Chapter 2 Subbasin 05-07-02

Chapter 2
New River Subbasin 05-07-02
Including the: North Fork New River, Big Laurel Creek, Big Horse Creek, Helton
Creek, Three Top Creek, Buffalo Creek and Little Buffalo Creek

2.1 Subbasin Overview

The majority of this subbasin lies within Ashe County,
with the headwaters of the North Fork New River
beginning in Watauga County and the headwaters of Big
Horse Creek and Helton Creek beginning in Virginia.
The North Fork New River flows in an east-northeast
direction before it converges with the South Fork New
River to form the New River.

Land in many areas of this subbasin is typified by steep,
mountainous, forested slopes with little in the way of
urban development. Urban land use is restricted to the
areas surrounding Lansing and West Jefferson. During
the last ten years (1990 to 2000), population in West
Jefferson has increased by 7.9 percent but has actually
decreased in Lansing by 11.7 percent.

Outside the urban areas, rural residential properties and
pasturelands are scattered throughout the watershed.
Agricultural activities in the subbasin have historically
consisted of pasture and cultivated cropland, but within
the last 15 years, Christmas tree farming has increased.
Additional information regarding population and land use
changes throughout the entire basin can be found in
Appendix I and III, respectively.

There are four individual NPDES wastewater discharge
permits in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of
1.58 MGD. The largest of these is held by the United
Chemi-Con Manufacturing, Inc. facility with a total
permitted discharge of 1.02 MGD. The second largest
discharge is associated with the West Jefferson
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Between 2002 and 2003, daily or weekly averages were
exceeded for total cadmium, total mercury, fecal coliform bacteria, and total suspended solids
(TSS). Pretreatment issues are continually being addressed, and the West Jefferson WWTP
received an upgrade in 2002. See Section 2.3.1 for more information. For the listing of NPDES
permit holders, refer to Appendix VI.
Subbasin 05-07-02 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 255 mi2
Land area: 254 mi2
Water area: <1 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 24,140 people
Pop. Density: 95 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 84%
Surface Water: <1%
Urban: <1%
Cultivated Crop: <1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 15%

Counties
Ashe and Watauga

Municipalities
Lansing and West Jefferson

Aquatic Life
Monitored Streams Statistics
Total Streams: 136.8 mi
Total Supporting: 132.4 mi
Total Impaired: 4.4 mi
Total Not Rated: 0 mi

Chapter 2 – New River Subbasin 05-07-02 26
AU#
Description
Length/AreaClassification
05-07-02
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Table 6 Use Support New River Subbasin:
Big Horse Creek (Horse Creek)
10-2-21-(7)
From SR#1353 (Tuckerdale) to North Fork New R
6.5 FW MilesC +S ND
KB33 /2003E
Habitat Degradation Unknown
Big Laurel Creek
10-2-14
From source to North Fork New River
17.5 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB30 /2003E
Buffalo Creek
10-2-20
From source to North Fork New River
9.7 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB31 /2003E
Helton Creek
10-2-27
From NC-VA State Line to North Fork New River
19.0 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB25 /2003E
Hoskin Fork
10-2-7
From source to North Fork New River
5.2 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB26 /2003E
Little Buffalo Creek
10-2-20-1
From source to Buffalo Creek
4.4 FW MilesC Tr +I ND
KB32 /2003P
Habitat Degradation WWTP NPDES
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
Little Horse Creek
10-2-21-8
From source to Big Horse Creek
10.9 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB24 /2003G
Habitat Degradation Unknown
North Fork New River
10-2-(1)
From source to Three Top Creek
14.1 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB23 /2003E
Habitat Degradation Unknown
10-2-(12)
From Three Top Creek to New River
36.5 FW MilesC +S SKA4 NCE
KB23 /2003E
KB27 /2003E
KB28 /2003E
KA4 NCE
NEW Subbasin 05-07-02
AU#
Description
Length/AreaClassification
05-07-02
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Table 6 Use Support New River Subbasin:
Three Top Creek
10-2-13
From source to North Fork New River
13.2 FW MilesC Tr +S ND
KB29 /2003G
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 132.4 FW Milesm
I 4.4 FW Milesm
S 159.4 FW Milese
ND 2.7 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
36.5 FW MilesSm
262.5 FW MilesND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
298.9 FW MilesNR e
NEW Subbasin 05-07-02

A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 6. Table 6 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 ratings.

There were 11 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples collected during this assessment
period. Data were also collected from one ambient monitoring station. This ambient station is
located on the mainstem of the North Fork New River near Crumpler (NC16). No water quality
standards were violated. 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 6 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.

2.2 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.

Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 05-07-02 in 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. There are no designated water supply waters within this subbasin.

There were 136.8 stream miles (45.8 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category. Approximately 4.4 stream miles (1.5 percent) are Impaired. Refer to
Table 7 for a summary of use support ratings for waters in subbasin 05-07-02.

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

Chapter 2 – New River Subbasin 05-07-02 30

Table 7 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 05-07-02

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 132.4 mi 0.0 36.4 mi 0.0
Impaired 4.4 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 136.8 mi 0.0 36.4 mi 0.0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 159.4 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 0.0 298.9 mi 0.0 0.0
No Data 2.7 mi 0.0 262.5 mi 0.0
Total 162.1 mi 298.9 mi 262.5 mi 0.0
Totals
All Waters* 298.9 mi 298.9 mi 298.9 mi 0.0
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.

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

2.3.1 Little Buffalo Creek [AU# 10-2-20-1]

2000 Recommendations
Little Buffalo Creek, from source to Buffalo Creek (3.8 miles), was Partially Supporting due to
point (West Jefferson WWTP) and nonpoint (i.e., urban/stormwater runoff, extensive loss of
riparian vegetation) sources of pollution. Sections of the creek have been placed in culvert pipes,
eliminating riparian zones, and many other areas had manicured grass for vegetative cover. The
Town of West Jefferson was awaiting final construction approval for an upgrade to their WWTP.
In addition, DWQ recommended the development of an erosion control ordinance to reduce the
effects of sediment loss associated with new development activities in the surrounding area and a
community education program related to stormwater runoff and the importance of riparian zones.

Current Status
Little Buffalo Creek, from source to Buffalo Creek (4.4 miles), is Impaired due to a Poor
bioclassification at site KB32. Little Buffalo Creek is a small tributary of Buffalo Creek and
receives effluent and urban runoff from the Town of West Jefferson. The substrate was
embedded in the sampling reach, and riparian areas were limited and consisted mostly of grass.

Chapter 2 – New River Subbasin 05-07-02 31

Little Buffalo Creek has historically received a Poor and/or Fair bioclassifications and is likely
impacted by effluent from the Town of West Jefferson’s WWTP as well as nonpoint sources.
Between 2002 and 2003, daily or weekly averages were exceeded for total cadmium, total
mercury, fecal coliform bacteria, and total suspended solids (TSS). Pretreatment issues are
continually being addressed. The West Jefferson WWTP received an upgrade in 2002. Using
nearly $3 million in funds provided by the NC Construction Grants & Loans Section of DENR
and Clean Water Bonds (NC Rural Economic Development Center), an ultraviolet (UV)-
chlorination treatment process was added. Upgrades also included the addition of an oxidation
ditch and tertiary filters. Discharge was increased to 0.5 MGD. The current bioclassification is
based on benthic data collected in 2003. Water quality improvements associated with upgrades
to the WWTP were likely overshadowed by a two-year (2001 to 2002) drought, which may have
exacerbated the effluent impacts to the stream.

Other point sources that may also have contributed to the current bioclassification include: a
glue spill from Catawissa Lumber; an overflow of a recycling pond at Cardinal Stone; and a 100-
gallon gasoline spill in a tributary just above the WWTP. Information about each of these
incidents is described below.

ƒ Glue was released from a broken pipe at Catawissa Lumber in June 2001. The pipe was
repaired, and no additional impacts were noted.

ƒ Cardinal Stone paid a civil penalty when the facility discharged water from a recycling
pond, violating the water quality standard for turbidity. The discharge occurred during a
storm event in April 2000. Cardinal Stone has designed a new system to prevent the
overflow from occurring during future rain events. New prevention measures include
dredging the pond on a regular and planned schedule.

ƒ One hundred gallons of gasoline was spilled into a tributary just above the WWTP in April
2001. The DWQ regional office in Winston-Salem (WSRO) issued a Notice of Violation
and referred the incident to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA issued a No
Further Action letter to the responsible party. This letter indicates that appropriate clean-up
measures were taken, and that there is no further threat to soil or water in the immediate
vicinity of the spill.

2005 Recommendations
Little Buffalo Creek will remain on the list of impaired waters for 2006. DWQ will continue to
monitor the creek and work with the Town of Jefferson to minimize impacts from the WWTP
discharge and nonpoint sources. In addition, DWQ will assist local officials in identifying
funding sources in order to raise awareness in the community on the importance of riparian
zones and impacts associated with stormwater runoff.

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
Chapter 2 – New River Subbasin 05-07-02 32

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#. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix VIII.

2.4.1 Little Horse Creek [AU# 10-2-21-8]

Current Status
Little Horse Creek, from source to Big Horse Creek (10.9 miles), is Supporting due to a Good
bioclassification at site KB24. Little Horse Creek has been sampled twice (1998 and 2003) and
received a Good bioclassification each time. However, the substrate was heavily embedded,
which may reduce the available habitat for benthic communities. Land use adjacent to the
sampling reach is mostly forested, with scattered residential properties and pasture.

2005 Recommendations
In order to maintain the water quality in Little Horse Creek, DWQ recommends that local
agencies work with landowners to install best management practices (BMPs) along the
streambanks to limit sedimentation and erosion. Since the residential properties are outside of
any town or city limits, it is likely that they are equipped with on-site wastewater systems (i.e.,
septic systems). Septic systems should be monitored and maintained on a regular basis to prevent
leakage and impact to Little Horse Creek.

2.4.2 Big Horse Creek [AU# 10-2-21-(7)]

Current Status
Big Horse Creek, from State Route #1353 to North Fork New River (6.5 miles), is Supporting
due to an Excellent bioclassification at site KB33. Land use generally consists of fallow fields
and pasturelands. A few scattered residential properties are also located throughout the
watershed. No streambank erosion was observed in the sampling reach, and riparian areas were
adequate; however, the substrate was highly embedded.

For two years (April 2002 to April 2004), monthly chemistry data has been analyzed from Big
Horse Creek by the Volunteer Water Information network (VWIN). Big Horse Creek was found
to exceed the trout turbidity standard during 42 percent of the monitoring events. Sedimentation
and nutrient levels are also elevated in Big Horse Creek following rainfall events (Maas, et al.,
August 2004). These elevated sediment and nutrient levels are most likely associated with
nonpoint runoff.

2005 Recommendations
In order to maintain the water quality in Big Horse Creek, DWQ recommends that local agencies
work with landowners to install BMPs along the streambanks to limit sedimentation and erosion.
Since the residential properties are outside of any town or city limits, it is likely that they are
equipped with on-site wastewater systems (i.e., septic systems). Septic systems should be
monitored and maintained on a regular basis to prevent leakage and impact to Big Horse Creek.

Chapter 2 – New River Subbasin 05-07-02 33

Water Quality Initiatives
Ashe County received over $600,000 in Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) money
to conduct a Virginia Creeper Trail Feasibility Study along Big Horse Creek. In North Carolina,
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) is an endangered plant species commonly found in the
rocky, flood-scoured riverbanks of gorges or canyons.

The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has initiated a stream restoration project
along Ripshin Creek [AU# 10-2-21-3], a tributary to Big Horse Creek. NCEEP has identified
stream restoration potential along 3,500 linear feet of streambank and plans to enhance the buffer
of an additional 19,000 linear feet. In addition to streambank restoration and enhancement, there
is also the potential to preserve 7.4 acres of wetland and enhance an additional 5.1 acres. For
more information about NCEEP, see Chapter 12 or visit http://www.nceep.net.

Several wetland and agricultural BMPs were also installed throughout the Big Horse Creek
watershed. During this assessment period, funds totaling $5,360 were provided by the NCACSP
and were administered by the New River SWCD. Using this money, 42 acres of cropland were
converted, and two acres of critical areas were planted. For more information on the NCASCP,
see Chapter 8. Land has also been donated for conservation easements in the area of Pond
Mountain, near the headwaters of the watershed.

2.4.3 North Fork New River [AU# 10-2-(1) and 10-2-(12)]

Current Status
North Fork New River, from source to New River (87.0 miles) is Supporting due to Excellent
bioclassifications at sites KB23, KB27, and KB28. In addition, many of the tributaries draining
to the North Fork New River also received Good and/or Excellent bioclassifications.

At the most upstream site (KB23), land use is a mix of forest, agriculture (i.e., pasture, Christmas
trees, burley tobacco) and residential properties. The site supports a highly diverse aquatic
community, but the pool habitats were filled with sediment and low gradient riffle areas were
embedded.

At site KB27, the sampling reach is mostly rocky with well-defined gravel riffles. Here,
instream habitat is plentiful, and the streambanks are stable. Land use along both sides of the
river consisted of open pasture and agricultural fields.

The most downstream site (KB28) has a total drainage area of 224 square miles. The gradient is
higher here than in the headwaters, creating gorge-like conditions along some sections of the
river. Land use along the sampling reach is primarily forested with scattered pastures and fallow
fields, and instream habitat is favorable for colonization. All three sites have historically
received Good and/or Excellent bioclassifications.

2005 Recommendations
In order to maintain the water quality in the North Fork New River, DWQ recommends that local
agencies work with landowners to install appropriate BMPs along the streambanks to limit
sedimentation and erosion. Since the residential properties in the headwaters are outside any
town or city limits, it is likely that they are equipped with on-site wastewater systems (i.e., septic
Chapter 2 – New River Subbasin 05-07-02 34

systems). Septic systems should be monitored and maintained on a regular basis to prevent
leakage and impact to the river.

Water Quality Initiatives
In Bent River Estates, just outside Jefferson, the National Committee for the New River (NCNR)
along with the New River Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) stabilized and restored
nearly 1,400 feet of riparian area. New road and residential development in the area caused large
amounts of sediment to enter the river. In some instances, construction activities also
contributed to severe streambank erosion. Numerous livestakes were planted along the river’s
edge on several residential properties to reduce erosion and improve aquatic habitats. Funding
for the stabilization project was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
CWMTF. DWQ will continue to work with the local agencies and NCNR to maintain the
excellent water quality in the North Fork New River and to educate the community about the
importance of riparian areas.

2.4.4 Three Top Creek [AU# 10-2-13]

Current Status
Three Top Creek, from source to the North Fork New River (13.2 miles), is Supporting due to a
Good bioclassification at site KB29. Three Top Creek is a headwater tributary of the North Fork
New River and drains Bluff and Three Top Mountains in Ashe County. Land use in the area is
mostly forested, and streambanks were stable. This high gradient stream has a boulder, gravel
and rubble substrate with frequent riffles and an abundant instream habitat. Even though the
sampling reach has a good aquatic habitat, DWQ regional staff and local SWCD personnel note
that there has been a slight decline in water quality. This decline is most likely associated with
residential development along Three Top Road, which parallels the creek for several miles.

2005 Recommendations
In order to maintain the water quality in Three Top Creek, DWQ recommends that local agencies
work with landowners to install appropriate BMPs along the streambanks to limit sedimentation
and erosion associated with construction activities. DWQ also encourages the importance of
community involvement and education related to riparian areas.

2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 05-07-02

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 (Chapter 1) and 05-07-02, this is
particularly important since many of the waters are designated 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.

Chapter 2 – New River Subbasin 05-07-02 35

2.5.1 Low Head Dams

Several small, private dams have been constructed on the tributaries leading to the North Fork
New River. In some instances, the stream has rerouted itself around the dam, and the dam is no
longer serving its function. Improper dam removal can lead to excess sedimentation and
scouring conditions that ultimately impact the benthic and fish communities downstream. This
was recently seen in September 2003 when DWQ received information that a dam had been
removed from a tributary of the North Fork New River, just ¼-mile from the confluence. The
dam was removed with the intention of removing old tires, batteries and plastic from along the
streambanks. In the process, however, a large amount of sediment was flushed downstream.

Before any dam is repaired, altered or removed, ecological and economic costs should be
assessed, and the appropriate federal and state agencies should be contacted. These include the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the DWQ Wetlands & 401 Unit, and the Division of
Land Resources (DLR). Any disturbance to the soil or substrate (i.e., bottom material) of a
wetland or waterbody, including a streambed, is an impact that may adversely affect the
hydrology of an area. For this reason, the regional USACE office should be contacted in order to
determine how impacts can be minimized and whether a permit is needed. The USACE issues
the following types of permits: Letters of Permission, Nationwide Permits, General or Regional
Permits, and Individual Permits. For more information on the types of permits issued by
USACE visit http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/index.html or contact the USACE Asheville
Regulatory Field Office at 828-271-7980.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act delegates authority to the states to issue a 401 Water Quality
Certification for all projects that require a Federal Permit (such as a Section 404 Permit from the
USACE). The "401" is essentially a verification by the state that a given project will not degrade
waters of the state or otherwise violate water quality standards. For more information on 401
Water Quality Certifications, contact the DWQ Winston-Salem regional office staff at (336) 771-
4600.

North Carolina’s Dam Safety Laws are implemented by DLR and require an application be
submitted to DLR before any repair, alteration or dam removal begins. Dams that are exempt
from this process include those that are (1) “under a single, private ownership and provide
protection only to land or other property under the same ownership and that does not pose a
threat to human life or property below the dam” or (2) “less than 15 feet in height or that has an
impoundment capacity of less than 10 acre-feet, unless the Department determines that failure of
the dam could result in loss of human life or significant damage to property below the dam.” For
more information about Dam Safety Laws, contact DLR at [phone] or visit them online
at http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/.

Several landowners have also approached the New River SWCD for information and funds
related to dam removal activities. Currently, North Carolina does not have funds dedicated for
dam repair or removal; however, there are general federal, state and local environmental funding
programs that could be used for dam removal if the removal were part of a project intended to
improve water quality, protect or enhance wildlife habitat, restore natural resources, or alleviate
dam safety concerns. Examples of dam removal and funding sources are included in the
American Rivers’ report entitled Paying for Dam Removal: A Guide to Selected Funding

Chapter 2 – New River Subbasin 05-07-02 36

Sources (American Rivers, October 2000). This report is available upon request by calling
202-347-7550 or on-line at www.americanrivers.org.

The National Committee for the New River (NCNR) has an interest in helping landowners in
identifying dams in need of removal. NCNR has several documents available for review
including the American Rivers document referenced above, as well as studies related to the
ecological and social implications of removing a dam. For more information about NCNR and
contact information, refer to Chapter 12.

2.5.2 Management Strategies for Water Quality Protection

Municipalities and smaller outlying communities are being pressured to expand and this involves
construction and/or developing in areas along tributaries of the North Fork New River and the
river itself. HQW and ORW are supplemental classifications to the primary freshwater
classification(s) placed on a waterbody (Chapter 4). Management strategies are associated with
the supplemental HQW and ORW classifications and are intended to protect the current use of
the waterbody.

Waters under special management strategies are designated with a “+” symbol in the stream
classifications schedule. Under these strategies, stormwater controls are required on land within
one mile of and draining to the designated ORW. Discharge limitations also apply to the “+”
designated waters. These limitations were developed using most of the HQW management
strategies as a framework. A summary of the special management strategies for HQW and ORW
waters can be found in Chapter 1. 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/. All of the waters in subbasin 05-07-02 are subject to special
management strategies.

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 Statute
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 2 – New River Subbasin 05-07-02 37