Chapter 1 Subbasin 05-07-01

Chapter 1
New River Subbasin 05-07-01
Including the: South Fork New River, East and Middle Fork South Fork New River,
Naked Creek, Peak Creek, and Cranberry Creek

1.1 Subbasin Overview

Streams in this subbasin are characterized by moderate
to high gradients, extensive boulder and rubble
substrates, and well-defined riffle and pool sequences.
The larger waterbodies (i.e., South Fork New River and
Cranberry Creek), however, generally have lower
gradients and slightly less boulder and rubble
substrates. The South Fork New River is the largest
watershed in this subbasin. The river flows north-
northeast through fairly mountainous terrain before
joining with the North Fork New River to form the
New River in northern Ashe County.

Land use is primarily forested with little in the way of
large-scale development. Urban areas include the
Towns of Blowing Rock, Boone, and Jefferson where
population has increased by 12.3, 4.0 and 9.4 percent,
respectively, over the last ten years (1990 to 2000).
Refer to Appendix I for more information about
population growth and trends. Outside these urban
areas, the land is dotted with rural residential
communities, pasturelands and Christmas tree farms.
Agricultural activities have historically consisted of
cattle grazing, but within the last 15 years, Christmas
tree farming has increased. Refer to Appendix III for
more information regarding changes in land use.

There are ten individual NPDES wastewater discharge
permits in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of
6.01 MGD. The largest of these is the Boone
Plant (WWTP) with a total
permitted discharge of 4.82 MGD. Three of the ten
facilities are required to perform whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing and include the WWTPs
of Boone, Blowing Rock and Jefferson. One Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued in the
subbasin. It is associated with a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) spill at the Blowing Rock Water
Treatment Plant (WTP). For more information related to this NOV, refer to Section 1.4.1. Refer
to Appendix VI for the listing of NPDES permit holders.
Wastewater Treatment
Subbasin 05-07-01 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 341 mi2
Land area: 338 mi2
Water area: 3 mi2

Population (County)
2000 Est. Pop.: 39,937 people
Pop. Density: 117 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 74%
Water: <1%
Urban: <1%
Cultivated Crop: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 24%

Counties
Alleghany, Ashe and Watauga

Municipalities
Boone, Blowing Rock and Jefferson

Aquatic Life
Monitored Streams Statistics
Total Streams: 137.0 mi
Total Supporting: 123.3 mi
Total Impaired: 6.5 mi
Total Not Rated: 7.2 mi

Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 1
AU#
Description
Length/AreaClassification
05-07-01
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Table 4 Use Support New River Subbasin:
Cranberry Creek (Mulberry Creek)
10-1-37
From source to South Fork New River
18.9 FW MilesB Tr +S ND
KB15 /2003E
East Fork South Fork New River
10-1-3-(8)
From .8 mile downstream of Watauga Co SR 1524 to S
Fk New River
0.5 FW MilesWS-IV CA S ND
KB12 /2003G
Habitat Degradation Road Construction
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
Howard Creek
10-1-9-(6)
From the Appalachian State University Raw Water
Supply Intake Dam to South Fork New River
3.6 FW MilesC Tr HQW S ND
KB18 /2003G
Little Peak Creek
10-1-35-4
From source to Peak Creek
2.8 FW MilesB Tr +I ND
KB14 /2003P
Toxic Impacts Mine Drainage
Habitat Degradation Mine Drainage
Meat Camp Creek
10-1-10
From source to South Fork New River
10.4 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB19 /2003G
KB20 /2003G
Habitat Degradation Unknown
Middle Fork South Fork New River
10-1-2-(15)
From 0.4 mile downstr of US Hwy 221 & 321 to South
Fk New River
0.5 FW MilesWS-IV CA S ND
KB1 /2003GF
Habitat Degradation WWTP NPDES
Habitat Degradation Road Construction
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
Naked Creek
10-1-32a2
From Ezra Fork to 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP
1.0 FW MilesC +S ND
KB8 /2003GF
10-1-32b
From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to South Fork
New River
2.5 FW MilesC +S ND
KB9 /2003GF
Habitat Degradation WWTP NPDES
Habitat Degradation Pasture
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
NEW Subbasin 05-07-01
AU#
Description
Length/AreaClassification
05-07-01
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Table 4 Use Support New River Subbasin:
New River (North Carolina Portion)
10a
From confluence of North and South to first point of
crossing state line
4.6 FW MilesC ORW S SKA5 NCE KA5 NCE
Norris Branch (below normal reservoir)
10-1-9-7-(1)
From source to the Appalach St U Raw Water Holding
Res Dam
0.0 FW MilesWS-II Tr H S NDKL1 NCE
Norris Fork
10-1-10-2
From source to Meat Camp Creek
4.3 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB21 /2003E
Obids Creek
10-1-27-(2)
From a point 0.9 mile downstream of NC Hwy 163 to
South Fork New River
2.8 FW MilesWS-IV Tr +S ND
KB6 /2003G
Ore Knob Branch
10-1-35-3
From source to Peak Creek
0.9 FW MilesB Tr +I ND
KB13 /2003P
Toxic Impacts Mine Drainage
Habitat Degradation Mine Drainage
Peak Creek
10-1-35-(2)a
From Water Supply Dam at Appalachian Sulphides, Inc
to Ore Knob Branch
2.1 FW MilesB Tr +S ND
KB11 /2003G
10-1-35-(2)b
From Ore Knob Branch to South Fork New River
2.9 FW MilesB Tr +I ND
KB13 /2003P
Toxic Impacts Mine Drainage
Habitat Degradation Mine Drainage
Pine Orchard Creek
10-1-15-1
From source to Elk Creek
3.5 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB22 /2003E
Pine Swamp Creek (Pine Swamp)
10-1-24
From source to South Fork New River
5.5 FW MilesC +S ND
KB4 /2003G
Habitat Degradation Pasture
Habitat Degradation Agriculture
NEW Subbasin 05-07-01
AU#
Description
Length/AreaClassification
05-07-01
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Table 4 Use Support New River Subbasin:
Roan Creek
10-1-31-(2)
From 0.5 mile upstream of mouth to South Fork New
River
0.4 FW MilesWS-IV Tr C S ND
KB7 /2003E
South Beaver Creek(Lake Ashe)
10-1-25-2a
From source to Lake Ashe
5.1 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB5 /2003G
NEW Subbasin 05-07-01
AU#
Description
Length/AreaClassification
05-07-01
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Table 4 Use Support New River Subbasin:
South Fork New River
10-1-(20.5)
From a point 0.4 mile upstream of Couches Creek to a
point 2.8 mile upstream of Obids Creek
21.8 FW MilesWS-V HQ S ND
KB2 /2003E
10-1-(26)a
From a point 2.8 miles upstream of Obids Creek to Obids
Creek
2.8 FW MilesWS-IV HQ S ND
KB3 /2003E
KB2 /2003E
10-1-(26)b
From Obids Creek to a point 0.6 miles upstream of Roan
Creek
6.6 FW MilesWS-IV HQ NR SKA2 CE Low pH 12.2
KB3 /2003E
KA2 NCE Low pH Unknown
10-1-(3.5)a
From Winkler Creek to 0.1 miles downstream of Hunting
Lane
0.3 FW MilesC +S NR*KA1 NCE KA1 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impervious Surface
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Agriculture
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
10-1-(3.5)b
From 0.1 mile downstream Hunting Lane to US
Hwy.221/421
5.1 FW MilesC +S NR*KA1 NCE
KB16 /2003GF
KA1 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria
10-1-(30)a
From a point 0.6 miles upstream of Roan Creek to Roan
Creek
0.6 FW MilesWS-IV HQ NR SKA2 CE Low pH 12.2
KB3 /2003E
KA2 NCE Low pH Unknown
10-1-(30)b
From Roan Creek to a point 0.1 mile upstream of Naked
Creek
0.1 FW MilesWS-IV HQ S SKA3 NCE
KB10 /2003E
KA3 NCE
10-1-(31.5)
From 0.1 mile upstream of Naked Creek to Dog Creek
4.8 FW MilesC HQW S SKA3 NCE
KB10 /2003E
KA3 NCE
10-1-(33.5)
From Dog Creek to New River
22.5 FW MilesB ORW S SKA3 NCE
KB10 /2003E
KA3 NCE
Winkler Creek
10-1-4-(3.5)a
From Boone Water Supply Intake to Winkler Creek Road
(SR #1549)
0.2 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB17 /2003E
NEW Subbasin 05-07-01
AU#
Description
Length/AreaClassification
05-07-01
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Table 4 Use Support New River Subbasin:
Use Categories:Monitoring data type: Use Support Ratings 2005:
AL - Aquatic Life KF - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent S - Supporting
REC - Recreation KB - Benthic Community Survey G - Good I - Impaired
KA - Ambient Monitoring Site GF - Good-Fair NR - Not Rated
KL- Lake Monitoring F - Fair NR*- Not Rated for Recreation (screening criteria exceeded)
P - Poor ND - No Data Collected to make assessment
Miles/Acres NI - Not Impaired Results
FW- Fresh Water CE - Criteria Exceeded > 10% and more than 10 samples
NCE - No Criteria Exceeded
Results:
Aquatic Life Rating Summary
S 123.3 FW Milesm
NR 7.2 FW Milesm
I 6.5 FW Milesm
S 88.4 FW Milese
NR 40.6 FW Milese
ND 194.7 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
39.2 FW MilesSm
5.4 FW MilesNR* m
416.2 FW MilesND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
460.8 FW MilesNR e
NEW Subbasin 05-07-01

A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 5. Table 4 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
lengths, streams monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results, along with use support
ratings for waters in the subbasin. Refer to Appendix IX for a complete listing of monitored
waters and more information about use support methodology.

There were 22 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples collected during this assessment
period. Data were also collected from three ambient monitoring stations and one lake. Refer to
the 2004 New River Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Basinwide/New%20River%20Basin%20Aug%202004.pdf and Appendix IV for
more information on monitoring.

Waters in the following sections and in Table 4 are identified by an assessment unit number
(AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database,
list 303(d) Impaired waters and identify waters throughout the basin plan. 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 assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter
indicates that the AU# and the DWQ index segment are the same.

1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

All surface waters in the state are assigned a classification appropriate to the best-intended use of
that water. Waters are regularly assessed by DWQ to determine how well they are meeting their
best-intended use. For aquatic life, an Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair or Poor bioclassification
is assigned to a stream based on the biological data collected by DWQ. For more information
about bioclassification and use support assessment, refer to Appendices IV and IX, respectively.
Appendix X provides definitions of the terms used throughout this basin plan.

In subbasin 05-07-01, use support was assigned for the aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption
and water supply categories. No fish consumption advisories or advice have been issued for this
subbasin, and all waters are Not Rated on an evaluated basis in the fish consumption category.
In the water supply category, all waters are Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports
from Department of Environmental Health (DEH) regional water treatment plant consultants.

There were 137.0 stream miles (29.7 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category. Approximately 6.5 stream miles (1.4 percent) are Impaired. One lake
(Appalachian State University Lake) was monitored as part of the Lakes Assessment Program.
No criteria were exceeded, and it is considered Supporting for its designated use. Refer to
Table 5 for a summary of use support for waters in subbasin 05-07-01.

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
Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 8

Table 5 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 05-07-01

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 123.3 mi 0.0 39.2 mi 0.0
Impaired 6.5 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 7.2 mi 0.0 5.4 mi 0.0
Total 137.0 mi 0.0 44.6 mi 0.0
Unmonitored Waters (Evaluated)
Supporting 88.5 mi 0.0 0.0 145.9 mi
Impaired 0.0 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 40.6 mi 460.8 mi 0.0 0.0
No Data 194.7 mi 0.0 416.2 mi 0.0
Total 323.8 mi 460.8 mi 416.2 mi 145.9 mi
Totals
All Waters* 460.8 mi 460.8 mi 460.8 mi 145.9 mi
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.

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 AU#. Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is
presented in Appendix VII.

1.3.1 Naked Creek [AU# 10-1-32b]

2000 Recommendations
Naked Creek, from the Jefferson WWTP to the South Fork New River (2.0 miles), was identified
as Not Supporting due to habitat degradation and excess nutrients associated with nonpoint (i.e.,
agriculture, road and residential construction, urban runoff) and point (Jefferson WWTP) sources
of pollution. DWQ had approved a design upgrade for the Jefferson WWTP and recommended
the development of an erosion control ordinance to reduce the effects of sediment loss associated
with new development activities.

Current Status
Naked Creek, from the Jefferson WWTP to the South Fork New River (2.0 miles), is currently
Supporting due to a Good-Fair bioclassification at site KB9. Located in an area dominated by
urban development and bisecting a large golf course, this site has historically received Poor
(1998) and/or Fair (1993) bioclassifications. The improvement is likely associated with nearly
$1.9 million worth of upgrades to the Jefferson WWTP. Funding was provided by the NC
Construction Grants & Loans Section of DENR, Clean Water Bonds (NC Rural Economic
Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 9

Development Center), and the Economic Development Administration (NC Department of
Commerce) and included the construction of a new clarifier, chlorine contact basin, a 70,000-
gallon aerated sludge holding tank, and a third aeration basin. A new sodium metabisulfite
(Na2S2O5) storage and feed system, tertiary filters, and an emergency generator were also
installed. Increased rainfall amounts during 2003 may also have contributed to the current use
support rating by diluting the effects of effluent from the WWTP. Samples collected upstream of
the WWTP at site KB8 also indicate a Good-Fair bioclassification.

Conductivity levels measured at sites KB8 and KB9 were the highest of any other sample sites
collected in the subbasin. Conductivity is a measure of the water’s ability to carry an electrical
current and is equivalent to the amount of total dissolved salts in a system. Levels too high or
too low may limit survival, growth and reproduction. In Naked Creek, the high conductivity
levels are likely associated with upstream land use, which includes residential properties and
pasturelands. The levels may also be associated with on-going construction activities at the
Jefferson WWTP. Streambank erosion was moderate at both locations, and riparian zones were
absent.

2005 Recommendations
Based on the current bioclassification, DWQ recommends that Naked Creek be removed from
the 303(d) list of impaired waters for 2006. DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in
Naked Creek and work with local agencies to develop an erosion control ordinance to reduce
sediment loss associated with any new development activities. In addition, public education is
needed to show the importance of good riparian buffer zones and the use of best management
practices (BMPs) to reduce habitat degradation. It is also recommended that local agencies work
with landowners and developers to install appropriate BMPs during and after development
and/or construction activities to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the site.

Water Quality Initiatives
During this assessment period, several agricultural BMPs were installed in the Naked Creek
watershed and include: 20 water tanks; four stream crossings; ten springs; one well; and the
installation of 4,824 feet of fence for livestock exclusion. Funds totaling $53,224 were provided
by the NC Agricultural Cost Share Program (NCACSP) and were administered by the New River
Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). For more information on the NCASCP, see
Chapter 8.

1.3.2 Peak Creek [AU# 10-1-35-(2)b]

2000 Recommendations
Peak Creek, from Ore Knob Branch to the South Fork New River (2.9 miles), was identified as
Not Supporting due to low pH and toxic levels of dissolved copper, iron and zinc. The creek had
a very sparse benthic community and was devoid of fish. Peak Creek receives runoff from Ore
Knob Mine, an abandoned copper and lead mine that began production in the 1850s and operated
periodically until closure in the 1960s. Remediation efforts have shown little in the way of long-
term water quality improvements. DWQ will participate in a multiagency partnership to address
restoration/reclamation of the entire Ore Knob area.

Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 10

Current Status
Peak Creek, from the water supply dam constructed by Appalachian Sulphides Company, Inc. to
Ore Knob Branch (2.1 miles), is Supporting due to a Good bioclassification at site KB11. This
segment is located upstream of the confluence with Ore Knob Branch and is not impacted by the
abandoned mining facility. This site has historically received Good (1990, 1993 and 1998)
and/or Excellent (1991 and 1996) bioclassifications. There was no evidence of streambank
erosion in this segment, and the riparian zone was mostly intact.

Peak Creek, from Ore Knob Branch to the South Fork New River (2.9 miles), continues to be
Impaired due to a Poor bioclassification at site KB13. This site is located just downstream of the
confluence of Ore Knob Branch and continually receives acid mine drainage from the abandoned
mining facility. Conductivity levels were high at the time of sampling and nearly all of the
instream surfaces were red due to the precipitation of iron oxides. No streambank erosion was
observed in the sampling reach and the riparian zone was wide and intact. The substrate,
however, was completely embedded. The Poor bioclassification may also be a result of drought
conditions during 2001 and 2002.

2005 Recommendations
Peak Creek [AU# 10-1-35-(2)b] will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters. DWQ
will continue to monitor Peak Creek and participate in the multiagency partnership dedicated to
improving the waters in the Ore Knob area.

Water Quality Initiatives
Under Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (PL 104-303), the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) published the Ore Knob Aquatic Restoration Project: Draft
Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment (March 2003). The project was
sponsored by DWQ and the USACE Huntington District. The goal of the project was defined as
“to return aquatic macrobiota and fish to Peak Creek and Little Peak Creek.” Quantitatively, the
project could restore up to 14.3 acres of aquatic habitat (6.9 stream miles). The target areas
include: 5.6 acres (2.9 miles) of Peak Creek; 2.0 acres (2.5 miles) of Little Peak Creek; and 5.0
acres (0.5 miles) of the South Fork New River. In addition, approximately 1.7 acres (1.0 miles)
of Ore Knob Branch would also be improved. Restoration in these areas would allow for aquatic
ecosystem and water quality improvements. Restoration would also protect the Outstanding
Resources Waters (ORW) of the South Fork New River and the trout waters of Peak and Little
Peak Creeks, designations set forth by DWQ.

Two distinct problem areas were identified and include the former processing area and
the tailings (waste) area, which includes mine portals and shafts. Three alternatives were
considered as feasible restoration projects. The chosen alternative (described below) would
result in the restoration of 2.0 to 14.3 acres of aquatic habitat and cost between $133,700 and
$1,393,200. A maximum of $2.0 million was given for project study, design and construction,
and operation and maintenance costs.

In order to meet the goals and objectives of the Ore Knob project, restoration of the former
processing area and reclamation of the tailings area are necessary. This involves three distinct
treatments: (1) diversion of surface water runoff away from and around tailings; (2) isolation of
the tailings; and (3) passive treatment of acid discharge through the use of wetlands.
Implementation of the project is expected to restore 6.9 miles of aquatic habitat and 24 acres or
Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 11

more of terrestrial (wetland and upland) habitat. The project is expected to remain functional for
at least 25 years, with the first 20 years requiring minimal maintenance. The non-federal sponsor
of the project (i.e., state or local government agency) would be responsible for the maintenance
once the project is established. No significant environmental impacts were identified, and total
cost of the project is $1,393,200.

Due to federal budget constraints, funding for the Ore Knob Aquatic Restoration Project has not
been provided. DWQ will continue to work with the USACE and interact with the multiagency
partnership to pursue additional restoration options in the Ore Knob area.

Water Quality Initiatives
During this assessment period, several agricultural BMPs were installed along Peak Creek.
Funds totaling $8,369 were provided by the NCACSP and were administered by the New River
SWCD. For more information on the NCASCP, see Chapter 8.

1.3.3 Little Peak Creek [AU# 10-1-35-4]

2000 Recommendations
Little Peak Creek, from source to Peak Creek (2.4 miles), was identified as Not Supporting due
to low pH and toxic levels of dissolved copper, iron and zinc. Like Peak Creek, Little Peak
Creek had a very sparse benthic community and was devoid of fish. Little Peak Creek also
receives runoff from the abandoned Ore Knob Mine. Remediation efforts have shown little in
the way of long-term water quality improvements. DWQ will participate in a multiagency
partnership to address restoration/reclamation of the entire Ore Knob area.

Current Status
Little Peak Creek, from source to Peak Creek (2.4 miles), continues to be Impaired due to a Poor
bioclassification at site KB14. Despite the Poor bioclassification, the substrate was not
embedded; riffle and pool habitats were well developed; and riparian zones were wide and
mostly intact with very little bank erosion. Since 1991, the creek has received a Poor
bioclassification and continues to be adversely affected by acid mine drainage from the former
processing area of the abandoned mining facility.

2005 Recommendations
Little Peak Creek will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters. DWQ will continue
to monitor Little Peak Creek and participate in the multiagency partnership dedicated to
improving the waters in the Ore Knob area.

Water Quality Initiatives
Little Peak Creek is located near the abandoned Ore Knob Mine facility and was included in the
USACE Ore Knob Aquatic Restoration Project. Refer to Section 1.3.2 for more information
regarding this project.

1.3.4 Ore Knob Branch [AU# 10-1-35-3]

2000 Recommendations
Ore Knob Branch, from source to Peak Creek (0.9 miles), was identified as Not Supporting on an
evaluated basis due to low pH and toxic levels of dissolved copper, iron and zinc. Ore Knob
Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 12

Branch receives runoff from the abandoned Ore Knob Mine. Remediation efforts have shown
little in the way of long-term water quality improvements. DWQ will participate in a
multiagency partnership to address restoration/reclamation of the entire Ore Knob area.

Current Status
Ore Knob Branch, from source to Peak Creek (0.9 miles), continues to be Impaired due to a Poor
bioclassification at site KB13. Site KB13 was collected near the confluence of Ore Knob Branch
and Peak Creek and has historically received Poor and/or Fair bioclassifications since 1990. Ore
Knob Branch is the main catchment stream for runoff from the tailings area of the abandoned
mining facility.

2005 Recommendations
Ore Knob Branch will remain on the state’s 303(d) list of Impaired waters. DWQ will
participate in the multiagency partnership dedicated to improving the waters in the Ore Knob
area.

Water Quality Initiatives
Ore Knob Branch drains the abandoned Ore Knob Mine facility and was included in the USACE
Ore Knob Aquatic Restoration Project. Refer to Section 1.3.2 for more information regarding
this project.

1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts

Based on DWQ’s most recent use support methodologies, 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 in locating 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. The current status and recommendations for
addressing these waters are presented below, and each is identified by an AU#. Refer to Section
1.1 for more information about AU#. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in
Appendix VIII.

1.4.1 Middle Fork South Fork New River [AU# 10-1-2-(6), 10-1-2-(14) and 10-1-2-(15)]

Current Status
Middle Fork South Fork New River (Middle Fork), from Brown Branch to the South Fork New
River (5.4 miles), is currently Supporting due to a Good-Fair bioclassification at site KB1. The
sample site is located directly downstream of the Boone Golf Course, and ultimately receives
discharge from four NPDES facilities including: the Blowing Rock WWTP (0.80 MGD), the
Roaring River Chalets WWTP (0.005 MGD), Tweetsie Railroad (0.70 MGD), and Summit
Woods WWTP (0.008 MGD). Upstream, Middle Fork, from source to Brown Branch (5.7
miles), is Not Rated.

Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 13

The bioclassification in the Middle Fork has been steadily decreasing from Excellent (1993) to
Good (1998) to the most recent Good-Fair (2003). The probable reason for decline is due to the
overwhelming dominance of nonpoint source runoff (NPS) in the area. During the time of
sampling, several major projects were underway including: road widening activities, bridge
replacements, and the installation of water mains. Banks were stable in the sampling reach, but
riparian zones were nonexistent.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the Middle Fork and document changes to water quality. It is
recommended that local agencies work to install best management practices (BMPs) and
implement a sediment and erosion control plan. In addition, DWQ will assist agency personnel
in locating sources of water quality protection funding for BMPs and community education
related to nonpoint source runoff, stormwater runoff and the importance of riparian zones.

Special Studies
A combination of weather and equipment failure caused 3,000 gallons of 25-percent sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) to be released from the Blowing Rock Water Treatment Plant (WTP) into the
Middle Fork South Fork New River (Middle Fork). The sodium hydroxide, also referred to as
caustic soda, is used to adjust the pH of water during the drinking water treatment process. High
winds and a power surge on October 14, 2003, caused a malfunction of pumps and backflow
devices. Consequently, the basement of the WTP was flooded with an estimated 150,000 gallons
of finished drinking water. The floodwater caused an “out-of-service” 4,500-gallon fiberglass
tank to float, which then broke the connection valve of the partially filled 4,500-gallon tank of
25-percent sodium hydroxide. Not realizing that the spill had occurred, the floodwater was
pumped out of the basement to a stormwater inlet that flowed through the property’s stormwater
system and directly into the Middle Fork.

Once the WTP staff was aware of the sodium hydroxide release, DWQ, the Watauga County
Emergency Management Agency, the Town of Boone and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) were notified. DWQ issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) for exceeding the water
quality standard for pH. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) estimated that 14,000
to 15,000 fish were killed in the Middle Fork and in the upper part of the South Fork New River.
Students at the Appalachian State University (ASU) also reported dead salamanders in the waters
near the campus in Boone (no numbers provided).

Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted by DWQ three weeks after the incident to
assess impacts to the benthic community. Samples were collected on November 4, 2003. DWQ
sampled a total of five sites: two in the Middle Fork South Fork New River (Middle Fork); two
in the East Fork South Fork New River (East Fork); and one in the South Fork New River.
Three of the sites were basinwide sites (KB1, KB12 and KB16) (NCDENR-DWQ, November
2003).

In the Middle Fork, the basinwide sampling site showed a slight increase to a Good
bioclassification (KB1) from a Good-Fair in August 2003. The second site was added when no
deleterious affects where noted at the basinwide site at KB1. This sample was collected
approximately one mile downstream of the WTP. The bioclassification here was rated Good-
Fair, which matched a sample collected in the same general vicinity in 1999.

Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 14

Samples collected in the East Fork were to be used as a reference for samples collected in the
Middle Fork. No deleterious impacts were expected; however, the basinwide site (KB12) went
from a Good bioclassification in August 2003 to a Poor bioclassification in November 2003.
This site is located 100 yards from the Middle Fork site (KB1), across the parking lot of a
privately owned building, just before the confluence of the South Fork New River. A second site
was added approximately one mile upstream at the next bridge crossing to determine the extent
of the degraded area. This sample location was given a Fair bioclassification; however, since
there were no prior samples collected in this area, DWQ cannot determine the cause of the low
bioclassification. The East Fork drains more residential and agricultural land than the Middle
Fork, and it is unclear as to why this reference stream deteriorated when the Middle Fork did not.

The sample collected at the basinwide site on the South Fork New River (KB16) decreased from
a Good-Fair bioclassification in August 2003 to a Fair bioclassification in November 2003. This
section of the river receives discharge from the Boone WWTP and has fluctuated between a Fair
and Good-Fair bioclassification since 1984. The most recent decrease is most likely associated
with impacts in the East Fork rather than the Middle Fork.

Since the WTP incident, several upgrades have been completed or are planned for the facility.
These include:

ƒ Installation of an alarm system near the basement floor which will sound if there is 1” of
water on the floor.
ƒ Repair of a broken fluoride line.
ƒ Installation of a sump pump in the waste sump to keep water away from the waste sump.
ƒ Removal of the empty “out-of-service” caustic soda tank.
ƒ Rewiring of the valve accuators on finished water pumps to close if the power is interrupted.

Because the data were collected outside the data window for this basinwide water quality plan
and since such incidents are associated with short-term rather than long-term impacts, the
information collected in November 2003 will not be used to determine use support during this
basin cycle. DWQ will, however, continue to monitor the Middle Fork, East Fork and South
Fork New Rivers and use the November 2003 and any subsequent monitoring data to determine
use support for the 2010 basinwide water quality plan.

Water Quality Initiatives
The Middle Fork Greenway Association (MFGA) in conjunction with the Department of
Geography and Planning at Appalachian State University (ASU) conducted a Greenway Trail
Feasibility Study along the Middle Fork South Fork New River (MFGA, May 2001). The
proposed greenway would extend over 5.0 miles along the Middle Fork between the towns of
Blowing Rock and Boone. Working with landowners, the MFGA hopes to purchase or obtain
access to 20-foot easements alongside an already existing 30-foot vegetative buffer as part of the
required surface water quality standards set forth by DWQ for water supply areas (Chapter 4).
Through the string of 20-foot easements, MFGA will construct a 10-foot wide pedestrian/bike
trail, which would be wheelchair accessible and available to all ages and fitness levels. The
project would also enhance and stabilize the existing riparian buffer with new tree and shrub
plantings where landowners allow.

Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 15

Using grant money totaling $57,000 from the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF), MFGA paid for surveys, environmental site assessments, and legal fees to secure
easements from several willing landowners along the proposed route. The grant money is also
being used to educate and inform landowners of the importance of watershed protection and
potential streambank restoration projects. MFGA is also promoting streambank stabilization
projects by suggesting to landowners that they stabilize the streambank by planting trees and
shrubs as memorials to family members.

In an area where the landscape is slowly being transformed by development and the potential for
expanded water and sewer lines along the river exists, MFGA hopes to provide more protection
to the Middle Fork through the construction of the greenway trail. In addition, MFGA hopes to
preserve the natural beauty of the river, preserve community history, and increase citizen
appreciation and awareness of the watershed.

1.4.2 East Fork South Fork New River [AU# 10-1-3-(7) and 10-1-3-(8)]

Current Status
East Fork South Fork New River, from source to South Fork New River (3.4 miles), is
Supporting due to a Good bioclassification at site KB12. The sampling site is located
approximately 100 yards from the Middle Fork, but the upstream reaches drain residential and
pasture areas while the Middle Fork’s catchment drains more suburban areas of Boone (Section
1.4.1). As with the Middle Fork, several projects were underway during the time of sampling
and included: road widening, bridge replacement, and the installation of water mains. Substrate
was not embedded near the sampling area, but one entire streambank consisted of manicured
lawns with no riparian area.

Like the Middle Fork, the East Fork has experienced a similar sampling history with an Excellent
bioclassification in 1993 and a Good bioclassification in 1998. Unlike the Middle Fork,
however, the East Fork maintained the Good bioclassification in 2003. This, in large part, is due
to less suburban and more residential/pasture oriented land use.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the East Fork and document changes to water quality. It is
recommended that local agencies work to install BMPs and implement a sediment and erosion
control plan. In addition, DWQ will assist agency personnel in locating sources of water quality
protection funding for BMPs and community education related to NPS, stormwater runoff and
the importance of riparian zones.

Special Studies
The East Fork was included in the special study conducted by DWQ in November 2003. The
study was the result of a release of sodium hydroxide from the Blowing Rock WTP into the
Middle Fork South Fork New River. Refer to Section 1.4.1 above for more information.

1.4.3 South Fork New River [AU# 10-1-(3.5) a and b]

2000 Recommendations
Impacts from the Boone WWTP discharge were noted along the South Fork New River. To
reduce the amount of runoff that this section of the river receives, the Town of Boone was
Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 16

drafting a Stormwater Management Plan as a follow-up to recent Floodplain Management
activities. In addition, stream restoration and bank stabilization projects were planned.

Current Status
South Fork New River, from 0.10 miles downstream of Hunting Lane to US Highway 221/421
(5.4 miles), is Supporting in the aquatic life category due to a Good-Fair bioclassification at site
KB16. This section of the river receives runoff from suburban areas of Boone, and the sampling
site is located downstream of the Boone WWTP. Observations made at the time of sampling
showed highly embedded substrate, moderately eroding streambanks, and partially intact riparian
zones. The benthic community has been steadily increasing at this site. This improvement is
most likely associated with recent upgrades to the Boone WWTP. Since 1998, ambient water
chemistry data has shown a sharp reduction in the amount of ammonia (NH3) and total nitrogen
(N) being released into the river.

Over 20 percent of the samples collected at ambient station KA1 exceeded 400 colonies of fecal
coliform bacteria/100 milliliters (ml) of water. Therefore, this section of the South Fork New
River is Not Rated for recreational use due to elevated fecal coliform bacteria. Current
methodology requires additional bacteriological sampling for streams with a geometric mean
greater than 200 colonies/100 ml or when concentrations exceed 400 colonies/100 ml in more
than 20 percent of the samples. These additional assessments are prioritized such that, as
monitoring resources become available, the highest priority is given to those streams where the
likelihood of full-body contact recreation is greatest. This section of the South Fork New River
is not classified for primary recreation (Class B) and was not prioritized for additional sampling
during this basinwide cycle. Potential sources of elevated bacteria levels include failing septic
systems, broken or leaking sewer lines, and nonpoint source runoff from pasturelands. Refer to
Appendix IX for more information related to recreational use support methodology and fecal
coliform bacteria.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the South Fork New River and work with local
agencies to identify possible sources of fecal coliform bacteria. In addition, the Town of Boone
should continue its efforts to improve their WWTP and develop stormwater management
practices. Public education is also needed to show the importance of good riparian zones and the
use of BMPs to reduce habitat degradation.

Special Studies
This segment of the South Fork New River was included in the special study conducted by DWQ
in November 2003. The study was the result of a sodium hydroxide release from the Blowing
Rock WTP into the Middle Fork South Fork New River. Refer to Section 1.4.1 above for more
information.

1.4.4 South Fork New River [AU# 10-1-(26)b and 10-1-(30)a]

Current Status
South Fork New River, from Obids Creek to Roan Creek (7.2 miles), is Not Rated due to low pH
readings at site KA2. Several factors may be playing a role and may include upstream road
construction activities, residential development, illicit discharges and/or excess algal growth and
decay. Historic trends in ambient chemistry data have shown little significant change in water
Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 17

quality between years at this ambient station. DWQ believes that the low pH readings obtained
during this assessment period was a short-term condition and is not likely to impact the benthic
or fish communities in the South Fork New River. In fact, benthic macroinvertebrate samples
collected at site KB3 received an Excellent bioclassification during the assessment period.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the South Fork New River and work with local
agencies to identify possible sources of the low pH.

Water Quality Initiatives
This section of the South Fork New River is part of a 31-mile study area for the Riparian
Corridor Conservation Design published by the National Committee for the New River
(NCNR). The report was prepared for the Conservation Trust for North Carolina (CTNC) and
the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF). The study area extends from the
mouth of Pine Swamp Creek to the New River State Park and includes both private and publicly
owned lands. The primary goal of the conservation design is to preserve high priority tracts of
land. High priority tracts are those identified by NCNR where preservation could be beneficial
to water quality. NCNR evaluated riparian length, riparian width, composition of riparian
vegetation, other water sources (i.e., perennial and intermittent streams, bogs, fens), natural
heritage elements, wetland communities, and proximity to other high priority areas using high-
resolution infrared imagery, tax parcel identification numbers, field surveys, and GIS software.
Information gathered by NCNR was also used to identify water quality concerns for the entire
watershed. These include new development on ridge tops and along streambanks, maintenance
and construction activities along primary and secondary roads, and nonpoint source runoff from
pastures and Christmas tree farms.

Through outreach and education, NCNR will work with landowners to explain the significance
of their property in those areas identified as high priority tracts and the importance of riparian
buffers. NCNR will also explain options for preserving the land and work with them to find the
best option. Working with landowners and developers, NCNR hopes to reduce the density of
development along the streambanks, retain riparian areas, and ensure careful construction
practices. By preserving the intact riparian corridors, minimizing sediment and erosion during
development, and excluding livestock from the river and its tributaries, NCNR hopes to
maintain, and even improve, the water quality of the South Fork New River (NCNR, December
2001).

NCNR has been restoring riparian buffers in the New River basin since 1998 through the River
Builder Program. The program works to educate landowners about the importance of riparian
buffers and encourages them not to mow down to the stream. The program is primarily funded
by the CWMTF and helps landowners reestablish riparian vegetation through the planting of
livestakes on devegetated and eroding streambanks. Livestakes are cut stem segments from
native vegetation, which root and grow quickly. The roots then act as a placeholder, keeping the
soil in place. Shrubs and hardwood trees are planted at the top of the streambank. The program
assists landowners with planting and is appropriate where streambanks have been damaged by
the removal of vegetation.

For severely eroding banks, rootwads and whole tree revetments may be needed. Rootwads
consist of the base of a large tree and much of its root system. The root wad is then inserted into
Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 18

the streambank. Whole tree revetments involve the use of large trees (typically hemlocks) that
are cabled sideways into the streambank. Both of these natural structures help to deflect the
water’s energy away from the streambank, reducing erosion and providing habitat for aquatic
and terrestrial communities. As part of the program, the landowners are required to sign an
agreement to not disturb the plantings for fifteen years. For more information about the River
Builder Program or the Riparian Corridor Conservation Design, visit www.ncnr.org.

1.4.5 Winkler Creek [AU# 10-1-4-(3.5)a and b]

Current Status
Winkler Creek, from the Boone Water Supply Intake to Winkler Creek Road (SR #1549) (0.2
miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent bioclassification at site KB17. Land use in the
headwaters is primarily undisturbed with single-family residential homes scattered throughout
the watershed. Substrate was a good mix of bolder, rubble and gravel with well-developed
riffles and pools. Within the sampling reach, streambank erosion was minimal, and the riparian
area was generally intact.

Winkler Creek, from Winkler Creek Road (SR #1549) to South Fork New River (1.7 miles), is
Not Rated. Samples were not collected in this section, which runs through commercial and
residential areas in the Town of Boone.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Winkler Creek and document any changes in water quality.
DWQ will assist agency personnel in locating sources of water quality protection funding for
community education related to nonpoint source runoff (i.e., stormwater and residential runoff)
and the importance of riparian zones.

Water Quality Initiatives
NCNR surveyed 344 parcels of land along Winkler Creek for a Riparian Corridor Conservation
Design. By evaluating riparian length and width, vegetative amount and types, wetlands, bank
stability, livestock access, and properties containing both streambanks, NCNR determined the
preservation and restoration potential of streambanks along the creek. Each streambank or
property was ranked and totaled for high, medium or low prioritization. This allowed for a quick
reference in identifying land for preservation or restoration efforts.

Sixteen high priority restoration tracts and eighteen high priority preservation tracts were
identified in the watershed. NCNR will work with interested landowners who wish to
voluntarily preserve or restore their riparian property (NCNR, 2005a). For more information
about NCNR, refer to Chapter 12.

1.4.6 Howard Creek [AU# 10-1-9]

Current Status
Howard Creek, from the raw water supply intake dam for Appalachian State University (ASU) to
the South Fork New River (3.6 miles), is currently Supporting due to a Good bioclassification at
site KB18. Land is largely undeveloped with very few residential homes dotting the landscape.
Substrate was a mix of boulders, rubble and gravel, and there were well-developed riffle and
pool habitats. Streambank erosion was moderate, and the riparian zone was wide with frequent
Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 19

breaks. This site has been sampled three times (1988, 1993 and 1998) and has historically
received an Excellent bioclassification. The 2003 sample was just one species short of receiving
an Excellent bioclassification, and there were no deleterious changes in water quality noted at
this site.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Howard Creek and document any changes in water quality.
DWQ will assist agency personnel in locating sources of water quality protection funding for
community education related to nonpoint source runoff and the importance of riparian zones.

Water Quality Initiatives
NCNR surveyed 389 parcels of land along Howard Creek for a Riparian Corridor Conservation
Design. By evaluating riparian length and width, vegetative amount and types, wetlands, bank
stability, livestock access, and properties containing both streambanks, NCNR determined the
preservation and restoration potential of streambanks along the creek. Each streambank or
property was ranked and totaled for high, medium or low prioritization. This allowed for a quick
reference in identifying land for preservation or restoration efforts.

Fifteen high priority restoration tracts and 99 high priority preservation tracts were identified in
the watershed. NCNR will work with interested landowners who wish to voluntarily preserve or
restore their riparian property (NCNR, 2005b). For more information about NCNR, refer to
Chapter 12.

1.4.7 Meat Camp Creek [AU# 10-1-10]

Current Status
Meat Camp Creek, from source to South Fork New River (10.4 miles), is Supporting due to a
Good bioclassification at sites KB19 and KB20. Despite its relatively small drainage area, the
upstream site (KB19) contained a good mix of boulder, rubble and gravel substrate and well-
developed riffle and pool habitat areas. No erosion was noted, but State Route #1340 parallels
the stream along one site. Downstream (KB20), land use is very sparse rural residential areas
with scattered pasturelands. Substrate consisted of a thorough mix of boulder, rubble, and gravel
and well-developed riffle and pool habitat areas. No erosion was noted, but the riparian zone
was not intact.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Meat Camp Creek and document any changes in water quality.
DWQ will assist agency personnel in locating sources of water quality protection funding for
community education related to nonpoint source runoff and the importance of riparian zones.

Water Quality Initiatives
Several agricultural BMPs have been installed along Meat Camp Creek during this basinwide
cycle and include the construction of an agrichemical handling facility, the installation of 12
watering tanks or troughs, riparian buffer plantings on 1.5 acres, and fencing 10,980 feet of
stream from livestock access. Ten springs, one well, two stream crossings, and one area was
protected for heavy use. Funding was provided by the NCACSP for a total cost of $46,011.
Refer to Chapter 8 for more information about the NCACSP or contact the Watauga County Soil
and Water Conservation District (SWCD) for more information.
Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 20

1.4.8 Roan Creek [AU# 10-1-31-(1) and 10-1-31-(2)]

Current Status
Roan Creek, from the source to South Fork New River (7.5 miles), is Supporting due to an
Excellent bioclassification at site KB7. Land use in this area includes a mix of residential,
pasture and Fraser Fir Christmas tree farms. Conductivity was relatively low (38 µmhos/cm),
but was much higher in an unnamed tributary (58 µmhos/cm) entering Roan Creek. This higher
level in the unnamed tributary is likely associated with recent construction activities for a
residential subdivision. Streambank erosion was not observed, but the riparian zones were
narrow with several breaks.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Roan Creek and work with local agencies to
provide public education related to the importance of good riparian zones and the use of BMPs to
reduce habitat degradation and runoff often associated with construction activities.

Water Quality Initiatives
During this assessment period, several agricultural BMPs were installed along Roan Creek.
Funds totaling $4,604 were provided by the NCACSP and were administered by the New River
SWCD. For more information on the NCASCP, see Chapter 8.

1.4.9 Cranberry Creek (Mulberry Creek) [AU# 10-1-37]

Current Status
Cranberry Creek, from source to South Fork New River (18.9 miles), is Supporting due to an
Excellent bioclassification at site KB15. Cranberry Creek and the surrounding watershed
contain a mix of agriculture and scattered residential land use. Agricultural land is dominated by
pasture and Fraser Fir Christmas tree farms. Bank erosion at the sampling site was moderate; the
substrate was not embedded; and the riparian zones were mostly intact.

The New River Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) has reported that channelization
and sedimentation is becoming a problem in the Cranberry Creek watershed. Such impacts are
likely associated with construction and/or development activities in the upper reaches of the
watershed. Water quality impacts may also be due to agricultural activity in the area, including
nonpoint source runoff from pasturelands, Christmas tree farms and row crops.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Cranberry Creek and document changes to water quality. It is
recommended that local agencies work to install appropriate BMPs and implement a sediment
and erosion control plan related to construction and/or development activities. In addition, DWQ
will assist agency personnel in locating sources of water quality protection funding for BMPs
and community education related to nonpoint source and stormwater runoff and the importance
of riparian zones.

Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 21

1.4.10 Pine Swamp Creek [AU# 10-1-24]

Current Status
Pine Swamp Creek, from source to the South Fork New River (5.5 miles), is Supporting due to a
Good bioclassification at site KB4. Cattle pasture and Fraser Fir Christmas tree farms dominate
upstream land use. Observations at the time of sampling showed mildly embedded substrate,
poor riparian zones, and severe streambank erosion.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Pine Swamp Creek and document any changes in water quality.
It is recommended that local agencies work to install appropriate BMPs and implement
conservation plans on land in agriculture production. In addition, DWQ will assist agency
personnel in locating sources of water quality protection funding for BMPs and community
education related to agricultural nonpoint source runoff and the importance of riparian zones.

Water Quality Initiatives
During this assessment period, several agricultural BMPs were installed along Pine Swamp
Creek. Funds totaling $15,068 were provided by the NCACSP and were administered by the
New River SWCD. For more information on the NCASCP, see Chapter 8.

1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 05-07-01

The previous sections discussed water quality concerns for specific stream segments. 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 discusses ideas, rules and practices in place to preserve and maintain the
pristine waters of the New River basin. In subbasins 05-07-01 and 05-07-02 (Chapter 2), this is
particularly important since many of the waters are designated as high quality or outstanding
resource waters (HQW and ORW, respectively). Special management strategies, or rules, are in
place to better manage the cumulative impact of pollutant discharges, and several landowners
have voluntarily participated in land conservation, stabilization and/or restoration projects.

1.5.1 Christmas Tree Production and Best Management Practices

Christmas tree production in western North Carolina is an important industry generating nearly
$100 million in yearly wholesale income. An estimated 2,000 Christmas tree growers are
growing over 30,000 acres of Christmas trees. Most of the tree plantations in western North
Carolina are above 3,000 feet in elevation and are often located on steep, highly erodible slopes
(NCSU Cooperative Extension Service, April 2005).

To address sediment, pesticide and nutrient runoff, the NC Agriculture Cost Share Program
(NCACSP) adopted a new best management practice (BMP) in March 2003. Under the
Christmas Tree Conservation Cover BMP, grass, legumes or other approved plantings should be
planted and maintained on fields with no previously established groundcover to reduce soil
Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 22

erosion and improve water quality. Other improvements include reduced off-site sedimentation
and pollution from dissolved and sediment-attached substances.

From 1998 to 2003, 76 acres of Christmas Tree Conservation Cover were installed in the New
River basin. NCACSP funding totaled $7,320 with landowners and/or Christmas tree plantation
operators contributing an additional $2,440. For more information on the NCACSP, see Chapter
8. For more information related to Christmas tree production and BMPs, visit
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/.

1.5.2 Land Clearing Activities

In 2003, 18 acres of land were cleared near Mountain Valley Road in Alleghany County. This
area is located in the subwatershed of Piney Fork (AU# 10-1-37-3), a tributary to Cranberry
Creek (Section 1.4.9). The land was logged and stumped, and the owner was scheduled to
replant the land with white pine trees. DWQ staff in the Winston-Salem regional office has
recorded a turbidity violation and sediment was reported leaving the site. Multiple agency
representatives including DWQ, the Division of Land Resources (DLR), the Division of Forest
Resources (DFR), and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) met on the tract in
2003 to discuss land use and which agency was responsible for regulatory oversight. Due to
some ambiguity regarding intent of land use, DFR was assigned regulatory oversight. In
September 2004, the local forestry staff documented that the site was in “permanent compliance”
with Forestry Practice Guidelines (FPGs). For more information related to forestry in the New
River basin, refer to Chapter 9.

1.5.3 Management Strategies for Water Quality Protection

Municipalities and smaller outlying communities are being pressured to expand and this involves
construction and/or development in areas of pristine waters along the South Fork New River.
High Quality Water (HQW) and Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) are supplemental
classifications to the primary freshwater classification(s) placed on a waterbody. Management
strategies are associated with the supplemental HQW and ORW classifications and are intended
to protect the current use of the waterbody. Below is a brief summary of these strategies and the
administrative code under which the strategies are found. More detailed information can be
found in the document entitled Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to
Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina (NCDENR-DWQ, August 2004a). This
document is available on-line at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/. Definitions of the primary and
supplemental classifications can be found in Chapter 4.

HQW is intended to protect waters with water quality higher than the state’s water quality
standards. In the New River basin, waters classified as Water Supply I and II (WS-I and WS-II),
ORW, and waters designated by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) as native (wild)
trout waters are subject to HQW rules. Streams that petitioned for WS-I or WS-II or are
considered Excellent based on biological and physical/chemical parameters may qualify for the
HQW supplemental designation.

New discharges and expansions of existing discharges may, in general, be permitted in waters
classified as HQW provided that the effluent limits are met for dissolved oxygen (DO),
ammonia/nitrogen levels (NH3-N), and the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). More stringent
Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 23

limitations may be necessary to ensure that the cumulative effects from more than one discharge
of oxygen-consuming wastes will not cause the dissolved oxygen concentration in the receiving
water to drop more than 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/l) below background levels. Discharges
from single-family residential structures into surface waters are prohibited. When a discharge
from an existing single-family home fails, a septic tank, dual or recirculation sand filters,
disinfection, and step aeration should be installed (Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B .0224)

In addition to the above, development activities which require an Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan under the NC Sedimentation Control Commission or an approved local erosion and
sedimentation control program are required to follow stormwater management rules as specified
in Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H .1000 (NCDENR-DWQ, December 1995). Under these
rules, stormwater management strategies must be implemented if development activities are
within one mile of and draining to waters designated as HQW. The low-density option requires
a 30-foot wide vegetative buffer between development activities and the stream. This option can
be used when the built upon area is less than 12 percent of the total land area or the proposed
development is for a single-family residential home on one acre or greater. Vegetated areas may
be used to transport stormwater in the low-density option, but it must not lead to a discrete
stormwater collection system (i.e., constructed). The high-density option is for all land
disturbing activities on greater than one acre. For high-density projects, structural stormwater
controls must be constructed (i.e., wet detention ponds, stormwater infiltration systems,
innovative systems) and must be designed to control runoff from all surfaces affected by one
inch or more of rainfall. More stringent stormwater management measures may be required on a
case-by-case basis where it is determined additional measures are needed to protect and maintain
existing and anticipated uses of the water (Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H .1006).

ORWs are unique and special surface waters that have some outstanding resource value (i.e.,
outstanding fish habitat and fisheries, unusually high levels of water-based recreation, special
ecological or scientific significance). No new discharge or expansions on existing discharges are
permitted. Rules related to the development activities are similar to those for HQW, and
stormwater controls for all new development activities requiring an Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan under the NC Sedimentation Control Commission or an approved local erosion and
sedimentation control program are required to follow stormwater management rules as specified
in Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H .1000 (NCDENR-DWQ, December 1995). In addition,
site-specific stormwater management strategies may be developed to protect the resource values
of these waters.

In 1976, a portion of the New River basin, including the lower South Fork New River and the
North Carolina portion of the New River itself, were designated as a National Scenic River and a
state Natural and Scenic River. Totaling 26.5 miles, both the lower South Fork New River and
the New River are classified as ORW by DWQ. Designated with a “+” symbol in the stream
classifications schedule, special management strategies are applied to several waters along the
North and South Fork New Rivers in order to protect downstream waters designated as ORW.
Stormwater controls are required on land within one mile of and draining to the designated ORW
areas. Discharge limitations also apply to the “+” designated waters. These limitations were
developed using most of the HQW management strategies as a framework and include the
following:

Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 24

ƒ New or expanding NPDES discharges will be permitted as long as the water quality
standards are maintained in the ORW waters and provided that the total combined
discharges do not exceed 50% of the total instream flow in the ORWs.
ƒ Effluent limits for oxygen-consuming wastes must remain below the limits of 5.0 mg/l for
BOD and 2.0 mg/l for NH3-N.
ƒ Discharge of total suspended solids (TSS) is limited to 10.0 mg/l for trout waters and 20.0
mg/l for all other waters.
ƒ All permitted facilities must be equipped with emergency equipment including stand-by
power, dual-train design for all treatment components, or equivalent failsafe treatment
designs.
ƒ For those dischargers where nutrient enrichment is expected, effluent limits will be set for
phosphorus or nitrogen or both [Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B .0225(e)(4)].

These special management strategies apply to almost all of the streams in subbasin 05-07-01 and
05-07-02. They also apply to a few streams in subbasin 05-07-03 including Elk Creek
and Rock Creek.

Many of the streams in this subbasin are also classified as trout (Tr) waters, and therefore, are
protected for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. There are no watershed
development restrictions associated with the trout classification; however, the NC Division of
Land Resources (DLR), under the NC Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act (SPCA), has
requirements to protect trout streams from land-disturbing activities. Under General Statutes
113A-57(1), “waters that have been classified as trout waters by the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) shall have an undisturbed buffer zone 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to
confine visible siltation within the twenty-five percent of the buffer zone nearest the land-
disturbing activity, whichever is greater.” The Sedimentation Control Commission, however,
can approve land-disturbing activities along trout waters when the duration of the disturbance is
temporary and the extent of the disturbance is minimal. This rule also applies to unnamed
tributaries flowing to the affected trout water stream. Further clarification on classifications of
unnamed tributaries can be found under Administration Code 15A NCAC 02B .0301(i)(1). For
more information regarding land-disturbing activities along designated trout streams, see the
DLR website at http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/.

Chapter 1 – New River Subbasin 05-07-01 25