Creek Road
North Turkey Creek North Turkey Creek Road
Flat Creek US 19 / 23
Bent Creek Downstream from Lake Powhatan
Averys Creek Glenn Bridge Road
Grassy Branch Hickory Tree Road
Swannanoa River Azalea Road
French Broad River Walnut Island Park / NC 251
North Fork of the Swannanoa River Grovestone Quarry
Lower Hominy Creek SR 191
Smith Mill Creek Louisiana Avenue
Newfound Creek Dark Cove Road
Newfound Creek Leicester HWY (NC 63)
Swannanoa River Bull Creek confluence near Old Farm School Road
South Creek Beaver Lake / Merrimon Avenue
Ross Creek Lower Chunns Cover Road bridge
Ross Creek Tunnel Road
Ross Creek Upper Chunns Cove Road
Ross Creek NC 81
Swannanoa River Thompson Street / Biltmore Village
Sweeten Creek Thompson Street / Biltmore Village
Reed Creek Entrance to UNCA
South Creek Pond at Beaver Lake
Haywood West Fork of the Pigeon River Bethel
East Fork of the Pigeon River Bethel
East Fork of the Pigeon River Cruso / Shining Rock
Pigeon River Downstream from Canton
Pigeon River Hepco Bridge
Rush Fork Crabtree
Fines Creek Near confluence with Pigeon River
Eaglenest Creek Hazelwood (Richland Creek watershed)
Plott Creek Hazelwood (Richland Creek watershed)
Richland Creek West Waynesville
Richland Creek Lake Junaluska
Jonathans Creek Near confluence with Pigeon River
Allens Creek Richland Creek watershed
Rush Fork Upstream
A-V-3

Fines Creek Midstream
Fines Creek Upstream
Cove Creek HWY 209 and Fines Creek Road
Hyatt Creek Upstream
Hyatt Creek Downstream
Ratcliff Cove Branch Francis Farm Road
Raccoon Creek (upstream) Ratcliff Road
Raccoon Creek (downstream) Industrial Park
Crabtree Creek Upper Crab Creek Road (SR 1509)
Jonathon Creek Maggie Valley / Moody Farm Road (SR 1309)
Henderson French Broad River Banner Farm Road in Horseshoe
French Broad River Butler Bridge Road
Mud Creek Erkwood Road
Mud Creek North Rugby Road
Clear Creek Nix Road
Crab Creek Staton Road
North Fork of Mills River LL Moore Road
South Fork of Mills River South Mills River Road
Mills River HWY 191 (Davenport Bridge)
Mills River Hooper Lane
Boylston Creek Ladson Road
Bat Fork Creek Tabor Road
Cane Creek Hoopers Creek / Howard Gap Road
Lower Cane Creek HWY 25
Mud Creek 7th Avenue East
Clear Creek Apple Valley Road
Hoopers Creek Jackson Road
Big Willow Creek Patterson Road
Little Willow Creek River Road
Gash Creek Etowah School Road
Brittain Creek Patton Park
Mill Pond Creek South Rugby Road
Shaw Creek Hunters Glen
Brandy Branch Mills River Village on NC 191
Devils Fork Dana Road
Madison Ivy River 25/70
French Broad River Barnard Bridge
French Broad River Hot Springs
East Fork of Bull Creek
A-V-4

A-V-5
Big Laurel Creek
Big Pine Creek
Spring Creek
Little Laurel Creek
Shelton Laurel Creek
Big Laurel River
Bull Creek
Grapevine Creek
California Creek Beech Glen
Middle Fork Beech Glen
Paint Fork Beech Glen
Ivy River Gabriels Creek Road
Gabriel’s Creek
Transylvania French Broad River Mount Lyon Road / Rosman
East Fork of the French Broad River Rosman
North Fork of the French Broad River 64/215
West Fork of the French Broad River 64/215
Little River Dupont Road
French Broad River Everett Road
Williamson Creek
Davidson River Entrance to Pisgah National Forest
King Creek Brevard College
King Creek Headwaters
Davidson River Confluence with French Broad River
Lamb Creek Headwaters
Lamb Creek Confluence with French Broad River
French Broad River Wilson Road
Little River Sherwood Forest
North Fork of French Broad River Macedonia Bridge
North Fork of French Broad River Headwaters
West Fork of French Broad River Upstream
Catheys Creek Upstream of water supply

Appendix VI

NPDES Discharges
and
Individual Stormwater Permits
in the
French Broad River Basin

Appendices
NPDES Discharges in the French Broad River Basin (September 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0000078 RFS Ecusta, Inc. RFS Ecusta, Inc. ( 1 Ecusta ) Transylvania Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 27.5 04-03-01 French Broad River
NC0000108 Coats American, Inc Sylvan Plant Transylvania Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.015 04-03-01 Galloway Creek
NC0000311 M-B Industries, Inc. M B Industries Incorporated Transylvania Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.03 04-03-01 West Fork French Broad River
NC0000337 Agfa Corporation Agfa Corporation Transylvania Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 2.4 04-03-01 Little River (Cascade Lake)
NC0021946 Town of Rosman Rosman WWTP Transylvania Asheville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.09 04-03-01 French Broad River
NC0024295 Transylvania Utilities Inc Transylvania Utilities WWTP Transylvania Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.32 04-03-01 French Broad River
NC0044784 City of Brevard Cathey's Creek WTP Transylvania Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 04-03-01

Catheys Creek
NC0048658 A & D Water Service Inc Sherwood Forest WWTP Transylvania Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 04-03-01 Little River
NC0051021 Eagle's Nest Foundation Eagle's Nest Foundation-Camp Transylvania Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.008 04-03-01 Little River
NC0055336 Camp Carolina Camp Carolina Transylvania Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 04-03-01 Lamb Creek (Simpson Lake)
NC0055905 Waterford Place Property Owners Assoc. Waterford Place WWTP Transylvania Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.023 04-03-01 Hunts Branch
NC0060534 City of Brevard Brevard WWTP Transylvania Asheville Municipal, Large Major 2.5 04-03-01 French Broad River
NC0081001 Morgan Mills Resorts Inc Morgan Mills Resorts Incorporated Transylvania Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 04-03-01 Morgan Mill Creek
(Kaiser Lake)
NC0085031 Conoco Convenience Store Conoco Convenience Store Transylvania Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 04-03-01 Morgan Mill Creek
(Kaiser Lake)
NC0086223 D&D Catfish Resort D&D Catfish Resort Transylvania Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.035 04-03-01 Peter Weaver Creek

NC0000094 Fletcher Warehousing Company Fletcher Warehousing Company Henderson Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 4.0 04-03-02 French Broad River
NC0000396 CP&L - A Progress Energy Company Asheville Steam Electric Power Plant Buncombe Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 4.8 04-03-02 French Broad River
NC0020478 USDA US Forest Service Lake Powhatan Recreation Area Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 04-03-02 Bent Creek
NC0022811 Cliffs at Walnut Cove LLC Cliffs at Walnut Cove WWTP Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0075 04-03-02 Avery Creek (Dubose Lake)
NC0023591 Silver Line Plastics Corp Silver Line Plastics Corporation Buncombe Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.24 04-03-02 French Broad River
NC0024431 Kanuga Conferences Inc Kanuga Conferences Incorporated Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.035 04-03-02 Little Mud Creek
(Kanuga Lake, Wolf Lake)
NC0024911 MSD Buncombe County French Broad River WRF Buncombe Asheville Municipal, Large Major 40.0 04-03-02 French Broad River
NC0025534 City of Hendersonville Hendersonville WWTP Henderson Asheville Municipal, Large Major 4.8 04-03-02 Mud Creek
NC0025933 Dipak Patel Days Inn- West Facility Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 04-03-02 George Branch
NC0029882 Briarwood Subdivision Briarwood Subdivision Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0075 04-03-02 Dix Creek
NC0033227 Tyco Electronics Corporation Tyco Electronics Corporation Buncombe Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.0175 04-03-02 Cane Creek
NC0033430 Camp Judaea Camp Judaea Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.03 04-03-02 Henderson Creek
NC0034304 Young Life Windy Gap Camp Young Life Windy Gap Camp Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.05 04-03-02 Coles Cove Branch
A-VI-1
NPDES Discharges in the French Broad River Basin (September 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0034924 Flesher's Fairview Rest Home Flesher's Fairview Rest Home Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.035 04-03-02

Cane Creek
NC0035807 City of Asheville Northfork WTP Buncombe Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 04-03-02 Swannanoa River
NC0036251 Blue Star Camps Inc Blue Star Camps Incorporated Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.06 04-03-02 Mud Creek
NC0036641 Fletcher Academy, Inc. Fletcher Academy WWTP Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.10 04-03-02 Byers Creek
NC0036684 Carolina Water Service Inc of NC Bent Creek WWTP Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.10 04-03-02 Wesley Creek
(Bent Creek Ranch Lake)
NC0037176 Bon Worth Inc Bon Worth Incorporated Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.006 04-03-02 Allen Branch
NC0039187 Lone Star Equities Valleyview Shopping Center Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 04-03-02 Hominy Creek
NC0056961 City of Asheville DeBruhl WTP Buncombe Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 04-03-02 Beetree Creek
NC0057541 Cummings Cove Properties, LLC Cummings Cove WWTP Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.035 04-03-02 French Broad River
NC0060283 Paris Banks Ridgeview Acres Mobile Home Park Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0078 04-03-02 Smith Mill Creek
NC0061182 Buncombe County Board of Education North Buncombe High School Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 04-03-02 Stanfield Branch
NC0062634 Wedgefield Acres Mobile Home Park Wedgefield Acres MHP WWTP Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 04-03-02 Pond Branch
NC0062928 Ferguson Farthing & Jaros Ferguson Farthing & Jaros Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0164 04-03-02 George Branch
NC0066249 Country Acres Mobile Home Park Country Acres Mobile Home Park Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.006 04-03-02 Mcdowell Creek
NC0066362 Benson Apartments Benson Apartments Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.008 04-03-02 Mud Creek
NC0066664 Henderson County Public Schools Rugby Middle School Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 04-03-02 Mill Pond Creek
NC0066681 Henderson County Public Schools West Henderson High School Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0099 04-03-02 Mill Pond Creek
NC0066788 Buncombe County Board of Education Fairview Elementary School Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.011 04-03-02 Cane Creek
NC0066796 Buncombe County Board of Education Leicester Elementary School Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0057 04-03-02 Sluder Branch
NC0067288 Culligan Operating Services, Inc. Hunter's Glen WWTP Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.035 04-03-02 Shaw Creek
NC0067342 North View Mobile Home Park North View Mobile Home Park Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.032 04-03-02 Flat Creek
NC0068152 Buncombe Properties Buncombe Properties Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 04-03-02 Flat Creek
NC0068799 Greystone Enterprises Inc Greystone Subdivision Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0217 04-03-02 Clear Creek
NC0069370 Emeritus Corp DBA Pine Park Emeritus Corporation DBA Pine Park Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 04-03-02 Clear Creek
NC0069957 Laurelwood Mobile Home Park Laurelwood Mobile Home Park Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.002 04-03-02 Beaverdam Creek
NC0071323 Etowah Sewer Company Etowah Sewer Co Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.125 04-03-02 French Broad River
NC0071862 Henry K Odom Magnolia Place WWTP Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.022 04-03-02 Clear Creek
NC0071897 Henderson's Assisted Living Henderson's Assisted Living Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.007 04-03-02 Featherstone Creek
NC0073393 Dana Hill Corporation Dana Hill Corporation Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.03 04-03-02 Devils Fork
NC0073741 Culligan Operating Services, Inc. Mountain Valley WWTP Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 04-03-02 French Broad River
A-VI-2
NPDES Discharges in the French Broad River Basin (September 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0073814 Buncombe County Board of Education North Buncombe Elementary School Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.011

04-03-02 Dick Branch
NC0074110 Mountain View Assisted Living Mountain View Assisted Living Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 04-03-02 Featherstone Creek
NC0074136 William F. Hoffman Lakewood RV Resort of NC LLC Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 04-03-02 Dunn Creek
NC0075388 Havon Inc Pleasant Cove Home WWTP Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.012 04-03-02 Pole Creek
NC0075647 Hidden Gap Mobile Home Park Hidden Gap Mobile Home Park WWTP Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 04-03-02 Devils Fork
NC0075680 Rosewood Mobile Home Park Rosewood Mobile Home Park Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 04-03-02 Line Creek
NC0076082 Bearwallow Valley Mhp Bear Wallow Valley Mobile Home Park Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 04-03-02 Clear Creek
NC0076147 San Giusto Estates San Giusto Estates Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0325 04-03-02 Cane Creek
NC0076708 Riverwind Homeowners Association Riverwind Mobile Home Park Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.036 04-03-02 French Broad River
NC0079251 Clement Pappas NC, Inc. Clement Pappas plant Henderson Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.09 04-03-02 Mud Creek
NC0083178 Woodfin Sanitary W&S Woodfin WTP Buncombe Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 04-03-02 Reems Creek
NC0083313 Brookside Village Association Brookside Village Association Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 04-03-02 Featherstone Creek
NC0085341 Crystal Madden Crystal Madden Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor not limited 04-03-02 Swannanoa River
NC0085456 Charles Binkelman Binkelman residence Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0004 04-03-02 Swannanoa River
NC0085464 John & Suzanne Pruett Pruett residence Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.00036 04-03-02 Swannanoa River
NC0085511 Asheville-Buncombe-Henderson Water Auth. Mills River Regional WTP Henderson Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 04-03-02 French Broad River
NC0085952 TA Operating Corporation Candler Travel Center Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 04-03-02 George Branch
NC0085979 NC Department of Transportation Rosman Maintenance Facility Transylvania Asheville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.0288 04-03-02 French Broad River
NC0086070 Henderson County Utilities Justice Academy WWTP Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.03 04-03-02 Lewis Creek
NC0086088 SKF USA, Inc. Girmes Site remediation Buncombe Asheville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.108 04-03-02 Gashes Creek
(Cedar Mountain Lake)
NC0086436 Buncombe County Board of Education Cane Creek Elementary School Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.012 04-03-02 Cane Creek
NC0087106 Champion Hills Property Owners Assoc. Champion Hills WWTP Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.07 04-03-02 South Fork Big Willow Creek
NC0087556 Schneider and Riels Development, Inc. Schneider/Riels Development WWTP Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.027 04-03-02 Cane Creek
NC0087653 Rilandwell, Inc. Waterhill Farms Subdivision WWTP Buncombe Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.027 04-03-02 Cane Creek

NC0020460 USDA US Forest Service Sliding Rock Recreation Area Transylvania Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 04-03-03 Looking Glass Creek
NC0020486 USDA US Forest Service North Mills River Recreation Area Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.012 04-03-03 North Fork Mills River
NC0033251 Shelley McCoy Alexander Camp Highlander Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0074 04-03-03 South Fork Mills River
NC0042277 City of Hendersonville Hendersonville WTP Henderson Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor 0.18 04-03-03 Brandy Branch
NC0062669 Mills River Restaurant Inc Mills River Restaurant Incorporated Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.003 04-03-03 Mills River
A-VI-3
NPDES Discharges in the French Broad River Basin (September 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0069388 JH Reaban Oil Mills River Texaco Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0006 04-03-03 Mills River
NC0069671 J M S Builders Mills River Village WWTP Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.032 04-03-03 Mills River
NC0070335 Van Wingerden International Van Wingerden International Henderson Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 04-03-03 Brandy Branch

NC0021733 Town of Marshall Marshall WWTP Madison Asheville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.40 04-03-04 French Broad River
NC0025836 Town of Hot Springs Hot Springs WWTP Madison Asheville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.08 04-03-04 French Broad River
NC0034207 Madison County Board of Education Laurel Elementary School WWTP Madison Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 04-03-04 Shelton Laurel Creek
NC0039152 Ohio Electric Motors, Inc. Ohio Electric Motors Inc Buncombe Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.003 04-03-04 Paint Fork
NC0049620 Town of Hot Springs Hot Springs Housing Authority WWTP Madison Asheville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.01 04-03-04 French Broad River
NC0057151 Town of Mars Hill Mars Hill WWTP Madison Asheville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.425 04-03-04 Gabriel Creek
NC0061468 H & K Boone Investments, LLC Wolf Laurel Resort WWTP Madison Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 04-03-04 Hampton Creek
NC0076431 Carolina Water Service Inc of NC Wolf Laurel WWTP Madison Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.03 04-03-04 Wolf Laurel Branch
NC0080659 Madison County Board of Education Madison County Middle School WWTP Madison Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.009 04-03-04 Brush Creek
NC0082716 English Wolf Lodge English Wolf Lodge- WWTP Madison Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.007 04-03-04 Wolf Laurel Branch
NC0085154 Town of Weaverville Ivy River WTP Buncombe Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 04-03-04 Ivy Creek (River)

NC0000272 Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. Canton Mill Haywood Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 29.9 04-03-05 Pigeon River
NC0022454 Midway Medical Center Midway Medical Center-Canton Haywood Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 04-03-05 Sally Branch
NC0024805 NC Department of Transportation Haywood County Rest Area Haywood Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.026 04-03-05 Pigeon River
NC0025321 Town of Waynesville Waynesville WWTP Haywood Asheville Municipal, Large Major 6.0 04-03-05 Pigeon River
NC0030422 John C. Francis Green Valley Mobile Home Park Haywood Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.009 04-03-05 Hyatt Creek
NC0032361 Autumn Care Of Waynesville Autumn Care Of Waynesville Haywood Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 04-03-05 Richland Creek
NC0033600 Silver Bluff Village Pigeon Valley Rest Home Haywood Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 04-03-05 Pigeon River
NC0040355 Royal Oaks, Inc. Springdale Country Club WWTP Haywood Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.05 04-03-05 East Fork Pigeon River
NC0044199 McElroy, Inc. Citgo Truck Stop/Handy Pantry #163 Haywood Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 04-03-05 Pigeon River
NC0049409 Town of Waynesville Waynesville WTP Haywood Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 04-03-05 Allen Creek
NC0056561 Town of Maggie Valley Maggie Valley WWTP Haywood Asheville Municipal, Large Major 1.0 04-03-05 Jonathans Creek
NC0065986 Donald B. Briggs Dogwood Trails Subdivision Haywood Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 04-03-05 Evans Branch
NC0067351 Haywood County Board of Education Bethel School WWTP Haywood Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 04-03-05 Bird Creek
NC0072729 USDI National Park Service Mount Pisgah WWTP Haywood Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.032 04-03-05 Pisgah Creek
NC0086053 Pilot Travel Centers LLC Pilot Travel Center #393 Haywood Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 04-03-05 Stingy Branch
A-VI-4
NPDES Discharges in the French Broad River Basin (September 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0086843 Junaluska Highlands Water Sys Junaluska Highlands Water Sys Haywood Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 04-03-05 Rogers Cove Creek

NC0000175 Unimin Corporation Quartz Operation Mitchell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 3.6 04-03-06 North Toe River
NC0000353 Feldspar Corporation Feldspar Corp- Spruce Pine Mitchell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 3.5 04-03-06 North Toe River
NC0000361 Unimin Corporation Schoolhouse Quartz facility Avery Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 2.16 04-03-06 North Toe River
NC0000400 K-T Feldspar Corporation K-T Feldspar Corp-Spruce Pine Mitchell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 1.73 04-03-06 North Toe River
NC0021423 Town of Spruce Pine Spruce Pine WWTP Mitchell Asheville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 2.0 04-03-06 North Toe River
NC0021857 Town of Newland Newland WWTP Avery Asheville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.32 04-03-06 North Toe River
NC0023566 Taylor Togs, Inc. Taylor Togs WWTP Yancey Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.01 04-03-06 Little Crabtree Creek
NC0025461 Town of Bakersville Bakersville WWTP Mitchell Asheville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.075 04-03-06 Cane Creek
NC0027685 NC Department of Correction Avery Correctional Center Avery Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0206 04-03-06 Three Quarter Creek
NC0033685 Avery Development Corporation Mountain Glen Golf Club Avery Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.006 04-03-06 Whiteoak Creek
NC0066729 Mitchell County Board of Education Tipton Hill Elementary School WWTP Mitchell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 04-03-06 Raccoon Creek
NC0066737 Mitchell County Board of Education Mitchell High School WWTP Mitchell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0144 04-03-06 Cranberry Branch
NC0073962 NC Department of Correction Blue Ridge Youth Center WWTP Avery Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.007 04-03-06 Three Quarter Creek
NC0075965 Town of Burnsville Burnsville WTP Yancey Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 04-03-06 Little Crabtree Creek
NC0082767 Town of Spruce Pine Spruce Pine WTP Mitchell Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 04-03-06 Beaver Creek
NC0083282 Mountain View Motel Mountain View Motel Yancey Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0025 04-03-06 Little Crabtree Creek
NC0083712 Town of Mars Hill Mars Hill WTP Madison Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 04-03-06 Laurel Creek
NC0084620 Unimin Corporation Crystal Operation Mitchell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.36 04-03-06 North Toe River
NC0085839 Unimin Corporation Red Hill Quartz Processing Plant Mitchell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.682 04-03-06 North Toe River

NC0020290 Town of Burnsville Burnsville WWTP Yancey Asheville Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.80 04-03-07 Cane River
A-VI-5

NPDES Individual Stormwater Permits in the French Broad River Basin (September 2003)

Permit # Facility
Name
Receiving
Stream Subbasin County
NCS000179 BASF Corporation Hominy Creek & UT 04-03-02 Buncombe
NCS000209 Branford Wire Manufacturing Mud Creek 04-03-02 Henderson
NCS000105 Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. Pigeon River & Bowen Branch 04-03-05 Haywood
NCS000340 Royster-Clark, Inc. Waynesville MSSS to Richland Creek 04-03-05 Haywood
NCS000093 Outboard Marine Corporation English Creek 04-03-06 Mitchell
NCS000202 United States Gypsum Toe River 04-03-06 Mitchell

A-VI-6

Appendix VII

303(d) Listing
and
Reporting Methodology

Appendices

Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report Summary

The North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List is an integrated report
that includes both the 305(b) and 303(d) reports of previous years. The 305(b) Report is
compiled biennially to update the assessment of water quality in North Carolina and to meet the
Section 305(b) reporting requirement of the Clean Water Act. The 305(b) reports present how
well waters support designated uses (e.g., swimming, aquatic life support, water supply), as well
as likely causes (e.g., sediment, nutrients) and potential sources of impairment. The term "Use
Support" refers to the process mandated by 305(b). The 303(d) List is a comprehensive public
accounting of all Impaired waterbodies that is derived from the 305(b) Report/Use Support. An
Impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality uses, such as water supply, fishing or
propagation of aquatic life. Best professional judgement along with numeric and narrative
standards criteria and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131 is considered when
evaluating the ability of a waterbody to serve its uses.

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) which Congress enacted in 1972 required
States, Territories and authorized Tribes to identify and establish a priority ranking for
waterbodies for which technology-based effluent limitations required by Section 301 are not
stringent enough to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards, establish total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the pollutants causing impairment in those waterbodies, and
submit, from time to time, the list of Impaired waterbodies and TMDLs to the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Current federal rules require states to submit 303(d) lists biennially,
by April 1st of every even numbered year. EPA is required to approve or disapprove the state-
developed 303(d) list within 30 days. For each water quality limited segment Impaired by a
pollutant and identified in the 303(d) list, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be
developed. TMDLs are not required for waters Impaired by pollution. Here, pollution is defined
by the EPA as, “man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and
radiological integrity of the water,” and is related to water control structures (i.e., dams).

The Integrated Report includes descriptions of monitoring programs, the use support
methodology, and the Impaired waters list. New guidance from EPA places all waterbody
assessment units into one unique assessment category (EPA, 2001b). Although EPA specifies
five unique assessment categories, North Carolina elects to use seven categories. Each category
is described in detail below:

Category 1: Attaining the water quality standard and no use is threatened. This
category consists of those waterbody assessment units where all applicable use support
categories are rated " Supporting". Data and information are available to support a
determination that the water quality standards are attained and no use is threatened.
Future monitoring data will be used to determine if the water quality standard continues
to be attained.

Category 2: Attaining some of the designated uses; no use is threatened; and
insufficient or no data and information are available to determine if the remaining
uses are attained or threatened. This category consists of those waterbody assessment
units where at least one of the applicable use support categories are rated " Supporting"
and the other use support categories are rated "Not Rated" or “No Data”. Also included
in this category are waters where at least one of the applicable use support categories,
except Fish Consumption, are rated "Supporting"; the remaining applicable use support
A-VII-1

categories, except Fish Consumption, are rated "Not Rated"; and the Fish Consumption
category is rated "Impaired-Evaluated". Data and information are available to support a
determination that some, but not all, uses are attained. Attainment status of the
remaining uses is unknown because there are insufficient or no data or information.
Future monitoring data will be used to determine if the uses previously found to be in
attainment remain in attainment, and to determine the attainment status of those uses for
which data and information were previously insufficient to make a determination.

Category 3: Insufficient or no data and information to determine if any designated
use is attained. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units where all
applicable use support categories, except Fish Consumption, are rated "Not Rated", and
the Fish Consumption category is rated "Impaired-Evaluated". Measured data or
information to support an attainment determination for any use are not available.
Supplementary data and information, or future monitoring, will be required to assess the
attainment status.

Category 4: Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses but does not
require the development of a TMDL. This category contains three distinct sub-
categories:

Category 4a: TMDL has been completed. This category consists of those
waterbody assessment units for which EPA has approved or established a TMDL
and water quality standards have not yet been achieved. Monitoring data will be
considered before moving an assessment unit from Category 4a to Categories 1 or
2.

Category 4b: Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected
to result in the attainment of the water quality standard in the near future.
This category consists of those waterbody assessment units for which TMDLs
will not be attempted because other required regulatory controls (e.g., NPDES
permit limits, Stormwater Program rules, etc.) are expected to attain water quality
standards within a reasonable amount of time. Future monitoring will be used to
verify that the water quality standard is attained as expected.

Category 4c: Impairment is not caused by a pollutant. This category consists
of assessment units that are Impaired by pollution, not by a pollutant. EPA
defines pollution as "The man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical,
physical, biological and radiological integrity of the water." EPA staff have
verbally stated that this category is intended to be used for impairments related to
water control structures (i.e., dams). Future monitoring will be used to confirm
that there continues to be an absence of pollutant-caused impairment and to
support water quality management actions necessary to address the cause(s) of the
impairment.
A-VII-2

Category 5: Impaired for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s) and
requires a TMDL. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units that are
Impaired by a pollutant and the proper technical conditions exist to develop TMDLs. As
defined by the EPA, the term pollutant means "dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator
residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar
dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into the water." When
more than one pollutant is associated with the impairment of a single waterbody
assessment unit in this category, the assessment unit will remain in Category 5 until
TMDLs for all listed pollutants have been completed and approved by the EPA.

Category 6: Impaired based on biological data. This category consists of waterbody
assessment units historically referred to as "Biologically Impaired" waterbodies; these
assessment units have no identified cause(s) of impairment although aquatic life impacts
have been documented. The waterbody assessment unit will remain in Category 6 until
TMDLs have been completed and approved by the EPA.

Category 7: Impaired, but the proper technical conditions do not yet exist to
develop a TMDL. As described in the Federal Register, "proper technical conditions”
refer to the availability of the analytical methods, modeling techniques and data base
necessary to develop a technically defensible TMDL. These elements will vary in their
level of sophistication depending on the nature of the pollutant and characteristics of the
segment in question" (43 FR 60662, December 28, 1978). These are assessment units
that would otherwise be in Category 5 of the integrated list. As previously noted, EPA
has recognized that in some specific situations the data, analyses or models are not
available to establish a TMDL. North Carolina seeks EPA technical guidance in
developing technically defensible TMDLs for these waters. Open water and ocean
hydrology fecal coliform Impaired shellfishing waters are included in this category.

For this integrated list, Categories 1 and 2 are considered fully supporting any assessed uses.
This portion of the integrated list is extensive (thousands of segments); thus, a printed copy is
not provided. A table of waters on Categories 1 through 3 is available for downloading on the
DWQ website (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d.htm). Categories 5, 6 and 7 constitute the
2004 North Carolina 303(d) List for the State of North Carolina.

Delisting Waters

In general, waters will move from Categories 5, 6 or 7 when data show that uses are fully
supported or when a TMDL has been approved by EPA. In some cases, mistakes have been
discovered in the original listing decision and the mistakes are being corrected. Waters
appearing on the previously approved Impaired waters list will be moved to Categories 1, 2, 3 or
4 under the following circumstances:
A-VII-3

ƒ An updated 305(b) use support rating of Supporting, as described in the basinwide
management plans.
ƒ Applicable water quality standards are being met (i.e., no longer Impaired for a given
pollutant) as described in either basinwide management plans or in technical
memoranda.
ƒ The basis for putting the water on the list is determined to be invalid (i.e., was
mistakenly identified as Impaired in accordance with 40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(iv) and/or
National Clarifying Guidance for State and Territory 1998 Section 303(d) Listing
Decisions. Robert Wayland, III, Director. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds. Aug 27, 1997).
ƒ A water quality variance has been issued for a specific standard (e.g., chloride).
ƒ Removal of fish consumption advisories or modification of fish eating advice.
ƒ Typographic listing mistakes (i.e., the wrong water was identified).
ƒ EPA has approved a TMDL.

Scheduling TMDLs

Category 5 waters, those for which a TMDL is needed, are at many different stages on the path
to an approved TMDL. Some require additional data collection to adequately define the problem
in TMDL terms. Some require more outreach to increase stakeholder involvement. Others need
to have a technical strategy budgeted, funded and scheduled. Some are ready for EPA submittal.

North Carolina has prioritized TMDL development for waters Impaired due to bacteria or
turbidity. The approach of prioritizing TMDL development based on pollutant has been
successfully used in other states. Limited resources are used more effectively with a focus on a
particular pollutant. Waters Impaired by other pollutants (i.e., not bacteria) are not excluded
from the schedule. However, the majority of waters prioritized for the next few years are
associated with bacterial contamination. Compliance with TMDL development schedules
provided in the Integrated Report depends upon DWQ and EPA resources.

North Carolina uses biological data to place the majority of waterbody assessment units on the
303(d) list. Additional consideration and data collection are necessary if the establishment of a
TMDL for waters on Category 6 is to be expected. It is important to understand that the
identification of waters in Category 6 does not mean that they are low priority waters. The
assessment of these waters is a high priority for the State of North Carolina. However, it may
take significant resources and time to determine the environmental stressors and potentially a
cause of impairment. Assigning waters to Category 6 is a declaration of the need for more data
and time to adequately define the problems and whether pollution, pollutants or a combination
affects waters.

According to EPA guidance (EPA 2004), prioritization of waterbody assessment units for
TMDLs need not be reflected in a “high, medium or low” manner. Instead, prioritization can be
reflected in the TMDL development schedule. Generally, North Carolina attempts to develop
TMDLs within 10 years of the original pollutant listing. Other information for each assessment
unit is also utilized to determine the priority in the TMDL development schedule. This
information includes the following:

A-VII-4

A-VII-5
ƒ Year listed. Assessment units that have been on the 303(d) list for the longest period
of time will receive priority for TMDL development and/or stressor studies.
ƒ Reason for listing. (Applicable to Category 5 AUs only) AUs with an impairment
due to a standard violation will be prioritized based on which standard was violated.
Standard violations due to bacteria or turbidity currently receive priority for TMDL
development.
ƒ Classification. AUs classified for primary recreation (Class B), water supply (Class
WS-I through WS-V), trout (Tr), high quality waters (HQW), and outstanding
resource waters (ORW) will continue to receive a higher priority for TMDL
development and/or stressor studies.
ƒ Basinwide Planning Schedule. (Applicable to Category 6 AUs only). The basinwide
schedule is utilized to establish priority for stressor studies.

Revising TMDLs

Current federal regulations do not specify when TMDLs should be revised. However, there are
several circumstances under which it would seem prudent to revisit existing TMDLs. The
TMDL analysis of targets and allocations is based upon the existing water quality standards,
hydrology, water quality data (chemical and biological), and existing, active NPDES wastewater
discharges. Conditions related to any of these factors could be used to justify a TMDL revision.
Specific conditions that the Division will consider prior to revising an existing, approved TMDL
include the following:

ƒ A TMDL has been fully implemented and the water quality standards continue to be
violated. If a TMDL has been implemented and water quality data indicate no
improvement or a decline in overall water quality, the basis for the TMDL reduction
or the allocation may need to be revised;
ƒ A change of a water quality standard (e.g., fecal coliform to Echerichia coli). The
Division will prioritize review of existing TMDLs and data to determine if a revision
to TMDLs will be required;
ƒ The addition or removal of hydraulic structures to a waterbody (e.g., dams).
Substantial changes to waterbody hydrology and hydraulics have the potential to
change many aspects of target setting, including the water quality standard upon
which the TMDL was developed, the water quality data, and the water quality
modeling;
ƒ Incorrect assumptions were used to derive the TMDL allocations. This would
include errors in calculations and omission of a permitted discharge.

Should a TMDL be revised due to needed changes in TMDL targets, the entire TMDL would be
revised. This includes the TMDL target, source assessment, and load and wasteload allocations.
However, the Division may elect to revise only specific portions of the TMDL. For example,
changes may be justifiable to the load and wasteload allocation portions of a TMDL due to
incorrect calculations or inequities. In these cases, revisions to the TMDL allocations would not
necessarily include a revision of TMDL targets.

Appendix VIII

French Broad River Basin
Nonpoint Source Program
Description and Contacts

Appendices

Agriculture
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Part of the US Department of Agriculture, formerly the Soil Conservation Service. Technical specialists certify waste management plans for
animal operations; provide certification training for swine waste applicators; work with landowners on private lands to conserve natural
resources, helping farmers and ranchers develop conservation systems unique to their land and needs; administer several federal agricultural cost
share and incentive programs; provide assistance to rural and urban communities to reduce erosion, conserve and protect water, and solve other
resource problems; conduct soil surveys; offer planning assistance for local landowners to install best management practices; and offer farmers
technical assistance on wetlands identification. Each of the individuals listed below can also be contacted via email using the following address
format <first name.last [e-mail]>.
Area 1 Conservationist Carol S. Litchfield 828-456-6341 589 Raccoon Road, Suite 246, Waynesville NC 28786
County Contact Person Phone Address
Avery Christine Vance 828-264-3943 P.O. Box 190, Newland, NC 28657
Buncombe Victor L. McIntyre 828-250-4785 155 Hilliard Avenue, Asheville NC 28801
Haywood Jesse L. Newton 828-452-2741 589 Raccoon Road, Suite 203, Waynesville NC 28786
Henderson Robert V. Carter, Jr. 828-697-4949 999 High Country Lane, Hendersonville NC 28792
Madison Russell C. Blevins 828-649-9099 4388 Hwy 25/70, Suite 2, Marshall NC 28753
Mitchell J. Clifford Vinson 828-765-5131 11943 Hwy 226 South, Suite C, Spruce NC 28777
Transylvania Robert Twomey 828-884-3230 203 E Morgan Street, Brevard NC 28712
Yancey J. Clifford Vinson 828-682-3410 11943 Hwy 226, South, Suite C, Spruce NC 28777
Soil & Water Conservation Districts:
Boards and staff under the administration of the NC Soil and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC). Districts are responsible for:
administering the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control at the county level; identifying areas needing soil
and/or water conservation treatment; allocating cost share resources; signing cost share contracts with landowners; providing technical assistance
for the planning and implementation of BMPs; and encouraging the use of appropriate BMPs to protect water quality.
County Board Chairman Phone Address
Avery 828-733-2291 PO Box 190, Newland NC 28657
Buncombe 828-250-4785 155 Hilliard Avenue, Suite 204, Asheville NC 28801
Haywood 828-452-2741 589 Raccoon Road, Suite 203, Waynesville NC 28786
Henderson 828-697-4949 999 High Country Lane, Hendersonville NC 28792
Madison 828-649-9099 4388 NC Hwy 25/70, Suite 2, Marshall NC 28753
Mitchell 828-765-5131 11943 South Hwy 226, Spruce Pine NC 28777
Transylvania 828-884-3230 203 E Morgan Street, Brevard NC 28712
Yancey 828-682-3410 22 E Bypass Suite 1, Burnsville NC 28714
Division of Soil and Water Conservation:
State agency that administers the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control (ACSP). Allocates ACSP funds to the
Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and provides administrative and technical assistance related to soil science and engineering. Distributes
Wetlands Inventory maps for a small fee.
Central Office Carroll Pierce 919-715-6110 1614 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27604
Central Office David Williams 919-715-6103 1614 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27604
Swannanoa Region* Davis Ferguson 828-296-4698 2090 US Hwy. 70, Swannanoa, NC 28778
Swannanoa Region* Jeff Young 828-296-6165 2090 US Hwy. 70, Swannanoa, NC 28778
A-VIII-2

NCDA Regional Agronomists:
The NC Department of Agriculture technical specialists: certify waste management plans for animal operations; provide certification training for
swine waste applicators; track, monitor, and account for use of nutrients on agricultural lands; operate the state Pesticide Disposal Program, and
enforce the state pesticide handling and application laws with farmers.
Central Office Tom Ellis 919-733-7125 2 West Edenton Street, Raleigh NC 27611
Region 13 Bill Yarborough 828-456-3943 443 Pisgah View Drive, Waynesville NC 28786
Education
NC Cooperative Extension Service:
Provides practical, research-based information and programs to help individuals, families, farms, businesses and communities.
County Contact Person Phone Address
Avery Michael Pitman 828-733-2415 805 Cranberry Street, Newland NC 28657
Buncombe Kenneth Reeves 828-255-5522 31 College Place, Asheville NC 28801
Haywood William L. Skelton 828-456-3575 PO Box 308, Waynesville NC 28786
Henderson Joy Staton 828-697-4891 740 Glover Street, Hendersonville NC 28792
Madison Ross Young 828-649-2411 20 Bailey’s Branch Road, Marshall NC 28753
Mitchell Jeffrey K. Vance 828-688-2051 10 South Mitchell Avenue, Bakersville NC 28705
Transylvania Eric N. Caldwell 828-884-3109 203 East Morgan Street, Brevard NC 28712
Yancey Johnny Hensley 828-682-6186 10 Orchard Street, Burnsville NC 28714
Forestry
Division of Forest Resources:
Develop, protect, and manage the multiple resources of North Carolina's forests through professional stewardship, enhancing the quality of our
citizens while ensuring the continuity of these vital resources.
District 1 Greg Smith 828-667-5211 220 Sardis Road, Asheville NC 28806
District 9 Gerald McCall 828-586-4007 443 NC Highway 16, Sylva, NC 28779
Region 11 Greg Yates 828-251-6509 14 Gaston Mountain Road, Asheville, NC 28806
Central Office Bill Swartley 919-733-2162 1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1616
Construction/Mining
DENR Division of Land Resources:
Administers the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program for construction and mining operations. Conducts land surveys and studies,
produces maps, and protects the state's land and mineral resources.
Central Office Floyd Williams 919-733-4574 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27626
Swannanoa Region* 828-251-6208 2090 US Hwy. 70, Swannanoa, NC 28778
Local Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinances:
Several local governments in the basin have qualified to administer their own erosion and sedimentation control ordinances.
City of Asheville 828-259-5830 PO Box 7148, Asheville NC 28802
Buncombe County Michael Brookshire 828-250-4850 46 Valley Street, Asheville NC 28801
Haywood County Marc Pruett 828-452-6706 1233 North Main Street, Waynesville NC 28786
A-VIII-3

General Water Quality
DENR DWQ Planning Section:
Coordinate the numerous nonpoint source programs carried out by many agencies; coordinate the French Broad and Neuse
River Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategies; administer the Section 319 grants program statewide; conduct stormwater
permitting; model water quality; conduct water quality monitoring; perform wetlands permitting; conduct animal operation
permitting and enforcement; and conduct water quality classifications and standards activities.
Planning Section Chief Alan Clark 919-733-5083 x 570
NPS Planning Rich Gannon 919-733-5083 x 356 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Modeling/TMDL Michelle Woolfolk 919-733-5083 x 505 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Classifications and
Standards Jeff Manning 919-733-5083 x 579 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Basinwide Planning Darlene Kucken 919-733-5083 x 354 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Groundwater
Planning Carl Bailey 919-733-5083 x 522 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Urban Stormwater Bradley Bennett 919-733-5083 x 525 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Monitoring Jimmie Overton 919-733-9960 x 204 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Animal Operations Paul Sherman 919-733-5083 x 533 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Wetlands & Stormwater Tom Reeder 919-733-5083 x 528 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699

DWQ Regional Offices:
Conduct permitting and enforcement field work on point sources, stormwater, wetlands and animal operations; conduct
enforcement on water quality violations of any kind; and perform ambient water quality monitoring.
Swannanoa Region* Roger Edwards 828-296-4500 2090 US Hwy. 70, Swannanoa, NC 28778
Wildlife Resources Commission:
To manage, restore, develop, cultivate, conserve, protect and regulate the wildlife resources of the state, and to administer the
laws enacted by the General Assembly relating to game, game and non-game freshwater fishes, and other wildlife resources in
a sound, constructive, comprehensive, continuing and economical manner.
Central Office Frank McBride 919-528-9886 PO Box 118, Northside NC 27564
Pisgah Center for
Wildlife Education J.P. McCann 828-877-4423 PO Box 1600, Pisgah Forest NC 28768
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Responsible for: investigating, developing and maintaining the nation's water and related environmental resources; constructing
and operating projects for navigation, flood control, major drainage, shore and beach restoration and protection; hydropower
development; water supply; water quality control, fish and wildlife conservation and enhancement, and outdoor recreation;
responding to emergency relief activities directed by other federal agencies; and administering laws for the protection and
preservation of navigable waters, emergency flood control and shore protection. Responsible for wetlands and 404 Federal
Permits.
Asheville Field Office Steve McCladen 828-271-7980 151 Patton Ave, Room 208, Asheville NC 28801-
5006
A-VIII-4

Solid Waste
DENR Division of Waste Management:
Management of solid waste in a way that protects public health and the environment. The Division includes three sections and
one program -- Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste, Superfund, and the Resident Inspectors Program.
Central Office Brad Atkinson 919-733-0692 401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150, Raleigh NC 27605
Swannanoa Region* Al Hetzell 828-296-4500 2090 US Hwy. 70, Swannanoa, NC 28778
On-Site Wastewater Treatment
Division of Environmental Health and County Health Departments:
Safeguard life, promote human health, and protect the environment through the practice of modern environmental health science,
the use of technology, rules, public education, and above all, dedication to the public trust.
Services include:
• Training of and delegation of authority to local environmental health specialists concerning on-site wastewater.
• Engineering review of plans and specifications for wastewater systems 3,000 gallons or larger and industrial process
wastewater systems designed to discharge below the ground surface.
• Technical assistance to local health departments, other state agencies, and industry on soil suitability and other site
considerations for on-site wastewater systems.
Central Office Steve Steinbeck 919-715-3273 2728 Capital Boulevard, Raleigh NC 27604
Swannanoa Region * Terrell Jones 828-686-9077 303 Harrisson Hill Road, Swannanoa NC 28778
County Primary Contact Phone Address
Avery Thomas Singleton 828-733-6031 861 Greenwood Road, Spruce Pine NC 28777
Buncombe George F. Bond, Jr. 828-250-5203 35 Woodfin Street, Asheville NC 28801-3075
Haywood Robert C. Wood 828-452-6675 2177 Asheville Road, Waynesville NC 28786
Henderson Thomas D. Bridges 828-692-4223 1347 Spartanburg Hwy, Hendersonville NC 28792
Madison Buck Wilson 828-649-3531 140 Health Care Lane, Marshall NC 28753
Mitchell Thomas Singleton 828-688-2371 861 Greenwood Road, Spruce Pine NC 28777
Transylvania Steve Smith 828-884-3135 Community Services Building, Brevard NC 28712
Yancey Thomas Singleton 828-682-3003 861 Greenwood Road, Spruce Pine NC 28777

* DENR Swannanoa Regional Office covers the following counties: Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell,
Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk,
Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania and Yancey.
A-VIII-5

Appendix IX

French Broad River Basin
Workshop Summaries

Appendices

Issues Associated with Specific Waters of the French Broad River Basin

Water/
Generalized Area Subbasin Issue Workshop
Swannanoa River 04-03-02 Development from Asheville and Black Mountain Asheville
Little Ivy River 04-03-04 Straight pipes, cattle Asheville
Hendersonville
Davidson River 04-03-03 Eucusta site, who is responsible for this site Asheville,
Hendersonville
Grassy Branch 04-03-02 Fecal Coliform Asheville
Bull Creek 04-03-02 Sediment and development Asheville
Ross Creek 04-03-02 Urban stream, impacts from Asheville and Buncombe County Asheville
Hendersonville
Mills River 04-03-03 Development and associated problems; pesticides; maintain and improve current quality, drinking
water source, floodplain encroachment, future growth
Asheville
Hendersonville
Waynesville
Bald Creek 04-03-07 Widening of US 19E Asheville
Hominy Creek 04-03-02 Downstream of Enka Asheville
Hendersonville
French Broad River 04-03-01 Streambank erosion in Transylvania County, drinking water source, development and access roads,
increased runoff
Asheville
Hendersonville
Waynesville
Cane River 04-03-07 Permit limits for dischargers Burnsville
Gash Creek 04-03-02 Development pressure-moving from agriculture to semi-urban Hendersonville
Mill Pond Creek 04-03-02 Starts in landfill, development Hendersonville
Wolfpen Creek 04-03-02 Highway 64E Hendersonville
Mud Creek 04-03-02 City of Hendersonville, Hendersonville WWTP discharge, runoff Hendersonville
Brandy Branch 04-03-03 Part of Mills River Watershed, similar concerns Hendersonville
Willow Creek 04-03-02 Agricultural practices, plowing close to creek Hendersonville
Lower Clear Creek 04-03-02 Biological impacts Hendersonville
A-IX-1

Shaw Creek 04-02-02 Development impacts Hendersonville
Ratcliffe Cove Branch 04-03-05 Agricultural, sediment concerns Waynesville
Raccoon Creek 04-03-05 Agricultural, sediment concerns, US 19/23 construction Waynesville
Jonathan Creek 04-03-05 Maggie Valley’s WWTP compliance, future threats above confluence with Campbell Creek Waynesville
Hyatt Creek 04-03-05 Livestock operations, hog farm, development, wastewater treatment package plant, eroding banks Waynesville
Fines Creek 04-03-05 Poor land use management Waynesville
Rush Fork 04-03-05 Dairy operations Waynesville
Pigeon River 04-03-05 Concern above Canton, drinking water source, small individual developments - need septic permit,
but do not need to provide stormwater control Waynesville
Campbell Creek 04-03-05 Protection of drinking water source for Maggie Valley Waynesville
Hurricane Creek 04-03-05 Sediment, road construction impacts Waynesville
Banks Creek 04-03-07 Golf course expansion, trout not able to reproduce Waynesville

A-IX-2

Issues Related to Urbanization and Land Use Changes Basinwide

Specific
Issue Recommendation Workshop
Develop on steeper slopes

Need local sediment and erosion control programs; and education for
developers, contractors and homeowners
Hendersonville
Waynesville
Land conversion, improper growth, sprawl Better land use planning, maintaining rural areas
Asheville
Hendersonville
Waynesville
Higher populations Need lower density regulations Hendersonville
Runoff tax/river basin impact (property) tax Change the way stormwater and runoff is viewed, so that those implementing
protective practices receive a financial incentive through lower taxes. Asheville
Stormwater runoff and increased amounts of
impervious surfaces Require stormwater controls as part of the sediment and erosion control plans. Waynesville
Development of roads in subdivisions Need standards and technical assistance, as well as BMPs and stormwater
controls to minimize impacts to water quality Waynesville
Planning and placement of sewer extension Reconsider county-wide sewer projects Waynesville
Conservation easements Protect high quality lands and water though easements with local agencies and
organizations Hendersonville

Issues Related to Water Supply Quantity and Protection

Issue Workshop
Residential development on WS-III – is there adequate protection outside of Critical Area above Canton Waynesville
Drinking water supplies – not enforcing existing regulations for critical areas Waynesville
Increased withdrawal of water from Mills River and French Broad for water supply Hendersonville
A-IX-3

Issues Related to Enforcement, Permitting, Rule Making and Monitoring

Specific
Issue Recommendation
Local ordinances Should be strengthened and reevaluated
Citizen monitoring
Buffer Rules Need more monitoring and enforcement
Point Sources Should have to land apply all future flow increases
Land Application Sites More monitoring of sites
Development Sediment and erosion control inspections needed on development
Forestry Forestry BMPs manual needed
Nonpoint Source More inspectors needed
BMPs Require BMPs to remove nutrients and sediment and remove minimum exclusion
Funding More money for education and enforcement

Issues Related to Funding Sources and Education

Specific
Issue Workshop
Misinformation Asheville
Educational programs at local levels for builders and local politicians Asheville
'Nemo' program for officials Asheville
Incentives for promoting 'green' development Asheville
Developing a check list for desirable development characteristics Asheville
Citizen need to be informed about polluted runoff and microorganisms in private wells Hendersonville
Waynesville
Mutually beneficial buffers are needed Hendersonville
Projects could be funded by water consumers Hendersonville
Multiple small projects need to be funded to improve water quality
(especially in headwaters) Hendersonville
Farmland protection Hendersonville
Funding needed for buffers Hendersonville
Where can this funding be obtained? Hendersonville
Well, septic system and groundwater education and awareness are needed Hendersonville
Public education and outreach to landowners Hendersonville
Waynesville
Technical assistance and funding Hendersonville
Waynesville
A-IX-4

A-IX-5
Continued funding for straight pipe elimination Hendersonville
Provide money to assist local governments with aging collection lines Hendersonville
Who is going to pay for regulations? Hendersonville
Continue education and technical improvements Hendersonville
Education for contractors on BMPs (steep slopes) Hendersonville
Education for developers on BMPs (steep slopes) Hendersonville
Educate consumers on 'real' costs for high quality water Hendersonville
Continued funding of cost share program to farmers over life of BMP Hendersonville
One NC Naturally should look broader to other states to create a mechanized tool for
assuring funding Hendersonville
Bring One NC Naturally to the local level with withdrawers providing some funding to
water quality maintenance fund – apply back to affected community Hendersonville
Greater awareness to landowners about funding available to restore and protect water
quality
Waynesville

Home buying and building guides for realtors to distribute Waynesville
Educate lenders – justify costs Waynesville
Grant funding for improvements Waynesville
Clean water training programs for contractors and operators. Waynesville
Make education materials on sediment/erosion controls to homeowners as well as
contractors Waynesville

Appendix X

Use Support Methodology
and
Use Support Ratings

Appendices

Introduction to Use Support

All surface waters of the state are assigned a classification appropriate to the best-intended uses
of that water. Waters are assessed to determine how well they are meeting the classified or best-
intended uses. The assessment results in a use support rating for the use categories that apply to
that water.

Use Support Categories

Beginning in 2000 with the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, DWQ assesses
ecosystem health and human health risk through the use of five use support categories: aquatic
life, recreation, fish consumption, water supply, and shellfish harvesting. These categories are
tied to the uses associated with the primary classifications applied to NC rivers and streams.
Waters are Supporting if data and information used to assign a use support rating meet the
criteria for that use category. If these criteria are not met, then the waters are Impaired. Waters
with inconclusive data and information are Not Rated. Waters where no data or information are
available to make an assessment are No Data. The table below specifies which use support
categories apply to which primary classifications.

A single water may have more than one use support rating corresponding to one or more of the
use support categories, as shown in the following table. For many waters, a use support category
will not be applicable (N/A) to the classification of that water (e.g., shellfish harvesting is only
applied to Class SA waters). A full description of the classifications is available in the DWQ
document titled: Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of
North Carolina (15A NCAC 2b .0100 and .0200). Information can also be found at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/.

Use Support Categories

Primary
Classification
Ecosystem
Approach
Human Health
Approach
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Shellfish
Harvesting
C X X X N/A N/A
SC X X X N/A N/A
B X X X N/A N/A
SB X X X N/A N/A
SA X X X N/A X
WS I – WS IV X X X X N/A

A-X-1

Assessment Period

Data and information are used to assess water quality and assign use support ratings using a five-
year data window that ends on August 31 of the year of basinwide biological sampling. For
example, if biological data are collected in a basin in 2004, then the five-year data window for
use support assessments would be September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2004. There are
occasionally some exceptions to this data window, especially when follow up monitoring is
needed to make decisions on samples collected in the last year of the assessment period.

Assessment Units

DWQ identifies waters by index numbers and assessment unit numbers (AU). The AU is used to
track defined stream segments or waterbodies in the water quality assessment database, for the
303(d) Impaired waters list, and in the various tables in basin plans and other water quality
documents. The AU is a subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number).
A letter attached to the end of the AU indicates that the AU is smaller than the DWQ index
segment. No letter indicates that the AU and the DWQ index segment are the same.

Interpretation of Data and Information

When interpreting the use support ratings, it is important to understand the associated limitations
and degree of uncertainty. Although these use support methods are used for analyzing data and
information and determining use support ratings, best professional judgment is applied during
these assessments. Use support ratings are intended to provide an assessment of water quality
using a five-year data window, to describe how well surface waters support their classified uses,
and to document the potential stressors contributing to water quality degradation and the sources
of these contributions.

Use support methods continue to improve over time, and the information and technology used to
make use support determinations also continue to become more accurate and comprehensive.
These improvements sometimes make it difficult to make generalizations comparing water
quality between basin plans. However, technology and methods improvements result in more
scientifically sound use support assessments.

Assessment Methodology

Introduction

Many types of data and information are used to determine use support ratings and to identify
stressors and sources of water quality degradation. All existing data pertaining to a stream
segment for each applicable use support category are entered into a use support database and
may include its use support ratings, basis of assessment, biological and ambient monitoring data,
stressors and potential sources. Data used in the use support assessments include biological data,
chemical/physical data, lakes assessment data, fish consumption advisories from the NC
Department of Health and Human Services, swimming advisories and shellfish sanitation
growing area classifications from the NC Division of Environmental Health (as appropriate), and
available land cover and land use information.
A-X-2

The following describes the data and methodologies used to conduct use support assessments.
These methods will continue to be refined as additional information and technology become
available.

Basis of Assessment

Assessments are made on an overall basis of either monitored (M) or evaluated (E), depending
on the level of information available. A monitored rating is based on the most recent five-year
data window and site-specific data and is therefore treated with more confidence than an
evaluated rating.

Supporting ratings are extrapolated up tributaries from monitored streams when there are no
problematic dischargers with permit violations or changes in land use/cover. Supporting ratings
may also be applied to unmonitored tributaries where there is little land disturbance (e.g.,
national forests and wildlife refuges, wilderness areas or state natural areas). Problem stressors
or sources (except general NPS) are not generally applied to unmonitored tributaries. Impaired
ratings are not extrapolated to unmonitored tributaries.

Stressors

Biological and ambient samplings are useful tools to assess water quality. However, biological
sampling does not typically identify the causes of impairment, and ambient sampling does not
always link water quality standards to a biological response. Linking the causes of impairment
and the biological response are a complex process (USEPA, 2000) that begins with an evaluation
of physical, chemical or biological entities that can induce an adverse biological response. These
entities are referred to as stressors. A stressor may have a measurable impact to aquatic health.
Not all streams will have a primary stressor or cause of impairment. A single stressor may not
be sufficient to cause impairment, but the accumulation of several stressors may result in
impairment. In either case, impairment is likely to continue if the stressor or the various
cumulative stressors are not addressed. Use support assessments evaluate the available
information related to potential stressors impacting water quality.

A stressor identification process may be initiated after a stream appears on the 303(d) list in
order to address streams that are Impaired based on biological data. Intensive studies are
required to summarize and evaluate potential stressors to determine if there is evidence that a
particular stressor plays a substantial role in causing the biological impacts. Intensive studies
consider lines of evidence that include benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community data,
habitat and riparian area assessment, chemistry and toxicity data, and information on watershed
history, current watershed activities and land uses, and pollutant sources. These studies result in
decisions regarding the probable stressors contributing to or causing impairment. The intensity
of a stressor study may be limited due to a lack of resources. In these cases, it may still be
appropriate to include stressors in use support assessments, but to also note where additional
information is needed in order to evaluate other stressors.
A-X-3

Rating
Basis
Use Support
Category
Assessment
Applicability*
S/M AL Biological community data or ambient water quality parameters do not exceed criteria in
AU during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are independently applied.
S/M REC Ambient fecal bacteria parameter does not exceed criteria in AU or AU with RECMON
sites is posted with advisories for 61 days or less during assessment period.
S/M FC AU does not have site-specific advisory and is not under a mercury advice or drains to
areas within a mercury advice, or fish tissue data do not exceed criteria.
S/M SH AU is a DEH Approved shellfish growing area.

I/M AL Biological community data or ambient water quality parameters exceed criteria in AU
during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are independently applied.
I/M REC Ambient fecal bacteria parameter exceeds criteria in AU or AU with RECMON sites is
posted with advisories for more than 61 days during assessment period.
I/M FC Fish tissue data collected in AU during assessment period and basin are under mercury
advice or site-specific advisory.
I/M SH AU is a DEH Conditionally-Approved, Prohibited or Restricted shellfish growing area.

NR/M AL Biological community is Not Rated or inconclusive, or ambient water quality parameters
are inconclusive in AU during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are
independently applied.
NR/M REC Ambient fecal bacteria parameter exceeds annual screening criteria, but does not exceed
assessment criteria of five samples in 30 days in AU during assessment period.
S/E AL AU is a tributary to a S/M AU and land use is similar between AUs.
S/E WS AU is classified as WS, and DEH report notes no significant closures at time of
assessment.

I/E FC AU is in basin under a mercury advice or drains to areas within a mercury advice and has
no fish tissue data.

NR/E AL AU is tributary to I/M AU, or AU is in watershed with widespread and changing land
use, or other information suggests negative water quality impacts to AU. Discharger in
AU has noncompliance permit violations or has failed three or more WET tests during
the last two years of the assessment period.
NR/E REC Discharger has noncompliance permit violations of fecal bacteria parameter during last
two years of assessment period.

ND AL, REC,
FC, SH
No data available in AU during assessment period.

Note: S/M = Supporting/Monitored I/M = Impaired/Monitored NR/M = Not Rated/Monitored
S/E = Supporting/Evaluated I/E = Impaired/Evaluated NR/E = Not Rated/Evaluated
ND = No Data
AL = Aquatic Life REC = Recreation FC = Fish Consumption
SH = Shellfish Harvesting WS = Water Supply
AU = Assessment Unit WET = Whole Effluent Toxicity
DEH = Division of Environmental Health * = for lakes assessments
A-X-4

Where an ambient parameter is identified as a potential concern, the parameter is noted in the
DWQ database and use support summary table. Where habitat degradation is identified as a
stressor, DWQ and others attempt to identify the type of habitat degradation (e.g., sedimentation,
loss of woody habitat, loss of pools or riffles, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation,
streambed scour and bank erosion). Habitat evaluation methods are being developed to better
identify specific types of habitat degradation.

Aquatic Life Category

The aquatic life category is an ecosystem approach to assessing the biological integrity of all
surface waters of the state. The biological community data and ambient water quality data are
used in making assessments in this category. These represent the most important monitoring
data for making water quality assessments in the aquatic life category. Evaluation information
such as compliance and whole effluent toxicity information from NPDES dischargers, land
cover, and other more anecdotal information are also used to identify potential problems and to
refine assessments based on the monitoring data. The following is a description of each
monitoring data type and the criteria used in assigning use support ratings. Criteria used to
evaluate the other information and assign use support ratings are also described. Refer to page
14 for lakes and reservoir assessment methods as applied in the aquatic life category.

Biological Data

Benthic macroinvertebrate (aquatic insects) community and fish community samples are the best
way to assess the biological integrity of most waterbodies. Unfortunately, these community
measures cannot be applied to every stream size and are further limited by geographic region.
These community measures are designed to detect current water quality and water quality
changes that may be occurring in the watershed. However, they are only directly applied to the
assessment unit where the sample was collected.

Where recent data for both benthic macroinvertebrates and fish communities are available, both
are evaluated for use support assessments. When two biological monitoring data types conflict,
best professional judgment is used to determine an appropriate use support rating. Where both
ambient monitoring data and biological data are available, biological data may be given greater
weight; however, each data type is assessed independently.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Criteria

Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications to most benthic macroinvertebrate
samples based on the number of taxa present in the pollution intolerant aquatic insect groups of
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPTs); and the Biotic Index (BI), which
summarizes tolerance data for all taxa in each sample. Because these data represent water
quality conditions with a high degree of confidence, use support ratings using these data are
considered monitored.

If a Fair macroinvertebrate bioclassification is obtained under conditions (such as drought or
flood conditions, recent spills, etc.) that may not represent normal conditions or is borderline Fair
A-X-5

(almost Good-Fair), a second sample should be taken within 12-24 months to validate the Fair
bioclassification. Such sites will be Not Rated until the second sample is obtained.

Use support ratings are assigned to assessment units using benthic macroinvertebrate
bioclassifications as follows.

Waterbody Sample
Type or Criteria Bioclassification Use Support
Rating
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Excellent Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Good Supporting
Swamp1 Natural Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Good-Fair Supporting
Smaller than criteria but Good-Fair2 Not Impaired Supporting
Swamp1 Moderate Stress Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Fair Impaired
Swamp1 Severe Stress Impaired
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Poor Impaired
Criteria not appropriate to assign bioclassification Not Rated Not Rated
1 Swamp streams for benthos sampling are defined as streams in the coastal plain that have no visible flow for a part of the year,
but do have flow during the February to early March benthic index period.
2 This designation may be used for flowing waters that are too small to be assigned a bioclassification (less than three square
miles drainage area), but have a Good-Fair or higher bioclassification using the standard qualitative and EPT criteria.

Fish Community Criteria

The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for assessing a stream’s
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The NCIBI
incorporates information about species richness and composition, indicator species, trophic
function, abundance and condition, and reproductive function. Because these data represent
water quality conditions with a high degree of confidence, use support ratings using these data
are considered monitored. Use support ratings are assigned to assessment units using the NCIBI
bioclassifications as follows:

NCIBI Use Support Rating
Excellent Supporting
Good Supporting
Good-Fair Supporting
Fair Impaired
Poor Impaired

If a Fair macroinvertebrate bioclassification is obtained under conditions (such as drought or
flood conditions, recent spills, etc.) that may not represent normal conditions or is borderline Fair
(almost Good-Fair), a second sample should be taken within 12-24 months to validate the Fair
bioclassification. Such sites will not be given a use support rating until validation is obtained.
A-X-6

The NCIBI was recently revised (NCDENR, 2001), and the bioclassifications and criteria have
also been recalibrated against regional reference site data (NCDENR, 2000a, 2000b and 2001a).
NCIBI criteria are applicable only to wadeable streams in the following river basins: Broad,
Catawba, Savannah, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, French Broad,
Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and Watauga. Additionally, the NCIBI criteria are only
applicable to streams in the piedmont portion of the Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar-Pamlico
River basins. The definition of "piedmont" for these four river basins is based upon a map of
North Carolina watersheds (Fels, 1997). Specifically:

In the Cape Fear River basin -- all waters except for those draining the Sandhills in Moore,
Lee and Harnett counties, and the entire basin upstream of Lillington, NC.
•
•
•
•
In the Neuse River basin -- the entire basin above Smithfield and Wilson, except for the
south and southwest portions of Johnston County and eastern two-thirds of Wilson County.
In the Roanoke River basin -- the entire basin in North Carolina upstream of Roanoke
Rapids, NC and a small area between Roanoke Rapids and Halifax, NC.
In the Tar-Pamlico River basin -- the entire basin above Rocky Mount, except for the lower
southeastern one-half of Halifax County and the extreme eastern portion of Nash County.

NCIBI criteria have not been developed for:

• Streams in the Broad, Catawba, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Savannah, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little
Tennessee, New and Watauga River basins which are characterized as wadeable first to third
order streams with small watersheds, naturally low fish species diversity, coldwater
temperatures, and high gradient plunge-pool flows. Such streams are typically thought of as
"Southern Appalachian Trout Streams".
• Wadeable streams in the Sandhills ecoregion of the Cape Fear, Lumber and Yadkin-Pee Dee
River basins.
• Wadeable streams and swamps in the coastal plain region of the Cape Fear, Chowan,
Lumber, Neuse, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico and White Oak River basins.
• All nonwadeable and large streams and rivers throughout the state.

Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Criteria

Chemical/physical water quality data are collected through the DWQ Ambient Monitoring
Program statewide and NPDES discharger coalitions in some basins. All samples collected
(usually monthly) during the five-year assessment period are used to assign a use support rating.
Ambient water quality data are not direct measures of biological integrity, but the
chemical/physical parameters collected can provide an indication of conditions that may be
impacting aquatic life. Because these data represent water quality conditions with a high degree
of confidence, use support ratings assigned using these data are considered monitored. Where
both ambient data and biological data are available, each data type is assessed independently.

The parameters used to assess water quality in the aquatic life category include dissolved
oxygen, pH, chlorophyll a and turbidity. Criteria for assigning use support ratings to assessment
units with ambient water quality data of a minimum of ten samples are as follows:

A-X-7

Ratings Criteria Rating
Numerical standard exceeded in ≤10% of samples Supporting
Numerical standard exceeded in >10% of samples Impaired
Less than 10 samples collected Not Rated
DO and pH standard exceeded in swamp streams Not Rated

Multiple Monitoring Sites

There are assessment units with more than one type of monitoring data. When the data from
multiple biological data types are not in agreement, best professional judgment is used to assign
a bioclassification and use support rating for that assessment unit. Biological monitoring is
typically assessed independent of ambient monitoring data and either may be used to assign a use
support rating for an assessment unit. Monitoring data are always used over the evaluation
information; however, evaluation information can be used to lengthen or shorten monitored
assessment units and to assign use support ratings on an evaluated basis to non-monitored
assessment units.

NPDES Wastewater Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Information

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests are required for all major NPDES discharge permit
holders, as well as those minor NPDES dischargers with complex effluent (defined as not being
of 100 percent domestic waste). WET tests are evaluated to determine if the discharge could be
having negative water quality impacts. If a stream with a WET test facility has not been sampled
for instream chronic toxicity, biological community data or has no ambient water quality data,
and that facility has failed three or more WET tests in the last two years of the assessment
period, the assessment unit is Not Rated. Because this information is not a direct measure of
water quality and the confidence is not as high as for monitoring data, this use support rating is
considered evaluated rather than monitored. Problems associated with WET test failures are
addressed through NPDES permits.

NPDES Discharger Daily Monitoring Report Information

NPDES effluent data monthly averages of water quality parameters are screened for the last two
years of the assessment period. If facilities exceed the effluent limits by 20 percent for two or
more months during two consecutive quarters, or have chronic exceedances of permit limits for
four or more months during two consecutive quarters, then the assessment unit is Not Rated if no
biological or ambient monitoring data are available. If biological or ambient data are available,
that data will be used to develop a use support rating for appropriate stream segments. Because
this information is not a direct measure of water quality and the confidence is not as high as for
monitoring data, this use support rating is considered evaluated rather than monitored.

Fish Consumption Category

The fish consumption category is a human health approach to assess whether humans can safely
consume fish from a waterbody. This category is applied to all waters of the state. The use
support rating is assigned using fish consumption advisories or advice as issued by the NC
A-X-8

Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS). The fish consumption category is
different from other categories in that assessments are based on the existence of a DHHS fish
consumption advice or advisory at the time of assessment. The advice and advisories are based
on DHHS epidemiological studies and on DWQ fish tissue data, so a fish tissue monitoring site
will constitute a monitored assessment unit (AU) and all other AUs will be evaluated. DWQ
fish tissue data are used to inform DHHS of potential fish tissue toxicity. DHHS is responsible
for proclaiming a fish tissue advisory for any waterbody. Fish tissue monitoring data are not
used directly for assigning a use support rating in this category.
If a limited site-specific fish consumption advisory or a no consumption advisory is posted at the
time of assessment, the water is Impaired. If there are no site-specific advisories posted or the
stream is not in a basin where mercury advice is applied, then the assessment unit will be
Supporting in this category.
The NCDHHS has developed regional fish consumption advice (all waters south and east of I-
85) for certain fish species shown to have elevated levels of mercury in their tissue. DWQ
applies the DHHS fish consumption advice for mercury on a basinwide scale rather than an AU
scale in recognition that fish move up and downstream regardless of the presence of I-85. All
AUs draining below or intersecting I-85 are Impaired in the fish consumption category. AUs
with monitoring data are considered Impaired/Monitored, and AUs with no monitoring data are
considered Impaired/Evaluated. When a DHHS site-specific advisory is in place for a parameter
other than mercury, the assessment is based on that advisory and the mercury advice will take a
lower ranking in the assessment. Therefore, when a site-specific advisory is in place in a basin
with a mercury advice and the AU has fish tissue monitoring data, the AU will be considered
Impaired/Monitored for the specific parameter, rather than Impaired/Evaluated for mercury.

Basins under the mercury advice are the Cape Fear, Chowan, Lumber, Neuse, Pasquotank,
Roanoke, White Oak and Yadkin-Pee Dee. All waters in these basins are Impaired in the fish
consumption category, even when there is a site-specific advisory. All waters are also
considered Monitored or Evaluated, dependent upon the availability of monitoring data.

Only a small portion of the Catawba River basin is intersected by I-85 (lower Mecklenberg,
Union and Gaston counties). Due to the presence of dams that impede fish travel throughout the
Catawba River basin, only those waters draining to and entering the mainstem Catawba below I-
85 and are not impeded by dams are considered Impaired/Evaluated.
Basins not under the mercury advice are the Broad, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee,
New, Savannah and Watauga. All waters in these basins are Supporting in the fish consumption
category if there is no site-specific advisory; waters are Impaired if there is a site-specific
advisory. All waters are also considered Monitored or Evaluated, dependent upon the
availability of monitoring data.
In order to separate this regional advice from other fish consumption advisories and to identify
actual fish populations with high levels of mercury, only waters with fish tissue monitoring data
are presented on the use support maps.

A-X-9

Recreation Category

This human health related category evaluates waters for the support of primary recreation
activities such as swimming, water-skiing, skin diving, and similar uses usually involving human
body contact with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent
basis. Waters of the state designated for these uses are classified as Class B, SB and SA. This
category also evaluates other waters used for secondary recreation activities such as wading,
boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with water, and activities involving
human body contact with water where such activities take place on an infrequent, unorganized or
incidental basis. Waters of the state designated for these uses are classified as Class C, SC and
WS.

The use support ratings applied to this category are currently based on the North Carolina fecal
coliform bacteria water quality standard where ambient monitoring data are available or on the
duration of local or state health agencies posted swimming advisories. Use support ratings for
the recreation category may be based on other bacteriological indicators and standards in the
future.

DWQ conducts monthly ambient water quality monitoring that includes fecal coliform bacteria
testing. The Division of Environmental Health (DEH) tests coastal recreation waters (beaches)
for bacteria levels to assess the relative safety of these waters for swimming. If an area has
elevated bacteria levels, health officials will advise that people not swim in the area by posting a
swimming advisory and by notifying the local media and county health department.

The North Carolina fecal coliform bacteria standard for freshwater is: 1) not to exceed the
geometric mean of 200 colonies per 100 ml of at least five samples over a 30-day period; and 2)
not to exceed 400 colonies per 100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples during the same
period. The AU being assessed for the five-year data window is Supporting in the recreation
category if neither number (1) nor (2) of the standard are exceeded. The AU being assessed is
Impaired in the recreation category if either number (1) or (2) is exceeded. Waters without
sufficient fecal coliform data are Not Rated, and waters with no data are noted as having No
Data.

Assessing the water quality standard requires significant sampling efforts beyond the monthly
ambient monitoring sampling and must include at least five samples over a 30-day period.
Decades of monitoring have demonstrated that bacteria concentrations may fluctuate widely in
surface waters over a period of time. Thus, multiple samples over a 30-day period are needed to
evaluate waters against the North Carolina water quality standard for recreational use support.
Waters classified as Class SA, SB and B are targeted for this extra sampling effort due to the
greater potential for human body contact. Therefore, some waters will be Not Rated in this
category based on a DWQ yearly screening of all waters where an AU is above 200 colonies per
100 ml, or more than 20 percent of samples are above 400 colonies per 100 ml, and where the
extra sampling effort has not been conducted.

Waters with beach monitoring sites will be Impaired if the area is posted with an advisory for
greater than 61 days of the assessment period. Waters with beach monitoring sites with
advisories posted less than 61 days will be Supporting. Other information can be used to Not
Rate unmonitored waters.
A-X-10

DWQ Ambient Monitoring Fecal Coliform Screening Criteria

As with other information sources, all available information and data are evaluated for the
recreation category using the assessment period. However, DWQ conducts an annual screening
of DWQ ambient fecal coliform data to assess the need for additional monitoring or immediate
action by local or state health agencies to protect public health.

Each March, DWQ staff will review bacteria data collections from ambient monitoring stations
statewide for the previous sampling year. Locations with annual geometric means greater than
200 colonies per 100 ml, or when more than 20 percent of the samples are greater than 400
colonies per 100 ml, are identified for potential follow-up monitoring conducted five times
within 30 days as specified by the state fecal coliform bacteria standard. If bacteria
concentrations exceed either portion of the state standard, the data are sent to DEH and the local
county health director to determine the need for posting swimming advisories. DWQ regional
offices will also be notified.

Due to limited resources and the higher risk to human health, primary recreation waters (Class B,
SB and SA) will be given monitoring priority for an additional five times within 30 days
sampling. Follow-up water quality sampling for Class C waters will be performed as resources
permit. Any waters on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters for fecal coliform will receive a low
priority for additional monitoring because these waters will be further assessed for TMDL
development.

DWQ attempts to determine if there are any swimming areas monitored by state, county or local
health departments or by DEH. Each January, DEH, county or local health departments are
asked to list those waters which were posted with swimming advisories in the previous year.

Shellfish Harvesting Use Support

The shellfish harvesting use support category is a human health approach to assess whether
shellfish can be commercially harvested and is therefore applied only to Class SA waters. The
following data sources are used to assign use support ratings for shellfish waters.

Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Shellfish Sanitation Surveys

DEH is required to classify all shellfish growing areas as to their suitability for shellfish
harvesting. Estuarine waters are delineated according to DEH shellfish management areas (e.g.,
Outer Banks, Area H-5) which include Class SA, SB and SC waters. DEH samples growing
areas regularly and reevaluates the areas by conducting shellfish sanitation surveys every three
years to determine if their classification is still applicable. DEH classifications may be changed
after the most recent sanitary survey. Classifications are based on DEH bacteria sampling,
locations of pollution sources, and the availability of the shellfish resource. Growing waters are
classified as follows.

A-X-11

DEH
Classification
DEH
Criteria
Approved
(APP)
Fecal Coliform Standard for Systematic Random Sampling:
The median fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) or the geometric mean MPN of
the water shall not exceed 14 per 100 milliliters (ml), and the estimated 90th percentile
shall not exceed an MPN of 43 MPN per 100 ml for a 5-tube decimal dilution test.

Fecal Coliform Standard for Adverse Pollution Conditions Sampling:
The median fecal coliform or geometric mean MPN of the water shall not exceed 14 per
100 ml, and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed 43 MPN per 100 ml for
a 5-tube decimal dilution test.
Conditionally
Approved-Open
(CAO)
Sanitary Survey indicates an area can meet approved area criteria for a reasonable period
of time, and the pollutant event is known and predictable and can be managed by a plan.
These areas tend to be open more frequently than closed.
Conditionally
Approved-Closed
(CAC)
Sanitary Survey indicates an area can meet approved area criteria for a reasonable period
of time, and the pollutant event is known and predictable and can be managed by a plan.
These areas tend to be closed more frequently than open.
Restricted
(RES)
Sanitary Survey indicates limited degree of pollution, and the area is not contaminated to
the extent that consumption of shellfish could be hazardous after controlled depuration or
relaying.
Prohibited
(PRO)
No Sanitary Survey; point source discharges; marinas; data do not meet criteria for
Approved, Conditionally Approved or Restricted Classification.

Assigning Use Support Ratings to Shellfish Harvesting Waters (Class SA)

DWQ use support ratings may be assigned to separate segments within DEH management areas.
In assessing use support, the DEH classifications and management strategies are only applicable
to DWQ Class SA (shellfish harvesting) waters. It is important to note that DEH classifies all
actual and potential growing areas (which includes all saltwater and brackish water areas) for
their suitability for shellfish harvesting. This will result in a difference of acreage between DEH
areas classified as CAC, PRO and RES, and DWQ waters rated as Impaired. For example, if
DEH classifies a 20-acre area CAC, but only 10 acres are Class SA, only those 10 acres of Class
SA waters are rated as Impaired.

The DEH "Closed" polygon coverage includes CAC, RES and PRO classifications, and it is not
currently possible to separate out the PRO from the RES areas. Therefore, these areas are a
combined polygon coverage, and DWQ rates these waters as Impaired.

Sources of fecal coliform bacteria are more difficult to separate out for Class SA areas. DEH
describes the potential sources in the sanitary surveys, but they do not describe specific areas
affected by these sources. Therefore, in the past, DEH identified the same sources for all Class
SA sections of an entire management area (e.g., urban runoff and septic systems). Until a better
way to pinpoint sources is developed, this information will continue to be used. A point source
discharge is only listed as a potential source when NPDES permit limits are exceeded.

DWQ and DEH are developing the database and expertise necessary to assess shellfish
harvesting frequency of closures. In the interim, DWQ has been identifying the frequency of
closures in Class SA waters using an interim methodology based on existing databases and GIS
shapefiles. There will be changes in reported acreages in future assessments using the permanent
methods and tools that result from this project.
A-X-12

Past Interim Frequency of Closure-Based Assessment Methodology

The interim method was used for the 2001 White Oak, 2002 Neuse and 2003 Lumber River
basin use support assessments. Shellfish harvesting use support ratings for Class SA waters
using the interim methodology are summarized below.

Percent of Time Closed
within Basin Data Window
DEH
Growing Area Classification
DWQ
Use Support Rating
N/A Approved* Supporting
Closed ≤10% of data window Portion of CAO closed ≤10% of data window Supporting
Closed >10% of the data window Portion of CAO closed >10% of data window Impaired
N/A CAC and PRO/RES** Impaired
* Approved waters are closed only during extreme meteorological events (hurricanes).
** CAC and P/R waters are rarely opened to shellfish harvesting.

For CAO areas, DWQ worked with DEH to determine the number of days and acreages that
CAO Class SA waters were closed to shellfish harvesting during the assessment period. For
each growing area with CAO Class SA waters, DEH and DWQ defined subareas within the CAO
area that were opened and closed at the same time. The number of days these CAO areas were
closed was determined using DEH proclamation summary sheets and the original proclamations.

The number of days that APP areas in the growing area were closed due to preemptive closures
because of named storms was not counted. For example, all waters in growing area E-9 were
preemptively closed for Hurricane Fran on September 5, 1996. APP waters were reopened
September 20, 1996. Nelson Bay (CAO) was reopened September 30, 1996. This area was
considered closed for ten days after the APP waters were reopened.

Current Assessment Methodology

Use support assessment for the 2005 Cape Fear River basin will be conducted such that only the
DEH classification will be used to assign a use support rating. By definition, CAO areas are
areas that DEH has determined do not, or likely do not, meet water quality standards and these
areas will be rated Impaired, along with CAC and PRO/RES areas. Only APP areas will be rated
Supporting.

Growing areas that have been reclassified by DEH during the assessment period from a lower
classification to APP will be rated Supporting. Areas that are reclassified from APP to any other
classification during the assessment period will be rated Impaired.

Over the next few years, DWQ, DEH, Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMF) will be engaged in developing a fully functionally database with related
georeferenced (GIS) shellfish harvesting areas. The new database and GIS tools will be valuable
for the above agencies to continue to work together to better serve the public. Using the new
database with georeferenced areas and monitoring sites, DEH will be able to report the number
of days each area was closed excluding closures related to named storms.

A-X-13

Water Supply Use Support

This human health related use support category is used to assess all Class WS waters for the
ability of water suppliers to provide potable drinking water. Water quality standards established
for drinking water apply to water delivered to consumers after it has been treated to remove
potential contaminants that may pose risks to human health. Ambient standards established by
states under the Clean Water Act are not intended to ensure that water is drinkable without
treatment. Modern water treatment technologies are required to purify raw water to meet
drinking water standards as established by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Health.

Water supply use support is assessed by DWQ using information from the seven DEH regional
water treatment plant consultant staff. Each January, the DEH staff consultants are asked to
submit a spreadsheet listing closures and water intake switch-overs for all water treatment plants
in their region. This spreadsheet describes the length and time of the event, contact information,
and the reason for the closure or switch.

The spreadsheets are reviewed by DWQ staff to determine if any closures/switches were due to
water quality concerns. Those closures/switches due to water quantity problems and reservoir
turnovers are not considered for use support. The frequency and duration of closures/switches
due to water quality concerns are considered when assessing use support. Using these criteria,
North Carolina’s surface water supplies are currently rated Supporting on an Evaluated basis.
Specific criteria for rating waters Impaired are to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Use of Outside Data

DWQ actively solicits outside data and information in the year before biological sampling in a
particular basin. The solicitation allows approximately 60 days for data to be submitted. Data
from sources outside DWQ are screened for data quality and quantity. If data are of sufficient
quality and quantity, they may be incorporated into use support assessments. A minimum of ten
samples for more than a one-year period is needed to be considered for use support assessments.

The way the solicited data are used depends on the degree of quality assurance and quality
control of the collection and analysis of the data as detailed in the 303(d) report and shown in the
table below. Level 1 data can be use with the same confidence as DWQ data to determine use
support ratings. Level 2 or Level 3 data may be used to help identify causes of pollution and
stressors. They may also be used to limit the extrapolation of use support ratings up or down a
stream segment from a DWQ monitoring location. Where outside data indicate a potential
problem, DWQ evaluates the existing DWQ biological and ambient monitoring site locations for
adjustment as appropriate.

A-X-14

Criteria Levels for Use of Outside Data in Use Support Assessments
Criteria Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Monitoring frequency of at least 10 samples for
more than a one-year period Yes Yes/No No
Monitoring locations appropriately sited and
mapped Yes Yes No
State certified laboratory used for analysis
according to 15A NCAC 2B .0103 Yes Yes/No No
Quality assurance plan available describing
sample collection and handling
Yes, rigorous
scrutiny Yes/No No

Lakes and Reservoir Use Assessment

Like streams, lakes are classified for a variety of uses. All lakes monitored as part of North
Carolina’s Ambient Lakes Monitoring Program carry the Class C (aquatic life) classification,
and most are classified Class B and SB (recreation) and WS-I through WS-V (water supply).
The surface water quality numeric standard specifically associated with recreation is fecal
coliform. For water supplies, there are 29 numeric standards based on consumption of water and
fish. Narrative standards for Class B and Class WS waters include aesthetics such as no odors
and no untreated wastes. There are other numeric standards that also apply to lakes for the
protection of aquatic life and human health. These standards also apply to all other waters of the
state and are listed under the Class C rules.

When possible, lake use support assessments are made using standards based methodologies
similar to those used for free-flowing waters. Parameters with sufficient (ten or more
observations), quality-assured observations are compared to surface water quality standards.
When standards are exceeded in more than 10 percent of the assessment period, portions or all of
the waterbody are rated Impaired. However, in many cases, the standards based approach is
incapable of characterizing the overall health of a reservoir.

For nutrient enrichment, one of the main causes of impacts to lakes and reservoirs, a more
holistic or weight of evidence approach is necessary since nutrient impacts are not always
reflected by the parameters sampled. For instance, some lakes have taste and odor problems
associated with particular algal species, yet these lakes do not have chlorophyll a concentrations
above 40 µg/l frequently enough to impair them based on the standard. In addition, each
reservoir possesses unique traits (watershed area, volume, depth, retention time, etc.) that
dramatically influence its water quality, but that cannot be evaluated through standards
comparisons. In such waterbodies, aquatic life may be Impaired even though a particular
indicator is below the standard. Where exceedances of surface water quality standards are not
sufficient to evaluate a lake or reservoir, the weight of evidence approach can take into
consideration indicators and parameters not in the standards to allow a more sound and robust
determination of water quality.

A-X-15

The weight of evidence approach uses the following sources of information to determine the
eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) level as a means of assessing lake use support in the aquatic
life category:

ƒ Quantitative water quality parameters - dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, pH, etc.
ƒ Algal bloom reports
ƒ Fish kill reports
ƒ Hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics – watershed size, lake volume, retention
time, volume loss, etc.
ƒ Third party reports – citizens, water treatment plant operators, state agencies, etc.
o Taste and odor
o Sheens
o Odd colors
o Other aesthetic and safety considerations

One of the major problems associated with lakes and reservoirs is increasing eutrophication
related to nutrient inputs. Several water quality parameters help to describe the level of
eutrophication. In implementing the weight of evidence approach for eutrophication, more
consideration is given to parameters that have water quality standards. Each parameter is
assessed for percent exceedance of the state standard. The eutrophication-related parameters and
water quality indicators without numeric standards are reviewed based on interpretation of the
narrative standards in 15A NCAC 2B .0211(2) and (3). The following table lists the information
considered during a lake/reservoir use assessment, as well as the criteria used to evaluate that
information.

A modification to lake use assessment is the evaluation and subsequent rating of a lake or
reservoir by segments. In some portions of a waterbody, such as shallow coves, there may be
documented water quality problems while other areas of that waterbody do not demonstrate
significant problems. In such cases, the portion with documented problems (sufficient data,
ambient data above standards, and supporting public data) will be rated as Impaired while the
other portions are rated as Supporting or Not Rated. The following table highlights the weight of
evidence approach for assessing lake water quality.

A-X-16

Lake/Reservoir Weight of Evidence Use Assessment for Aquatic Life Category
Assessment Type Criteria
EUTROPHICATION
Water Quality Standards
Chl a >10% above standard (N>9) = P; exceeding 40 µg/l but not 10% of time = C
DO Below or above standard >10% of samples (N>9)
pH Below or above standard >10% of samples (N>9)
Turbidity >10% above standard (N>9)
% Total Dissolved Gases >10% above standard (N>9)
Temperature Minor and infrequent excursions of temperature standards due to anthropogenic
activity. No impairment of species evident (N>9).
Metals (excluding copper,
iron and zinc) >10% above standard (N>9)
Other Data
% Saturation DO >10% above >120%
Algae Blooms during 2 or more sampling events in 1 year with historic blooms.
Fish Kills related to eutrophication.
Chemically/
Biologically Treated For algal or macrophyte control - either chemicals or biologically by fish, etc.
Aesthetics Complaints Documented sheens, discoloration, etc. - written complaint and follow-up by a state
agency.
TSI Increase of 2 trophic levels from one 5-year period to next.
Historic DWQ Data Conclusions from other reports and previous use support assessments.
AGPT Algal Growth Potential Test 5-9 mg/l = C
10 or more mg/l = P
Macrophytes Limiting access to public ramps, docks, swimming areas; reducing access by fish and
other aquatic life to habitat; clogging intakes.
Taste and Odor Public complaints = P; Potential based on algal spp = C
Sediments Clogging intakes - dredging program necessary.

Note: C = of notable Concern or productive
P = Problematic or highly productive
E = parameter is Exceeded, but in less than 10 percent of the measurements

A-X-17

A-X-18
References

Fels, J. 1997. North Carolina Watersheds Map. North Carolina State University Cooperative
Extension Service. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2000a. Fish
Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the Inner Piedmont,
Foothills, and Eastern Mountains (Broad, Catawba, Savannah, and Yadkin River
Basins). September 22, 2000. Biological Assessment Unit. Environmental Sciences
Branch. Water Quality Section. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.

____. 2000b. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the
Outer Piedmont (Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar River Basins). October 17, 2000.
Ibid.

____. 2001a. Standard Operating Procedure. Biological Monitoring. Stream Fish
Community Assessment and Fish Tissue. Biological Assessment Unit. Environmental
Sciences Branch. Water Quality Section. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.

____. 2001b. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the
Western and Northern Mountains (French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and
Watauga River Basins). January 05, 2001. Ibid.

USEPA. 2000. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. EPA/822/B-00/025. Office of
Water. Washington, DC.
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040301 Carson Creek6-20b From Carson Creek dam to French
Broad River
S2.8MMilesB Tr
040301 Cherryfield Creek6-11 From source to French Broad River S 4.1M MilesC Tr
040301 Crab Creek6-38-23 From source to Little River S 5.4M MilesC Tr HQW
040301 Flat Creek6-2-10 From source to West Fork French
Broad River
S1.2MMilesC Tr
040301 FRENCH BROAD
RIVER
6-(1) From source to Nicholson Creek S 19.7MMilesB Tr
040301 FRENCH BROAD
RIVER
6-(27)c From Glade Creek to Bryson Creek S 8.8M MilesB
040301 Little River6-38-(20) From Cascade Lake Dam to French
Broad River
S4.9MMilesC
040301 Little River (Cascade
Lake)
6-38-(1) From source to Merrill Creek S 14.8M MilesC Tr
040301 Mason Creek6-11-3 From source to Cherryfield Creek S 2.6MMilesC Tr
040301 Middle Fork French
Broad River
6-5 From source to French Broad River S 4.1M MilesB Tr
040301 Morgan Mill Creek
(Kaiser Lake)
6-10-1a From source to US 64 S 1.7MMilesB Tr
040301 Morgan Mill Creek
(Kaiser Lake)
6-10-1b From US 64 to River Mile 1.92 S 0.2M MilesB Tr
040301 Morgan Mill Creek
(Kaiser Lake)
6-10-1c FromRiver Mile 1.92 to Peter
Weaver Creek
NR 0.1M MilesB Tr
040301 North Fork French
Broad River
6-3-(6.5) From Indian Creek to French Broad
River
S 10.1M MilesB Tr
040301 Peter Weaver Creek6-10a From source to Morgan Mill Creek S 2.3M MilesC Tr
040301 Peter Weaver Creek6-10b From Morgan Mill Creek to French
Broad River
NR 0.8MMilesC Tr
040301 West Fork French
Broad River
6-2-(0.5)a From source to Above trout farms S 1.4M MilesB Tr
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040301Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040301 West Fork French
Broad River
6-2-(0.5)b From Above trout farms to below
trout farm
I 0.6 nutrient enrichment trout farmsMMilesB Tr
040301 West Fork French
Broad River
From Above trout farms to below
trout farm
I 0.6 riparian area loss livestock accessMMilesB Tr
040301 West Fork French
Broad River
6-2-(0.5)c From below trout farm to
Transylvania County SR 1312
S5.0MMilesB Tr
040301 West Fork French
Broad River
6-2-(7.5) From Transylvania County SR 1312
to French Broad River
S4.8MMilesB Tr HQW
040301 Woodruff Branch6-2-12 From source to West Fork French
Broad River
NR 1.5MMilesC Tr
040302 Bat Fork6-55-8-1a From source to State Route 1779 NR 4.8M MilesC
040302 Bat Fork6-55-8-1b From State Route 1779 to Johnson
Drainage Ditch
I 1.5 riparian area loss livestock accessMMilesC
040302 Bat Fork From State Route 1779 to Johnson
Drainage Ditch
I 1.5 toxic impactsMMilesC
040302 Bat Fork From State Route 1779 to Johnson
Drainage Ditch
I 1.5 channelization hydromoMMilesC
040302 Beaverdam Creek6-76-5-8 From source to South Hominy Creek S 6.2M MilesC Tr
040302 Beetree Creek (Beetree
Reservoir)
6-78-15-(1) From source to Asheville Water
Supply Dam
S5.0MMilesWS-I HQW
040302 Bent Creek6-67-(1) From source to Powhatan Dam S 3.5M MilesB Tr
040302 Bent Creek6-67-(7) From Powhatan Dam to French
Broad River
S3.0MMilesB
040302 Bill Moore Creek
(Enka Lake)
6-76-7a From source to backwaters of Enka
Lake
S2.9MMilesC
040302 Boyd Branch6-67-6 From source to Bent Creek S 1.3M MilesC
040302 Cane Creek6-57-(1) From source to Ashworth Creek S 7.4M MilesC Tr
040302 Cane Creek6-57-(9)a From Ashworth Creek to Cushion
Branch
I9.6sedimentationMMilesC
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040302Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040302 Cane Creek6-57-(9)b From Cushion Branch to French
Broad River
S2.4MMilesC
040302 Canie Creek6-76-12 From source to Hominy Creek NR 2.3M MilesC
040302 Christian Creek (Davis
Lake)
6-78-19 From source to Swannanoa River S 4.5M Miles
040302 Clear Creek6-55-11-(1)a From source to Laurel Creek NR 2.7M MilesB Tr
040302 Clear Creek6-55-11-(1)b From Laurel Creek to Puncheon
Camp Creek
S2.5MMilesB Tr
040302 Clear Creek6-55-11-(1)c From Puncheon Camp Creek to
Lewis Creek
I 2.1 riparian area lossMMilesB Tr
040302 Clear Creek From Puncheon Camp Creek to
Lewis Creek
I 2.1 toxic impacts agricultural
activities
MMilesB Tr
040302 Clear Creek From Puncheon Camp Creek to
Lewis Creek
I 2.1 nutrient enrichment agricultural
activities
M MilesB Tr
040302 Clear Creek From Puncheon Camp Creek to
Lewis Creek
I2.1sedimentationMMilesB Tr
040302 Clear Creek6-55-11-(5) From Lewis Creek to Mud Creek I 6.5 nutrient enrichment agricultural
activities
MMilesC
040302 Clear Creek From Lewis Creek to Mud Creek I 6.5 toxic impacts agricultural
activities
M MilesC
040302 Clear Creek From Lewis Creek to Mud Creek I 6.5 sedimentationMMilesC
040302 Clear Creek From Lewis Creek to Mud Creek I 6.5 riparian area lossMMilesC
040302 Cox Creek6-55-11-3a From source to Hickory Acres S 1.5M MilesC Tr
040302 Cox Creek6-55-11-3b From Hickory Acres to Clear Creek NR 1.1MMilesC Tr
040302 Devils Fork6-55-8-2a From source to first unnamed
tributary west of State Route 1006
NR 3.4M MilesC
040302 Devils Fork6-55-8-2b From first unnamed tributary west of
State Route 1006 to Johnson
Drainage Ditch
I 2.7 channelization hydromoMMilesC
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040302Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040302 Devils Fork6-55-8-2b From first unnamed tributary west of
State Route 1006 to Johnson
Drainage Ditch
I2.7sedimentationMMilesC
040302 Devils Fork From first unnamed tributary west of
State Route 1006 to Johnson
Drainage Ditch
I 2.7 toxic impacts agricultural
activities
MMilesC
040302 Flat Creek6-78-6-(4) From Big Piney Branch to
Swannanoa River
S3.0MMilesC
040302 Flat Creek6-88 From source to French Broad River S 11.1M MilesC
040302 FRENCH BROAD
RIVER
6-(27)d From Bryson Creek to Gash Creek S 4.4M MilesB
040302 FRENCH BROAD
RIVER
6-(54.5)b From Mud Creek to NC 146 S 8.2MMilesB
040302 FRENCH BROAD
RIVER
6-(54.5)c From NC 146 to Craggy Dam S 18.3M MilesB
040302 FRENCH BROAD
RIVER
6-(54.5)d From Craggy Dam to Fletcher Martin
Road
I6.4MMilesB
040302 FRENCH BROAD
RIVER
6-(54.5)e From Fletcher Martin Road to
Sandymush Creek
I3.9MMilesB
040302 Gash Creek6-47 From source to French Broad River NR 3.7M MilesC
040302 Grassy Branch6-78-20 From source to Swannanoa River NR 4.2M MilesC
040302 Harper Creek6-55-11-11 From source to Clear Creek S 2.6M MilesB Tr
040302 Haw Creek6-78-22 From source to Swannanoa River NR 4.6M MilesC
040302 Hominy Creek6-76a From source to George Branch S 9.7MMilesC
040302 Hominy Creek6-76b From George Branch to South
Hominy Creek
S3.1MMilesC
040302 Hominy Creek6-76c From South Hominy Creek to Moore
Creek
S3.3MMilesC
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040302Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040302 Hominy Creek6-76d From Moore Creek to French Broad
River
I 7.8 toxic impactsMMilesC
040302 Hominy Creek From Moore Creek to French Broad
River
I 7.8 riparian area lossMMilesC
040302 Hominy Creek From Moore Creek to French Broad
River
I7.8stream bank erosionMMilesC
040302 King Creek [McCabe
Pond, Jordans Lake,
Bonclarken Lake,
Madonna Lake
(Highlands Lake)]
6-55-8-1-2-(1) From source to Madonna Lake Dam NR 4.8M MilesB
040302 Kyles Creek6-55-11-8 From source to Clear Creek NR 4.1M MilesC Tr
040302 Laurel Fork6-55-11-2 From source to Clear Creek S 2.3M MilesC Tr
040302 Mill Creek6-55-11-7 From source to Clear Creek NR 2.4M MilesC
040302 Mill Pond Creek6-51 From source to French Broad River NR 3.1MMilesWS-IV
040302 Moore Creek6-76-8 From source to Hominy Creek NR 3.2M MilesC
040302 Mud Creek6-55a From source to State Route 1125 S 2.4M MilesC
040302 Mud Creek6-55b From State Route 1125 to Little
Mud Creek
NR 1.9M MilesC
040302 Mud Creek6-55c From Little Mud Creek to Byers
Creek
I 11.0 nutrient enrichment agricultural
activities
M MilesC
040302 Mud Creek From Little Mud Creek to Byers
Creek
I 11.0 channelization hydromoMMilesC
040302 Mud Creek From Little Mud Creek to Byers
Creek
I 11.0 toxic impacts agricultural
activities
M MilesC
040302 Mud Creek From Little Mud Creek to Byers
Creek
I 11.0 low dissolved oxygen agricultural
activities
M MilesC
040302 Mud Creek From Little Mud Creek to Byers
Creek
I 11.0 scourMMilesC
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040302Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040302 Mud Creek6-55c From Little Mud Creek to Byers
Creek
I 11.0 riparian area lossMMilesC
040302 Mud Creek From Little Mud Creek to Byers
Creek
I 11.0 sedimentationMMilesC
040302 Mud Creek6-55d From Byers Creek to French Broad
River
I2.2sedimentationMMilesC
040302 Mud Creek From Byers Creek to French Broad
River
I 2.2 nutrient enrichment agricultural
activities
M MilesC
040302 Mud Creek From Byers Creek to French Broad
River
I 2.2 channelization hydromoMMilesC
040302 Mud Creek From Byers Creek to French Broad
River
I 2.2 toxic impacts agricultural
activities
M MilesC
040302 Mud Creek From Byers Creek to French Broad
River
I 2.2 scourMMilesC
040302 Mud Creek From Byers Creek to French Broad
River
I 2.2 riparian area lossMMilesC
040302 Mud Creek From Byers Creek to French Broad
River
I 2.2 low dissolved oxygen agricultural
activities
M MilesC
040302 Newfound Creek6-84a From source to SR 1296 I 3.9 nutrient enrichment agricultural
activities
MMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From source to SR 1296 I 3.9 riparian area lossMMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From source to SR 1296 I 3.9 stream bank erosionMMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From source to SR 1296 I 3.9 embedded substratesMMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek6-84b From State Route 1296 to SR 1297 I 1.3 nutrient enrichment agricultural
activities
M MilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From State Route 1296 to SR 1297 I 1.3 stream bank erosionMMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From State Route 1296 to SR 1297 I 1.3 riparian area lossMMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From State Route 1296 to SR 1297 I 1.3 embedded substratesMMilesC
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040302Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040302 Newfound Creek6-84c From State Route 1297to State Route
1378
I 2.3 nutrient enrichment agricultural
activities
M MilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From State Route 1297to State Route
1378
I2.3stream bank erosionMMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From State Route 1297to State Route
1378
I 2.3 embedded substratesMMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From State Route 1297to State Route
1378
I 2.3 riparian area lossMMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek6-84d From State Route 1378 to Dix Creek I 4.4 stream bank erosionMMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From State Route 1378 to Dix Creek I 4.4 nutrient enrichment agricultural
activities
MMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From State Route 1378 to Dix Creek I 4.4 embedded substratesMMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek From State Route 1378 to Dix Creek I 4.4 riparian area lossMMilesC
040302 Newfound Creek6-84e From Dix Creek to French Broad
River
S1.7MMilesC
040302 North Fork Swannanoa
River
6-78-11-(13) From Asheville Water Supply Dam
to Swannanoa River
S5.3MMilesC
040302 Pole Creek6-76-6 From source to Hominy Creek NR 5.3MMilesC
040302 Reems Creek6-87-(1) From source to U.S. Highway 23 S 10.2M MilesC Tr
040302 Reems Creek6-87-(10) From U.S. Highway 23 Bridge to
French Broad River
S4.5MMilesC
040302 Ross Creek (Lake
Kenilworth)
6-78-23a From source to I-240 S 2.6M MilesB
040302 Ross Creek (Lake
Kenilworth)
6-78-23b From I-240 to backwaters of Lake
Kenilworth
NR 1.1M MilesB
040302 Ross Creek (Lake
Kenilworth)
6-78-23c Lake Kenilworth NR 12.0MAcresB
040302 Sandymush Creek6-92-(1) From source to Little Sandymush
Creek
S9.8MMilesC Tr
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040302Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040302 Sandymush Creek6-92-(9) From Little Sandymush Creek to
French Broad River
S 10.7M MilesC
040302 South Hominy Creek6-76-5 From source to Hominy Creek S 12.4M MilesC Tr
040302 Stony Fork6-76-5-3 From source to South Hominy Creek S 4.5M MilesC Tr
040302 Swannanoa River6-78a From source to North Fork
Swannanoa River
I 7.0 riparian area lossMMilesC
040302 Swannanoa River From source to North Fork
Swannanoa River
I7.0sedimentationurban
development
MMilesC
040302 Swannanoa River From source to North Fork
Swannanoa River
I 7.0 toxic impactsMMilesC
040302 Swannanoa River From source to North Fork
Swannanoa River
I 7.0 nutrient enrichment urban
development
MMilesC
040302 Swannanoa River From source to North Fork
Swannanoa River
I 7.0 channelization hydromo urban
development
M MilesC
040302 Swannanoa River6-78b From North Fork Swannanoa River
to Beetree Creek
S4.6MMilesC
040302 Swannanoa River6-78c From Beetree Creek to Bull Creek I 2.6 riparian area lossMMilesC
040302 Swannanoa River From Beetree Creek to Bull Creek I 2.6 nutrient enrichment urban
development
MMilesC
040302 Swannanoa River From Beetree Creek to Bull Creek I 2.6 sedimentation urban
development
M MilesC
040302 Swannanoa River From Beetree Creek to Bull Creek I 2.6 channelization hydromo urban
development
M MilesC
040302 Swannanoa River6-78d From Bull Creek to French Broad
River
S 11.5M MilesC
040302 Sweeten Creek
(Busbee Reservoir)
6-78-24 From source to Swannanoa River NR 3.8M MilesC
040302 Turkey Creek6-92-13 From source to Sandymush Creek S 9.1M MilesC
040302 Warren Creek6-76-5-4 From source to South Hominy Creek S 3.5M MilesC Tr
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040302Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040302 Webb Branch6-76-4 From source to Hominy Creek NR 3.8M MilesC
040302 Wesley Creek (Bent
Creek Ranch Lake)
6-67-10 From source to Bent Creek S 1.9M MilesB
040303 Boylston Creek6-52-(6.5) From a point 0.3 mile upstream of
Murray Branch to French Broad
River
S6.1MMilesWS-IV
040303 Bradley Creek6-54-3-17-(4.5 From Hendersonville Water Supply
Dam to South Fork Mills River
S2.5MMilesWS-II ORW
040303 Davidson River6-34-(1) From source to Looking Glass Creek S 5.4M MilesWS-V&B Tr H
040303 Davidson River6-34-(15.5) From Avery Creek to proposed
Davidson River Flats Recreation
Area sewage effluent outfall
S0.2MMilesWS-V&B Tr
040303 Davidson River6-34-(17) From proposed Davidson River Flats
Recreation Area Sewage effluent
outfall to Olin Corporation Water
Supply Dam
S3.3MMilesWS-V&B Tr
040303 Mills River6-54-(1)a From source to River Mile 1.03 S 1.0M MilesWS-II Tr HQW
040303 Mills River6-54-(1)b From River Mile 1.03 to a point 0.5
mile upstream of N.C. Hwy. 191
S1.8MMilesWS-II Tr HQW
040303 Mills River6-54-(4.5) From a point 0.5 mile upstream of
N.C. Hwy. 191 to City of
Hendersonville water supply intake
located 0.1 mile downstream of N.C.
Hwy. l91
S0.7MMilesWS-II Tr HQW
040303 Mills River6-54-(5) From City of Hendersonville water
supply intake to a point 0.7 mile
upstream of mouth of Mills River
S1.8MMilesWS-III
040303 Mills River6-54-(6.5) From a point 0.7 mile upstream of
mouth of Mills River to French
Broad River
S0.7MMilesWS-III CA
040303 North Fork Mills River6-54-2-(4) From Hendersonville Water Supply
Dam to Rocky Fork
S2.9MMilesWS-II Tr HQW
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040303Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040303 North Fork Mills River6-54-2-(9) From North Fork Mills River
Recreation Area Swimming Pool
Intake to Mills River
S2.5MMilesWS-II Tr HQW
040303 South Fork Mills River6-54-3-(17.5) From the upstream side of mouth of
Queen Creek to Mills River
S4.2MMilesWS-II Tr HQW
040304 Big Branch6-96-10-5 From source to Little Ivy Creek NR 2.9MMilesWS-II HQW
040304 Big Laurel Creek6-112 From source to French Broad River S 30.8MMilesC Tr
040304 Bull Creek6-96-16 From source to Ivy Creek S 3.8M MilesC
040304 California Creek6-96-10-2a From source to Sprinkle Creek S 3.6M MilesWS-II HQW
040304 California Creek6-96-10-2b From Sprinke Creek to Little Ivy
Creek
NR 3.8M MilesWS-II HQW
040304 Cold Spring Branch6-112-26-13-1 From source to Allen Creek NR 1.4M MilesC
040304 FRENCH BROAD
RIVER
6-(54.5)f From Sandymush Creek to North
Carolina-Tennessee State Line
S 33.1M MilesB
040304 Ivy Creek (River)6-96-(0.5) From source to Adkins Branch S 7.4M MilesWS-II HQW
040304 Ivy Creek (River)6-96-(11.3) From Adkins Branch to a point 0.6
mile downstream of Adkins Branch
(Town of Mars Hill water supply
intake)
S0.5MMilesWS-II HQW C
040304 Ivy Creek (River)6-96-(11.7) From a point 0.6 mile downstream of
Adkins Branch to French Broad River
S 10.5M MilesC
040304 Little Ivy Creek (River)6-96-10a From California Creek to State Route
1547
I2.6sedimentationMMilesWS-II HQW
040304 Little Ivy Creek (River) From California Creek to State Route
1547
I 2.6 nutrient enrichment agricultural
activities
M MilesWS-II HQW
040304 Little Ivy Creek (River) From California Creek to State Route
1547
I 2.6 toxic impacts agricultural
activities
M MilesWS-II HQW
040304 Little Ivy Creek (River)6-96-10b From State Route 1547 to Ivy Creek S 2.1M MilesWS-II HQW
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040304Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040304 Middle Fork Little Ivy
Creek
6-96-10-1a From source to Bailey Branch S 3.5M MilesWS-II HQW
040304 Middle Fork Little Ivy
Creek
6-96-10-1b From Bailey Branch to Little Ivy
Creek
NR 2.1M MilesWS-II HQW
040304 Paint Fork6-96-10-3 From source to Little Ivy Creek S 7.1M MilesWS-II HQW
040304 Puncheon Fork6-112-5 From source to Big Laurel Creek S 5.2M MilesC Tr
040304 Shelton Laurel Creek6-112-26 From source to Big Laurel Creek S 14.8M MilesC Tr
040304 Spring Creek6-118-(1) From source to Reservoir Branch S 20.3M MilesC Tr
040304 Spring Creek6-118-(27) From Reservoir Branch to French
Broad River
S1.7MMilesC
040305 Cataloochee Creek5-41 From source to Walters Lake, Pigeon
River
S8.1MMilesC Tr ORW
040305 Cherry Cove Creek5-16-7-2 From source to Allen Creek NR 2.5M MilesWS-I HQW
040305 Chestnut Branch5-59-22 From source to Big Creek S 3.3MMilesC Tr HQW
040305 Crabtree Creek5-22 From source to Pigeon River S 3.3MMilesC
040305 East Fork Pigeon River5-3-(6.5) From a point 0.5 miles upstream of
Bee Branch to Pigeon River
S 13.0MMilesWS-III Tr
040305 Factory Branch5-16-15 From source to Lake Junaluska
Richland Creek
NR 2.4M MilesB
040305 Farmer Branch5-16-11 From source to Richland Creek NR 2.9M MilesB
040305 Fines Creek5-32 From source to Pigeon River I 9.7 nutrient enrichment agricultural
activities
M MilesC
040305 Hurricane Creek5-44 From source to Pigeon River S 5.4MMilesC Tr
040305 Hyatt Creek5-16-6a From source to State Route 1159 NR 0.9MMilesC
040305 Hyatt Creek5-16-6b From State Route 1159 to Richland
Creek
S2.6MMilesC
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040305Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040305 Jonathans Creek5-26-(7) From a point 0.4 mile downstream of
Fie Creek to Pigeon River
S 14.6M MilesC Tr
040305 Medford Branch5-16-8-1 From source to Browning Branch NR 1.8M MilesC
040305 Nolen Creek5-16-4 From source to Richland Creek S 1.8M MilesC
040305 Old Bald Creek5-16-7-6 From source to Allen Creek NR 2.4MMilesWS-I HQW
040305 PIGEON RIVER5-(1) From source to Garden Creek S 4.8MMilesWS-III Tr
040305 PIGEON RIVER5-(6.5) From Garden Creek to Canton Water
Intake
S0.8MMilesWS-III Tr CA
040305 PIGEON RIVER
(Waterville Lake below
elevation 2258)
5-(7)a From Canton Water Supply Intake to
0.15 miles downstream of W. Park St.
S0.5MMilesC
040305 PIGEON RIVER
(Waterville Lake below
elevation 2258)
5-(7)b From 0.15 miles downstream of W.
Park St to State Route 1642 (Main
Street)
I 6.4 toxic impactsMMilesC
040305 PIGEON RIVER
(Waterville Lake below
elevation 2258)
5-(7)d From Crabtree Creek to White Oak
Road
S7.2MMilesC
040305 PIGEON RIVER
(Waterville Lake below
elevation 2258)
5-(7)e From White Oak Road to Waterville
Reservoir Dam
NR 773.1 dioxin fish tissueMAcresC
040305 PIGEON RIVER
(Waterville Lake below
elevation 2258)
5-(7)f From Waterville Reservoir Dam to
North Carolina/Tennessee State line
S 12.0M MilesC
040305 Raccoon Creek5-16-14 From source to Richland Creek I 4.7 stream bank erosionMMilesB
040305 Raccoon Creek From source to Richland Creek I 4.7 riparian area lossMMilesB
040305 Richland Creek5-16-(16)a From Lake Junaluska Dam to Jones
Cove Branch
I 1.6 riparian area lossMMilesB
040305 Richland Creek5-16-(16)b From Jones Cove Branch to Pigeon
River
S0.7MMilesC
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040305Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
5-16-(1)a From source to US Route 23 NR 8.0M MilesB
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
5-16-(1)b From US Route 23 to Boyd Ave I 2.3 riparian area lossMMilesB
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
5-16-(1)c From Boyd Ave to Depot Street I 0.7 riparian area lossMMilesB
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
5-16-(1)d From Depot Street to Shelton Branch S 0.9M MilesB
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
5-16-(1)e From Shelton Branch to backwater
of Lake Junaluska
I 2.0 riparian area lossMMilesB
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
5-16-(1)f Lake Junaluska I 200.0 algal bloomsMAcresB
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
Lake Junaluska I 200.0 sedimentationMAcresB
040305 Rocky Branch5-16-7-9-(1) From source to dam at Old
Waynesville Reservoir
NR 2.2M MilesC HQW
040305 Rocky Branch5-16-7-9-(2) From dam at Old Waynesville
Reservoir to Allen Creek
NR 0.2M MilesC
040305 Rough Creek5-8-4-(2) From Canton Reservoir to
Beaverdam Creek
S1.2MMilesC HQW
040305 Shelton Branch5-16-13 From source to Richland Creek NR 2.7M MilesB
040305 Shiny Creek5-16-7-3 From source to Allen Creek NR 2.9M MilesWS-I HQW
040305 West Fork Pigeon
River (Lake Logan)
5-2a From source to backwaters of Lake
Logan
S7.8MMilesWS-III Tr
040305 Winchester Creek5-16-3 From source to Richland Creek NR 2.5MMilesC
040306 Big Crabtree Creek
(Crabtree Creek)
7-2-48 From source to North Toe River S 14.6M MilesC Tr
040306 Big Rock Creek7-2-64 From source to North Toe River S 13.9M MilesC Tr
040306 Jacks Creek7-2-63 From source to North Toe River I 8.5 riparian area lossMMilesC
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040306Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
040306 Jacks Creek7-2-63 From source to North Toe River I 8.5 algal bloomsMMilesC
040306 Little Crabtree Creek7-2-52-33 From source to South Toe River S 6.3M MilesC Tr
040306 NOLICHUCKY
RIVER
7 From source to North Carolina-
Tennessee State Line
S 10.0M MilesB
040306 North Toe River7-2-(0.5) From source to a point 0.2 mile
upstream of Pyatt Creek
S 22.0M MilesWS-V Tr
040306 North Toe River7-2-(21.5) From a point 0.2 mile upstream of
Pyatt Creek to a point 0.5 mile
upstream of U.S. Hwy. 19E
S9.4MMilesWS-IV Tr
040306 North Toe River7-2-(27.7)b From Grassy Creek to South Toe
River
I 11.3 turbidityMMilesC Tr
040306 North Toe River From Grassy Creek to South Toe
River
I 11.3 riparian area lossMMilesC Tr
040306 North Toe River7-2-(27.7)c From South Toe River to Nolichucky
River
S 24.8M MilesB Tr
040306 Pigeonroost Creek7-2-69 From source to North Toe River S 7.1M MilesC Tr
040306 Right Fork Cane Creek7-2-59-1 From source to Cane Creek S 1.2M MilesC Tr
040306 Roaring Creek7-2-15 From source to North Toe River S 4.9M MilesWS-V Tr
040306 South Toe River7-2-52-(1) From source to U.S. Hwy. 19E S 25.9M Miles
040307 Bald Mountain Creek7-3-32 From source to Cane River S 8.0M MilesC Tr
040307 Banks Creek7-3-21-4 From source to Price Creek S 4.2M MilesC Tr
040307 Cane River7-3-(13.7)a From Town of Burnsville water
supply intake to Big Creek
S 21.6M MilesC Tr
040307 Cane River7-3-(13.7)b From Big Creek to North Toe River I 3.5 turbidityMMilesC Tr
040307 Price Creek7-3-21 From source to Cane River S 8.0M MilesC Tr
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040307Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Rating Length/Area Stressor SourceBasisClass
Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters in the French Broad River Basin
S = Supporting
I = Impaired
NR = Not Rated
Notes
Rating = Use Support Rating
Basis = Rating Basis
Monday, July 25, 2005 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings 040307Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Class LengthArea Rating Basis
Recreation Use Support Ratings French Broad River Basin
040301 FRENCH BROAD RIVER 6-(1) From source to Nicholson Creek B Tr 19.7 S MMiles
040301 FRENCH BROAD RIVER 6-(27)c From Glade Creek to Bryson Creek B 8.8 S MMiles
040301 Little River (Cascade Lake) 6-38-(1) From source to Merrill Creek C Tr 14.8 S MMiles
040302 Beetree Creek (Beetree
Reservoir)
6-78-15-(1) From source to Asheville Water Supply Dam WS-I HQW 5.0 S MMiles
040302 FRENCH BROAD RIVER 6-(27)d From Bryson Creek to Gash Creek B 4.4 S MMiles
040302 FRENCH BROAD RIVER 6-(54.5)b From Mud Creek to NC 146 B 8.2 I MMiles
040302 FRENCH BROAD RIVER 6-(54.5)c From NC 146 to Craggy Dam B 18.3 S MMiles
040302 FRENCH BROAD RIVER 6-(54.5)d From Craggy Dam to Fletcher Martin Road B 6.4 S MMiles
040302 FRENCH BROAD RIVER 6-(54.5)e From Fletcher Martin Road to Sandymush Creek B 3.9 S MMiles
040302 Hominy Creek 6-76d From Moore Creek to French Broad River C 7.8 S MMiles
040302 Hominy Creek 6-76d From Moore Creek to French Broad River C 7.8 S MMiles
040302 Hominy Creek 6-76d From Moore Creek to French Broad River C 7.8 S MMiles
040302 Mud Creek 6-55c From Little Mud Creek to Byers Creek C 11.0 S MMiles
040302 Mud Creek 6-55c From Little Mud Creek to Byers Creek C 11.0 S MMiles
040302 Mud Creek 6-55c From Little Mud Creek to Byers Creek C 11.0 S MMiles
040302 Mud Creek 6-55c From Little Mud Creek to Byers Creek C 11.0 S MMiles
040302 Mud Creek 6-55c From Little Mud Creek to Byers Creek C 11.0 S MMiles
040302 Mud Creek 6-55c From Little Mud Creek to Byers Creek C 11.0 S MMiles
040302 Mud Creek 6-55c From Little Mud Creek to Byers Creek C 11.0 S MMiles
040302 Swannanoa River 6-78d From Bull Creek to French Broad River C 11.5 S MMiles
040303 Davidson River 6-34-(17) From proposed Davidson River Flats Recreation Area Sewage
effluent outfall to Olin Corporation Water Supply Dam
WS-V&B Tr 3.3 S MMiles
Monday, July 25, 2005 Recreation Use Support Ratings 040303Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Class LengthArea Rating Basis
Recreation Use Support Ratings French Broad River Basin
040303 Mills River 6-54-(1)b From River Mile 1.03 to a point 0.5 mile upstream of N.C.
Hwy. 191
WS-II Tr HQ 1.8 S MMiles
040304 FRENCH BROAD RIVER 6-(54.5)f From Sandymush Creek to North Carolina-Tennessee State
Line
B 33.1 S MMiles
040305 Cataloochee Creek 5-41 From source to Walters Lake, Pigeon River C Tr ORW 8.1 S MMiles
040305 Jonathans Creek 5-26-(7) From a point 0.4 mile downstream of Fie Creek to Pigeon
River
C Tr 14.6 S MMiles
040305 PIGEON RIVER 5-(1) From source to Garden Creek WS-III Tr 4.8 S MMiles
040305 PIGEON RIVER 5-(6.5) From Garden Creek to Canton Water Intake WS-III Tr CA 0.8 S MMiles
040305 PIGEON RIVER (Waterville
Lake below elevation 2258)
5-(7)b From 0.15 miles downstream of W. Park St to State Route
1642 (Main Street)
C6.4SMMiles
040305 PIGEON RIVER (Waterville
Lake below elevation 2258)
5-(7)d From Crabtree Creek to White Oak Road C 7.2 S MMiles
040305 PIGEON RIVER (Waterville
Lake below elevation 2258)
5-(7)f From Waterville Reservoir Dam to North Carolina/Tennessee
State line
C 12.0 S MMiles
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
5-16-(1)a From source to US Route 23 B 8.0 I MMiles
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
5-16-(1)b From US Route 23 to Boyd Ave B 2.3 I MMiles
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
5-16-(1)c From Boyd Ave to Depot Street B 0.7 I MMiles
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
5-16-(1)d From Depot Street to Shelton Branch B 0.9 I MMiles
040305 Richland Creek (Lake
Junaluska)
5-16-(1)e From Shelton Branch to backwater of Lake Junaluska B 2.0 I MMiles
040305 West Fork Pigeon River
(Lake Logan)
5-2a From source to backwaters of Lake Logan WS-III Tr 7.8 S MMiles
040306 NOLICHUCKY RIVER 7 From source to North Carolina-Tennessee State Line B 10.0 S MMiles
040306 North Toe River 7-2-(0.5) From source to a point 0.2 mile upstream of Pyatt Creek WS-V Tr 22.0 S MMiles
Monday, July 25, 2005 Recreation Use Support Ratings 040306Subbasin
Subbasin Name
Assessment
Unit #Description Class LengthArea Rating Basis
Recreation Use Support Ratings French Broad River Basin
040306 North Toe River 7-2-(21.5) From a point 0.2 mile upstream of Pyatt Creek to a point 0.5
mile upstream of U.S. Hwy. 19E
WS-IV Tr 9.4 S MMiles
040306 North Toe River 7-2-(27.7)b From Grassy Creek to South Toe River C Tr 11.3 S MMiles
040306 North Toe River 7-2-(27.7)b From Grassy Creek to South Toe River C Tr 11.3 S MMiles
040306 South Toe River 7-2-52-(1) From source to U.S. Hwy. 19E 25.9 S MMiles
040307 Cane River 7-3-(13.7)a From Town of Burnsville water supply intake to Big Creek C Tr 21.6 S MMiles
Notes
Rating= Use Support Rating
Basis= Rating Basis
The stressor for the recreation category is fecal coliform bacteria.
S=Supporting
I=Impaired
NR=Not Rated
Monday, July 25, 2005 Recreation Use Support Ratings 040307Subbasin

Appendix XI

Glossary
of
Terms and Acronyms

Appendices

Glossary

§ Section.
30Q2 The minimum average flow for a period of 30 days that has an average recurrence of one in
two years.
7Q10 The annual minimum 7-day consecutive low flow, which on average will be exceeded in 9
out of 10 years.
B (Class B) Class B Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C. Primary recreational activities
include frequent and/or organized swimming and other human contact such as skin diving
and water skiing.
balds Balds are high elevation areas where soils can support a diverse tree population; however,
there are no trees present. Grassy balds are dominated by herbaceous plant species. Heath
balds are dominated by dense shrub communities. Definition provided by the NC Natural
Heritage Program (www.ncnhp.org).
basin The watershed of a major river system. There are 17 major river basins in North Carolina.
benthic Aquatic organisms, visible to the naked eye (macro) and lacking a backbone (invertebrate),
macroinvertebrates that live in or on the bottom of rivers and streams (benthic). Examples include, but are not
limited to, aquatic insect larvae, mollusks and various types of worms. Some of these
organisms, especially aquatic insect larvae, are used to assess water quality. See EPT index
and bioclassification for more information.
benthos A term for bottom-dwelling aquatic organisms.
best management Techniques that are determined to be currently effective, practical means of preventing or
practices reducing pollutants from point and nonpoint sources, in order to protect water quality.
BMPs include, but are not limited to: structural and nonstructural controls, operation and
maintenance procedures, and other practices. Often, BMPs are applied as system of
practices and not just one at a time.
bioclassification A rating of water quality based on the outcome of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling of a
stream. There are five levels: Poor, Fair, Good-Fair, Good and Excellent.
BMPs See best management practices.
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the
decomposition of biological matter or chemical reactions in the water column. Most
NPDES discharge permits include a limit on the amount of BOD that may be discharged.
C (Class C) Class C Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and
others uses.
CAMA Coastal Area Management Act
channelization The physical alteration of streams and rivers by widening, deepening or straightening of the
channel, large-scale removal of natural obstructions, and/or lining the bed or banks with
rock or other resistant materials.
chlorophyll a A chemical constituent in plants that gives them their green color. High levels of
chlorophyll a in a waterbody, most often in a pond, lake or estuary, usually indicate a large
amount of algae resulting from nutrient overenrichment or eutrophication.
coastal counties Twenty counties in eastern NC subject to requirements of the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). They include: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan,
Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico,
Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington.
Coastal Plain One of three major physiographic regions in North Carolina. Encompasses the eastern
two-fifths of state east of the fall line (approximated by Interstate I-95).
A-XI-1

conductivity A measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. It is dependent on the
concentration of dissolved ions such as sodium, chloride, nitrates, phosphates and metals in
solution.
degradation The lowering of the physical, chemical or biological quality of a waterbody caused by
pollution or other sources of stress.
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
DO Dissolved oxygen.
drainage area An alternate name for a watershed.
DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality, an agency of DENR.
dystrophic Naturally acidic (low pH), "black-water" lakes which are rich in organic matter.
Dystrophic lakes usually have low productivity because most fish and aquatic plants are
stressed by low pH water. In North Carolina, dystrophic lakes are scattered throughout the
Coastal Plain and Sandhills regions and are often located in marshy areas or overlying peat
deposits. NCTSI scores are not appropriate for evaluating dystrophic lakes.
EEP Ecosystem Enhancement Program
effluent The treated liquid discharged from a wastewater treatment plant.
EMC Environmental Management Commission.
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency.
EPT Index This index is used to judge water quality based on the abundance and variety of three
orders of pollution sensitive aquatic insect larvae: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies).
eutrophic Elevated biological productivity related to an abundance of available nutrients. Eutrophic
lakes may be so productive that the potential for water quality problems such as algal
blooms, nuisance aquatic plant growth and fish kills may occur.
eutrophication The process of physical, chemical or biological changes in a lake associated with nutrient,
organic matter and silt enrichment of a waterbody. The corresponding excessive algal
growth can deplete dissolved oxygen and threaten certain forms of aquatic life, cause
unsightly scums on the water surface and result in taste and odor problems.
fall line A geologic landscape feature that defines the line between the piedmont and coastal plain
regions. It is most evident as the last set of small rapids or rock outcroppings that occur on
rivers flowing from the piedmont to the coast.
FS Fully supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that fully supports its designated uses and
generally has good or excellent water quality.
GIS Geographic Information System. An organized collection of computer hardware, software,
geographic data and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate,
analyze and display all forms of geographically referenced information.
habitat degradation Identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or change in habitat
quality. This term includes sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian
vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour.
headwaters Small streams that converge to form a larger stream in a watershed.
HQW High Quality Waters. A supplemental surface water classification.
HU Hydrologic unit. See definition below.
Hydrilla The genus name of an aquatic plant - often considered an aquatic weed.
hydrologic unit A watershed area defined by a national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council. This system divides the country into 21 regions, 222
subregions, 352 accounting units and 2,149 cataloging units. A hierarchical code
consisting of two digits for each of the above four levels combined to form an eight-digit
hydrologic unit (cataloging unit). An eight-digit hydrologic unit generally covers an
average of 975 square miles. There are 54 eight-digit hydrologic (or cataloging) units in
North Carolina. These units have been further subdivided into eleven and fourteen-digit
units.
A-XI-2

hypereutrophic Extremely elevated biological productivity related to excessive nutrient availability.
Hypereutrophic lakes exhibit frequent algal blooms, episodes of low dissolved oxygen or
periods when no oxygen is present in the water, fish kills and excessive aquatic plant
growth.
impaired Term that applies to a waterbody that has a use support rating of partially supporting (PS)
or not supporting (NS) its uses.
impervious Incapable of being penetrated by water; non-porous.
kg Kilograms. To change kilograms to pounds multiply by 2.2046.
lbs Pounds. To change pounds to kilograms multiply by 0.4536.
loading Mass rate of addition of pollutants to a waterbody (e.g., kg/yr)
macroinvertebrates Animals large enough to be seen by the naked eye (macro) and lacking backbones
(invertebrate).
macrophyte An aquatic plant large enough to be seen by the naked eye.
mesotrophic Moderate biological productivity related to intermediate concentrations of available
nutrients. Mesotrophic lakes show little, if any, signs of water quality degradation while
supporting a good diversity of aquatic life.
MGD Million gallons per day.
mg/l Milligrams per liter (approximately 0.00013 oz/gal).
NCIBI North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity. A measure of the community health of a
population of fish in a given waterbody.
NH3-N Ammonia nitrogen.
nonpoint source A source of water pollution generally associated with rainfall runoff or snowmelt. The
quality and rate of runoff of NPS pollution is strongly dependent on the type of land cover
and land use from which the rainfall runoff flows. For example, rainfall runoff from
forested lands will generally contain much less pollution and runoff more slowly than
runoff from urban lands.
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NPS Nonpoint source.
NR Not rated. A waterbody that is not rated for use support due to insufficient data.
NS Not supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that does not support its designated uses
and has poor water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and NS are called
impaired.
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended for waters
needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Waters classified as NSW include the Neuse, Tar-
Pamlico and Chowan River basins; the New River watershed in the White Oak basin; and
the watershed of B. Everett Jordan Reservoir (including the entire Haw River watershed).
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units. The units used to quantify turbidity using a turbidimeter.
This method is based on a comparison of the intensity of light scattered by the sample
under defined conditions with the intensity of the light scattered by a standard reference
suspension under the same conditions.
oligotrophic Low biological productivity related to very low concentrations of available nutrients.
Oligotrophic lakes in North Carolina are generally found in the mountain region or in
undisturbed (natural) watersheds and have very good water quality.
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended to
protect unique and special resource waters having excellent water quality and being of
exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance. No new or expanded
wastewater treatment plants are allowed, and there are associated stormwater runoff
controls enforced by DWQ.
A-XI-3

pH A measure of the concentration of free hydrogen ions on a scale ranging from 0 to 14.
Values below 7 and approaching 0 indicate increasing acidity, whereas values above 7 and
approaching 14 indicate a more basic solution.
phytoplankton Aquatic microscopic plant life, such as algae, that are common in ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries.
Piedmont One of three major physiographic regions in the state. Encompasses most of central North
Carolina from the Coastal Plain region (near I-95) to the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge
Mountains region.
PS Partially supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that only partially supports its
designated uses and has fair water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and
NS are called impaired.
riparian zone Vegetated corridor immediately adjacent to a stream or river. See also SMZ.
river basin The watershed of a major river system. North Carolina is divided into 17 major river
basins: Broad, Cape Fear, Catawba, Chowan, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee,
Lumber, Neuse, New, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Savannah, Tar-Pamlico, Watauga, White Oak
and Yadkin River basins.
river system The main body of a river, its tributary streams and surface water impoundments.
runoff Rainfall that does not evaporate or infiltrate the ground, but instead flows across land and
into waterbodies.
SA Class SA Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters that have sufficient
water quality to support commercial shellfish harvesting.
SB Class SB Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality for frequent and/or organized swimming or other human contact.
SC Class SC Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality to support secondary recreation and aquatic life propagation and survival.
sedimentation The sinking and deposition of waterborne particles (e.g., eroded soil, algae and dead
organisms).
seeps Seeps are areas that remain wet due to groundwater seepage. The plant community
generally consists of a dense bed of wetland herbs.
silviculture Care and cultivation of forest trees; forestry.
SOC Special Order by Consent. An agreement between the Environmental Management
Commission and a permitted discharger found responsible for causing or contributing to
surface water pollution. The SOC stipulates actions to be taken to alleviate the pollution
within a defined time. The SOC typically includes relaxation of permit limits for particular
parameters, while the facility completes the prescribed actions. SOCs are only issued to
facilities where the cause of pollution is not operational in nature (i.e., physical changes to
the wastewater treatment plant are necessary to achieve compliance).
streamside The area left along streams to protect streams from sediment and other pollutants, protect
management streambeds, and provide shade and woody debris for aquatic organisms.
zone (SMZ)
subbasin A designated subunit or subwatershed area of a major river basin. Subbasins typically
encompass the watersheds of significant streams or lakes within a river basin. Every river
basin is subdivided into subbasins ranging from one subbasin in the Watauga River basin
to 24 subbasins in the Cape Fear River basin. There are 133 subbasins statewide. These
subbasins are not a part of the national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council (see hydrologic unit).
Sw Swamp Waters. A supplemental surface water classification denoting waters that have
naturally occurring low pH, low dissolved oxygen and low velocities. These waters are
common in the Coastal Plain and are often naturally discolored giving rise to their
nickname of “blackwater” streams.
TMDL Total maximum daily load. The amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can
assimilate and maintain its uses and water quality standards.
A-XI-4

A-XI-5
TN Total nitrogen.
TP Total phosphorus.
tributary A stream that flows into a larger stream, river or other waterbody.
trophic classification Trophic classification is a relative description of a lake's biological productivity, which is
the ability of the lake to support algal growth, fish populations and aquatic plants. The
productivity of a lake is determined by a number of chemical and physical characteristics,
including the availability of essential plant nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), algal
growth and the depth of light penetration. Lakes are classified according to productivity:
unproductive lakes are termed "oligotrophic"; moderately productive lakes are termed
"mesotrophic"; and very productive lakes are termed "eutrophic".
TSS Total Suspended Solids.
turbidity An expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather
than transmitted in straight lines through a sample. All particles in the water that may
scatter or absorb light are measured during this procedure. Suspended sediment, aquatic
organisms and organic particles such as pieces of leaves contribute to instream turbidity.
UT Unnamed tributary.
watershed The region, or land area, draining into a body of water (such as a creek, stream, river, pond,
lake, bay or sound). A watershed may vary in size from several acres for a small stream or
pond to thousands of square miles for a major river system. The watershed of a major river
system is referred to as a basin or river basin.
WET Whole effluent toxicity. The aggregate toxic effect of a wastewater measured directly by
an aquatic toxicity test.
WS Class WS Water Supply Water Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters used
as sources of water supply. There are five WS categories. These range from WS-I, which
provides the highest level of protection, to WS-V, which provides no categorical
restrictions on watershed development or wastewater discharges like WS-I through WS-IV.
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant