NEW Final Plan 2005

New River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan

October 2005

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

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

This Document was approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission on
October 13, 2005 to be used as a guide by the NC Division of Water Quality for carrying
out its Water Quality Program duties and responsibilities in the New River basin. This
plan is the third five-year update to the New River Basinwide Water Quality Plan approved
by the NC Environmental Management Commission in September 1995.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................ix
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................xx
What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?........................................................................xx
Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning........................................................................xx
Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning..................................................................xxi
How You Can Get Involved ...............................................................................................xxi
Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations ..........................................................xxi
Some Other Reference Materials......................................................................................xxiii
How to Read the Basinwide Plan......................................................................................xxiii
Chapter 1.............................................................................................................................................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........................................................................................................1
1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary ...............................................................................8
1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters....................8
1.3.1 Naked Creek [AU# 10-1-32b]...........................................................................9
1.3.2 Peak Creek [AU# 10-1-35-(2)b]......................................................................10
1.3.3 Little Peak Creek [AU# 10-1-35-4].................................................................12
1.3.4 Ore Knob Branch [AU# 10-1-35-3].................................................................12
1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................................13
1.4.1 Middle Fork South Fork New River [AU# 10-1-2-(6), 10-1-2-(14) and
10-1-2-(15)]......................................................................................................13
1.4.2 East Fork South Fork New River [AU# 10-1-3-(7) and 10-1-3-(8)]...............16
1.4.3 South Fork New River [AU# 10-1-(3.5) a and b]............................................16
1.4.4 South Fork New River [AU# 10-1-(26)b and 10-1-(30)a]...............................17
1.4.5 Winkler Creek [AU# 10-1-4-(3.5)a and b]......................................................19
1.4.6 Howard Creek [AU# 10-1-9]...........................................................................19
1.4.7 Meat Camp Creek [AU# 10-1-10]...................................................................20
1.4.8 Roan Creek [AU# 10-1-31-(1) and 10-1-31-(2)].............................................21
1.4.9 Cranberry Creek (Mulberry Creek) [AU# 10-1-37]........................................21
1.4.10 Pine Swamp Creek [AU# 10-1-24]..................................................................22
1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 05-07-01 .......................................22
1.5.1 Christmas Tree Production and Best Management Practices ..........................22
1.5.2 Land Clearing Activities..................................................................................23
1.5.3 Management Strategies for Water Quality Protection.....................................23
Table of Contents i

Chapter 2...........................................................................................................................................26
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......................................................................................................26
2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary .............................................................................30
2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..................30
2.3.1 Little Buffalo Creek [AU# 10-2-20-1].............................................................31
2.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................................32
2.4.1 Little Horse Creek [AU# 10-2-21-8]...............................................................33
2.4.2 Big Horse Creek [AU# 10-2-21-(7)]................................................................33
2.4.3 North Fork New River [AU# 10-2-(1) and 10-2-(12)]....................................34
2.4.4 Three Top Creek [AU# 10-2-13].....................................................................35
2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 05-07-02 .......................................35
2.5.1 Low Head Dams ..............................................................................................36
2.5.2 Management Strategies for Water Quality Protection.....................................37
Chapter 3...........................................................................................................................................38
New River Subbasin 05-07-03
Including the: New River, Little River, Pine Swamp Creek, Bledsoe Creek, Brush Creek and
Laurel Branch
3.1 Subbasin Overview......................................................................................................38
3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary .............................................................................42
3.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..................42
3.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................................42
3.4.1 Elk Creek [AU# 10-6-(2)]................................................................................43
3.4.2 Little River [AU# 10-9-(6) and 10-9-(11.5)]...................................................44
3.4.3 Pine Swamp Creek [AU# 10-9-5]....................................................................46
3.4.4 Bledsoe Creek [AU# 10-9-7]...........................................................................46
3.4.5 Brush Creek [AU# 10-9-10]............................................................................48
3.4.6 Laurel Branch [AU# 10-9-10-2]......................................................................48
3.4.7 Glade Creek [AU# 10-9-9]..............................................................................49
3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 05-07-03 .......................................50
3.5.1 Livestock Exclusion.........................................................................................50
3.5.2 Management Strategies for Trout Water Protection ........................................51
3.5.3 Special Aquatic Resources...............................................................................51
3.5.4 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification.................................52
Chapter 4...........................................................................................................................................53
North Carolina Water Quality Classifications and Standards
4.1 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards ......................................53
4.1.1 Statewide Classifications .................................................................................53
4.1.2 Statewide Water Quality Standards .................................................................53
Table of Contents ii

4.1.3 Special Management Strategies.......................................................................57
4.1.4 Reclassification of Surface Waters..................................................................57
Chapter 5...........................................................................................................................................59
Water Quality Stressors
5.1 Stressor and Source Identification ...............................................................................59
5.1.1 Introduction – Stressors ...................................................................................59
5.1.2 Introduction – Sources of Stressors .................................................................59
5.1.3 Overview of Stressors Identified in the New River Basin...............................60
5.1.4 Overview of Stressor Sources Identified in the New River Basin...................61
5.2 Aquatic Life Stressors – Habitat Degradation .............................................................62
5.2.1 Introduction and Overview ..............................................................................62
5.2.2 Sedimentation ..................................................................................................63
5.2.3 Loss of Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................64
5.2.4 Loss of Instream Organic Microhabitats..........................................................64
5.2.5 Channelization .................................................................................................64
5.2.6 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation ....................................65
5.3 Aquatic Life Stressors – Water Quality Standards ......................................................66
5.3.1 Introduction and Overview ..............................................................................66
5.3.2 pH.....................................................................................................................67
5.3.3 Toxic Impacts...................................................................................................67
5.4 Recreation Stressor – Fecal Coliform Bacteria............................................................67
Chapter 6...........................................................................................................................................69
Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality
6.1 General Sources of Pollution.......................................................................................69
6.2 Managing the Impacts of Growth and Development and Stormwater Runoff ............70
6.2.1 Introduction to Stormwater Runoff..................................................................70
6.2.2 Effects of Growth and Development ...............................................................70
6.2.3 Controlling Stormwater Pollution....................................................................71
6.2.4 Protecting Headwaters .....................................................................................72
6.3 The Role of Local Governments..................................................................................73
6.3.1 Introduction and Overview ..............................................................................73
6.3.2 Reducing Impacts of Future Development ......................................................75
6.3.3 Existing Programs to Control Stormwater Runoff...........................................76
Chapter 7...........................................................................................................................................77
Stormwater and Wastewater Programs
7.1 Federal and State Stormwater Programs......................................................................77
7.1.1 NPDES Phase I ................................................................................................77
7.1.2 NPDES Phase II...............................................................................................77
7.1.3 State Stormwater Programs – Sensitive Waters...............................................78
7.1.4 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules....................................................79
7.2 Federal and State Wastewater Programs......................................................................80
Table of Contents iii

7.2.2 NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Summary............................................80
7.2.2 Septic Systems and Straight Piping .................................................................81
Chapter 8...........................................................................................................................................84
Agriculture and Water Quality
8.1 Animal Operations.......................................................................................................84
8.2 Impacted Streams in Agricultural Areas......................................................................85
8.3 Agricultural Best Management Practices and Funding Opportunities ........................86
8.3.1 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP).........86
8.3.2 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program ...............................................................86
Chapter 9...........................................................................................................................................89
Forestry in the New River Basin
9.1 Forestland Ownership and Resources..........................................................................89
9.1.1 Forest Management..........................................................................................89
9.1.2 Urban Forestry .................................................................................................89
9.1.3 Forest Utilization .............................................................................................89
9.1.4 Christmas Tree Production ..............................................................................90
9.2 Forestry Water Quality Regulations in North Carolina...............................................90
9.2.1 Forest Practice Guidelines (FPG) for Water Quality.......................................90
9.2.2 Other Forestry Related Water Quality Regulations .........................................90
9.2.3 Water Quality Foresters...................................................................................91
9.2.4 Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Water Quality...................91
Chapter 10.........................................................................................................................................93
Water Resources
10.1 River Basin Hydrologic Units......................................................................................93
10.2 Minimum Streamflow..................................................................................................94
10.3 Interbasin Transfers .....................................................................................................95
10.4 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought ....................................................................95
10.5 Source Water Assessment of Public Water Supplies...................................................96
10.5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................96
10.5.2 Delineation of Source Water Assessment Areas .............................................97
10.5.3 Susceptibility Determination – North Carolina’s Overall Approach...............97
10.5.4 Source Water Protection ..................................................................................98
10.5.5 Public Water Supply Susceptibility Determinations in the New River
Basin ................................................................................................................99
Chapter 11.......................................................................................................................................100
Natural Resources
11.1 Ecological Significance of the New River Basin.......................................................100
11.2 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species...............................................100
Table of Contents iv

11.3 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the New River Basin .....................................100
11.4 Significant Aquatic Habitats in New River Basin .....................................................102
11.5 Public Lands...............................................................................................................103
Chapter 12.......................................................................................................................................106
Water Quality Initiatives
12.1 The Importance of Local Initiatives...........................................................................106
12.2 Federal Initiatives.......................................................................................................108
12.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program.......................................................108
12.3 State Initiatives...........................................................................................................109
12.3.1 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP).......................109
12.3.2 Clean Water Management Trust Fund...........................................................110
References.......................................................................................................................................114

Table of Contents v

APPENDICES

I Population and Growth Trends in the New River Basin

II Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the New River Basin

III Land Cover in the New River Basin

IV DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the New River Basin

V Other Water Quality Data in the New River Basin

VI NPDES Discharges and General Stormwater Permits

VII 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methodology

VIII New River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts

IX Use Support Methodology and Use Support Ratings

X Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Appendices vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 General Map of the Entire New River Basin...........................................................xviii
Figure 2 General Map of the New River Basin in North Carolina...........................................xix
Figure 3 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2002 to 2007).............................................................xx
Figure 4 Division of Water Quality Regional Offices ...........................................................xxiv
Figure 5 New River Subbasin 05-07-01.......................................................................................2
Figure 6 New River Subbasin 05-07-02.....................................................................................27
Figure 7 New River Subbasin 05-07-03.....................................................................................39
Figure 8 ORWs and HWQs in the New River Basin .................................................................56
Figure 9 Water Supply Watersheds in the New River Basin .....................................................58
Figure 10 Stressors Identified for Impaired Streams in the New River Basin.............................60
Figure 11 Stressors Identified for Streams with Noted Impacts in the New River Basin............60
Figure 12 Sources of Stressors Identified in the New River Basin..............................................61
Figure 13 Diagram of Headwater Streams within a Watershed Boundary..................................72
Figure 14 Significant Natural Resources in the New River Basin.............................................105

List of Figures vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Impaired Waters in the New River Basin ...............................................xv
Table 2 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007)..........................................................xxii
Table 3 Five-Year Planning Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan.....xxii
Table 4 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 05-07-01 .........................................................................................................3
Table 5 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 05-07-01 .........................9
Table 6 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 05-07-02 .......................................................................................................28
Table 7 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 05-07-02 .......................31
Table 8 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in
Subbasin 05-07-03 .......................................................................................................40
Table 9 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Category in Subbasin 05-07-03 ................43
Table 10 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications ..........................................54
Table 11 Communities in the New River Subject to Stormwater and/or Water Supply
Watershed Stormwater Requirements..........................................................................79
Table 12 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the New River Basin
(September 2004).........................................................................................................81
Table 13 Results of the Ashe/Alleghany Straight Pipe Elimination Project...............................82
Table 14 Registered Animal Operations in the New River Basin (September 2004).................85
Table 15 Summary of NCACSP projects in the New River Basin (1998 to 2003)....................88
Table 16 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the New River Basin.......................................................93
Table 17 Selected Minimum Streamflow Projects in the New River Basin...............................94
Table 18 Estimated Interbasin Transfers in the New River Basin (1997)..................................95
Table 19 SWAP Results for Surface Water Sources in the New River Basin............................99
Table 20 List of Rare Animals Associated with Aquatic and Wetland Habitats in the New
River Basin.................................................................................................................101
Table 21 Local Water Quality Initiatives..................................................................................107
Table 22 Projects in the New River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management Trust
Fund ...........................................................................................................................111

List of Tables viii

Executive Summary

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

The goals of basinwide planning are to:

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

DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives:

ƒ Collaborate with regional and local agencies to develop appropriate management
strategies. This includes providing agencies information related to financial and funding
opportunities.
ƒ Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity.
ƒ Evaluate cumulative effects of pollution.
ƒ Improve public awareness and involvement.
ƒ Regulate point and nonpoint sources of pollution where other approaches are not
successful.

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

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

Basin Overview

Despite its name, the New River is part of the oldest river system in North America and flows
through rugged terrain containing metamorphic rocks that are 1.1 billion years old.
The New River originates at the confluence of the North Fork and the South Fork New Rivers in
Ashe County, North Carolina. It flows north-northeast into Virginia and West Virginia where it
Executive Summary ix

joins with the Gauley River to form the Kanawha River. Eventually, waters flow to the Gulf of
Mexico via the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers (Figure 1).

The North Carolina portion of the New River is located in the Blue Ridge Province of the
Appalachian Mountains. Within North Carolina, the North Fork New River, South Fork New
River and Little River all drain to the New River, and three counties (Alleghany, Ashe and
Watauga) are entirely or partially contained within the basin. DWQ subdivides all river basins
into subbasins. In the New River basin, there are three subbasins (Figure 2).

Information presented in this basinwide water quality plan is based on data collected from
September 1998 to August 2003. Maps of each subbasin are included in each of the subbasin
chapters. Each subbasin has its own characteristics and water quality concerns. These are
discussed in Chapters 1 through 3.

DWQ identifies the stressors of water quality impact as specifically as possible depending on the
amount of information available in a watershed. Most often, the source of the stressor is based
on the predominant land use in a watershed. In the New River basin, new
development/construction activities, land clearing, agriculture and one point source were all
identified as possible stressors. Water quality decline can often be attributed to a combination of
many stressors that lead to habitat and water quality degradation. In some way, every person,
industry, landowner and municipality in the basin impacts water quality. Therefore, every
resident of the basin should play a role in management strategies designed to protect and restore
the streams, lakes and rivers of the basin.

Water Quality Standards and Classifications
Throughout the New River basin, water quality is generally good and excellent in most of the
monitored stream segments. Chapter 4 discusses water quality standards and classifications and
includes maps showing the designated Water Supply (WS) watersheds, High Quality Waters
(HQW) and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).

In the New River basin, several municipalities and smaller outlying communities are being
pressured to expand. This often involves construction and/or development in areas of pristine
waters along several tributaries of the North Fork New River, South Fork New River and the
New River. HQW and ORW are supplemental classifications to the primary freshwater
classification placed on a waterbody. Special management strategies are often associated with
the supplemental HQW and ORW classification and are intended to prevent degradation of water
quality below present levels from point and nonpoint sources of pollution. A brief summary of
these strategies and the administrative code under which the strategies are found are included in
Chapter 1.

Water Quality Stressors
Water quality stressors are identified when impacts have been noted to biological (fish and
benthic) communities or water quality standards have been violated. Whenever possible, water
quality stressors are identified for Impaired waters as well as waters with notable impacts.

One of the most noted water quality stressors is instream habitat degradation. Instream habitat
degradation is identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or a negative
change in habitat. Sedimentation, streambank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian
Executive Summary x

vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour are all associated
with habitat degradation. These stressors are typically a result of increased flow of stormwater
runoff due to land use changes or to sediment runoff from land-disturbing activities. Streams
with noted habitat degradation are discussed in the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1-3).

Other chemical and biological factors can also impact water quality. These include excess algal
growth, low dissolved oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus levels, pH, and fecal coliform bacteria.
Chapter 5 provides definitions and recommendations for reducing impacts associated with
physical, chemical and biological factors.

Population Growth and Changes in Land Use
The New River basin encompasses all or portions of three counties and six municipalities. In
2000, the overall population in the basin (based on the percent of the county land area in the
basin) was 49,653. The most populated areas are located in and around the towns of Boone,
Blowing Rock, Jefferson and Sparta.
New River Basin Statistics
(North Carolina Portion)

Total Area: 752 sq. miles
Freshwater Stream Miles: 918.1 mi
No. of Counties: 3
No. of Municipalities: 6
No. of Subbasins: 3
Population (2000): 49,653*
Pop. Density (2000): 66 persons/sq. mile*

Water Quality Statistics

Aquatic Life
Percent Monitored Streams: 39.7%
Percent Supporting: 95.0%
Percent Impaired: 3.0%
Percent Not Rated: 2.0%

Recreation
Percent Monitored Streams: 11.8%
Percent Supporting: 75.6%
Percent Not Rated: 24.4%

Identified Water Quality Stressors
Habitat Degradation: 142.2 miles
Fecal Coliform Bacteria: 21.4 miles
Toxic Impacts and/or Low pH: 13.4 miles

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

Between 1990 and 2000, county populations
increased by nearly 10,000 people. The fastest
growing county was Watauga (17.2 percent
increase), followed by Alleghany (12.1 percent
increase). County populations are expected to grow
by another 14,000 people (14.6 percent) by 2020.
This would result in a total population of over
91,000 people in the three counties partially or
entirely contained within the New River basin.
Population growth trends and the accompanying
impacts to water quality are discussed in Chapters 5
and 6.

Expanding populations are typically characterized
by a loss of natural areas and an increase in
impervious surface. Based on the current land
cover information provided by the National
Resources Inventory (USDA-NRCS, 2001), there
was a 58.9 percent decrease (8,600 acres) in
cultivated cropland in the New River basin from
1982 to 1997. Uncultivated cropland and
pastureland also decreased by nearly 18,500 acres
(58.5 percent and 4.2 percent, respectively). Urban
and built-up areas increased by nearly 9,800 acres
(46 percent). Much of this land cover change is
accounted for in the areas around Blowing Rock
and Jefferson, where population increased by 12.3
percent and 9.4 percent, respectively, from 1990 to
2000. Land use cover tables and statistics are
included in Appendix III.

Executive Summary xi

Growing populations not only require more water, but they also lead to the discharge and runoff
of greater quantities of waste and pollutants into the state’s streams and groundwater. The
impacts on rivers, lakes and streams can be significant and permanent if stormwater runoff is not
controlled. Just as demand and use increases, some of the potential water supply is also lost (Orr
and Stuart, 2000).

Impacts from Stormwater Runoff
Stormwater runoff is rainfall or snowmelt that runs off the ground or impervious surface (i.e.,
buildings, roads, parking lots, etc.) instead of absorbing into the soil. In some cases, stormwater
runoff drains directly into streams, rivers, lakes and oceans. In other cases, particularly
urbanized areas, stormwater drains into streets and manmade drainage systems consisting of
inlets and underground pipes, commonly referred to as a storm sewer system. Stormwater runoff
is a primary carrier of nonpoint source pollution in both urbanized and rural areas. The impact of
stormwater runoff is particularly severe in developing areas where recently graded lands are
highly susceptible to erosion. Water quality impacts are also evident in urbanized areas where
stormwater runoff is increased by impervious surfaces and is rapidly channeled through ditches
or curb and gutter systems into nearby streams. For more information on stormwater as it relates
to growth and development, refer to Chapter 6.

There are several different stormwater programs administered by DWQ. One or more of these
programs may affect communities in the New River basin. The goal of DWQ stormwater
discharge permitting regulations and programs is to prevent pollution from entering the waters of
the state via stormwater runoff. These programs accomplish this goal by controlling the
source(s) of pollution. Chapter 7 includes more information on the statewide stormwater
programs.

Septic Systems and Straight Pipes
In the New River basin, wastewater from many households is not treated at a wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP). Instead, it is treated on-site through the use of permitted septic
systems. However, wastewater from some homes illegally discharges directly into streams
through what is known as a “straight pipe”. In some cases, wastewater can also enter streams
through failing septic systems. In highly susceptible areas, wastewater from failing septic
systems or straight pipes can contaminate a drinking water supply or recreational waters with
nutrients, disease pathogens and endocrine disturbing chemicals.

From 2000 to 2003, the Appalachian District Health Department took the lead in a straight pipe
elimination project in Ashe and Alleghany counties. The DENR Wastewater Discharge
Elimination (WaDE) Program provided technical assistance. Funds totaling $1.2 million was
provided by the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), the North
Carolina Department of Commerce – Division of Community Assistance, and the Appalachian
Regional Commission. Nearly 2,800 homes were inspected. Out of these, 625 homes had either
a failing septic system or a straight pipe. To date, over 45 percent of the homes (323 homes)
have been corrected. More information on DWQ wastewater programs can be found in Chapter
7.

Agriculture and Water Quality
Excess nutrient loading, pesticide and/or herbicide contamination, bacterial contamination and
sedimentation are often associated with agricultural activities, and all can impact water quality.
Executive Summary xii

Chapter 8 provides information related to agricultural activities in the New River basin and also
identifies funding opportunities for best management practices (BMP). During this assessment
period, the North Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program (NCACSP) funded BMPs totaling
more than $900,000. BMPs include planned systems for reducing soil erosion and nutrient
runoff, planned systems for protecting streams and streambanks, and the installation of planned
systems to manage liquid and solid waste to prevent or minimize degradation of soil and water
resources.

In several streams throughout the basin, DWQ noted evidence and observed several areas where
livestock had direct, easy access to the streams. Fencing, or livestock exclusion, prevents
livestock from entering a stream and provides an area of vegetative cover, which can secure
streambanks, lower stream velocities, trap suspended sediments, and decrease downgradient
erosion. Livestock exclusion is also effective in reducing nutrient, bacteria and sediment loads in
a stream (Line and Jennings, 2002). Of the $910,336 of NCACSP funds spent on BMPs in the
New River basin, over 9.5 percent ($86,437) was spent on 71,430 feet of fence for livestock
exclusion. An additional 18,000 feet of fence was installed using funds provided through the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Environmental Improvement Program (EQIP). For more information on either of these
agricultural funding opportunities, see Chapter 8.

Besides pasturelands and row crops, Christmas tree production also has a significant presence in
the New River basin. 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). From 1999 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. Chapter 1 contains more
information related to Christmas tree production in the New River basin.

Forestry and Water Quality
Based on land cover information provided by the North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database
(CGIA) and the USDA-NRCS, 75 percent (267,700 acres) of land in the New River basin
consists of forestland. No streams were identified as Impaired or impacted by stressors
associated with land clearing or forestry activities. Where forest harvesting is identified as a
potential source of water quality impact, DWQ will notify the Division of Forest Resources
(DFR) to investigate potential violations and the enforcement of management strategies.
Chapter 9 presents more information related to the impacts of forestry on water quality.

Water Resources
Chapter 10 presents information related to minimum streamflow requirements, interbasin
transfers, water quality during drought conditions, and source water protection. The chapter also
includes the federal cataloging units (commonly referred to as hydrologic units) as they relate to
the state subbasin boundaries.

Natural Resources
Not only is the New River basin renowned for the oldest existing rivers in North America, but it
is also noted for the number of rare and endemic aquatic species that it supports. Many of these
species, and ecological communities in which they exist, are found nowhere else in the State.
Chapter 11 presents information related to the ecological significance of the basin and identifies
Executive Summary xiii

endangered and threatened species, significant natural areas and aquatic habitats and public lands
that are locally significant.

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

The collaboration of local efforts is key to water quality improvements, and DWQ applauds the
foresight and proactive response by locally based organizations and agencies to protect water
quality. There are many excellent examples of local agencies and groups using these cooperative
strategies throughout the state. Several local watershed projects are highlighted throughout the
subbasin chapters (Chapters 1-3). Chapter 12 also examines the local and federal initiatives
underway in the New River basin.

Use Support Summary

Use support assessments based on surface water classifications form the foundation of this
basinwide plan. Surface waters are classified according to their best-intended use. Determining
how well a waterbody supports its use (use support rating) is an important method of interpreting
water quality data and assessing water quality.

Biological, chemical and physical monitoring data collected between September 1998 and
August 2003 were used to assign use support ratings in the New River basin. Based on
monitored data, a total of 10.9 stream miles (3.0 percent) are Impaired in the New River basin.
The impairments are associated with habitat degradation from nonpoint source runoff, acid mine
drainage and one point source. Table 1 presents a summary of the Impaired waters and the
associated stressors. Current status and recommendations for restoration of water quality for each
Impaired water are discussed in the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1-3). Maps showing the current
use support rating are also presented in each subbasin chapter.

Use support methodology has changed significantly since the 2000 revision of the New River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. In the previous plan, surface waters were rated fully supporting
(FS), partially supporting (PS), not supporting (NS) and not rated (NR). FS was used to identify
waters that were meeting their designated use. Impaired waters were rated PS and NS,
depending on the degree of degradation. NR was used to identify waters with no data or those
that had inconclusive data.

Executive Summary xiv

Table 1 Summary of Impaired Waters in the New River Basin

Stream/
River Name*
Assessment Unit
Number (AU#) Subbasin Class Miles Category Water Quality
Stressor/Source
Little Peak Creek 10-1-35-4 05-07-01 B Tr + 2.8 Aquatic Life
Habitat degradation and
toxic impacts associated
with acid mine drainage
Ore Knob Branch 10-1-35-3 05-07-01 B Tr + 0.9 Aquatic Life
Habitat degradation and
toxic impacts associated
with acid mine drainage
Peak Creek 10-1-35-(2)b 05-07-01 B Tr + 2.9 Aquatic Life
Habitat degradation and
toxic impacts associated
with acid mine drainage
Little Buffalo Creek 10-2-20-1 05-07-02 C Tr + 4.4 Aquatic Life
Habitat degradation
associated with nonpoint
runoff, impervious surface
and one minor discharge

Use Support Category Units Total Impaired
Length/Acres
Percent of Impaired
Monitored Waters
Aquatic Life Freshwater miles 10.9 mi 3.0
Recreation Freshwater miles 0.0 0.0
Fish Consumption Freshwater miles 0.0 0.0
Water Supply Freshwater miles 0.0 0.0

The 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance issued by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requests that states no longer subdivide the
Impaired category. In agreement with this guidance, North Carolina no longer subdivides the
Impaired category and rates waters as Supporting (S), Impaired (I), Not Rated (NR) or No Data
(ND). These ratings refer to whether the classified uses of the water (i.e., water supply, aquatic
life, primary/secondary recreation) are being met. Detailed information on use support
methodology is provided in Appendix IX.

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

Executive Summary xv

Recommended Management Strategies for Restoring Impaired Waters

The Impaired streams in the New River basin are impacted by a combination of nonpoint and
point source runoff. Three of the Impaired streams (Peak Creek, Little Peak Creek and Ore
Knob Branch) receive runoff from an abandoned copper and lead mining facility. Precipitates,
pH and dissolved copper, iron, and zinc all affect the aquatic community. Remediation has
shown little in the way of long-term water quality improvements. Two distinct problem areas
were identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and include the former
processing area and the tailings (waste) area. The USACE published the Ore Knob Aquatic
Restoration Project: Draft Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment in March
2003. The report identified the best option for restoration activities and expects to restore 6.9
miles of stream and 14.3 acres of aquatic and terrestrial habitat once funding is available. DWQ
will continue to work with the USACE and interact with a multiagency partnership to pursue
additional restoration options in the Ore Knob area.

The fourth Impaired stream (Little Buffalo Creek) is impacted by runoff from impervious surface
and one minor municipal discharger. Using funds provide by several state agencies,
improvements have been made to the permitted discharge facility. DWQ will work with the
local watershed groups, county and town officials to raise community awareness of the
importance of riparian zones and the impacts associated with stormwater runoff.

The task of quantifying nonpoint source runoff and developing management strategies for these
Impaired waters is very resource intense. This task is overwhelming, given the current limited
resources of DWQ, other agencies (i.e., Division of Land Resources, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation, NC Cooperative Extension Service, etc.) and local governments. DWQ will
collaborate with other agencies and watershed groups that deal with nonpoint source pollution
issues to develop management strategies for the Impaired and notable waters for the next New
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan scheduled for 2010.

Waters on the North Carolina 303(d) List

For the next several years, addressing water quality impairment in waters that are on the state’s
303(d) list will be a DWQ priority. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states
to develop a list of waters not meeting water quality standards or which have Impaired uses. The
waters in the New River basin that are on this list are discussed in the individual subbasin
chapters (Chapters 1-3). States are also required to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) or management strategies for 303(d) listed waters to address impairment. EPA issued
guidance in August 1997 that called for states to develop schedules for developing TMDLs for
all waters on the 303(d) list within 8 to 13 years. Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology can be found in Appendix VII.

In North Carolina, there are nearly 2,400 Impaired stream miles on the 2000 303(d) list. The
rigorous and demanding task of developing TMDLs for each listed water during a 13-year time
frame will require the focus of many resources. It will be a priority for North Carolina’s water
quality programs over the next several years to develop TMDLs for 303(d) listed waters.

Executive Summary xvi

Challenges Related to Achieving Water Quality Improvements

To achieve the goal of restoring Impaired waters throughout the basin, DWQ will need to work
closely with other state agencies and stakeholders to identify and control pollutants. The costs of
restoration can be high, but several programs exist to provide funding for restoration efforts.
These programs include the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), the NC
Agricultural Cost Share Program (NCACSP) and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP).

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

Figure 1 General Map of the Entire New River Basin

Map published by the National Committee for the New River (NCNR). Map used with
permission from NCNR. For more information about NCNR, visit www.ncnr.org.
Executive Summary xviii

Introduction

What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?

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

Figure 3 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2002 to 2007)

Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning

The goals of basinwide planning are to:

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

DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives:

ƒ Collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies. This
includes providing agencies information related to financial and funding opportunities.
ƒ Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity.
Introduction xx

ƒ Evaluate cumulative effects of pollution.
ƒ Improve public awareness and involvement.
ƒ Regulate point and nonpoint sources of pollution where other approaches are not
successful.

Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning

Basinwide planning and management benefits water quality by:

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

How You Can Get Involved

To assure that basinwide plans are accurately written and effectively implemented, it is important
for citizens and local stakeholders to participate in all phases of the planning process. DWQ is
continually coordinating with the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), council
of governments, NC Cooperative Extension Service, the county Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) and stakeholder groups to develop language and identify water quality concerns
throughout the basin. Citizens and local communities can be involved throughout the planning
process by contacting their county extension service or local SWCD and reporting water quality
concerns.

During the public comment period, the draft plan is available online and by request for a period
of at least 30 days. DWQ welcomes written comments and questions during this phase of the
planning process and will incorporate comments and suggestions when appropriate. Remember,
you may contact the basinwide planner responsible for your basin anytime during the plan’s
development.

Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations

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

Table 2 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007)

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

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

Years 1 – 2

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

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

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

Introduction xxii

Some Other Reference Materials

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

ƒ A Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Management in North Carolina (August 200) This
document includes general information about water quality issues and programs to
address these issues. It is intended to be an informational document on water quality.
Visit the website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/ to download this document.
ƒ New River Basinwide Assessment Report (NCDENR-DWQ, August 2004b). This
technical report presents physical, chemical, and biological data collected in the New
River basin. This report can be found on the DWQ Environmental Sciences Section
(ESS) website at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/.
ƒ New River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (September 1995; July 2000).
These first basinwide plans for the New River basin present water quality data,
information, and recommended management strategies for the first two five-year cycles.
ƒ North Carolina's Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management: Program
Description (Creager and Baker, 1991). NC DWQ Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.

How to Read the Basinwide Plan

Chapters 1 - 3: Subbasin and Watershed Information

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

Chapter 4 – 12

• Presents information on various topics of interest to protect and restore water quality
in the basin, including:
• Stream classifications.
• Population and land cover changes.
• Water Quality stressors.
• Agricultural, forestry and permitting activities in the basin.
• Water and natural resources.
• Local initiatives.

Appendices
• Population and land use changes over time.
• Local governments in the basin.
• Water quality data collected by DWQ, use support methodology and 303(d) listing.
• NPDES dischargers and general stormwater permits.
• Points of contact.
• Glossary of terms and acronyms.

Introduction xxiii

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

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

Chapter 3
New River Subbasin 05-07-03
Including the: New River, Little River, Pine Swamp Creek, Bledsoe Creek, Brush Creek
and Laurel Branch

3.1 Subbasin Overview

Portions of the New River and the entire Little River
watershed are found in this subbasin. Flowing northeast,
the Little River and its tributaries drain the Town of
Sparta in Alleghany County. High, hilly plateaus can be
found in this subbasin from North Carolina into the
Virginia Blue Ridge Mountains.

Compared to the other subbasins, subbasin 05-07-03
contains less dense woodlands and forest cover. Instead,
more land (47 percent) is devoted to agricultural activities
including pasture, orchards, cultivated cropland,
livestock, dairy farms and Christmas tree production.
Developed areas are limited to the Town of Sparta, which
has actually decreased in population by 7.2 percent over
the last ten years (1990 to 2000). Additional information
regarding population and land use changes throughout the
entire basin can be found in Appendix I and III,
respectively.

There are three individual NPDES wastewater discharge
permits in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of
0.65 MGD. All three are located in the Little River
watershed. The Sparta Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) holds the largest permit with a total permitted
discharge of 0.60 MGD. No violations have been
reported. Refer to Appendix VI for the listing of NPDES
permit holders.

A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities
and water quality monitoring stations is presented in
Figure 7. Table 8 contains a summary of assessment unit
numbers (AU#) and lengths, streams monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results,
along with use support for waters in the subbasin. Refer to Appendix IX for a complete listing of
monitored waters and more information about use support methodology.
Subbasin 05-07-03 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 156 mi2
Land area: 155 mi2
Water area: <1 mi2

Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 9,716 people
Pop. Density: 62 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 53%
Surface Water: <1%
Urban: <1%
Cultivated Crop: <2%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 45%

Counties
Alleghany

Municipalities
Sparta

Aquatic Life
Monitored Streams Statistics
Total Streams: 90.7 mi
Total Supporting: 90.7 mi
Total Impaired: 0 mi
Total Not Rated: 0 mi

There were 9 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples collected during this assessment
period. Data were also collected from three ambient monitoring stations. Data collected from
the ambient stations has historically indicated good water quality with no violations in water
quality standards. Refer to the 2004 New River Basinwide Assessment Report at
Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 38
AU#
Description
Length/AreaClassification
05-07-03
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Table 8 Use Support New River Subbasin:
Bledsoe Creek
10-9-7
From source to Little River
5.9 FW MilesC Tr S ND
KB40 /2003G
Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
Brush Creek
10-9-10
From source to Little River
27.8 FW MilesC Tr S ND
KB41 /2003E
Habitat Degradation Pasture
Elk Creek (North Carolina Portion)
10-6-(2)
From U.S. Hwy. 221 to New River
7.4 FW MilesC +S ND
KB35 /2003G
Habitat Degradation Pasture
Laurel Branch (Laurel Creek)
10-9-10-2
From source to Brush Creek
5.2 FW MilesC Tr S ND
KB42 /2003G
Little River
10-9-(6)
From dam at Sparta Lake to NC 18 (Blevins Crossroads)
17.5 FW MilesC S NR*KA6 NCE
KB38 /2003E
KA6 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Pasture
Habitat Degradation Unknown
Little River (North Carolina Portion)
10-9-(11.5)
From NC 18 (Blevins Crossroads) to New River (state
line)
3.6 FW MilesC HQW S NR*KA7 NCE
KB39 /2003E
KA7 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Pasture
Little River (Sparta Lake)
10-9-(1)a
From source to Sparta Lake at Pine Swamp Creek
11.6 FW MilesC Tr S ND
KB37 /2003G
New River (North Carolina Portion)
10b
From first point of crossing state line to last point of
crossing state line
6.4 FW MilesC ORW S SKA5 NCE
KB34 /2003E
KA5 NCE
Pine Swamp Creek
10-9-5
From source to Little River
5.2 FW MilesC Tr S ND
KB36 /2003GF
Habitat Degradation Pasture
NEW Subbasin 05-07-03
AU#
Description
Length/AreaClassification
05-07-03
AL Rating REC RatingStationYear/ParameterResult % Exc
Aquatic Life Assessment
ResultStation
Recreation Assessment
Stressors Sources
Table 8 Use Support New River Subbasin:
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
NI - Not Impaired Results
Miles/Acres CE - Criteria Exceeded > 10% and more than 10 samples
FW- Fresh Water NCE - No Criteria Exceeded
Aquatic Life Rating Summary
S 90.7 FW Milesm
S 48.3 FW Milese
NR 11.1 FW Milese
ND 8.4 FW Miles
Recreation Rating Summary
6.4 FW MilesSm
21.1 FW MilesNR* m
130.9 FW MilesND
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
158.4 FW MilesNR e
NEW Subbasin 05-07-03

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 8 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.

3.2 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 05-07-03 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 90.7 stream miles (57.2 percent) monitored during this assessment period in the
aquatic life category. No stream miles were Impaired. Refer to Table 7 for a summary of use
support ratings for waters in subbasin 05-07-03.

3.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters

No previously or newly impaired waters were identified in subbasin 05-07-03.

3.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts

The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality
problems and concerns were documented for these waters during this assessment. Attention and
resources should be focused on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate
water quality improvements. DWQ will notify local agencies of these water quality concerns
and work with them to conduct further assessments and 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.

Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 42

Table 9 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Category in Subbasin 05-07-03

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 90.7 mi 0.0 6.4 mi 0.0
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 0.0 0.0 21.2 mi 0.0
Total 90.7 mi 0.0 27.6 mi 0.0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 48.3 mi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Impaired 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not Rated 11.1 mi 158.5 mi 0.0 0.0
No Data 8.4 mi 0.0 130.9 mi 0.0
Total 67.8 mi 158.5 mi 130.9 mi 0.0
Totals
All Waters* 158.5 mi 158.5 mi 158.4 mi 0.0
* Total Monitored + Total Unmonitored = Total All Waters.

3.4.1 Elk Creek [AU# 10-6-(2)]

Current Status
Elk Creek, from US Highway 221 to New River (7.4 miles), is Supporting due to a Good
bioclassification at site KB35. In this sampling reach, the substrate consisted of a good mix of
boulders, cobble and gravel; riffles and instream habitats were abundant; and streambanks were
stable. The stream supports a diverse and pollution intolerant benthic community, but there is
evidence of nutrient enrichment. Livestock have direct, easy access to upstream sections of the
sampling reach.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Elk Creek. It is recommended that local agencies work to install
best management practices (BMPs) and implement a conservation plan related to agricultural
land use. In addition, DWQ will assist agency personnel in locating sources of water quality
protection funding for BMPs and community education related to agricultural impacts and the
importance of maintaining riparian zones.

Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 43

Water Quality Initiatives
Several agricultural BMPs have been implemented along Elk Creek. These include: thirteen
springs, 18,982 feet of fence, five stock trails, fourteen watering tanks, one stream crossing, and
nine acres of converted cropland. Funding was provided by the NCASCP for a total of $199,169
and was administered by the Alleghany County SWCD. For more information on the NCASCP,
see Chapter 8.

3.4.2 Little River [AU# 10-9-(6) and 10-9-(11.5)]

Current Status
Little River, from source to the New River (32.8 miles), is Supporting in the aquatic life category
due to one Good and two Excellent bioclassifications at sites KB37, KB38 and KB39,
respectively. At the most upstream sampling site (KB37), instream habitats were plentiful;
riffles were frequent; streambanks were stable; and the riparian area was intact and extensive.

The second sampling site (KB38) is located 4.0 miles downstream of the Sparta WWTP. The
water quality and benthic communities in this section of the river have been steadily increasing
since 1990, but substrate was embedded, and riffles were limited.

Total drainage area at the most downstream site (KB39) is 99.2 square miles. Substrate was a
mix of boulder, bedrock and sand with some cobble and gravel in the riffles. Near both
downstream sampling sites (KB38 and KB39), livestock have direct, easy access to the river, and
streambank erosion was observed.

Over 20 percent of the samples collected at ambient stations KA6 and KA7 exceeded 400
colonies of fecal coliform bacteria/100 milliliters (ml) of water. Therefore, Little River is Not
Rated for recreational use due to elevated fecal coliform bacteria. Samples were collected from
site KA7 from September 1998 to June 2000, and 23.8 percent of the collected samples exceeded
400 colonies/100 ml. Due to safety concerns for personnel, a new ambient station (KA6) was
established near State Route #1433 (Edwards Crossroads), approximately 3.0 miles upstream of
site KA7. Samples were collected from this site (KA6) from July 2000 to August 2003. Here,
bacteria levels exceeded 400 colonies/100 milliliters in 22.9 percent of the collected samples.

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. No portion of the Little River is classified
for primary recreation (Class B). Therefore, it was not prioritized for additional sampling during
this basinwide cycle. Potential sources of elevated bacteria levels include failing septic systems,
straight pipes, 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 Little River and work with local agencies to
identify possible sources of the elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels. Community outreach and
awareness is encouraged to educate the local citizens on the importance of good riparian zones
and the use of BMPs to reduce sediment and erosion along the streambanks. Cattle should also
Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 44

be excluded from the river and its tributaries in order to reduce streambank erosion. DWQ will
work with local officials to identify funding sources for water quality protection and provide
technical guidance for the development of a stormwater management plan for the Town of Sparta
and a county sedimentation and erosion control ordinance.

Special Studies
Seven tributaries and the main stem of the Little River were chosen for a special biological
assessment to support the local watershed planning efforts of the Watershed Restoration Program
(WRP), now the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). The majority of the selected
sites were basinwide monitoring sites and samples were collected in August and November
2003. The information collected in the Little River watershed was incorporated into a report
entitled Phase I – Watershed Characterization, Preliminary Findings and Recommendations
Report produced by W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc. for the NCEEP (NCDENR-EEP, 2004).

The characterization study area covers nearly 80 square miles (51,270 acres) within Alleghany
County and includes the Town of Sparta. The three permitted dischargers in this subbasin are
located in the watershed and include the Sparta WWTP and two domestic dischargers on Laurel
Branch (Section 3.4.6). The Laurel Branch subwatershed of Brush Creek was added to the study
area due to its history of nonpoint source runoff from construction activities associated with a
local golf course (Section 3.4.6). Over half of the land area consists of forest, predominantly
mixed hardwoods, with the remaining area consisting of pasture and/or cultivated crops. Most of
the larger forested tracts are on hilltops in areas too unproductive for grazing or too difficult to
access. The Town of Sparta is situated in the north-central part of the watershed and is the only
area in the watershed considered urban. Government offices, a downtown commercial district, a
few manufacturing and warehouse facilities, and shopping complexes are found in Sparta.
Outside the commercial areas, several small- and medium-sized family farms can be found.

Based on office and field interpretations, sediment, poor riparian habitats and stormwater runoff
were identified as the three major factors affecting water quality in the Little River watershed.
The two most significant (sediment and poor riparian habitats) are in areas that are heavily
grazed and along unforested buffers. In these areas, there is tremendous potential for cattle
exclusion and riparian buffer enhancements. Throughout the watershed, there are several
opportunities for stream and wetland restoration projects. The third factor, unmanaged
stormwater in and around the Town of Sparta, can be reduced through the creation and
implementation of a stormwater management plan and a county sedimentation and erosion
control ordinance.

Eleven subwatersheds were identified as focus areas for a more detailed study and include: Pine
Swamp Creek; Upper and Lower Bledsoe Creek; Wolf Branch; Middle and Lower Glade Creek;
Moccasin Creek; Laurel Branch; and three unnamed tributaries. Poor riparian habitats and
straightened channel segments were found in almost all of these subwatersheds. Several of these
subwatersheds are discussed in the following sections.

Water Quality Initiatives
Several agricultural BMPs have been installed along Little River and include: six springs;
installation of 4,393 feet of fence for livestock exclusion; two stock trails; eight watering tanks;
three stream crossings; and converted cropland. Funding was provided by the NCASCP for a
Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 45

total of $24,694 and was administered by the Alleghany County SWCD. For more information
on the NCASCP, see Chapter 8.

3.4.3 Pine Swamp Creek [AU# 10-9-5]

Current Status
Pine Swamp Creek, from source to Little River (5.2 miles), is Supporting due to a Good-Fair
bioclassification at site KB36. Pine Swamp Creek is a small tributary to Little River and has
declined from a Good bioclassification (1998) to the most recent Good-Fair (2003). The decline
is most likely due to the two-year drought (2001 to 2002) and subsequent low flow conditions.
Pine Swamp Creek runs through pasturelands for much of its length, and livestock have direct,
easy access to the stream.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Pine Swamp Creek. It is recommended that local
agencies work with landowners to install appropriate BMPs to limit cattle access to the stream.
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 and the
importance of riparian zones.

Special Studies
Pine Swamp Creek was one of seven tributaries sampled in the Little River watershed to support
the local watershed planning efforts of NCEEP (Section 3.4.2). In the Phase I – Watershed
Characterization, Preliminary Findings and Recommendations Report, Pine Swamp Creek was
identified as one of eleven subwatersheds recommended for a more detailed study due to land
use (i.e., Christmas tree farms, dirt and gravel roads), unforested buffers and wetland and bog
turtle aquatic habitats (NCDENR-EEP, 2004).

The habitat score along Pine Swamp Creek and several other tributaries (including Bledsoe
Creek, Glade Creek and Crab Creek) were low. Low habitat scores indicate that the streams are
suffering from inadequate riparian zones, which often leads to streambank instability, erosion
and elevated temperatures if the stream is not shaded. Habitat scores and degrading water
quality can improve, however, if riparian areas are restored and livestock are excluded from the
stream. It is recommended that DWQ and local agencies work with landowners to install
appropriate BMPs to maintain the current and/or improve overall water quality conditions.

3.4.4 Bledsoe Creek [AU# 10-9-7]

Current Status
Bledsoe Creek, from source to Little River (5.9 miles), is Supporting due to a Good
bioclassification at site KB40. Bledsoe Creek has historically received Good and/or Good-Fair
bioclassifications. Sections of the stream that flow through the Town of Sparta receive very little
shade; streambank erosion and sedimentation are evident; and riparian zones are limited.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Bledsoe Creek. It is recommended that DWQ
and local agencies work with landowners to install appropriate BMPs to maintain the current
and/or improve overall water quality conditions. DWQ also encourages the development of a
Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 46

stormwater management plan for the Town of Sparta and a county sedimentation and erosion
control plan.

Special Studies
Bledsoe Creek was one of seven tributaries sampled in the Little River watershed to support the
local watershed planning efforts of NCEEP (Section 3.4.2). Bledsoe Creek flows through the
Town of Sparta, and is unique in that there are distinct land use changes from the source to its
confluence with the Little River. The headwaters are used intensely for agriculture and forestry,
the middle reach consists of residential property, and the lower segment is densely urbanized.
The combination of these changes could create a unique accumulative effect on the stream’s
overall water quality.

In the Phase I – Watershed Characterization, Preliminary Findings and Recommendations
Report, upper and lower Bledsoe Creek were identified as two of eleven subwatersheds
recommended for a more detailed study due to the changes in land use. Upper Bledsoe Creek
contains unforested buffers, animal operations and potential wetland restoration sites. Lower
Bledsoe Creek contains unforested buffers, areas where the stream has been straightened,
potential bog habitat areas and urban stormwater issues (NCDENR-EEP, 2004).

The DWQ Surface Water Protection Section also conducted ambient water quality monitoring
from January to June 2004 to support their local watershed planning effort. These data were
collected outside the data window for this basinwide plan. The study determined that the
geometric mean for baseflow fecal coliform bacteria counts were 1,199 colonies/100 milliliters
(ml) of water. The source of the elevated bacteria levels is not known. More investigation is
needed to determine if livestock or other sources (i.e., sewer line leaks, straight pipes, and/or
failing septic systems) are responsible for the elevated levels. Refer to Appendix IX for more
information related to use support and fecal coliform bacteria.

Water Quality Initiatives
In 2000, the Alleghany County Commissioners approved a Land Development and Growth
Management Resource Manual, which lists goals, objectives, and suggested policies for land
development planning and water quality management. The manual recognizes the importance of
watershed planning and the need to work with both local and state agencies to preserve the
county’s water quality and natural resources. Local stormwater management regulations are
suggested for the Town of Sparta and future ordinances should encourage the use of practices
associated with low impact development (NCDENR-EEP, 2004).

Several agricultural BMPs have been installed along Bledsoe Creek and include: two springs;
installation of 400 feet of fence for livestock exclusion; one stock trail; one watering tank; one
waste system; and converted cropland. Funding was provided by the NCASCP for a total of
$25,802 and was administered by the Alleghany County SWCD. For more information on the
NCASCP, see Chapter 8.

Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 47

3.4.5 Brush Creek [AU# 10-9-10]

Current Status
Brush Creek, from source to Little River (27.9 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site KB41. This is an improvement from the Good bioclassification during
the last basinwide cycle (1998). Instream habitat was good, but riffles were embedded, and there
was no functional riparian area. Grass, weeds and open pasture lined both sides of the stream,
and livestock have direct, easy access.

2005 Recommendations
In order to maintain the Excellent benthic community, DWQ will work with local agencies in
locating sources of water quality protection funding for BMPs. DWQ also encourages
community education related to impacts from nonpoint source runoff and the importance of
maintaining riparian zones.

Special Studies
Brush Creek was one of seven tributaries sampled in the Little River watershed to support the
local watershed planning efforts of NCEEP. Refer to Section 3.4.2 for more information related
to the watershed characterization report.

Water Quality Initiatives
Nearly 4,000 feet of Brush Creek and one of its tributaries (Little Pine Creek) were restored in
the summer of 2001. The project area was heavily impacted by livestock access, with little in the
way of riparian areas. Construction activities included new channels, reconfiguring the
dimension and profiles of the existing channels, and alternate watering sources for the livestock.
Livestock were also fenced from the stream. All of these activities have reduced sediment and
nutrient loads, improved stream and riparian habitats and stabilized streambanks. The project
was funded by NCEEP. For more information on the Brush Creek restoration project, contact
the Alleghany Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD).

In addition to the NCEEP project, several agricultural BMPs have been installed along Brush
Creek and include: six springs; installation of 2,260 feet of fence for livestock exclusion; one
stock trail; eight watering tanks; and two stream crossings. Funding was provided by the
NCASCP for a total of $17,176 and was administered by the Alleghany County SWCD. For
more information on the NCASCP, see Chapter 8.

3.4.6 Laurel Branch [AU# 10-9-10-2]

2000 Recommendations
Laurel Branch was considered Supporting due to a Good bioclassification and removed from the
2000 303(d) list of impaired waters. Improvements were likely the result of decreased sediment
loads and a gradual seven-year recovery from restoration activities. Restoration activities were
enforced by DWQ after construction associated with the Olde Beau Golf Club released large
amounts of sediment into the stream. Restoration efforts included removing sediment from the
stream, stabilizing streambanks and adding more natural stream substrate.

Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 48

Current Status
Laurel Branch, from source to Brush Creek (5.2 miles), is Supporting due to a Good
bioclassification at site KB42. Laurel Branch receives runoff from the Old Beau Golf Club, but
has maintained its Good bioclassification during the last two sampling cycles (1998 and 2003).
Instream habitats are good; streambanks were stable; and riparian zones were adequate.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Laurel Branch. In addition, DWQ will work with
local officials to educate the community on the importance of riparian areas and the impacts
associated with nonpoint source and stormwater runoff.

Special Studies
Laurel Branch was included in the study area of the Little River watershed characterization
report because of its history of nonpoint source runoff from construction activities associated
with the golf club. The watershed characterization was done to support the local watershed
planning efforts of NCEEP (Section 3.4.2). Within the sampling reach, the instream habitat was
good; the banks were stable; and the riparian zones were adequate. The upstream portion of
Laurel Branch, however, was identified as one of eleven subwatersheds recommended for a more
detailed study in the Phase I report. Reasons for this decision are based on office and field
interpretations, which include unforested buffers, its history of sedimentation, and the potential
to restore wetland and bog turtle habitats (NCDENR-EEP, 2004).

3.4.7 Glade Creek [AU# 10-9-9]

Special Studies
Glade Creek was sampled in November 2003 in two locations for a special study conducted in
the Little River watershed to support the local watershed planning efforts of NCEEP (Section
3.4.2). Samples collected in Glade Creek show that the stream is Supporting due to Good
bioclassifications at each site (sample locations are not mapped). Even though the biological
community was good in both locations, the upstream sample reach (SR #1422) lacks riparian
areas. Land use in the immediate area is a mix of forest and fallow fields, with grass and weeds
lining either streambank. There was no shading, and the streambanks were severely eroded and
falling into the stream.

Both sampling site were identified in the Phase I report as two of eleven subwatersheds
recommended for a more detailed study. The upstream site (SR #1422) has unforested buffers,
straightened channel segments and several opportunities for wetland and stream restoration
activities. The downstream site (also sampled along SR #1422) can support viable trout
populations and also provide opportunities for wetland and bog turtle habitat restoration projects
(NCDENR-EEP, 2004).

DWQ will work with agency personnel in locating sources of water quality protection funding
for the installation of appropriate BMPs and community education related to impacts associated
with nonpoint source runoff and the importance of maintaining riparian zones.

Water Quality Initiatives
Several agricultural BMPs have been installed along Glade Creek and include: two springs;
installation of 3,040 feet of fence for livestock exclusion; two stock trails; four watering tanks;
Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 49

and one waste system. Funding was provided by the NCASCP for a total of $16,067 and was
administered by the Alleghany County SWCD. For more information on the NCASCP, see
Chapter 8.

3.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 05-07-03

The following section discusses general issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin
that are not specific to particular streams, lakes or reservoirs. The issues discussed may be
related to waters near certain land use activities or within proximity to different pollution
sources.

This section also identifies those surface waters given an Excellent bioclassification, and
therefore, may be eligible for reclassification to a High Quality Water (HQW) or an Outstanding
Resource Water (ORW). For more information about water quality standards and
reclassification, see Chapter 4. It should be noted that these are streams that were sampled by
DWQ during this basinwide cycle. There may be other tributaries eligible for reclassification in
addition to those listed below in Section 3.5.4.

3.5.1 Livestock Exclusion

In several streams throughout this subbasin, DWQ noted evidence and observed several areas
where livestock had direct, easy access to the streams. These included Elk Creek, Brush Creek,
Pine Swamp Creek and sections of Little River. Fencing prevents livestock from entering a
stream and provides an area of vegetative cover, which can secure streambanks, lower stream
velocities, trap suspended sediments and decrease downgradient erosion. Livestock exclusion is
also effective in reducing nutrient, bacteria and sediment loads in a stream (Line and Jennings,
2002).

On the local level, the Alleghany Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) was able to
assist numerous farms in protecting water quality through the NC Agricultural Cost Share
Program (NCACSP). From 1998 to 2003, the following best management practices (BMPs)
were installed in subbasin 05-07-03: 65 troughs (alternate watering sources); 24,550 feet of fence
(livestock exclusion); 25 stream crossings; four stock trails; four springs; and four wells were
drilled. NCACSP funding totaled $234,483, with landowners and/or beef or dairy operators
contributing an additional $78,161. For more information on the NCACSP, see Chapter 8.

Through the 2002 Farm Bill, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has also been
implementing BMPs throughout the subbasin. Using funds provided through the Environmental
Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), 10,500 feet of fence have been installed and 1,250 feet of
access roads have been stabilized. For more information on EQIP, see Chapter 8.

The SWCD and the NRCS encourage the use of feed and waste structures on pasturelands. Feed
and waste structures are roofed with a concrete pad that provides protection for feed, livestock
and consequently, water quality. The structures are sized for individual farms, hold five to seven
days worth of feed, store waste for 90 to 120 days, and include watering facilities inside the
structure. Heavy use area protection surrounds the structure to reduce erosion and sedimentation
Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 50

that are usually associated with feeding operations. Where possible, feed and waste structures
are located on low ridgelines with good access. Such locations provide the greatest buffer to
nearby streams and tributaries. Feed and waste structures are just one part of a comprehensive
management system encouraged by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the SWCD
to protect land and water resources. Five feed and waste structures have been built in Alleghany
County using funds provided by EQIP. Three more are expected to be complete within the next
year. For more information of feed and waste structures, contact the Alleghany SWCD
[phone].

3.5.2 Management Strategies for Trout Water Protection

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/.

3.5.3 Special Aquatic Resources

Not only is the New River basin renowned for the oldest existing rivers in North America, but it
is also noted for the number of rare and endemic aquatic species that it supports. One of these
species, the bog turtle, is the smallest and rarest freshwater turtle in the country. Bog turtles live
in spring-fed, mountain wetlands called bogs or fens and will use stream and river floodplain
corridors to move between bogs and to disperse across the landscape. Because they are usually
spring-fed, most bogs have a consistent hydrological regime, although some sites can dry
significantly during certain times of the year. Other characteristics of typical bogs include:
flowing rivulets of water; wetland vegetation such as sedges, bulrushes, rushes and mosses; and
soft, loamy, organic soil that provides a thick mud substrate with pockets of deeper mud. Woody
vegetation may be scattered throughout the bog, but the best sites have an open canopy. Other
than habitat destruction, one other major threat to bog turtle habitat is succession of woody
vegetation. In an unmanaged bog, maples and other hardwoods can grow to dominate the
canopy, shading out the site and reducing the water table so that the bog becomes dry. Grazing
provides one of the most efficient means of managing these habitats.

To date, a total of 118 bog turtles have been found in area bogs with the largest documented
population of 36 turtles in one bog. Eighty-nine of the 118 turtles have been tagged and will be
used for identification purposes during on-going investigations and surveys by the NC Wildlife
Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 51

Resources Commission (WRC). Several rare plant species have also been identified in
Alleghany bogs.

In North Carolina, the bog turtle is listed as a threatened species. It is also a federally threatened
species due to similarity in appearance to the northern (New York, Massachusetts and south to
Maryland) species where it is also threatened. Most of the turtle’s habitat is on privately owned
land, and the WRC is currently conducting surveys and interviews to identify bogs in Alleghany
County. In order to preserve bog habitat, WRC, the SWCD and other conservation groups will
need to work cooperatively with private landowners to make them aware of the unique
characteristics of a bog and its significance to both the natural environment and water quality.
For more information on the bog turtle survey, contact the WRC headquarters at [phone].

3.5.4 Surface Waters Identified for Potential Reclassification

Brush Creek [AU# 10-9-10]
Brush Creek, from source to Little River (27.8 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site KB41. Instream habitat was good, but riffles were embedded. Current
DWQ classification is C Tr. If supported and petitioned by the local community, DWQ may
pursue reclassifying this stream to include a supplemental classification of HQW. Refer to
Section 4.1.4 for more information.

Little River [AU# 10-9-(6)]
Little River, from the Sparta Lake dam to NC #18 (17.5 miles), is Supporting due to an Excellent
bioclassification at site KB38. Instream habitats were plentiful; riffles were frequent; and the
streambanks were stable. Current DWQ classification is C. If supported and petitioned by the
local community, DWQ may pursue reclassifying this stream to include a supplemental
classification of HQW or ORW. Refer to Section 4.1.4 for more information.

Chapter 3 – New River Subbasin 05-07-03 52

Chapter 4
North Carolina Water Quality Classifications and Standards

4.1 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards

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

4.1.1 Statewide Classifications

All surface waters in the state are assigned a primary classification that is appropriate to the best
uses of that water. In addition to primary classifications, surface waters may be assigned a
supplemental classification. Most supplemental classifications have been developed to provide
special protection to sensitive or highly valued resource waters. Table 10 briefly describes the
best uses of each classification. A full description is available in the document titled:
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of
North Carolina (Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B .0200). Information is also available on
DWQ’s website http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/.

4.1.2 Statewide Water Quality Standards

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

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

High Quality Waters (Class HQW)
There are 118.6 stream miles of HQW waters in the New River basin (Figure 8). Special HQW
protection management strategies are intended to prevent degradation of water quality below
present levels from both point and nonpoint sources. The HQW designation requires new
wastewater discharge facilities and facilities that are expanding beyond their current permitted
loadings address oxygen-consuming wastes, total suspended solids, disinfection, emergency
requirements, volume, nutrients (in nutrient sensitive waters) and toxic substances.
Chapter 4 – North Carolina Water Quality Classifications and Standards 53

Table 10 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications

PRIMARY FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER CLASSIFICATIONS
Class* Best Uses
C and SC Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation.
B and SB Primary recreation and Class C and SC uses.
SA Suitable for commercial shellfish harvesting and SB and SC uses.
WS Water Supply (WS): Assigned to watersheds based on land use characteristics. The WS classifications have
management strategies to protect the surface water supply. For WS-I through WS-IV, these include limits on
point source discharges and local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater runoff. A WS Critical
Area (CA) has more stringent protection measures and is designated within one-half mile from a WS intake
or WS reservoir. All WS classifications are suitable for Class C uses.
WS-I Generally located in natural and undeveloped watersheds.
WS-II Generally located in predominantly undeveloped watersheds.
WS-III Generally located in low to moderately developed watersheds.
WS-IV Generally located in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
WS-V Generally upstream of and draining to Class WS-IV waters. No categorical restrictions on watershed
development or treated wastewater discharges.
SUPPLEMENTAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Class Best Uses
Sw Swamp Waters: Waters that have low velocities and other natural characteristics that are different from
adjacent streams (i.e., lower pH, lower levels of dissolved oxygen).
Tr Trout Waters: Provides protection to freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout.
HQW High Quality Waters: Waters that have excellent water quality, primary nursery areas and other functional
nursery areas, WS-I and WS-II or SA waters.
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters: Unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or
ecological significance which require special protection.
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters: Waters subject to excessive plant growth and requiring limitations on nutrient
inputs.
* Primary classifications beginning with "S" are assigned to saltwaters.

For nonpoint source pollution, development
activities which drain to and are within one mile of
HQWs and which require (1) a Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan in accordance with rules
established by the NC Sedimentation Control
Commission or (2) an approved local erosion and
sedimentation control program must control runoff
using either a low-density or high-density
development option. The low-density option
requires a 30-foot vegetated buffer between
development activities and the stream; whereas, the
high-density option requires structural stormwater
controls (i.e., stormwater infiltration system, wet
detention ponds). In addition, the Division of Land Resources (DLR) requires more stringent
erosion controls for land-disturbing projects within one mile of and draining to HQWs.
Criteria for HQW Classification
• Waters rated as Excellent based on
DWQ’s chemical and biological
sampling.
• Streams designated as native or special
native trout waters by the Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC).
• Waters designated as primary nursery
areas or other functional nursery areas
by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
• Waters classified by DWQ as WS-I,
WS-II or SA.

Chapter 4 – North Carolina Water Quality Classifications and Standards 54

Outstanding Resource Waters (Class ORW)
There are 71.0 stream miles of ORW waters
in the New River basin (Figure 8). These
waters have excellent water quality (rated
based on biological and chemical sampling
as with HQWs) and an associated
outstanding resource.

The requirements for ORW waters are more
stringent than those for HQWs. Special
protection measures that apply to North Carolina ORWs are set forth in Administrative Code
15A NCAC 2B .0225. At a minimum, no new discharges or expansions are permitted, and a 30-
foot vegetated buffer or stormwater controls are required for new developments. In some
circumstances, the unique characteristics of the waters and resources that are to be protected
require that a specialized (or customized) ORW management strategy be developed (Section
4.1.3).
The ORW rule defines outstanding resource values
as including one or more of the following:

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

Primary Recreation (Class B)
There are 120.4 stream miles classified for primary recreation in the New River basin. Waters
classified as Class B are protected for primary recreation, include frequent and/or organized
swimming, and must meet water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria. Sewage and all
discharged wastes into Class B waters much be treated to avoid potential impacts to the existing
water quality.

Trout Waters
There are 614.7 stream miles classified as trout (Tr) waters in the New River basin. Different
water quality standards for some parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, temperature and
turbidity, have been developed to protect freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival
of stocked trout. These water quality standards result in more restrictive limits for wastewater
discharges to trout waters.

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/.

The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) administers a state fishery management
classification, Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters. It provides for public access to
streams for fishing and regulates fishing activities (seasons, size limits, creel limits, and bait
Chapter 4 – North Carolina Water Quality Classifications and Standards 55

and lure restrictions). Although many of these waters are also classified Tr by DWQ, this is not
the same classification.

Water Supply Watersheds (Class WS)
There are 145.9 freshwater stream miles currently classified for water supply in the New River
basin (Figure 9). The purpose of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program is to provide a
proactive drinking water supply protection program for communities. Local governments
administer the program based on state minimum requirements. There are restrictions on
wastewater discharges, development, landfills and residual application sites to control the
impacts of point and nonpoint sources of pollution to water supplies.

There are five water supply classifications (WS-I to WS-V) that are defined according to the land
use characteristics of the watershed. The WS-I classification carries the greatest protection for
water supplies. No development is allowed in these watersheds. Generally, WS-I lands are
publicly owned. WS-V watersheds have the least amount of protection and do not require
development restrictions. These are either former water supply sources or sources used by
industry. WS-I and WS-II classifications are also HQW by definition because requirements for
these levels of water supply protection are at least as stringent as those for HQWs. Those
watersheds classified as WS-II through WS-IV require local governments having jurisdiction
within the watersheds to adopt and implement land use ordinances for development that are at
least as stringent as the state’s minimum requirements. A 30-foot vegetated setback is required
on perennial streams in these watersheds. The New River basin currently contains WS-II and
WS-IV water supply watersheds (Figure 9).

4.1.3 Special Management Strategies

In the New River basin, there are 678.6 stream miles subject to special management strategies.
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 areas. 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/csu/.

4.1.4 Reclassification of Surface Waters

The classification of a surface water may be changed after a request is submitted to the DWQ
Classifications and Standards Unit. DWQ reviews each request for reclassification and conducts
an assessment of the surface water to determine if the reclassification is appropriate. If it is
determined that a reclassification is justified, the request must proceed through the state rule-
making process. To initiate a reclassification, the “Application to Request Reclassification of
NC Surface Waters” must be completed and submitted to DWQ’s Classifications and Standards
Unit. For more information on requests for reclassification and contact information, visit
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/.
Chapter 4 – North Carolina Water Quality Classification and Standards 57

Chapter 5
Water Quality Stressors

5.1 Stressor and Source Identification

5.1.1 Introduction – Stressors

Water quality stressors are identified when impacts have been noted to biological (fish and
benthic) communities or water quality standards have been violated. Stressors apply to one or
more use support categories and may be identified for Impaired as well as Supporting waters
with noted impacts. Identifying stressors is challenging because direct measurements of the
stressor may be difficult or prohibitively expensive. DWQ staff use field observations from
sample sites, special studies, and data from ambient monitoring stations as well as information
from other agencies and the public to identify potential water quality stressors. It is important to
identify stressors and potential sources of stressors so that the limited resources of water quality
programs can be targeted to address the water quality problems. Specific aquatic life stressors
are defined in Section 5.2.

Most stressors to the biological community are complex groupings of many different stressors
that individually may not degrade water quality or aquatic habitat, but together can severely
impact aquatic life. Sources of stressors are most often associated with land use in a watershed,
as well as the quality and quantity of any treated wastewater that may be entering a stream.
During naturally severe conditions such as droughts or floods, any individual stressor or group of
stressors may have more severe impacts to aquatic life than during normal climatic conditions.
The most common source of stressors is from altered watershed hydrology.

Stressors to recreational uses include pathogenic indicators such as fecal coliform bacteria,
escheria coli and enterrococci. Stressors to fish consumption are mercury and any other
substance that causes the issuance of a fish consumption advisory by the NC Department of
Health and Human Services (NCDHHS).

5.1.2 Introduction – Sources of Stressors

Sources of stressors most often come from a watershed where the hydrology is altered enough to
allow the stressor to be easily delivered to a stream during a rain event along with unusually
large amounts of water. DWQ identifies the source of a stressor as specifically as possible
depending on the amount of information available in a watershed. Most often the source is based
on the predominant land use in a watershed. Sources of stressors identified in the New River
basin during the most recent assessment period include urban or impervious surface runoff,
construction sites, road building, agriculture and forestry. Point source discharges are also
considered a water quality stressor source.
Chapter 5 – Water Quality Stressors 59

5.1.3 Overview of Stressors Identified in the New River Basin

The stressors noted below are summarized for all waters and for all use support categories.
Figure 10 identifies stressors noted for Impaired streams in the New River basin during the most
recent assessment period. The stressors noted in the figure may not be the sole reason for the
impairment. Figure 11 presents the stressors identified for those waters with noted impacts. For
specific discussion of stressors to the Impaired or waters with noted impacts, refer to the
subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 – 3). Stressor definitions and potential impacts are discussed in
the remainder of this chapter (Chapter 5).
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Habitat Degradation Toxic Impacts
Fr
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r

M
i
l
e
s
Figure 10 Stressors Identified for Impaired Streams in the New River Basin

0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Habitat Degradation Low pH
Fres
h
w
a
t
e
r

M
i
l
e
s
Figure 11 Stressors Identified for Streams with Noted Impacts in the New River Basin
Chapter 5 – Water Quality Stressors 60

5.1.4 Overview of Stressor Sources Identified in the New River Basin

The sources noted below are summarized for all waters and for all use support categories. Figure
12 identifies sources of stressors noted for waters in the New River Basin during the most recent
assessment period. Refer to the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 – 3) for a complete listing and
discussion of sources by stream.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
WWTP NPDES Agriculture Pasture Impervious
Surface
Road
Construction
Unknown
Fres
h
w
a
t
e
r

M
i
l
e
s
Figure 12 Sources of Stressors Identified in the New River Basin

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) were noted as a potential source to 12.3 stream miles in
the New River basin. WWTPs are just one of many sources that can contribute excess nutrients
that may increase the potential for algal blooms and cause exceedances of the chlorophyll a
standard. Better treatment technology and upgrades to the Jefferson and West Jefferson WWTPs
in the New River basin are likely to decrease the number of stream miles impacted by WWTPs.

Field observations and information from the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts
(SWCD) indicate that agricultural activities may be impacting water quality in several
watersheds of the New River basin. In several areas where pasture was noted as the
predominant land use, cattle had direct, easy access to the stream. Agriculture was noted as a
potential stressor source for 13.8 stream miles. Pasture was noted as a potential stressor source
for 69.5 stream miles. For more information related to agricultural water quality initiatives, refer
to Chapter 8.

Impervious surface accounted for noted impacts to 22.0 stream miles and road construction
activities accounted for noted impacts to 8.9 stream miles. Impervious surface cover and road
construction activities are often associated with increased development. Refer to Chapter 6 for
Chapter 5 – Water Quality Stressors 61

more information related to population growth and land cover changes and its potential impacts
on water quality.

Stressor sources could not be identified for 79.6 stream miles in the New River basin. These
stream segments may be in areas where sources could not be identified during field observations,
but the streams had noted impacts (i.e., habitat degradation). DWQ and the local agencies will
work to identify potential sources for these stream segments during the next basinwide cycle.

5.2 Aquatic Life Stressors – Habitat Degradation

5.2.1 Introduction and Overview

Instream habitat degradation is identified as a notable reduction in habitat diversity or a negative
change in habitat. This term includes sedimentation, streambank erosion, channelization, lack of
riparian vegetation, loss of pools and/or riffles, loss of organic (woody and leaf) habitat, and
streambed scour. These stressors to aquatic insect and fish communities can be caused by many
different land use activities and less often by discharges of treated wastewater. In the New River
basin, 11.0 stream miles are Impaired where at least one form of habitat degradation has been
identified as the stressor. There are an additional 131.2 stream miles where habitat degradation
is a noted impact to water quality. Many of the stressors discussed below are either directly
caused by or are a symptom of altered watershed hydrology. Altered hydrology increases both
sources of stressors and delivery of the stressors to the receiving waters. Refer to the subbasin
chapters (Chapters 1 – 3) for more information on the types of habitat degradation noted in a
particular stream segment.

Good instream habitat is necessary for aquatic life
to survive and reproduce. Streams that typically
show signs of habitat degradation are in watersheds
that have a large amount of land-disturbing
activities (i.e., construction, mining, timber harvest,
agricultural activities) or a large percentage of
impervious surfaces. A watershed in which most of
the riparian vegetation has been removed from
streams or channelization has occurred also exhibits
instream habitat degradation. Streams that receive a
discharge quantity that is much greater than the
natural flow in the stream often have degraded
habitat as well.

Quantifying the amount of habitat degradation is
very difficult in most cases. To assess instream
habitat degradation in most streams would require
extensive technical and monetary resources and
perhaps even more resources to restore the stream. Although DWQ and other agencies (i.e.,
SWCD, NRCS, town and county governments) are starting to address this issue, local efforts are
needed to prevent further instream habitat degradation and to restore streams that have been
Impaired by activities that cause habitat degradation. As point sources become less of a source
Some Best Management Practices

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

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

Forestry
• Controlling runoff from logging roads
• Replanting vegetation on disturbed areas
• Leaving natural buffer areas around
small streams and rivers
Chapter 5 – Water Quality Stressors 62

of water quality impairment, nonpoint sources that pollute water and cause habitat degradation
need to be addressed to further improve water quality in North Carolina’s streams and rivers.

5.2.2 Sedimentation

Sedimentation is a natural process that is important to the maintenance of diverse aquatic
habitats. Overloading of sediment in the form of sand, silt and clay particles fills pools and
covers or embeds riffles that are vital aquatic insect and fish habitats. Suspended sediment can
decrease primary productivity (i.e., photosynthesis) by shading sunlight from aquatic plants,
therefore, affecting the overall productivity of a stream system. Suspended sediment also has
several effects on various fish species including avoidance and redistribution, reduced feeding
efficiency which leads to reduced growth by some species, respiratory impairment, reduced
tolerance to diseases and toxicants, and increased physiological stress (Roell, June 1999).
Sediment filling rivers and streams decreases their storage volume and increases the frequency of
floods (NCDENR-DLR, 1998). Suspended sediment also increases the cost of treating
municipal drinking water.

Streambank erosion and land-disturbing activities are sources of sedimentation. Streambank
erosion is often caused by high stormwater flows immediately following rainfall events or
snowmelts. Watersheds with large amounts of impervious surface transport water to streams
more rapidly and at higher volumes than in watersheds with more vegetative cover. In many
urban areas, stormwater is delivered directly to the stream by a stormwater sewer system. This
high volume and concentrated flow of water after rain events undercuts streambanks often
causing streambanks to collapse. This leads to large amounts of sediment being deposited into
the stream. Many urban streams are adversely impacted by sediment overloading from the
watershed as well as from the streambanks. Minimizing impervious surface area and reducing
the amount of stormwater outlets releasing stormwater directly to the stream can often prevent
substantial amounts of erosion.

Land-disturbing activities such as the construction of roads and buildings, crop production,
livestock grazing and timber harvesting can accelerate erosion rates by causing more soil than
usual to be detached and moved by water. In most land-disturbing activities, sedimentation can
be controlled through the use of appropriate best management practices (BMPs). BMPs that
minimize the amount of acreage and length of time that the soil is exposed during land-
disturbing activities can greatly reduce the amount of soil erosion. For more information on
sedimentation as it relates to changes in land use, refer to Chapter 6.

Livestock grazing with unlimited access to the stream channel and banks can also cause severe
streambank erosion resulting in sedimentation and degraded water quality. Although they often
make up a small percentage of grazing areas by surface area, riparian zones (vegetated stream
corridors) are particularly attractive to cattle that prefer the cooler environment and lush
vegetation found beside rivers and streams. This concentration of livestock can result in
increased sedimentation of streams due to "hoof shear", trampling of bank vegetation, and
entrenchment by the destabilized stream. Despite livestock’s preference for frequent water
access, farm veterinarians have reported that cows are healthier when stream access is limited
(EPA, 1999). For more information on the livestock exclusion, refer to Chapter 3.

Chapter 5 – Water Quality Stressors 63

5.2.3 Loss of Riparian Vegetation

During the 2002 basinwide sampling, DWQ biologists reported degradation of aquatic
communities at several sites throughout the New River basin in association with narrow or
nonexistent zones of native riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation loss was common in rural
and residential areas as well as in urban areas (NCDENR-DWQ, August 2004b). The loss of
riparian vegetation and subsequent reduction of organic aquatic habitats (Section 5.2.4) is most
commonly associated with land clearing for development, agriculture, pastureland and forestry.
Instream organic habitat loss has also been caused by stream channelization or debris removal
activities.

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

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

5.2.4 Loss of Instream Organic Microhabitats

Organic microhabitat (i.e., leafpacks, sticks and large wood) and edge habitat (i.e., root banks
and undercut banks) play very important roles in a stream ecosystem. Organic matter in the form
of leaves, sticks and other materials serve as the base of the food web for small streams.
Additionally, these microhabitats serve as special niches for different species of aquatic insects,
providing food and/or habitat. For example, many stoneflies are found almost exclusively in
leafpacks and on small sticks. Some beetle species prefer edge habitat, such as undercut banks.
If these microhabitat types are not present, there is no place for these specialized
macroinvertebrates to live and feed. The absence of these microhabitats in some streams in the
New River basin is directly related to the absence of riparian vegetation. Organic microhabitats
are critical to headwater streams, the health of which is linked to the health of the entire
downstream watershed. For more information related to headwater streams, refer to Chapter 6.

5.2.5 Channelization

Channelization refers to the physical alteration of naturally occurring stream and riverbeds.
Typical modifications are described in the text box. Although increased flooding, streambank
erosion and channel instability often occur in downstream areas after channelization has
occurred, flood control, reduced erosion, increased usable land area, greater navigability and
Chapter 5 – Water Quality Stressors 64

more efficient drainage are frequently cited as the
objectives of channelization projects (McGarvey,
1996). Direct or immediate biological effects of
channelization include injury and mortality of aquatic
insects, fish, shellfish/mussels and other wildlife
populations, as well as habitat loss. Indirect biological
effects include changes in the aquatic insect, fish and
wildlife community structures, favoring species that are
more tolerant of or better adapted to the altered habitat
(McGarvey, 1996).

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

Typical Channel Modifications

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

Channelization of streams within the continental United States is extensive and promises to
become even more so as urban development continues. Overall estimates of lost or altered
riparian habitats within US streams are as high as 70 percent. Unfortunately, the dynamic nature
of stream ecosystems makes it difficult (if not impossible) to quantitatively predict the effects of
channelization (McGarvey, 1996). Channelization has occurred historically in parts of the New
River basin and continues to occur in some watersheds, especially in small headwater streams.

5.2.6 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation

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

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

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

(3) Jointly support a review of the existing Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual by the NC Division of Land Resources (DLR). This review should
Chapter 5 – Water Quality Stressors 65

include, but not be limited to, a redesign of the minimum specifications for sedimentation
basins.

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

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

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

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

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

Funding is available through numerous federal and state programs for landowners to restore
and/or protect riparian buffer zones along fields or pastures, develop alternative watering sources
for livestock, and fence animals out of streams (refer to Chapters 8 and 12). EPA’s Catalog of
Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection (Document 841-B-99-003) outlines some of
these and other programs aimed at protecting water quality. A copy may be obtained by calling
the National Center for Environmental Publications and Information at [phone] or by
visiting the website at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/fund.html. Local contacts for
various state and local agencies are listed in Appendix VIII.

5.3 Aquatic Life Stressors – Water Quality Standards

5.3.1 Introduction and Overview

In addition to the habitat stressors discussed in the previous section, the stressors discussed
below are identified by water quality standards. These are usually direct measures of water
quality parameters from ambient water quality monitoring stations. The water quality standards
are designed to protect aquatic life. As with habitat degradation, altered watershed hydrology
greatly increases the sources of these stressors as well as delivery of the stressors to the receiving
waters. The following are water quality standards that were identified for waters with noted
impacts. Refer to the subbasin chapters (Chapter 1 – 3) for more information on the affected
waters.

Chapter 5 – Water Quality Stressors 66

5.3.2 pH

The pH water quality standard for Class C waters is between 6.0 and 9.0. In the New River basin
during the most recent assessment period, pH was identified as a potential stressor for 7.2 stream
miles for waters with noted impacts. Refer to Section 1.4.4 for more information.

5.3.3 Toxic Impacts

Toxic impacts are noted as a stressor during biological monitoring. Waters are not impaired due
to toxic impacts, but toxic impacts can be noted as a potential stressor on the system. During the
most recent assessment period, toxic impacts were noted on 6.5 stream miles. The effected
streams are located in the Peak Creek watershed and receive runoff from an abandoned lead and
copper mining facility. Refer to Section 1.3.2 for more information.

5.4 Recreation Stressor – Fecal Coliform Bacteria

Water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria are intended to ensure safe use of waters for
recreation and shellfish harvesting (Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B .0200). The North
Carolina fecal coliform standard for freshwater is 200 colonies/100ml based on the geometric
mean of at least five consecutive samples taken during a 30-day period and not to exceed 400
colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of the samples during the same period.

No waters in the New River basin are Impaired for fecal coliform bacteria; however, there were
21.4 stream miles that were Not Rated due to fecal coliform bacteria levels that exceed the
annual screening criteria. Current methodology requires additional bacteriological sampling for
streams with a geometric mean greater than 200 colonies/100ml or when concentrations exceed
400 colonies/100ml 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 the greatest. None of the
stream segments with elevated bacteria levels are classified for primary recreation (Class B).
Therefore, they were not prioritized for additional sampling during the most recent assessment
period.

Fecal coliform bacteria live in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals (humans as well as
other mammals) and are excreted in their waste. Fecal coliform bacteria do not actually pose a
danger to people or animals. However, where fecal coliform are present, disease-causing
bacteria may also be present and water that is polluted by human or animal waste can harbor
other pathogens that may threaten human health. Pathogens associated with fecal coliform
bacteria can cause diarrhea, dysentery, cholera and typhoid fever in humans. Some pathogens
can also cause infection in open wounds.

The presence of disease-causing bacteria tends to affect humans more than aquatic creatures.
High levels of fecal coliform bacteria can indicate high levels of sewage or animal wastes that
could make water unsafe for human contact (swimming). Fecal coliform bacteria and other
potential pathogens associated with waste from warm-blooded animals are not harmful to fish or
aquatic insects. However, high levels of fecal coliform bacteria may indicate contamination that
increases the risk of contact with harmful pathogens in surface waters.
Chapter 5 – Water Quality Stressors 67

Under favorable conditions, fecal coliform bacteria can
survive in bottom sediments for an extended period of
time (Howell et al., 1996; Sherer et al., 1992;
Schillinger and Gannon, 1985). Therefore,
concentrations of bacteria measured in the water column
can reflect both recent inputs as well as the resuspension
of older inputs.
Sources of Fecal Coliform
in Surface Waters

• Urban stormwater
• Wild animals and domestic pets
• Improperly designed or managed
animal waste facilities
• Livestock with direct access to
streams
• Improperly treated discharges of
domestic wastewater, including
leaking or failing septic systems
and straight pipes

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

There are a number of factors beyond the control of any state regulatory agency that contribute to
elevated levels of disease-causing bacteria. Therefore, the state does not encourage swimming in
surface waters. To assure that waters are safe for swimming indicates a need to test waters for
pathogenic bacteria. Although fecal coliform standards have been used to indicate the
microbiological quality of surface waters for swimming and shellfish harvesting for more than
50 years, the value of this indicator is often questioned. Evidence collected during the past
several decades suggests that the coliform group may not adequately indicate the presence of
pathogenic viruses or parasites in water.

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

Chapter 5 – Water Quality Stressors 68

Chapter 6
Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality

6.1 General Sources of Pollution

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

Point Sources

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

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

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

Unlike point source pollution, nonpoint pollution
sources are diffuse in nature and occur
intermittently, depending on rainfall events and
land disturbance. Given these characteristics, it is difficult and resource intensive to quantify
nonpoint contributions to water quality degradation in a given watershed. While nonpoint source
pollution control often relies on voluntary actions, the
state has many programs designed to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. For more information on nonpoint
source pollution visit http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/.
Nonpoint Sources

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

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

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

Chapter 6 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 69

6.2 Managing the Impacts of Growth and Development and Stormwater
Runoff

6.2.1 Introduction to Stormwater Runoff

Stormwater runoff is rainfall or snowmelt that runs off the ground or impervious surface (i.e.,
buildings, roads, parking lots). In some cases, it drains directly into streams, rivers, lakes and
oceans. In others, particularly urbanized areas, stormwater drains into streets and manmade
drainage systems consisting of inlets and underground pipes, commonly referred to as a storm
sewer system. Storm sewer systems are designed simply to capture the stormwater and convey it
to the nearest surface waterbody. These sewers should not be confused with sanitary sewers,
which transport human and industrial wastewaters to a treatment plant before discharging into
surface waters.

Common stormwater pollutants include sediment, nutrients, organic matter, bacteria, oil and
grease, and toxic substances (i.e., metals, pesticides, herbicides, hydrocarbons). Stormwater can
also impact the temperature of a surface waterbody, which can affect the water’s ability to
support certain fish and aquatic communities.

Uncontrolled stormwater runoff has many impacts on both humans and the environment.
Cumulative effects include flooding, undercut and eroding streambanks, widened stream
channels, threats to public health and safety, impaired recreational use, and increased costs for
drinking and wastewater treatment. For more information on stormwater runoff, visit the DWQ
Stormwater Permitting Unit at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/stormwater.html or the NC Stormwater
information page at http://www.ncstormwater.org/. Additional fact sheets and information can also
be found at http://www.stormwatercenter.net/intro_factsheets.htm and
www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater/index.html.

6.2.2 Effects of Growth and Development

Urban growth poses one of the greatest threats to aquatic resources more than any other human
activity. Greater numbers of homes, stores and businesses require greater quantities of water.
Growing populations not only require more water, but they also lead to the discharge and runoff
of greater quantities of waste and pollutants into the state’s streams and groundwater. Thus, just
as demand and use increases, some of the potential water supply is also lost (Orr and Stuart,
2000).

As development in surrounding metropolitan areas consumes neighboring forests and fields, the
impacts on rivers, lakes and streams can be significant and permanent if stormwater runoff is not
controlled (Orr and Stuart, 2000). As watershed vegetation is replaced with impervious surfaces
in the form of paved roads, buildings, parking lots and residential homes and driveways, the
ability of the environment to absorb and diffuse the effects of natural rainfall is diminished.
Urbanization results in increased surface runoff and correspondingly earlier and higher peak
streamflows after rainfall. Flooding frequency also increases. These effects are compounded
when small streams are channelized (straightened) or piped, and storm sewer systems are
installed to increase transport of stormwater downstream. Bank scour from these frequent high
flow events tends to enlarge urban streams and increase suspended sediment. Scouring also
Chapter 6 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 70

destroys the variety of habitat in streams, leading to degradation of benthic macroinvertebrate
populations and loss of fisheries (EPA, 1999).

Based on the 2000 Census, the overall population of the New River basin is 49,653. This
number is estimated based on the percent of the county land area that is partially or entirely
contained within the New River basin. Although counties in the New River basin are not among
the fastest growing counties in the state, the effects of development are impacting water quality.
Two of the three counties in the basin experienced growth rates in excess of ten percent during
the last decade of the 20th century. The sparsely developed watersheds of the north and western
portions of the basin generally contain streams with high water quality, excellent aquatic
communities and species populations, and are considered Supporting based on current use
support methodologies. Impacts are quickly noted, however, in the southern and central
watersheds where urbanization is focused around city centers and interstate corridors. It is no
surprise then that the greatest concentration of streams with noted impacts lie in the areas of
Boone and Blowing Rock. Between 1990 and 2000, Jefferson and West Jefferson also
experienced increasing populations, and impacted waters are also found in these areas. As the
counties in the New River basin continue to grow, there will likely be a loss of natural areas and
an increase in the amount of impervious surface associated with new homes and businesses.

The New River basin has an abundance of surface water that has supported the current domestic
expansion in the urban areas. Even today, there is sufficient water to serve its diverse domestic,
agricultural, energy and recreational needs except in periods of severe drought. It is those
periods of drought that point to the impending threats of the availability of good quality water.
Clean water can likely be provided in sufficient quantity to supply the future needs of the basin,
but only with inspired foresight, planning and management. For more information on county
population density, refer to Appendix I. Appendix II lists local governments and Appendix III
provides information related to land cover changes.

6.2.3 Controlling Stormwater Pollution

Many daily activities have the potential to cause stormwater pollution. Any situation where
activities can contribute more pollutants to stormwater runoff is an area that should be
considered for efforts to minimize stormwater impacts. A major component in reducing
stormwater impacts involves planning up front in the design process. New construction designs
should include plans to prevent or minimize the amount of runoff leaving the site. Wide streets,
large cul-de-sacs, long driveways and sidewalks lining both sides of the street are all features of
urban development that create excess impervious cover and consume natural areas. In many
instances, the presence of intact riparian buffers and/or wetlands in urban areas can reduce the
impacts of urban development. Establishment and protection of buffers should be considered
where feasible, and the amount of impervious cover should be limited as much as possible.

“Good housekeeping” to reduce the volume of stormwater leaving a site and reducing the amount
of pollutants used in our own backyards can also minimize the impact of stormwater runoff.
DWQ has published a pamphlet entitled Improving Water Quality in Your Own Backyard:
Stormwater Management Starts at Home. The pamphlet provides information on how
homeowners and businesses can reduce the amount of runoff leaving their property and how to
reduce the amount and types of pollutants in that runoff. This document is available on-line at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/documents/BackyardPDF.pdf or by calling [phone].
Chapter 6 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 71

Preserving the natural streamside vegetation (riparian buffer) is one of the most economical and
efficient BMPs. In particular, forested buffers provide a variety of benefits including filtering
runoff and taking up nutrients, moderating water temperature, preventing erosion and loss of
land, providing flood control and helping to moderate streamflow, and providing food and
habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife (NCDENR-DWQ, February 2004). For more
information or to obtain a free copy of DWQ’s Buffers for Clean Water brochure, call (919) 733-
5083, ext. 558.

6.2.4 Protecting Headwaters

Many streams in a given river basin are only small trickles of water that emerge from the ground.
A larger stream is formed at the confluence of these trickles (Figure 13). This constant merging
eventually forms a large stream or river. Most monitoring of fresh surface waters evaluates these
larger streams. The many miles of small trickles, collectively known as headwaters, are not
directly monitored and in many instances are not even indicated on maps. These streams account
for approximately 80 percent of the stream network and provide many valuable services for
quality and quantity of water delivered downstream (Meyer et al., 2003). However, degradation
of headwater streams can (and does) impact the larger stream or river.

Figure 13 Diagram of Headwater Streams within a Watershed Boundary

There are three types of headwater streams: 1) perennial (flow year-round); 2) intermittent (flow
during wet seasons); and 3) ephemeral (flow only after precipitation events). All types of
headwater streams provide benefits to larger streams and rivers. Headwater streams control
flooding, recharge groundwater, maintain water quality, reduce downstream sedimentation,
recycle nutrients and create habitat for plants and animals (Meyer et al., 2003).

In smaller headwater streams, fish communities are not well developed and benthic
macroinvertebrates dominate aquatic life. Benthic macroinvertebrates are often thought of as
"fish food" and, in mid-sized streams and rivers, they are critical to a healthy fish community.
However, these insects, both in larval and adult stages, are also food for small mammals, such as
Chapter 6 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 72

river otter and raccoons, birds and amphibians (Erman, 1996). Benthic macroinvertebrates in
headwater streams also perform the important function of breaking down coarse organic matter,
such as leaves and twigs, and releasing fine organic matter. In larger rivers, where coarse
organic matter is not as abundant, this fine organic matter is a primary food source for benthic
macroinvertebrates and other organisms in the system (CALFED, 1999). When the benthic
macroinvertebrate community is changed or extinguished in an area, even temporarily, as occurs
during land use changes, it can have repercussions in many parts of both the terrestrial and
aquatic food web.

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

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

6.3 The Role of Local Governments

6.3.1 Introduction and Overview

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

Because of uncertainties regarding how individual remedial actions cumulatively impact stream
conditions and in how aquatic organisms will respond to improvements, the intensity of
management effort necessary to bring about a particular degree of biological improvement
cannot be established in advance. The types of actions needed to improve biological conditions
can be identified, but the mix of activities that will be necessary – and the extent of improvement
that will be attainable – will only become apparent over time as an adaptive management
Chapter 6 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 73

approach is implemented. Management actions are suggested below to address individual
problems, but many of these actions are interrelated.

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

(1) Feasible and cost-effective stormwater retrofit projects should be implemented
throughout the watershed to mitigate the hydrologic effects of development (i.e.,
increased stormwater volumes and increased frequency and duration of erosive and scouring
flows). This should be viewed as a long-term process. Although there are many
uncertainties, costs in the range of $1 million per square mile can probably be anticipated.

(a) Over the short term, currently feasible retrofit projects should be identified
and implemented.
(b) In the long term, additional retrofit opportunities should be implemented in
conjunction with infrastructure improvements and redevelopment of existing
developed areas.
(c) Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from EPA initiatives
such as EPA Section 319 or the North Carolina Clean Water Management
Trust Fund (CWMTF).

(2) A watershed scale strategy to address toxic inputs should be developed and
implemented, including a variety of source reduction and stormwater treatment
methods. As an initial framework for planning toxicity reduction efforts, the following
general approach is proposed:

(a) Implementation of available best management practice (BMP) opportunities
for control of stormwater volume and velocities. As recommended above to
improve aquatic habitat potential, these BMPs will also remove toxics from
stormwater.
(b) Development of a stormwater and dry weather sampling strategy in order to
facilitate the targeting of pollutant removal and source reduction practices.
(c) Implementation of stormwater treatment BMPs, aimed primarily at pollutant
removal, at appropriate locations.
(d) Development and implementation of a broad set of source reduction
activities focused on: reducing nonstorm inputs of toxics; reducing
pollutants available for runoff during storms; and managing water to reduce
stormwater runoff.

(3) Stream channel restoration activities should be implemented in target areas, in
conjunction with stormwater retrofit BMPs, in order to improve aquatic habitat.
Before beginning stream channel restoration, a geomorphologic survey should be conducted
to determine the best areas for stream channel restoration. Additionally, it would be
advantageous to implement retrofit BMPs before embarking on stream channel restoration, as
restoration is best designed for flows driven by reduced stormwater runoff. Costs of
approximately $200 per foot of channel should be anticipated (Haupt, et al., 2002 and
Weinkam et al., October 2001). Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from
federal sources such as EPA Section 319 or state sources including North Carolina CWMTF.
Chapter 6 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 74

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

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

(6) Effective enforcement of sediment and erosion control regulations will be essential to the
prevention of additional sediment inputs from construction activities. Development of
improved erosion and sediment control practices may also be beneficial.

(7) Watershed education programs should be implemented and continued by local governments
with the goal of reducing current stream damage and preventing future degradation. At a
minimum, the program should include elements to address the following issues:

(a) Redirecting downspouts to pervious areas rather than routing these flows to
driveways or gutters.
(b) Protecting existing woody riparian areas on all streams.
(c) Replanting native riparian vegetation on stream channels where such
vegetation is absent.
(d) Reducing and properly managing pesticide and fertilizer use.

6.3.2 Reducing Impacts of Future Development

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

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

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

(1) Identify waters that are threatened by development.
(2) Protect existing riparian habitat along streams.
(3) Implement stormwater BMPs during and after development.
(4) Develop land use plans that minimize disturbance in sensitive areas of watersheds.
Chapter 6 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 75

(5) Minimize impervious surfaces including roads and parking lots.
(6) Develop public outreach programs to educate citizens about stormwater runoff.

Action needs be taken at the local level to plan for
new development in urban and rural areas. Planning Recommendations
for New Development

• Minimize number and width of
residential streets.
• Minimize size of parking areas
(angled parking & narrower slots).
• Place sidewalks on only one side of
residential streets.
• Minimize culvert pipe and
hardened stormwater conveyances.
• Vegetate road right-of-ways,
parking lot islands and highway
dividers to increase infiltration.
• Plant and protect natural buffer
zones along streams and tributaries.
For more detailed information regarding
recommendations for new development found in the
text box (above), refer to EPA’s website at
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/protection,
the Center for Watershed Protection website at
www.cwp.org, and the Low Impact Development
Center website at www.lowimpactdevelopment.org.
Additional public education is also needed in the New
River basin in order for citizens to understand the
value of urban planning and stormwater management.
For an example of local community planning efforts
to reduce stormwater runoff, visit
http://www.charmeck.org/Home.htm.

6.3.3 Existing Programs to Control
Stormwater Runoff

In North Carolina, there are a number of programs directly tied to the management and control of
stormwater runoff from new development activities near sensitive waters. These sensitive waters
include:

ƒ Water Supply Watersheds
ƒ High Quality Waters (HQW)
ƒ Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
ƒ Nutrient Sensitive Waters

There is also a federal program that requires stormwater permits for point source dischargers of
stormwater from certain industrial activities and from large municipalities. For more
information on stormwater programs across the state, refer to Chapter 7.

Chapter 6 – Population Growth, Land Cover Changes and Water Quality 76

Chapter 7
Stormwater and Wastewater Programs

7.1 Federal and State Stormwater Programs

The goal of the DWQ stormwater discharge permitting regulations and programs is to prevent
pollution from entering the waters of the state via stormwater runoff. These programs
accomplish this goal by controlling the source(s) of pollutants. These programs include NPDES
Phase I and II regulations, HQW/ORW stormwater requirements, and requirements associated
with the Water Supply Watershed Program. Currently, there are no individual stormwater
permits listed for the New River basin and Phase I regulations are not applicable; however, there
are a few local governments and/or counties that are affected by other water quality protection
programs. Those affected are listed in Table 11.

7.1.1 NPDES Phase I

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

Phase I also had requirements for ten categories of industrial sources to be covered under
stormwater permits. Industrial activities which require permitting are defined in categories
ranging from sawmills and landfills to manufacturing plants and hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal facilities. Construction sites disturbing greater than five acres are also
required to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit under Phase I of the EPA stormwater program.
Excluding construction stormwater general permits, there were no general stormwater permits or
individual stormwater permits issued in this basin under Phase I.

7.1.2 NPDES Phase II

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

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

Chapter 7 – Stormwater and Wastewater Programs 77

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

Those municipalities and counties required to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit under the
Phase II rules are identified using 1990 US Census Designated Urban Areas and the results of the
2000 US Census. Currently, there are no municipalities or counties identified as an urban area in
the New River basin.

2005 Recommendations
Even though none of the municipalities were identified as federally designated urban areas,
DWQ recommends that the local governments and county officials develop stormwater
management programs that go beyond the six minimum measures listed for Phase II rules.
Implementation of stormwater programs should help reduce future impacts to streams in the
basin. To the extent possible, local governments should identify sites for preservation or
restoration. DWQ and other DENR agencies will continue to provide information on funding
sources and technical assistance to support local government and county stormwater programs.

7.1.3 State Stormwater Programs – Sensitive Waters

The State Stormwater Management Program was established in the late 1980s under the
authority of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and North
Carolina General Statute 143-214.7. This program (Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H .1000)
affects development activities that require either (1) an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (for
disturbances of one or more acres) or (2) a CAMA major permit within one of the 20 coastal
counties and/or development draining to Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or High Quality
Waters (HQW). The State Stormwater Management Program requires developments to protect
these sensitive waters by maintaining a low-density of impervious surfaces, maintaining
vegetative buffers, and transporting runoff through vegetative conveyances. Low-density
development thresholds vary from 12 to 30 percent built-upon area (impervious surface)
depending on the classification of the receiving stream. If low-density design criteria cannot be
met, then high-density development requires the installation of structural best management
practices (BMPs) to collect and treat stormwater runoff from the project. High-density BMPs
must control the runoff from the 1 or 1.5-inch storm event (depending on the receiving stream
classification) and remove 85 percent of the total suspended solids.

Table 11 shows the counties in the New River basin where permits may be required under the
state stormwater management program under ORW stormwater rules. All development requiring
an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (for disturbances of one or more acres) must obtain a
stormwater permit.

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

Chapter 7 – Stormwater and Wastewater Programs 78

Table 11 Communities in the New River Subject to Stormwater and/or Water Supply
Watershed Stormwater Requirements

NPDES
State
Stormwater
Program
Water Supply
Watershed Stormwater
Requirements
Local Government Phase I Phase II*
Municipalities
Boone X
Blowing Rock X
Jefferson
West Jefferson X
Lansing
Sparta
Counties
Ashe X X
Alleghany X
Watauga X X

7.1.4 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules

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

2005 Recommendations
The Towns of Blowing Rock, Boone and West Jefferson in the New River basin in water supply
watersheds have EMC approved water supply watershed protection ordinances. DWQ
recommends continued implementation of the local water supply watershed protection
ordinances to ensure safe and economical treatment of drinking water. To the extent possible
communities should also integrate water supply watershed protection ordinances with other
stormwater programs in order to be more efficient and gain the most water quality benefits for
both drinking water and aquatic life.

Chapter 7 – Stormwater and Wastewater Programs 79

7.2 Federal and State Wastewater Programs

7.2.2 NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Summary

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

ƒ Oxygen-consuming wastes
ƒ Nutrients
ƒ Sediments
ƒ Color
ƒ Toxic substances including chlorine,
ammonia and metals.

Currently, there are 17 permitted
wastewater discharges in the New River
basin. Table 12 provides summary
information (by type and subbasin)
about the discharges. The types of
dischargers listed in the table are
described in the inset box (right).
Facilities are mapped in each subbasin
chapter, and a complete listing of
permitted facilities is included in
Appendix VI.

The majority of NPDES permitted
wastewater flow into the waters of the
New River basin is from six municipal
wastewater treatment plants (WWTP).
Nonmunicipal dischargers contribute
only 14 percent of the total wastewater
flow into the New River basin. Recent
data indicates that only one minor
facility (West Jefferson WWTP)
exceeded daily or weekly averages.
Refer to Section 2.3 for more
information related to this facility.
Types of Wastewater Discharges

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

Chapter 7 – Stormwater and Wastewater Programs 80

Table 12 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the New River Basin
(September 2004)

New River Subbasin
Facility Categories 05-07-01 05-07-02 05-07-03 TOTAL
Total Facilities 10 4 3 17
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 6.01 1.58 0.65 8.24
Major Discharges 1 0 0 1
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 4.82 0.0 0.0 4.82
Minor Discharges 9 4 3 16
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 1.19 1.58 0.65 3.42
100% Domestic Waste 4 1 2 7
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.14
Municipal Facilities 3 2 1 6
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 5.92 0.55 0.60 7.07
Nonmunicipal Facilities 7 2 2 11
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.09 1.03 0.05 1.17

7.2.2 Septic Systems and Straight Piping

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

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

Chapter 7 – Stormwater and Wastewater Programs 81

The discharge of untreated or partially treated sewage can be extremely harmful to humans and
the aquatic environment. Pollutants from illegally discharged household wastewater contain
chemical nutrients, disease pathogens and endocrine disrupting chemicals. Although DWQ
ambient monitoring of the waters in the New River basin show a relatively small percentage of
fecal coliform bacteria samples exceeding state standards for primary recreation, smaller streams
may contain a higher concentration of bacteria and other pollutants. The economies of the
counties in this basin are highly dependent upon river recreation, especially from tourists and
seasonal residents.

In order to protect human health and maintain water quality, straight pipes must be eliminated
and failing septic systems should be repaired. The NC Wastewater Discharge Elimination
(WaDE) Program is actively helping to identify and remove straight pipes (and failing septic
systems) in the western portion of North Carolina. This program uses door-to-door surveys to
locate straight pipes and failing septic systems, and offers deferred loans or grants to
homeowners who have to eliminate the straight pipes by installing a septic system.

In the New River basin, the Appalachian District Health Department took the lead in the
Ashe/Alleghany Straight Pipe Elimination Project. WaDE provided technical assistance and
funding was provided by the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), the NC
Department of Commerce – Division of Community Assistance (DCA), and the Appalachian
Regional Commission (ARC). Each funding source provided $400,000 for a total of $1.2
million. The purpose of the project was to repair or replace straight pipes or failing septic
systems identified during the survey. Any sites that were found to have straight pipes or failing
septic systems were repaired or replaced. The results of the surveys are presented in Table 13.

Table 13 Results of the Ashe/Alleghany Straight Pipe Elimination Project

Lead
Agency
Ashe and Alleghany County Health
Departments
Project Dates April 2000 through March 2003
Terms of Funding 2 years
Homes Visited Est. 6,200
Inspections Completed Est. 2,800
Violations Found 625
Corrections with Assistance 295
Total Corrections* 323
% Households Surveyed Est. 45%
* Information updated October 2003.

2005 Recommendations
The WaDE Program in collaboration with the Local Health Departments should request
additional funding from the CWMTF (Chapter 12) and Section 319 Program (Chapter 12) to
continue the straight pipe elimination program for the New River basin. Additional monitoring
of fecal coliform throughout tributary watersheds where straight pipes and failing septic systems
Chapter 7 – Stormwater and Wastewater Programs 82

are a potential problem should be conducted in order to narrow the focus of the surveys. For
more information on the WaDE Program, contact DENR On-Site Wastewater Section (OSWW)
– NC Division of Environmental Health (DEH), toll free at 1-866-223-5718 or visit their website
at http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/oww/Wade/wade.htm.

Additional precautions should be taken by local septic system permitting authorities to ensure
that new systems are sited and constructed properly and that an adequate repair area is also
available. Educational information should also be provided to new septic system owners
regarding the maintenance of these systems over time. DWQ has developed a booklet that
discusses actions individuals can take to reduce stormwater runoff and improve stormwater
quality entitled Improving Water Quality In Your Own Backyard. The publication includes a
discussion about septic system maintenance and offers other sources of information. To obtain a
free copy, call [phone]. The following website also offers good information in three easy
to follow steps: http://www.wsg.washington.edu/outreach/mas/water_quality/septicsense/septicmain.html.
Chapter 7 – Stormwater and Wastewater Programs 83

Chapter 8
Agriculture and Water Quality

8.1 Animal Operations

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

Key Animal Operation Legislation (1995-2003)

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

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

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

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

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

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

2001 House Bill 1216 extended (again) the moratorium on new construction or expansion of swine farms.
Chapter 8 – Agriculture and Water Quality 84

Table 14 summarizes (by subbasin) the number of registered livestock operations, total number
of animals, number of facilities, and total steady state live weight (SSLW). These numbers
reflect only operations required by law to be registered, and therefore, do not represent the total
number of animals in each subbasin.

The majority of registered animal operations are found in subbasin 05-07-03. No violations or
problems have been reported for any of the registered animal operations in the New River basin.

Table 14 Registered Animal Operations in the New River Basin (September 2004)

Cattle Poultry Swine
Total Total Total
Subbasin No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State
Facilities Animals Live Weight*Facilities Animals Live Weight*Facilities Animals Live Weight*
04-03-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 300 40,500
04-03-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04-03-03 9 2,361 3,305,400 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 9 2,361 3,305,400 0 0 0 1 0 40,500
* Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) is in pounds, after a conversion factor has been applied to the number of swine, cattle or
poultry on a farm. Conversion factors come from the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) guidelines. Since the amount of waste produced varies by hog size, this is the best way to compare the sizes of the
farms.

8.2 Impacted Streams in Agricultural Areas

In the New River basin, the majority of agricultural land is pasture. There are also a variety of
specialty crop farms in this river basin including apple orchards and Christmas tree farms.
Impacts to streams from agricultural activities can include excessive nutrient loading, pesticide
and herbicide contamination, bacterial contamination and sedimentation.

Based on the most recent information from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) National Resources Inventory (NRI), agricultural land use in the New River basin has
decreased. Cultivated and uncultivated cropland decreased by 58.9 percent (8,600 acres) and
58.5 percent (13,100 acres), respectively. Pasture use decreased by 4.2 percent (5,300 acres).
This same data also shows that urban and built-up areas increased by almost 46.0 percent (9,800
acres) (USDA-NRCS, June 2001). Refer to Appendix III for more information related to land
use changes in the New River basin.

2005 Recommendations
DWQ will identify streams where agricultural land use may be impacting water quality and
aquatic habitat. Local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and NRCS staff should
investigate these streams to assess agricultural impacts and recommend best management
practices (BMPs) to reduce the impacts. DWQ recommends that funding and technical support
for agricultural BMPs continue and increase. Refer to Appendix VIII for agricultural nonpoint
source agency contact information.
Chapter 8 – Agriculture and Water Quality 85

8.3 Agricultural Best Management Practices and Funding Opportunities

8.3.1 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP)

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

Sixty percent of the funding available for this program is targeted at natural resource concerns
relating to livestock production. The program is carried out at the county level with base funding
levels made available to each county. In North Carolina, EQIP was funded at approximately
$14.0 million for 2005.

In the New River Basin, 7,550 feet of access roads were stabilized or repaired; 18,000 feet of
fence was installed; two agrichemical handling facilities were constructed; and eight feed and
waste structures were built through EQIP funds from 1998 to 2003. During the next few years,
an additional 14,000 feet of access roads will be stabilized or repaired; an additional 27,000 feet
of fence will be installed; four additional agrichemical handling facilities will be constructed;
and six additional feed and waste structures will be built. NRCS district contacts for the New
River basin are provided in Appendix VIII. Information can also be found on the NRCS website
http://www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/EQIP/index.html.

8.3.2 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program

The NC Agricultural Cost Share Program (NCACSP) was established in 1984 to help reduce
agricultural nonpoint runoff into the state’s waters. The program helps owners and renters of
established agricultural operations improve their on-farm management by using best
management practices (BMPs). These BMPs include vegetative, structural or management
systems that can improve the efficiency of farming operations while reducing the potential for
surface and groundwater pollution. The NCACSP is implemented by the Division of Soil and
Water (DSWC), which divides the approved BMPs into five main purposes or categories.

ƒ Erosion Reduction/Nutrient Loss Reduction in Fields
Erosion/nutrient management measures include planned systems for reducing soil erosion
and nutrient runoff from cropland into streams. Practices include: critical area planting,
cropland conversion, water diversion, long-term no-till, pastureland conversion, sod-based
rotation, stripcropping, terraces, and Christmas tree conservation cover.

Chapter 8 – Agriculture and Water Quality 86

ƒ Sediment/Nutrient Delivery Reduction from Fields
Sediment/nutrient management measures include planned systems that prevent sediment and
nutrient runoff from fields into streams. Practices include: field borders, filter strips,
grassed waterways, nutrient management strategies, riparian buffers, water control
structures, streambank stabilization, and road repair/stabilization.

ƒ Stream Protection from Animals
Stream protection management measures are planned systems for protecting streams and
streambanks. Such measures eliminate livestock access to streams by providing an alternate
watering source away from the stream itself. Other benefits include reduced soil erosion,
sedimentation, pathogen contamination and pollution from dissolved, particulate, and
sediment-attached substances. Practices include: heavy use area protection, livestock
exclusion (i.e., fencing), spring development, stream crossings, trough or watering tanks,
wells, and livestock feeding areas.

ƒ Proper Animal Waste Management
A waste management system is a planned system in which all necessary components are
installed for managed liquid and solid waste to prevent or minimize degradation of soil and
water resources. Practices include: animal waste lagoon closures, constructed wetlands,
controlled livestock lounging area, dry manure stacks, heavy use area protection, insect and
odor control, stormwater management, waste storage ponds/lagoons, compost, and waste
application system.

ƒ Agricultural Chemical (agrichemical) Pollution Prevention
Agrichemical pollution prevention measures involve a planned system to prevent chemical
runoff to streams for water quality improvement. Practices include: agrichemical handling
facilities and fertigation/chemigation back flow prevention systems.

The NCACSP is a voluntary program that reimburses farmers up to 75% of the cost of installing
an approved BMP. The cost share funds are paid to the farmer once the planned BMP is
completed, inspected and certified to be installed according to NCACSP standards. The annual
statewide budget for BMP cost sharing is approximately $6.9 million. From 1998 to 2003,
$910,336 was provided for projects in the New River basin. Table 15 summaries the cost and
total BMPs implemented (i.e., acres, units, linear feet) throughout the New River basin. Specific
project information can be found in the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 – 3).

County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) contacts for the New River basin are
included in Appendix VIII. BMP definitions and DSWC contact information can be found
online at www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/agcostshareprogram.html.

Chapter 8 – Agriculture and Water Quality 87

Table 15 Summary of NCACSP projects in the New River Basin (1998 to 2003)

Subbasin 05-07-01 Subbasin 05-07-02 Subbasin 05-07-03
Purpose of BMP Total
Implemented Cost Total
Implemented Cost Total
Implemented Cost
Erosion Reduction/Nutrient Loss 4,567 acres $20,607 370 acres $22,607 9 acres $1,366
Reduction in Fields 1,000 linear ft. $1,717
Sediment/Nutrient Delivery
Reduction from Fields
2 acres $169 1 acre $1,513
Stream Protection from 453 units $202,293 1,395 units $257,317 502 units $204,574
Animals 29,384 linear ft.$36,545 17,496 linear ft.$19,983 24,550 linear ft. $29,909
Proper Animal Waste
Management
1 unit $18,102 2 units $29,614 4 units $35,031
Agricultural Chemical Pollution
Prevention
1 unit $6,361 2 units $22,628
Total Costs $284,077 $353,662 $272,597

Benefits* Subbasin 05-07-01 Subbasin 05-07-02 Subbasin 05-07-03
Total Soil Saved (tons) 8,819 1,538 2,300
Total Nitrogen (N) Saved (lb.) 6,534 6,189 1,510
Total Phosphorus (P) Saved (lb.) 4,240 5,121 67
Total Waste-N Saved (lb.) 3,310 1,277 5,410
Total Waste-P Saved (lb.) 2,014 1,087 2,962

* The North Carolina Agricultural Nutrient Assessment Tool (NCANAT) contains two field-scale assessment
tools: the Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet (NLEW) and the Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool (PLAT).
NCANAT is a product of the cooperative effort between the NC State University, NC Department of
Agriculture & Consumer Services, USDA-NRCS and the DENR. The tool consists of a function that allows
comparisons to be made before and after BMPs are installed. Gains and losses of nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment due to BMP implementation can be computed. The DSWC has adopted this program to calculate
these losses for the NCACSP reporting requirements.

Chapter 8 – Agriculture and Water Quality 88

Chapter 9
Forestry in the New River Basin

9.1 Forestland Ownership and Resources

In the New River basin, nonindustrial landowners own approximately 98% of the forestland.
The remaining 2% is state-owned lands that are part of the State Parks system (USDA-
Forest Service, 2004). There are no State Forests, Educational State Forests or significant
National Forestlands in the New River basin.

9.1.1 Forest Management

From 1998 to 2003, nearly 5,900 acres of privately owned forestland in the basin were
established or regenerated with forest trees with over three-quarters of these acres partially
funded by the NC Forest Development Program (FDP). In addition, over 670 forest
management plans were developed to support sustainable forests on 27,195 acres of
forestland owned by nonindustrial, private landowners.

Within the basin, nearly 700 acres across 7 tracts of land are certified under the Forest
Stewardship Program. This voluntary, cooperative program helps individual forest owners
manage their total forest resource. Landowners receive technical assistance in developing a
stewardship management plan based on their ownership objectives. Activities are scheduled
to enhance the forest for wildlife, soil and water quality, timber production, recreational
opportunities, and natural beauty. Recertification is required periodically to benchmark the
progress of the owner’s stewardship plan. For more information on forest management, visit
the DENR Division of Forestry (DFR) website www.dfr.state.nc.us.

9.1.2 Urban Forestry

No Urban & Community Forestry Grants were awarded in the New River basin during this
assessment period. Projects funded by this grant include urban forestry education, teacher
training, forest inventories, tree planting, and urban forest management. Urban forestry and
an associated field known as “agroforestry” are becoming an increasingly vital component in
reducing runoff by integrating “working green space” into urban development projects. In
1993, the Urban & Community Forestry Program recognized the Town of Boone as a Tree
City USA. DENR encourages the Town’s efforts in maintaining working green space.

9.1.3 Forest Utilization

Ten businesses in the basin are considered “Primary Processors” of raw material forest
products. These ten represent less than five percent of the total number of primary
processors located in North Carolina. Some examples of a primary processor include a
sawmill, veneer mill, chip mill, paper mill or pallet mill. These primary processors pay an
assessment to the state, which is then combined with annual legislative appropriations to fund
Chapter 9 – Forestry in the New River Basin 89

the Forest Development Program (FDP). This program provides cost shared reforestation
assistance for forest landowners (Section 9.1.1).

9.1.4 Christmas Tree Production

The Division of Forest Resources does not oversee regulations related to land clearing
activities for Christmas tree production or the associated BMPs for tree farming operations.
These activities are deemed to be an agricultural/horticultural activity and are under the
oversight of the NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (NCA&CS) and their
recommended agricultural best management practices (BMPs). The NC Cooperative
Extension Service through NC State University has developed extensive guidelines and
recommendations for Christmas tree operations. This material is available on-line at
www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/. Refer to Section 1.5.1 for more information.

9.2 Forestry Water Quality Regulations in North Carolina

9.2.1 Forest Practice Guidelines (FPG) for Water Quality

Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act of 1973 (General Statute Ch.113A Article 4 referred to as "SPCA")
and its amendments. However, forestry operations are exempt from the permit requirements
of the SPCA, if the operations comply with performance standards outlined in the Forest
Practices Guidelines (FPG) Related to Water Quality (Administrative Code 15A NCAC 1I
.0101 - .0209) and the North Carolina General Statutes that addresses stream obstruction
(General Statutes 77-13 and 77-14) (NCDEHNR-DFR, January 1990). Detailed information
on maintaining compliance with the FPGs is available on the Water Quality Section of the
DFR website www.dfr.state.nc.us.

DFR is delegated the authority, by the Division of Land Resources (DLR), to monitor and
evaluate forestry operations for compliance with the aforementioned laws. In addition, DFR
works to resolve FPG compliance questions brought to its attention through citizen
complaints. Violations of the FPG performance standards that cannot be resolved by DFR
are referred to DLR for enforcement action. During a five-year period beginning September
1998, DFR conducted 321 FPG inspections of forestry and/or timber harvesting activities in
the basin; approximately 91 percent of the sites inspected were in compliance with the FPGs.
None of the sites were referred to DLR for noncompliance enforcement.

9.2.2 Other Forestry Related Water Quality Regulations

In addition to the FPGs, DFR monitors the implementation of the following Federal rules
related to water quality and forestry operations. These include:

ƒ US Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Section 404 Dredge and Fill
exemption for forestry activities under the Clean Water Act;
ƒ USACE 15 mandatory BMPs to satisfy the exemption related to forest road
construction in wetlands; and
Chapter 9 – Forestry in the New River Basin 90

ƒ USACE BMPs for mechanical site preparation for the establishment of pine
plantation silviculture in southeastern wetlands.

9.2.3 Water Quality Foresters

Water quality issues related to forestry in the New River basin are predominantly handled by
a Water Quality Forester based in the DFR’s Lenoir District Office. Created in 1999, Water
Quality Foresters were assigned to seven of the DFR’s 13 districts across the state. The
Water Quality Foresters conduct FPG inspections, survey BMP implementation, develop pre-
harvest plans, and provide training opportunities for landowners, loggers and the public
regarding soil conservation and water quality protection practices related to forestry.
Assistant District Foresters and Service Foresters handle water quality issues in the
remaining districts, along with other forest management and fire control responsibilities.
Contact information for each district and/or county can be found on DFR’s website at
www.dfr.state.nc.us and in Appendix VIII.

9.2.4 Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Water Quality

Implementing forestry BMPs is strongly encouraged by DFR in order to efficiently and
effectively protect the water resources of North Carolina. The Forestry Best Management
Practices Manual (NRCD-DFR, September 1989) describes recommended techniques that
should be used to comply with the State’s forestry laws and help protect water quality. Also
known as the “Blue Book”, this manual is currently undergoing its first revision since
adoption in 1989. Revisions to the manual are led by a DENR appointed Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC). The second edition of the manual will be printed in a condensed pocket-
sized version, as well as a comprehensive desktop text. The pocket-sized, condensed version
will allow for greater distribution and on-site use by loggers and equipment operators. More
information on forestry BMPs can be found at DFR’s website at www.dfr.state.nc.us.

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

DFR conducted a statewide BMP Implementation Survey (March 2000 to March 2003) to
evaluate Forestry BMPs on active harvest operations for forest management purposes. This
survey evaluated 18 sites in the New River basin, with a resulting BMP implementation rate
of 68%. This was among the lowest of any river basin in the state. Statewide, the problems
most often cited in this survey relate to stream crossings, skid trails and site rehabilitation.
This and future surveys will serve as a basis to focus efforts in the forestry community to
Chapter 9 – Forestry in the New River Basin 91

address water quality concerns through better and more effective BMP implementation and
training.

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

(1) Replaced worn-out wood timber bridgemats with new steel mats available for use
throughout the basin. Contact the Lenoir District Water Quality Forester for loan
information.

(2) Established a Forestry NPS Unit that develops and oversees projects throughout the state
that involves protection, restoration and education on forestry NPS issues.

(3) Revised and produced 10,000 copies of a pocket field guide outlining the requirements of
the FPGs and suggested BMPs to implement.

(4) Created and published 15,000 copies of a new brochure “Call Before You Cut” for
landowners promoting pre-harvest planning to ensure water quality issues are addressed
prior to undertaking timber harvesting.

(5) Continued to assist with workshops in cooperation with the NC Forestry Association’s
“ProLogger” logger training program. As of 2004, this program requires at least 6 credit
hours of continuing education every 3 years focused exclusively on water quality topics.

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

Chapter 9 – Forestry in the New River Basin 92

Chapter 10
Water Resources

10.1 River Basin Hydrologic Units

Under the federal system, the New River basin is made up of hydrologic areas referred to as
cataloging units (USGS 8-digit hydrologic units). Cataloging units are further divided into
smaller watershed units (14-digit hydrologic units or local watersheds) that are used for smaller
scale planning like that done by NCEEP (Chapter 12). There are 20 local watershed units in the
basin, all of which are listed in Table 16. A map identifying the hydrologic units and subbasins
can be found in Appendix I.

Table 16 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the New River Basin

Watershed Name
and
Major Tributaries
DWQ
Subbasin
6-Digit
Codes
USGS
8-Digit
Hydrologic
Units
USGS
14-Digit Hydrologic Units
Local Watersheds*
South Fork New River
Middle Fork South Fork New River
East Fork South Fork New River
Winkler Creek
Howard Creek
Meat Camp Creek
Pine Orchard Creek
Old Field Creek
Pine Swamp Creek
South Beaver Creek (Lake Ashe)
Obids Creek
Roan Creek
Naked Creek
Peak Creek
Cranberry Creek

North Fork New River
Hoskin Fork
Three Top Creek
Big Laurel Creek
Buffalo Creek
Big Horse Creek
Helton Creek

Little River
Pine Swamp Creek
Bledsoe Creek
Elk Creek
Glade Creek
Brush Creek
Crab Creek
05-07-01

05-07-02

05-07-03

05050001 020010, 020020, 020030, 020040, 020050,
020060, 020070, 030010

010010, 010020, 010030, 010040, 010050,
010060, 010070, 010080

030015, 030020, 030030, 040040

* Numbers from the 8-digit and 14-digit column make the full 14-digit HU.
Chapter 10 – Water Resources 93

10.2 Minimum Streamflow

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

Under the authority of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) licenses all non-federal dams located on the navigable waters in the United States that
produce hydropower for the purposes of interstate commerce. The license may include
requirements for flows from the project for designated in-stream or off-stream uses.

Under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
issues permits for the discharge of fill material into navigable waters. The permit may include
requirements for flows for designated in-stream or off-stream uses. A 404 permit will not only
apply to dams under state and federal regulatory authorities mentioned above but will also cover
structures that are not under their authority such as weirs, diversions and small dams. Table 17
presents selected minimum streamflow projects in the New River basin. It should be noted that
this is not necessarily a complete list of minimum streamflow requirements in the basin.
Absence from this list should not be interpreted as relief from fulfilling existing permit flow
requirements.

Table 17 Selected Minimum Streamflow Projects in the New River Basin

Name Location Waterbody
Drainage
Area
(sq. mi.)
Minimum
Release
(cu.ft./sec)
Hydroelectric Dams
Sharpe Falls Near Dresden, Ashe County North Fork New River 112 None a
Impoundment Dams/Weirs
Roaring Gap Golf course, Alleghany County Laurel Branch 1.06 1.4
Old Beau Upper Golf course, Alleghany County Laurel Branch 1.33 None b
Old Beau Lower Golf course, Alleghany County Laurel Branch 1.54 1.6
Water Supply Weir Near Boone, Watauga County South Fork 19.5 4.0 c
Water Supply Dam Near Boone, Watauga County Winkler Creek 5.7 2.4 c
a Even though there is no minimum flow, the project must operate in a run-of-river mode; i.e., instantaneous inflow
equals instantaneous outflow. Note: A noncompliant project can noticeably alter the streamflow. b The upper and lower ponds were built in series so that the system will provide 1.6 cubic feet/second (cfs)
downstream. c The Section 404 permit, issued by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, also states “the Town of Boone will in all
cases be permitted to withdraw a maximum of 4.6 cfs from the combined sources.”

Chapter 10 – Water Resources 94

10.3 Interbasin Transfers

In addition to water withdrawals, water users in North Carolina are also required to register
surface water transfers with DWR if the amount is 100,000 gallons per day or more. In addition,
persons wishing to transfer two million gallons per day (MGD) or more, or increase an existing
transfer by 25 percent or more, must first obtain a certificate from the Environmental
Management Commission (General Statute 143-215.22I). The basin boundaries that apply to
these requirements are designated on a map entitled Major River Basins and Sub-Basins in North
Carolina, on file in the Office of the Secretary of State. These boundaries differ from the 17
major river basins delineated by DWQ. Table 18 summarizes interbasin transfers within the
New River basin.

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

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

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

Table 18 Estimated Interbasin Transfers in the New River Basin (1997)

Supplying
System
Receiving
System
Source
Subbasin
Receiving
Subbasin
Estimated
Transfer (MGD)
Blowing Rock Blowing Rock New Catawba Unknown
Blowing Rock Blowing Rock New Yadkin Pee-Dee Unknown
Town of Boone Town of Boone New Watauga Unknown

10.4 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought

Water quality problems associated with rainfall events usually involve degradation of aquatic
habitats because the high flows may carry increased loadings of substances like metals, oils,
herbicides, pesticides, sand, clay, organic material, bacteria and nutrients. These substances can
be toxic to aquatic life (fish and insects) or may result in oxygen depletion or sedimentation.
During drought conditions, these pollutants become more concentrated in streams due to reduced
flow. Summer months are generally the most critical months for water quality. Dissolved
Chapter 10 – Water Resources 95

oxygen is naturally lower due to higher temperatures, algae grow more due to longer periods of
sunlight, and streamflows are reduced. In a long-term drought, these problems can be greatly
exacerbated and the potential for water quality problems to become catastrophic is increased.
This section discusses water quality problems that can be expected during low flow conditions.

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

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

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

10.5 Source Water Assessment of Public Water Supplies

10.5.1 Introduction

The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 emphasize pollution
prevention as an important strategy for the protection of ground and surface water resources.
This new focus promotes the prevention of drinking water contamination as a cost-effective
means to provide reliable, long-term and safe drinking water sources for public water supply
(PWS) systems. In order to determine the susceptibility of public water supply sources to
contamination, the amendments also required that all states establish a Source Water Assessment
Program (SWAP). Specifically, Section 1453 of the SDWA Amendments require that states
develop and implement a SWAP to:

ƒ Delineate source water assessment areas;
ƒ Inventory potential contaminants in these areas; and
ƒ Determine the susceptibility of each public water supply to contamination.

Chapter 10 – Water Resources 96

In North Carolina, the agency responsible for the SWAP is the Public Water Supply (PWS)
Section of the DENR Division of Environmental Health (DEH). The PWS Section received
approval from the EPA for their SWAP Plan in November 1999. The SWAP Plan, entitled
North Carolina’s Source Water Assessment Program Plan, fully describes the methods and
procedures used to delineate and assess the susceptibility of more than 9,000 wells and
approximately 207 surface water intakes. To review the SWAP Plan, visit the PWS website at
http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/pws/index.htm.

10.5.2 Delineation of Source Water Assessment Areas

The SWAP Plan builds upon existing protection programs for ground and surface water
resources. These include the state’s Wellhead Protection Program and the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Program.

Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program
North Carolinians withdraw more than 88 million gallons of groundwater per day from more
than 9,000 water supply wells across the state. In 1986, Congress passed Amendments to the
SDWA requiring states to develop wellhead protection programs that reduce the threat to the
quality of groundwater used for drinking water by identifying and managing recharge areas to
specific wells or wellfields.

Defining a wellhead protection area (WHPA) is one of the most critical components of wellhead
protection. A WHPA is defined as “the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or
wellfield, supplying a public water system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to
move toward and reach such water well or wellfield.” The SWAP uses the methods described in
the state's approved WHP Program to delineate source water assessment areas for all public
water supply wells. More information related to North Carolina’s WHP Program can be found at
http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/pws/swap.

Water Supply Watershed Protection (WSWP) Program
DWQ is responsible for managing the standards and classifications of all water supply
watersheds. In 1992, the WSWP Rules were adopted by the EMC and require all local
governments that have land use jurisdiction within water supply watersheds adopt and implement
water supply watershed protection ordinances, maps and management plans. SWAP uses the
established water supply watershed boundaries and methods established by the WSWP program
as a basis to delineate source water assessment areas for all public water surface water intakes.
Additional information regarding the WSWP Program can be found at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wswp/index.html.

10.5.3 Susceptibility Determination – North Carolina’s Overall Approach

The SWAP Plan contains a detailed description of the methods used to assess the susceptibility
of each PWS intake in North Carolina. The following is a brief summary of the susceptibility
determination approach.

Overall Susceptibility Rating
The overall susceptibility determination rates the potential for a drinking water source to become
contaminated. The overall susceptibility rating for each PWS intake is based on two key
Chapter 10 – Water Resources 97

components: a contaminant rating and an inherent vulnerability rating. For a PWS to be
determined “susceptible”, a potential contaminant source must be present and the existing
conditions of the PWS intake location must be such that a water supply could become
contaminated. The determination of susceptibility for each PWS intake is based on combining
the results of the inherent vulnerability rating and the contaminant rating for each intake. Once
combined, a PWS is given a susceptibility rating of higher, moderate or lower (H, M or L).

Inherent Vulnerability Rating
Inherent vulnerability refers to the physical characteristics and existing conditions of the
watershed or aquifer. The inherent vulnerability rating of groundwater intakes is determined
based on an evaluation of aquifer characteristics, unsaturated zone characteristics and well
integrity and construction characteristics. The inherent vulnerability rating of surface water
intakes is determined based on an evaluation of the watershed classification (WSWP Rules),
intake location, raw water quality data (i.e., turbidity and total coliform) and watershed
characteristics (i.e., average annual precipitation, land slope, land use, land cover, groundwater
contribution).

Contaminant Rating
The contaminant rating is based on an evaluation of the density of potential contaminant sources
(PCSs), their relative risk potential to cause contamination, and their proximity to the water
supply intake within the delineated assessment area.

Inventory of Potential Contaminant Sources (PCSs)
In order to inventory PCSs, the SWAP conducted a review of relevant, available sources of
existing data at federal, state and local levels. The SWAP selected sixteen statewide databases
that were attainable and contained usable geographic information related to PCSs.

10.5.4 Source Water Protection

The PWS Section believes that the information from the source water assessments will become
the basis for future initiatives and priorities for public drinking water source water protection
(SWP) activities. The PWS Section encourages all PWS system owners to implement efforts to
manage identified sources of contamination and to reduce or eliminate the potential threat to
drinking water supplies through locally implemented programs

To encourage and support local SWP, the state offers PWS system owners assistance with local
SWP as well as materials such as:

ƒ Fact sheets outlining sources of funding and other resources for local SWP efforts.
ƒ Success stories describing local SWP efforts in North Carolina.
ƒ Guidance about how to incorporate SWAP and SWP information in Consumer Confidence
Reports (CCRs).

Information related to SWP can be found at http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/pws/swap.

Chapter 10 – Water Resources 98

10.5.5 Public Water Supply Susceptibility Determinations in the New River Basin

In April 2004, the PWS Section completed source water assessments for all drinking water
sources and generated reports for the PWS systems using these sources. A second round of
assessments were completed in April 2005. The results of the assessments can be viewed in two
different ways, either through the interactive ArcIMS mapping tool or compiled in a written
report for each PWS system. To access the ArcIMS mapping tool, simply click on the “NC
SWAP Info” icon on the PWS web page (http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/pws/swap). To view a report,
select the PWS System of interest by clicking on the “SWAP Reports” icon.

In the New River Basin, 199 public water supply sources were identified. Six are surface water
sources, and 193 are groundwater sources. Of the193 groundwater sources, five have a Higher
susceptibility rating and 188 have a Moderate susceptibility rating. Table 19 identifies the six
surface water sources and the overall susceptibility rating. It is important to note that a
susceptibility rating of Higher does not imply poor water quality. Susceptibility is an indication
of a water supply's potential to become contaminated by the identified PCSs within the
assessment area.

Table 19 SWAP Results for Surface Water Sources in the New River Basin

PWS ID
Number
Inherent
Vulnerability
Rating
Contaminant
Rating
Overall
Susceptibility
Rating
Name of Surface
Water Source
PWS Name
0105015 H L M South Fork New River Town of Jefferson
0195010 H L M Winklers Creek Town of Boone
0195010 H L M South Fork New River Town of Boone
0195020 M L M Town Lake Town of Blowing Rock
0195101 M L M Norris Branch App. State University WTP
0195101 H L M Howards Creek App. State University WTP

Chapter 10 – Water Resources 99

Chapter 11
Natural Resources

11.1 Ecological Significance of the New River Basin

The New River is renowned as one of the oldest existing rivers in North America, and North
Carolina contains a significant portion of its headwaters. The area is noted for the rare and
endemic aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals it supports. A number of species, and the
ecological communities in which they exist, are found nowhere else. While farming and
pastureland have heavily altered most of the floodplain and upland vegetation along the river,
patches of intact natural communities persist. As discussed below (Section 11.3), Southern
Appalachian bogs and a series of high mountain elevations, known as the Amphibolites, provide
two examples of the distinct natural features and biological diversity found in the New River
basin.

11.2 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species

Table 20 lists the rare fish, mollusks, insects, amphibians and reptiles found throughout the New
River basin. For information on any of the species listed in Table 20, visit the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) website at www.ncnhp.org.

11.3 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the New River Basin

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

The Significant Natural Heritage Areas found in the New River basin are shown in Figure 14.
Sites that directly contribute to the maintenance of water quality in the New River basin are
highlighted on the map and in the following text. The NHP has identified more than 60
individual natural areas in the New River basin. Due to space limitations, only the aquatic
habitats and two themes that almost dominate the natural heritage of the New River basin – the
Amphibolite Mountains and the Southern Appalachian bogs – will be discussed here.

The Amphibolite Mountains are a series of mountains that stretch from northeastern Watauga
County to central Ashe County. Elevations reach 4,600 feet or higher, and because of the
underlying rock formation, soils are nutrient rich with a high pH. Many of the rare plants and
distinct natural communities found in the New River basin are associated with the rich soils and
high elevations of these mountains. This includes the only known example worldwide of the
Southern Appalachian Fen wetland. Of the nearly 120 rare plants documented in this basin, over
Chapter 11 – Natural Resources 100

Table 20 List of Rare Animals Associated with Aquatic and Wetland Habitats in the New
River Basin

Scientific
Name
Common
Name Major Group State
Status
Federal
Status
Etheostoma kannawhae Kanawha Darter Fish SR
Exoglossum laurae Tongue-Tied Minnow Fish SR
Percina caprodes Logperch Fish T
Percina oxyrhynchus Sharpnose Darter Fish SC
Phenacobius teretulus Kanawha Minnow Fish SC FSC
Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple Wartyback Mollusk E
Elliptio dilatata Spike Mollusk SC
Lasmigona subviridis Green Floater Mollusk E FSC
Leptoxis dilatata Seep Mudalia Mollusk T
Tritogonia verrucosa Pistolgrip Mollusk EX
Vireo gilvus Warbling vireo Bird SR
Autochton cellus Golden-banded skipper Insect SR
Ephemerella berneri A mayfly Insect SR
Attaneuria ruralis Stonefly Insect SR
Bolotoperla rossi A stonefly Insect SR
Ceraclea mentiea Caddisfly Insect SR
Ceraclea slossonae Caddisfly Insect SR
Ophiogomphus asperses Brook Snaketail (Dragonfly) Insect SR
Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy Snaketail (Dragonfly) Insect SR FSC
Ophiogomphus mainensis Twin-horned Snaketail (Dragonfly) Insect SR
Isoperla frisoni A stonefly Insect SR
Zapada chila A stonefly Insect SR
Stenelmis gammoni Gammon's Stenelmis Riffle Beetle Insect SR FSC
Stylurus scudderi Zebra Clubtail (Dragonfly) Insect SR
Ambystoma talpoideum Mole Salamander Amphibian SC
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender Amphibian SC FSC
Eurycea longicauda Longtail Salamander Amphibian SC
Plethodon wehrlei Wehrle's Salamander Amphibian T
Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake Reptile SC
Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle Reptile T T(S/A)
Ascetocythere cosmeta Grayson Crayfish Ostracod Crustacean SR FSC
Rare Species Listing Criteria

E = Endangered (those species in danger of becoming extinct)
T = Threatened (considered likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future)
SR = Significantly Rare (those whose numbers are small and whose populations need monitoring)
SC = Species of Special Concern
FSC = Federal Species of Concern (those under consideration for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act)
T(S/A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance
EX = Extirpated
Chapter 11 – Natural Resources 101

70 percent occur in the Amphibolite Mountains. In the Amphibolite Mountains, the core area of
some of the larger mountains are essentially unfragmented and heavily forested. These areas
include Three Top Mountain, Bluff Mountain, Phoenix Mountain, Paddy Mountain, Mount
Jefferson and several high peaks that border Long Hope Valley.

The rare combination of gentle topography and high elevation in Long Hope Valley encouraged
the development of numerous unique bogs. Nearly twenty-three bogs, the largest concentration
in North Carolina, are found in Long Hope Valley. The nearest comparable concentration of
bogs occurs hundreds of miles away to the north at Cranberry Glades in West Virginia. Other
examples of this rare community occur at Sparta Bog, Skunk Cabbage Bog, Peak Creek Bog and
Idlewild Bog. Many other bogs are scattered along the southeastern margin of the New River
basin. Southern Appalachian bogs are naturally open and usually have a mixture of vegetation,
including patches of open tree canopy, shrub thickets, and beds of herbs, fens, grasses, and
sedges. The flora is comparable to bogs in the northern United States and Canada, often
containing a combination of disjunct northern plant species and typically southern wetland
species. Several of these northern disjunct species occur in North Carolina only in bogs of the
New River basin.

Southern Appalachian bogs are restricted to the mountains of North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Virginia. They are naturally rare since the flat, bottomland locations where they occur make up a
very small portion of the mountain landscape. Because of their location, the southern
Appalachian bog communities are also one of the most imperiled communities in western North
Carolina; bogs are highly susceptible to human alterations, such as draining, filling, conversion
to pasture or impoundment. Since bogs are usually small in size, alterations affect them quickly
and drastically. The dynamics of these bogs are not well understood, and the intact examples of
this natural community often contain clusters of rare plants and animals. Alleghany County Soil
and Water Conservation District (SWCD) is currently working with the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) to identify and protect bog habitats. Refer to Section 3.5.3 for more
information.

11.4 Significant Aquatic Habitats in New River Basin

The NHP also collaborates with other agencies and organizations to identify Significant Aquatic
Habitats in North Carolina. These habitat areas often include stream segments or other bodies of
water that contain significant natural resources, such as a large diversity of rare aquatic animal
species. The impact from lands adjacent to and upstream of these stream reaches determines
their water quality and the viability of their aquatic species. The identification of a natural area
conveys no protection; these lands are the responsibility of the landowner. Significant Aquatic
Habitats in the New River basin are described below and are shown on Figure 14.

The South Fork New River Aquatic Habitat is considered significant for its cluster of sixteen
rare species, including three fish species endemic to the New River basin (Sharpnose darter,
Kanawha minnow and Kanawha darter). The South Fork New River is also the state’s only
known location for the Gammon’s riffle beetle. The South Fork of the New River also contains
important populations of Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana), a federally listed plant that grows
along the riverbanks.
Chapter 11 – Natural Resources 102

Another area identified as ecologically significant is the North Fork New River Aquatic
Habitat. Here, there is a cluster of ten rare species including: Kanawha minnow; Kanawha
darter; tongue-tied minnow; green floater; and four aquatic insect species.

A third aquatic Significant Natural Heritage Area, the New River (Ashe/Alleghany) Aquatic
Habitat, extends from the confluence of the two aquatic systems mentioned above and along the
New River itself. Rare species of this stretch include: Purple wartyback; spike; pistolgrip; green
floater; Kanawha darter; logperch, sharpnose darter; Kanawha minnow; Ceraclea mentiea (a
caddisfly); Hellbender; and pygmy snaketail. While the sites are adjacent, the boundaries help
differentiate population distributions of a good assemblage of rare mussel and fish species, as
well as the extent of certain macrohabitats. The amphibian hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis) requires large and clear fast-flowing streams with big rocks. It has been found in
this section of the New River. Biologists note that the habitat is good and land protection efforts
have been somewhat successful, but there is some concern about the unexplained decline of this
species in recent years.

A number of other rare and uncommon aquatic species are also found in North Carolina only in
the New River drainage. Uncommon fish include the bigmouth chub (Nocomis platyrhynchus),
the New River shiner (Notropis scabriceps) and the Appalachia darter (Percina gymnocephala).
The uncommon New River crayfish (Cambarus chasmodactylus), and the significantly rare
freshwater mussels – purple wartyback (Cyclonaias tuberculata) and pistolgrip (Tritogonia
verrucosa) – are also found in North Carolina only in the New River drainage; however, the
pistolgrip may be extirpated from North Carolina. An uncommon fish found primarily in the
New and Tennessee River drainages is the spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera).

There are a number of Upland, Riparian and Wetland Significant Natural Heritage Areas not
listed here that contribute to New River Water Quality. Contact the NC NHP to obtain more
information about these natural areas, or visit the NHP website at www.ncnhp.org.

11.5 Public Lands

Public conservation lands in the New River basin are also shown in Figure 14. The basin
contains significant public lands, both in terms of area and ecological value. The National Park
Service Blue Ridge Parkway is the largest federal ownership, and includes many ecologically
significant areas. The New River State Park encompasses over 1,300 acres and includes those
areas of the South Fork New River and the New River that are designated as a State Scenic
River. Here, the soils are fertile and support a variety of plant species including hardwoods,
pines, shrubs and wildflowers. Of these, at least fourteen are considered rare, threatened or
endangered. Many animal, bird and aquatic species can also be found in the New River valley.

Conservation lands in the Amphibolite Mountain region also include Mount Jefferson State
Natural Area and Three Top Mountain Game Preserve. Mount Jefferson is known for its
magnificent oak-hickory forests, and its peak of 4,700 feet, which provides a magnificent view
of a large portion of the New River basin. The Three Top Mountain Game Preserve covers over
one-third of the mountain and still another preserve located on Bluff Mountain is a private
preserve, which protects nearly all of the mountain itself. The Department of Agriculture’s
Chapter 11 – Natural Resources 103
Plant Conservation Program manages land at Paddy Mountain and owns land at Potato Hill that
Appalachian State University (ASU) helps to manage.

The Sparta Bog includes over 300 acres of wetland mitigation land. Purchased by the NC
Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the park contains walking trails, a bog turtle
observation deck, and native plant and wildflower plots. The bog showcases this unique area of
Alleghany County and is part of the New River Watershed Work Plan from the New River
Community Partners (NRCP).

Todd Island Park is a 10-acre island in the South Fork New River near the Community of Todd,
Ashe County. Trails, benches and camping sites are located on the island with much of the
construction being done by citizen volunteers. To stabilize severely eroding streambanks and to
deflect the water’s energy, the National Committee for the New River (NCNR) constructed a
whole tree revetment as a demonstration project. The whole tree revetment project involved the
use of rootwads and a cabled hemlock tree. The rootwads consist of the base of large trees and
much of their root system, which are inserted directly into the streambank. The hemlock was
secured sideways into the streambank with cables. These natural structures not only reduce the
amount of erosion, but also provide a habitat area for both aquatic and terrestrial species.
Several native trees and shrubs were also planted along the streambanks, and stairs were built for
easy canoe access. The Todd Island Park demonstration project was funded by the NC Clean
Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. For
more information about NCNR, visit www.ncnr.org.

Chapter 11 – Natural Resources 104

Chapter 12
Water Quality Initiatives

12.1 The Importance of Local Initiatives

As the Basinwide Planning Program completes its third cycle of plan development, there are
many efforts being undertaken at the local level to improve water quality. Information about
local efforts in a particular watershed is included in the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 – 3).
DWQ encourages local agencies and organizations to learn about and become active in their
watersheds.

In an effort to provide water quality information and gain public input, DWQ held a public
workshop in Jefferson (April 2004). The purpose of the workshop was to inform people of the
2005 plan update and to seek input prior to finalizing the plan. Participants provided comments
on specific waters in the New River basin and generalized issues related to urbanization and land
use changes, streamside management, enforcement, permitting, monitoring and funding sources.

An important benefit of local initiatives is that local people make decisions that affect change in
their own communities. There are a variety of limitations local initiatives can overcome
including: state government budgets, staff resources, lack of regulations for nonpoint sources,
the rulemaking process, and many others. These local organizations and agencies are able to
combine professional expertise in a watershed. This allows groups to holistically understand the
challenges and opportunities of different water quality efforts. Involving a wide array of people
in water quality projects also brings together a range of knowledge and interests, and encourages
others to become involved and invested in these projects. By working in coordination across
jurisdictions and agency lines, more funding opportunities are available, and it is easier to
generate necessary matching or leveraging funds. This will potentially allow local entities to do
more work and be involved in more activities because their funding sources are diversified. The
most important aspect of these local endeavors is that the more localized the project, the better
the chances for success.

The collaboration of these local efforts are key to water quality improvements. There are good
examples of local agencies and groups using these cooperative strategies throughout the state. A
few of the local organizations are highlighted in Table 21. Specific projects are described in the
subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 – 3). Nonpoint source program descriptions and contact, Soil and
Water Conservation District (SWCD), NC Cooperative Extension Service and USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) contact information can be found in Appendix VIII.

DWQ applauds the foresight and proactive response to potential water quality problems in the
watersheds identified in the subbasin chapters (Chapters 1 – 3). Federal and State government
agencies are interested in assisting local governments and citizen groups in developing their
water quality management programs. The distribution of several grantors is discussed below
(Section 12.2 and 12.3).

Chapter 12 – Water Quality Initiatives 106
Table 21 Local Water Quality Initiatives

New River Community Partners (NRCP)
Sparta, North Carolina

NRCP is a grassroots organization founded to oversee the implementation of the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative (AHRI) for the New River. The Board of Directors includes grassroots leaders, small business owners,
elected officials, educators, chamber of commerce directors, landowners, natural resource management
professionals and historic preservationists from North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. A major
accomplishment of the NRCP has been the development of the New River Watershed Work Plan. The plan is a
working document, which changes frequently as projects are completed and new programs and/or projects begin.
Several of the projects reflect the connection between natural resources protection, agricultural service, economic
development, and historic and cultural preservation. To date, over $13 million has been leveraged from federal,
state, local and private sources. For more information about NRCP, contact:

Patrick Woodie
Executive Director

Ben Borda
River Navigator
US Army Corps of Engineers
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Accomplishments/Projects:
ƒ Provides support and assistance to local and regional groups for those projects described in the New River
Watershed Work Plan.
ƒ Coordinates with the River Navigator to create new partnerships with state and federal agencies and
provide training and technical assistance related to water quality.
National Committee for the New River (NCNR)
West Jefferson, North Carolina

NCNR is a nonprofit membership organization that works to protect, preserve and restore the unique natural and
cultural qualities of the New River and its watersheds in North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. NCNR has
developed a five-year River Protection Plan. The plan is designed to protect significant lands, restore eroding
streambanks, wetlands and aquatic habitats, and increase community outreach and awareness of watershed
protection. For more information about NCNR, contact:
Jeffrey Scott
Executive Director
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
http://www.ncnr.org/

Accomplishments/Projects:

ƒ Implementing the Five Year River Protection Plan.
ƒ Awarded funding from the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) for land protection and
streambank restoration projects.
ƒ Coordinates the New River Big Sweep clean-up efforts every September/October along the river and its
tributaries.
ƒ Established a volunteer water quality monitoring program for the New River headwaters.
ƒ Working to protect nearly 1,000 acres of forested land and build a 5.0-mile community greenway in the
historic district of Todd (Ashe and Watauga counties). Thus far, NCNR has purchased nearly 200 acres
of land and protected nearly 1.5 miles of riverfront property along the South Fork New River.
ƒ Established the River Builder Program, which works with landowners to reestablish riparian vegetation
along streambanks that have eroded due to the removal of vegetation. NCNR has planted more than
300,000 silky dogwoods and 19,700 trees, restoring over 37 miles of riparian buffers.

Chapter 12 – Water Quality Initiatives 107

Middle Fork Greenway Association (MFGA)
Blowing Rock, North Carolina

Established in 2000, MFGA is volunteer, nonprofit organization working to build a greenway trail along the
Middle Fork South Fork New River between the Towns of Blowing Rock and Boone. MFGA is working with
landowners along this nearly five mile stretch in order to obtain easements at least 20-feet wide, adjacent to the
already 30-foot wide buffer zone established by a local Watershed Protection Ordinance along the river. The trail
would be a 10-foot wide pedestrian/bike trail and be wheelchair accessible. For more information on the Middle
Fork Greenway Project, contact:
Anne Burgess
Greenway Trail Coordinator
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Accomplishments/Projects:

ƒ Received two grants from the NC CWMTF for surveys, environmental site assessments and legal fees to
secure easements from several willing landowners along the proposed greenway trail.
ƒ Developed the Middle Fork Greenway Trail Feasibility Study with the help of students from the Department
of Geography and Planning at Appalachian State University (ASU, May 2001).
ƒ Increasing community awareness of watershed protection and streambank restoration.
Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust (BRRLT)
Boone, North Carolina

The BRRLT is a non-profit land trust serving a seven county area of western North Carolina. The mission of
BRRLT is to preserve rural communities and culture in northwestern North Carolina through the preservation of
the land resources upon which they depend. For more information on BRRLT and their most recent projects,
contact:

James Coman, III
Executive Director
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
www.brrlt.org
Accomplishments/Projects:

ƒ BRRLT participated in the designation of Beech Creek Bog as a State Natural Area. It is the largest Southern
Appalachian bog and contains several endangered and threatened plant and animal species.
ƒ Working with volunteers, donors and the Conservation Trust of North Carolina to raise $500,000 to buy
Bullhead Mountain. Bullhead Mountain will likely be designated as a State Natural Area by the NC Division
of Parks & Recreation and is being managed by the NC State Office of the National Audubon Society.
ƒ BRRLT has acquired several conservation easements throughout Ashe, Alleghany, and Watauga counties.
Many of which are significant contributions to the protection of water quality.

12.2 Federal Initiatives

12.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration and
restoration projects. Through annual base funding, there is approximately $1 million available
for demonstration and education projects across the state. An additional $2 million is available
annually through incremental funds for restoration projects. All projects must provide
nonfederal matching funds of at least 40% of the project’s total costs. Project proposals are
reviewed and selected by the North Carolina Nonpoint Source Workgroup made up of state and
federal agencies involved in regulation or research associated with nonpoint source pollution.
Information on the North Carolina Section 319 Grant Program application process is available
Chapter 12 – Water Quality Initiatives 108

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

Many 319 projects are demonstration projects and educational programs that allow for the
dissemination of information to the public through established programs at NC State University
(NCSU) and the NC Cooperative Extension Service. Other projects fund stream restoration
activities that improve water quality. Between 1998 and 2003, there was one project in the New
River basin funded through the Section 319 Program. Managed by NCSU, the goal of the
project – New River Watershed Christmas Tree BMP Demonstration Project – was to implement
and evaluate the use of BMPs to reduce sediment and pesticide runoff, nutrient runoff, and
disease. To date, there are 51 demonstrations projects across Ashe and Alleghany counties.
BMPs include ground cover management, chemical mowing, predator insect release, Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) farms, proper mist blower use, riparian buffer plantings, proper road
construction, low-impact site preparation and phosphorus incorporation. Several Christmas tree
farms have multiple BMPs with several farms in Alleghany County featured during the 2003 NC
Christmas Tree Association’s Fall Farm Tour. Future plans for the BMP Demonstration Project
include permanent signage for educational purposes, field days for tours, a published report and a
website with an extensive photo tour of the BMPs.

12.3 State Initiatives

12.3.1 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)

The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is responsible for implementing
wetland and stream restoration projects as part of a statewide effort to provide more ecologically
effective compensatory mitigation. The focus of the program is to restore, enhance and protect
key watershed functions in the 17 river basins across the state through the implementation of
wetlands, streams and riparian buffer projects within selected local watersheds in advance of
permitted impacts. These vital watershed functions include water quality protection, floodwater
conveyance and storage, fisheries and wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. The
NCEEP is not a grant program. Instead, the program funds local mitigation projects directly
through its various in-lieu fee receipts.

Through the development of River Basin Restoration Priorities (formerly called Watershed
Restoration Plans), the NCEEP identifies local watersheds (14-digit hydrologic units) with the
greatest need and opportunity for watershed mitigation projects. The RBRPs are developed, in
part, using information compiled by DWQ's programmatic activities. Additional local resource
data and locations of existing or planned watershed projects are considered in the selection of
targeted local watersheds, which are identified and mapped within the RBRPs. Targeted local
watersheds represent those areas within a given river basin where NCEEP resources can be most
efficiently focused for maximum benefit to local watershed functions. The NCEEP RBRPs are
periodically updated and presented on the NCEEP website http://www.nceep.net.

The NCEEP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs
or environmental groups such as the Section 319 Program. Integrating wetlands or riparian area
Chapter 12 – Water Quality Initiatives 109

restoration components with Section 319-funded or proposed projects will often improve the
overall water quality, hydrologic and habitat benefits of both projects.

The NCEEP is also developing comprehensive Local Watershed Plans, often within targeted
local watersheds identified in the RBRPs. Through the local watershed planning process,
NCEEP conducts comprehensive watershed assessments to identify stressors in local watersheds,
and then coordinates with local resource professionals and local governments to identify and
implement watershed projects and management strategies to address the problems. The local
watershed plans identify and prioritize wetland areas, stream reaches, riparian buffer areas and
BMPs that will provide water quality improvement, habitat protection and other environmental
benefits to the local watershed.

In the New River basin, NCEEP has initiated two stream restoration projects. These include: (1)
restoration of over 4,000 linear feet of streambank in the Brush Creek watershed (Section 3.4.5)
and (2) the potential to restore over 3,500 linear feet in the Big Horse Creek watershed (Section
2.4.2). NCEEP has also acquired two preservation projects that protect over 171 acres and
preserves over 15,000 linear feet of the mainstem of the South Fork New River.

A copy of the RBRP for the New River basin can be found on the NCEEP website at
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/watershedplans.html. For more information about NCEEP, visit
http://www.nceep.net/ or call [phone].

12.3.2 Clean Water Management Trust Fund

The CWMTF offers approximately $40 million annually in grants for projects within the broadly
focused areas of restoring and protecting state surface waters and establishing a network of
riparian buffers and greenways. In the New River basin, 26 projects have been funded for a total
of $5,440,080 (Table 22). For more information on the CWMTF or these grants, call (252) 830-
3222 or visit the website at www.cwmtf.net.
Chapter 12 – Water Quality Initiatives 110

Table 22 Projects in the New River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management Trust
Fund

Project
Number
Application
Name
Proposed
Project Description
Amount
Funded
1997B-402
National Committee for the
New River (NCNR) –
Stream Restoration
Start riparian buffer planting and cleanup
program on New River through River Builders
Program.
$75,000
1998A-402 Boone – Stream Restoration /
Boone Creek
Restore approximately 1/2 mile of Boone Creek,
just upstream of Winklers Creek. $522,000
1998A-803 Conservation Fund – New River
Watershed Planning & Outreach
Conduct a watershed planning and outreach
effort in the New River Watershed. $92,500
1998B-401 Boone – Restoration /
South Fork New River
Restore approximately 1,700 feet of the South
Fork New River. $372,000
1998B-406 NC WR – Ore Knob Mine
Restoration / Peak Creek
Assess acid pollution from abandoned Ore
Knob Mine, design and construct treatment to
protect Peak Creek from acid runoff, maintain
treatment system and monitor for at least 20
years. USACE must first determine if project is
feasible.
$1,033,680
1999A-011 Ashe County –
Creeper Trail Feasibility Study
Conduct study to determine feasibility of
extending the Virginia Creeper Trail into North
Carolina along Big Horse Creek.
$636,000
1999A-402 Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation –
Restoration / Big Pine Creek
Restore 800 feet of eroding stream banks and
riparian areas (both sides of a 400 foot stream
segment) and exclude livestock from 2,000 feet
of Big Pine Creek. Monitor suspended
sediment in stream above and below project
area during and after project implementation.
$8,000
1999A-409 NCNR – Stream Buffer Plantings Continue buffer planting program along 5.3
miles of New River. $90,200
2000A-006 NCNR – Acquisition & Greenway
/ South Fork New River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 97 acres
along the South Fork of the New River. Funds
also available to explore acquisition of three
additional donated or purchased easements.
$329,000
2000B-002
Conservation Fund &
NC Parks & Recreation –
River House Acquisition
Acquire through permanent conservation
easements 34 acres along the North Fork of the
New River. Secure option to purchase riparian
buffers on another tract for New River State
Park.
$225,000
2001A-024
New River Community Partners
(NRCP) – Waterfalls Creek Land
Acquisition
Provide funds to acquire an option, appraisal,
and survey for 40 acres along Waterfalls Creek. $25,000
Chapter 12 – Water Quality Initiatives 111

2001A-404 NCNR – Stream Buffer Planting
Reestablish 6.3 miles of riparian buffer by
planting tree seedlings and live stakes. Monitor
for 10 years. Develop and install a residential
landscape model. Design and install whole tree
revetment demonstration site.
$73,000
2001B-014
Middle Fork Greenway
Association (MFGA) –
Acquisition / Middle Fork South
Fork New River & Payne Creek
Provide funds to cover transactional costs to
secure permanent conservation easements and
one long-term agreement on 10 tracts along
Middle Fork and Payne Branch. Establish 16
acres of riparian buffer to become part of a
greenway system.
$32,000
2001B-015 NCNR – Acquisition & Greenway
at Todd / South Fork New River
Acquire riparian portion (29 acres) of a 44-acre
tract along South Fork of the New River. $181,000
2001B-303
NRCP – CES Planning Position /
New River & Mount Jefferson
State Parks
Establish a 3-year position with the NC
Cooperative Extension Service to bring targeted
land under protection through fee simple
purchase or conservation easements in the New
River and Mount Jefferson State Parks and the
scenic section of the New River.
$150,000
2001B-404
NRCP – Restoration /
New River /
New River State Park
Stabilize 1,600 linear feet of streambank along
the New River. Establish vegetated permanent
riparian buffers. Includes WQ monitoring.
$57,000
2002A-015 NCNR – Acquisition /
Horner Tract
Acquire 45.5 acres through fee simple purchase
along the South Fork New River. CWMTF
would fund purchase of 50% of the tract.
$128,000
2002A-401
Boone - Stream Restoration /
South Fork New River,
Section 2
Establish stable 50-100 foot buffers and restore
stream along 4,000 feet of the South Fork New
River using natural channel design and donated
permanent conservation easements. Monitor
results quarterly for five years.
$700,000
2002A-403 NCNR - Buffer Restoration /
River Builder Project
Establish buffers along 37 miles of the New
River by planting trees. Landowners to sign a
15-year no-disturbance agreement, 30-year
contract or permanent easement depending on
the cost of the restoration.
$356,000
2002B-009
NCNR – Acquisition /
Blackburn Tract,
Todd South Fork Greenway
Acquire through fee simple purchase 7.6
riparian acres along the South Fork New River.
This property is part of an extensive protection
effort and will include an interpretive trail and
become part of a greenway system.
$147,700
2002B-403 MFGA – Acquisition /
South Fork New River Greenway
Fund transactional and option costs for five
donated permanent riparian easements along
4,300 feet of the South Fork New River. Tracts
will become part of a greenway project.
$25,000
2002M-002
Blue Ridge
Land Trust Minigrant /
Brush Creek
Minigrant to pay for pre-acquisition costs for
donated conservation easements on 1200 acres
that border Brush Creek, Little Pine Creek and
Big Pine Creek.
$25,000
Chapter 12 – Water Quality Initiatives 112

2002M-005
Blue Ridge Rural
Land Trust Minigrant /
Waterfall Creek
Minigrant to pay for transaction costs for the
donation of permanent conservation easements
on approximately 330 acres in three tracts along
Waterfall Creek.
$25,000
2003A-017
NCNR – Acquisition /
Wagner Tract,
Todd South Fork Greenway
Purchase permanent conservation easements on
25 riparian acres along the New River and a
tributary. Adds to an extensive protection effort
along the corridor.
$82,000
2003D-002
Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust –
Donated Minigrant, Ketchum
Tract / Piney Fork Creek
Minigrant to pay for transactional costs for a
donated easement on 81 acres along Piney Fork
Creek.
$25,000
2003D-003
Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust –
Donated Minigrant,
Tate Farm / Ripshin Creek
Minigrant to pay for transactional costs for a
donated easement on 488 acres along Ripshin
Creek and several tributaries.
$25,000
Total Funded $5,440,080
Notes:
(1) The entire New River basin is within the CWMTF’s Western Piedmont Region.
(2) The total funded amount excludes funded projects that were subsequently withdrawn by the applicant.
(3) Several regional and statewide projects were funded in areas that include the New River basin. These projects
include various riparian corridor planning projects and straight pipe/septic system discharge elimination
programs.
Chapter 12 – Water Quality Initiatives 113

References

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

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

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

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

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

Line, D.E. and G.D. Jennings. 2002. Long Creek Watershed Nonpoint source Water Quality
Monitoring Project – Final Report. North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC.
Report available online:
www.bae.ncsu.edu/bae/programs/extension/wqg/section319/319_LongCreek/index.htm.

Maas, R.P., S.C. Patch, M.J. Westphal, C.S. Modlin, T.Pandolfo and R.M. Shoemaker. August
2004. Water Quality Trends in the New River Watershed: Year One. Volunteer Water
Information Network (VWIN), University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNCA),
Environmental Quality Institute (EQI). Technical Report #04-133.

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

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

Middle Fork Greenway Association (MFGA). May 2001. Middle Fork Greenway Trail
Feasibility Study. Prepared by the Department of Geography and Planning, Appalachian
State University. Boone, NC.

References 114

National Committee for the New River (NCNR). 2005a. Summary of the Winkler Creek
Riparian Corridor Conservation Design. West Jefferson, NC. www.ncnr.org.

NCNR. 2005b. Summary of the Howard Creek Riparian Corridor Conservation Design. West
Jefferson, NC.

NCNR. December 2001. Riparian Corridor Conservation Design South Fork New River
Planning and Protection. Conservation Trust for North Carolina (CTNC) and the Clean
Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF). West Jefferson, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of
Land Resources (DLR). Land Quality Section. July-September 1999. Sediments:
Newsletter of the North Carolina Sediment Control Commission. Vol. 6 No. 3. Raleigh,
NC. http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/.

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

____. DLR. Center for Geographic Information Analysis. 1997. Raleigh, NC.

____. Division of Water Quality (DWQ). August 2004a. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. North
Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCA 2B .0220. Raleigh, NC.

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

____. DWQ. December 1995. Stormwater Management. North Carolina Administrative
Code: 15A NCAC 2H .1000. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Biological Assessment Unit (BAU).
August 2004b. Basinwide Assessment Report: New River Basin. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. ESS. BAU. November 2003. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling of Middle
Fork South Fork New River, New River Subbasin 01, October 2003 Following a Sodium
Hydroxide Spill. Raleigh, NC.

____. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). 2004. Little River and Laurel Branch Local
Watershed Plan. Phase I: Watershed Characterization, Preliminary Findings and
Recommendations Report. Prepared by W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
Division of Forest Resources (DFR). January 1990. Forest Practices Guidelines Related
to Water Quality. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A General Statute 77-13 and
77-14. Raleigh, NC.

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

References 115

References 116
Orr, D.M., Jr. and A.W. Stuart. 2000. The North Carolina Atlas. The University of North
Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.

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

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

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

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Huntington District and NCDENR DWQ. March 2003.
Ore Knob Aquatic Restoration Project: Draft Detailed Project Report and
Environmental Assessment. Huntington, VA.
http://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/_kd/go.cfm?destination=Page&Pge_ID=1180

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

____. Forest Service. Forest Statistics for North Carolina. 2004. North Carolina’s
Southeastern Forest Experimental Station Resource Bulletin SE-120. Raleigh, NC.

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

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

Appendix I

Population and Growth Trends
in the
New River Basin

Appendices

Population and Growth Trends

Below are three different ways of presenting population data for the New River basin. The data
presented by basin allow for 2000 population data to be presented by subbasin. Population data
presented by county allow for analysis of projected growth trends in the basin based on
information from the Office of State Planning (April-May, 2001). Data presented by
municipality summarizes information on past growth of large urban areas in the basin. While the
three different sets of information cannot be directly compared, general conclusions are apparent
by looking at the information. Counties with the highest expected growth are associated with the
largest municipal areas and the most densely populated subbasins in the basin.

Basin Population and Population Density

Information on population density at a watershed scale is useful in determining what streams are
likely to have the most impacts as a result of population growth. This information is also useful
in identifying stream segments that have good opportunities for preservation or restoration. This
information is presented to estimate population and population density by each subbasin and for
the entire basin. It is assumed that county populations are distributed evenly throughout each
county; therefore, subbasins that are within counties with large urban areas may overestimate the
actual population in that portion of the basin. The overall population of the basin based on 2000
Census data is 49,653, with approximately 66 persons/square mile. (See the map of hydrologic
units and population density.) The overall population and persons/square mile is estimated based
on the percent of the county land area that is partially or entirely within the basin.

County Population and Growth Trends

The following table and map show the projected population for 2020 and the change in growth
between 1990 and 2020 for counties that are partially or entirely contained within the basin.
Since river basin boundaries do not coincide with county boundaries, these numbers are not
directly applicable to the New River basin. This information is intended to present an estimate
of expected population growth in counties that have some land area in the New River basin. For
more information on past, current and projected population estimates, contact the Office of State
Planning at [phone] or visit their website at http://demog.state.nc.us.

County
Percent of
County in
Basin ♦
County
Population
1990
County
Population
2000
Estimated %
Growth
1990-2000
Estimated
Population
2020
Estimated %
Growth
2000-2020
Alleghany 91 9,590 10,677 10.2 12,140 12.1
Ashe 99 22,209 24,384 8.92 27,299 10.7
Watauga 37 36,952 42,695 13.5 51,567 17.2
Subtotals 68,751 77,756 11.6 91,006 14.6
♦ Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA), 1997.
Note: The numbers reported reflect county population; however, these counties are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for counties located wholly or partially within the basin.

A-I-1

Municipal Population and Growth Trends

The table below presents population data from Office of State Planning for municipalities
located partially or entirely in the basin. These data represent six municipalities in the basin.

Municipality County April
1980
April
1990
April
2000
Percent Change
(1980-1990)
Percent Change
(1990-2000)
Blowing Rock ● Caldwell, Watauga 1,337 1,263 1,418 -5.5 12.3
Boone ● Watauga 10,191 12,949 13,472 27.1 4.0
Jefferson Ashe 1,086 1,300 1,422 19.7 9.4
Lansing Ashe 194 171 151 -11.9 -11.7
Sparta Alleghany 1,687 1,957 1,817 16.0 -7.2
West Jefferson Ashe 822 1,002 1,081 21.9 7.9
• - The numbers reported reflect municipality population; however, these municipalities are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for municipalities located wholly or partially within the basin.
A-I-2

Appendix II

Local Governments and
Planning Jurisdictions
in the
New River Basin

Appendices

Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin

The New River basin encompasses all or portions of three counties and six municipalities. The
following table provides a listing of these local governments, along with the regional planning
jurisdiction (Council of Governments). Two municipalities are located in more than one major
river basin.

County Region Municipalities
Alleghany D Sparta
Ashe D Jefferson, Lansing, West Jefferson
Watauga D Blowing Rock * ♦, Boone ♦
* Located in more than one county.
♦ Located in more than one major river basin.

Note: Counties adjacent to and sharing a border with a river basin are not included as part of that basin if only a trace amount of
the county (<2 percent) is located in that basin, unless a municipality is located in that county.

Region Name Location
D High Country Council of Governments Boone
A-II-1

Appendices

Appendix III

Land Cover
in the
New River Basin

A-III-1
Land Cover

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

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

CGIA Land Cover

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

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

A-III-2

NRI Land Cover Trends

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

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

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

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

Forest
75%
Cultivated
Cropland
22%
Pasture/Managed
Herbaceous
1%
Urban
1%
Water
1%

A-III-3
MAJOR WATERSHED AREAS
1997 1982
TOTALS TOTALS
Acres % of Acres % of % Change
LAND COVER (1000s) TOTAL (1000s) TOTAL Since 1982
Cult. Crop 6.0 1.2 14.6 3.0 -58.9
Uncult. Crop 9.3 1.9 22.4 4.6 -58.5
Pasture 121.6 25.1 126.9 26.2 -4.2
Forest 267.7 55.2 264.8 54.6 1.1
Urban & Built-Up 31.1 6.4 21.3 4.4 46.0
Federal 8.3 1.7 8.3 1.7 0.0
Other 40.6 8.4 26.3 5.4 54.4
Totals 484.6 99.9 484.6 99.9
% of Total Basin 100.0 100.0
SUBBASINS 05-07-01, 05-07-02, 05-07-03
8-Digit Hydraulic Units 05050001

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

A-III-4
Data from 1982 are also provided for a comparison of change over 15 years. During this period,
urban and built-up land cover increased by nearly 10,000 acres (54.4 percent). Uncultivated
cropland and pastureland decreased by over 18,000 acres (58.5 and 4.2 percent, respectively).
Forest cover increased by nearly 3,000 acres (1.1 percent), and cultivated cropland cover
decreased by almost 9,000 acres (58.9 percent). Most land cover change is accounted for in the
areas surrounding the local municipalities in the New River basin. Below is a graph that presents
changes in land cover between 1982 and 1997.

-58.9 -58.5
-4.2
1.1
46.0
0.0
54.4
-80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
Cult. Crop Uncult. Crop Pasture Forest Urban & Built-
Up
Federal Other
Land Cover Type
La
n
d

C
o
v
e
r

C
h
a
n
g
e
s

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

Appendix IV

DWQ Water Quality
Monitoring Programs
in the
New River Basin

Appendices

DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the New River Basin

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

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

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring

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

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

Overview of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data

There were 42 benthic samples collected during this assessment period. The following table lists
the total bioclassifications (by subbasin) for all benthos sites in the New River basin. Benthos
sampling may slightly overestimate the proportion of Fair, Poor and Severe stress sites, as DWQ
special studies often have the greatest sampling intensity (number of sites/stream) in areas where
it is believed that water quality problems exist. Many streams also ceased flowing during the
drought of 2001 and 2002. For detailed information regarding the samples collected during this
assessment period, refer to the tables at the end of this appendix.

A-IV-1

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

Subbasin Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Total
05-07-01 8 8 4 0 2 0 22
05-07-02 8 2 0 0 1 0 11
05-07-03 4 4 1 0 0 0 9
Total (#) 20 14 5 0 3 0 42
Total (%) 48 33 12 0 7 0 100

Assessing Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities in Small Streams

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

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

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

Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring

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

In addition, the ATU maintains a compliance summary for all facilities required to perform tests
and provides monthly updates of this information to regional offices and DWQ administration.
A-IV-2

Ambient toxicity tests can be used to evaluate stream water quality relative to other stream sites
and/or a point source discharge.

Six NPDES permits in the New River basin currently require WET testing. All six permits have
a WET limit. The number of facilities required to monitor WET has increased steadily since
1987, the first year that WET limits were written into permits in North Carolina. The
compliance rate has risen as well. Since 1996, the compliance rate has stabilized at
approximately 90 percent. The following graph summaries WET monitoring compliance in the
New River basin from 1986 to 2003. Facilities with toxicity problems during the most recent
two-year review period are discussed in subbasin chapters.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
198
6
198
7
198
8
198
9
199
0
199
1
199
2
199
3
199
4
199
5
199
6
199
7
199
8
199
9
200
0
200
1
200
2
200
3
Year
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

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

(
%
)
No. Facilities % Meeting Permit Limit

NPDES facility WET compliance in the New River basin, 1986-2003. The compliance values were
calculated by determining whether facilities with WET limits were meeting their ultimate permit limits
during the given time period, regardless of any SOCs in force.

Lakes Assessment Program

One lake (Appalachian State University Lake) was sampled as part of the Lakes Assessment
Program. In 2003, ASU Lake was sampled three times during the summer months (June, July
A-IV-3

A-IV-4
and August). Surface physical data and photic zone chemistry data collected from 1998 to 2003
indicate that the lake remains oligotrophic, and no parameters were elevated.

Ambient Monitoring System

The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and estuarine stations
strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data. North
Carolina has more than 378 water chemistry monitoring stations statewide, including 7 stations
in the New River basin. Between 23 and 32 parameters are collected monthly at each station.
The locations of these stations are listed in the following table and shown on individual subbasin
maps. Notable ambient water quality parameters are discussed in the subbasin chapters. Refer
to the 2003 New River Basinwide Assessment Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html for
more detailed analysis of ambient water quality monitoring data.

Locations of Ambient Monitoring Stations in the New River Basin by Subbasin

Subbasin/
Map Code
Station
Number
Waterbody/
Location County Class
05-07-01
K2100000 S Fork New R. at US 221 and 421 at Perkinsville Ashe C +
K3250000 S Fork New R. at NC 16 and 88 near Jefferson Ashe WS-IV HQW
K4500000 S Fork New R. at NC 221 near Scottville Ashe B ORW
05-07-02
K7500000 N Fork New R. at SR 1573 at Crumpler Ashe C +
05-07-03
K7900000 New R. at SR 1345 at Amelia Alleghany C ORW
K9700000 Little R. at SR 1433 Hooker Rd -- Edwards Crossroads Alleghany C
K9900000 Little R. at NC18 near Blevins Crossroads Alleghany C ORW

A-IV-5

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Collected in the New River Basin, 1983 – 2003

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
05-07-01
M Fk S Fk New R US 321 & Blue
Ridge Pkwy
Watauga 10-1-2-(6) 11/8/89 --- 18 --- 3.54 Fair
M Fk S Fk New R US 321 & Gold
Mine Cr
Watauga 10-1-2-(6) 11/8/89 --- 32 --- 3.39 Good
M Fk S Fk New R SR 1522 Watauga 10-1-2-(15) 8/20/03 --- 24 --- 3.25 Good-Fair
8/17/98 --- 31 --- 3.13 Good
7/12/93 --- 37 --- 3.10 Excellent
E Fk S Fk New R SR 1522 Watauga 10-1-3-(8) 8/20/03 --- 31 --- 3.07 Good
8/17/98 --- 32 --- 3.46 Good
7/12/93 --- 37 --- 3.49 Excellent
7/12/93 --- 37 --- 3.10 Excellent
S Fk New R Hunting Ln Watauga 10-1-(3.5) 7/26/88 --- 27 --- 4.04 Good-Fair
S Fk New R US 421/221 Watauga 10-1-(3.5) 8/20/03 67 24 5.45 4.80 Good-Fair
8/17/98 71 22 5.70 4.17 Good-Fair
7/21/93 69 18 6.22 3.89 Fair
7/26/88 72 26 6.30 4.55 Good-Fair
7/24/86 70 18 6.92 5.09 Fair
8/8/84 49 16 6.27 4.08 Fair
S Fk New R SR 1355 Watauga 10-1-(3.5) 7/26/88 --- 33 --- 4.46 Good
S Fk New R SR 1352 Watauga 10-1-(3.5) 7/26/88 98 41 5.28 4.03 Good
Winkler Creek SR 1549 Watauga 10-1-4-(3.5) 8/21/03 --- 39 --- 2.35 Excellent
8/17/98 --- 34 --- 2.96 Good
7/12/93 --- 37 --- 2.19 Excellent
Howard Cr SR 1306 Watauga 10-1-9-(6) 3/6/90 --- 36 --- 2.15 Good
Howard Cr SR 1328 Watauga 10-1-9-(6) 8/20/03 --- 35 --- 2.35 Good
8/17/98 --- 40 --- 2.77 Excellent
7/13/93 102 52 3.91 2.90 Excellent
7/26/88 --- 38 --- 3.34 Excellent
Meat Camp Cr SR 1340 Watauga 10-1-10 8/21/03 --- 32 --- 1.85 Good
Meat Camp Cr SR 1335 Watauga 10-1-10 3/9/90 --- 42 --- 2.39 Good
Meat Camp Cr SR 1333 Watauga 10-1-10 8/20/03 --- 35 --- 2.81 Good
8/17/98 --- 39 --- 2.79 Excellent
7/13/93 --- 31 --- 2.68 Good
3/5/90 --- 37 --- 2.63 Good
Norris Fk SR 1337 Watauga 10-1-10-2 8/20/03 --- 45 --- 1.56 Excellent
Grassy Cr SR 1351 Ashe 10-1-14 3/6/90 --- 40 --- 2.85 Good
Elk Cr NC 194 Ashe 10-1-15 4/9/96 --- 39 --- 3.49 Excellent
Pine Orchard Cr SR 1369 Watauga 10-1-15-1 8/21/03 --- 41 --- 1.63 Excellent
S Fk New R US 221 Ashe 10-1-(20.5) 7/14/93 116 49 4.72 3.60 Excellent
S Fk New R SR 1169 Ashe 10-1-(20.5) 8/21/03 98 45 4.19 3.33 Excellent
8/18/98 101 48 4.68 3.57 Excellent
Mill Cr SR 1109 Ashe 10-1-18 3/6/90 --- 33 --- 2.69 Good-Fair
S Fk New R NC 16/88 Ashe 10-1-(20.5) 8/22/03 104 58 3.58 3.12 Excellent
8/18/98 95 48 4.03 3.27 Excellent
7/14/93 104 51 3.42 2.83 Excellent
7/11/90 97 50 3.84 3.19 Excellent
8/6/87 105 50 4.30 3.43 Excellent
Old Field Cr SR 1106 Ashe 10-1-22 4/9/96 --- 44 --- 2.13 Excellent
3/6/90 --- 42 --- 2.42 Excellent
W Pr Old Field Cr SR 1112 Ashe 10-1-22-1 7/14/93 83 39 3.66 2.74 Excellent
5/14/90 --- 42 --- 1.98 Excellent
Gap Cr US 221 Ashe 10-1-23-(0.5) 4/8/96 --- 29 --- 2.98 Good-Fair
Pine Swamp Cr SR 1179 Ashe 10-1-24 3/6/90 --- 31 --- 2.55 Good-Fair
Pine Swamp Cr Off SR 1179 Ashe 10-1-24 8/19/03 --- 30 --- 3.14 Good
Beaver Cr SR 1181 Ashe 10-1-25 3/6/90 --- 37 --- 2.87 Good
S Beaver Cr SR 1147 Ashe 10-1-25-2 8/21/03 --- 31 --- 2.68 Good
Obids Cr SR 1192 Ashe 10-1-27-(2) 8/19/03 --- 32 --- 3.16 Good
Bear Cr NC 18 Ashe 10-1-28 3/7/90 --- 35 --- 2.12 Good
Roan Cr SR 1588 Ashe 10-1-31-(2) 8/18/03 --- 44 --- 3.02 Excellent
8/18/98 --- 39 --- 2.74 Excellent
7/14/93 --- 39 --- 3.10 Excellent
Naked Cr NC 16/88 Ashe 10-1-32 8/19/03 57 23 5.68 4.85 Good-Fair
8/18/98 71 32 5.28 4.11 Good-Fair
7/14/93 84 36 4.74 3.91 Good
A-IV-6

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
7/29/86 78 29 5.33 4.17 Good-Fair
Naked Cr Old SR 1585 Ashe 10-1-32 8/19/03 70 30 4.90 4.11 Good-Fair
8/17/98 49 13 7.53 5.12 Poor
7/15/93 54 18 6.79 5.33 Fair
7/29/86 41 6 7.94 5.34 Poor
Dog Cr SR 1592 Ashe 10-1-33 3/7/90 --- 32 --- 2.92 Good
S Fk New R US 221 Ashe 10-1-(33.5) 8/23/03 112 47 4.50 3.42 Excellent
8/20/98 112 55 4.27 3.31 Excellent
7/15/93 103 46 4.07 2.96 Excellent
5/14/90 --- 59 --- 2.83 Excellent
3/7/90 84 48 3.83 2.78 Good
8/9/89 95 44 4.26 3.63 Excellent
8/5/87 101 45 4.71 3.44 Excellent
8/7/85 92 38 5.44 3.61 Good-Fair
5/29/85 133 63 3.96 3.15 Excellent
2/18/85 102 45 4.32 3.20 Good
12/11/84 110 47 4.24 3.12 Good
8/8/83 95 42 4.25 3.53 Good
Peak Cr Off SR 1599 (Ab
Ore Knob)
Ashe 10-1-35 8/18/03 --- 31 --- 2.53 Good
8/19/98 --- 35 --- 2.93 Good
4/8/96 74 42 3.60 2.59 Excellent
7/15/93 --- 35 --- 2.74 Good
4/15/91 101 50 3.43 2.70 Excellent
3/9/90 --- 38 --- 2.46 Good
Peak Cr Off SR 1599 (Be
Ore Knob)
Ashe 10-1-35 8/18/03 --- 6 --- 2.50 Poor
1/13/99 --- 6 --- 1.98 Poor
8/19/98 --- 23 --- 3.42 Good-Fair
4/8/96 30 19 3.67 2.09 Fair
7/15/93 --- 4 --- 3.75 Poor
4/15/91 46 22 4.02 2.96 Fair
3/7/90 --- 6 --- 2.05 Poor
Peak Cr SR 1599 Ashe 10-1-35 1/13/99 --- 9 --- 3.53 Poor
4/8/96 18 8 3.95 1.96 Poor
4/15/91 39 17 3.79 2.07 Fair
Peak Cr SR 1595 Ashe 10-1-35 4/8/96 16 8 4.17 2.55 Poor
4/16/91 31 11 4.82 2.16 Fair
L Peak Cr SR 1595 Ashe 10-1-35-4 8/19/03 --- 6 --- 1.94 Poor
8/19/98 --- 7 --- 2.00 Poor
4/8/96 --- 7 --- 3.11 Poor
4/16/91 --- 5 --- 2.02 Poor
Nathans Cr SR 1596 Ashe 10-1-36 3/7/90 --- 24 --- 2.72 Good-Fair
Nathans Cr Off US 221 Ashe 10-1-36 8/19/98 --- 29 --- 3.10 Good-Fair
5/11/98 --- 38 --- 3.87 Good
Cranberry Cr SR 1609 Ashe 10-1-37 5/13/98 81 43 4.40 3.21 Good
Cranberry Cr SR 1603 Ashe 10-1-37 8/18/03 106 52 3.94 3.07 Excellent
8/19/98 79 42 3.90 3.13 Excellent
Cranberry Cr SR 1600 Ashe 10-1-37 7/15/93 --- 46 --- 3.16 Excellent
3/7/90 --- 37 --- 2.89 Good
Meadow Fk Off SR 1193 Ashe 10-1-37-2 5/12/98 91 56 2.77 1.68 Excellent
8/20/98 64 41 2.57 1.42 Excellent
Meadow Fk SR 1145 Ashe 10-1-37-2 5/13/98 88 50 3.48 2.44 Excellent
Piney Fk SR 1149/NC 18 Ashe 10-1-37-3 5/12/98 72 35 3.47 1.99 Good
Reeves Br NC 18/13 Ashe 10-1-37-3-2 8/19/98 85 40 3.66 2.97 Excellent
5/12/98 94 54 3.64 2.96 Excellent
Prathers Cr SR 1300 Alleghany 10-1-38 3/7/90 --- 33 --- 3.07 Good-Fair
05-07-02
N Fk New R SR 1100 Ashe 10-2-(1) 8/19/03 80 44 4.0 3.50 Excellent
08/17/98 96 52 4.11 3.33 Excellent
7/29/93 102 50 3.94 3.01 Excellent
3/14/89 --- 43 --- 2.9 Good
Hoskin Fk NC 88/SR 1119 Ashe 10-2-7 8/19/03 --- 37 --- 2.91 Excellent
8/17/98 --- 35 --- 3.7 Good
7/23/93 --- 31 --- 3.85 Good
N Fk New R SR 1340 Ashe 10-2-(12) 9/14/89 99 48 4.23 3.01 Good
N Fk New R SR 1644 Ashe 10-2-(12) 8/21/03 72 45 3.67 3.3 Excellent
8/19/98 87 50 3.83 2.95 Excellent
7/28/93 93 46 3.99 2.94 Excellent
A-IV-7

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
3/8/90 89 53 3.39 2.81 Excellent
3/14/89 --- 34 --- 2.64 Good
N Fk New R NC 16 Ashe 10-2-(12) 8/21/03 80 48 3.76 3.43 Excellent
8/19/98 87 47 4 3.04 Excellent
7/28/93 116 57 3.93 2.56 Excellent
3/14/89 90 47 3.96 2.63 Good
8/9/89 101 45 4.38 3.68 Excellent
8/5/87 99 45 4.48 3.33 Excellent
8/7/85 87 33 4.89 3.29 Good
8/8/83 88 41 3.78 2.97 Excellent
Three Top Cr SR 1100 Ashe 10-2-13 8/19/03 --- 35 --- 2.9 Good
8/17/98 77 41 4.35 3.55 Good
7/29/93 95 48 3.81 2.95 Excellent
3/14/89 --- 38 --- 2.57 Good
Long Hope Cr SR 1100 Ashe 10-2-13-3 3/8/90 --- 32 --- 1.64 Good
Big Laurel Cr SR 1322 Ashe 10-2-14 3/8/90 --- 32 --- 2.43 Good
Big Laurel Cr SR 1315 Ashe 10-2-14 12/11/84 83 35 4.28 2.97 Good
Big Laurel Cr NC 88 Ashe 10-2-14 8/19/03 --- 38 --- 2.92 Excellent
7/17/98 --- 40 --- 3.66 Excellent
7/29/93 --- 48 --- 3.42 Excellent
Rich Hill Cr NC 88 Ashe 10-2-15 7/28/93 --- 38 --- 3.4 Excellent
Buffalo Cr SR 1125/1133 Ashe 10-2-20 7/29/86 82 38 3.4 3.09 Good
8/19/85 74 38 4.11 3.13 Good
Buffalo Cr Ab L buffalo Cr Ashe 10-2-20 5/30/85 87 38 4.59 2.9 Good
Buffalo Cr NC 88/194 Ashe 10-2-20 8/19/03 --- 36 2.13 2.81 Excellent
8/18/98 --- 26 --- 3.99 Good-Fair
7/13/93 --- 38 --- 3.24 Excellent
L Buffalo Cr US 221 Ashe 10-2-20-1 5/29/85 24 4 7.65 3.9 Poor
Little Buffalo Cr Nr SR 1153 Ashe 10-2-20-1 8/20/03 21 6 6.58 4.11 Poor
8/18/98 39 14 7.11 5.38 Fair
7/13/93 24 0 8.31 0 Poor
2/19/85 22 5 8.36 2.12 Poor
5/29/85 26 5 8.31 1.75 Poor
L Buffalo Cr 2.6 mi be WWTP Ashe 10-2-20-1 2/19/85 44 16 6.7 4.73 Fair
UT L Buffalo Cr Ab WWTP Ashe 10-2-20-1 7/13/93 27 6 7.85 2.24 Poor
2/18/85 22 4 8.18 2.14 Poor
5/29/85 27 7 7.86 3.66 Poor
Big Horse Cr SR 1362 Ashe 10-2-21-(4.5) 3/8/90 --- 33 --- 2.18 Good-Fair
Big Horse Cr SR 1644/NC 194 Ashe 10-2-21-(7) 8/19/03 89 50 3.94 3.42 Excellent
8/18/98 103 56 4.23 3.23 Excellent
7/28/93 129 56 4.13 2.85 Excellent
3/14/89 --- 41 --- 2.69 Good
Little Horse Cr SR 1334 Ashe 10-2-21-8 8/19/03 --- 33 --- 3.02 Good
8/18/98 --- 35 --- 3.78 Good
L Phoenix Cr Off SR 1573 Ashe 10-2-23 5/11/98 72 41 3.35 2.46 Good
Silas Cr SR 1544 Ashe 10-2-24 8/18/98 --- 31 --- 2.61 NR
5/11/98 73 40 3.37 2.15 Good
7/28/93 --- 39 --- 2.76 NR
Old Field Cr SR 1537 Ashe 10-2-26 05/98 77 36 3.60 2.31 Good
Helton Cr SR 1536 Ashe 10-2-27 8/18/03 --- 40 --- 3.12 Excellent
8/18/98 --- 37 --- 3.13 Excellent
Helton Cr SR 1539 Ashe 10-2-27 3/14/89 --- 34 --- 2.67 Good
05-07-03
New R SR 1345 Alleghany 10 8/21/03 86 51 3.55 3.13 Excellent
8/19/98 73 37 4.4 3.31 Good
7/26/93 102 47 4.76 3.72 Excellent
7/11/90 99 49 4.89 3.38 Good
8/10/89 97 43 4.2 3.61 Good
7/25/88 104 42 5.37 4.12 Good
8/5/87 99 41 4.87 3.72 Good
8/6/86 123 43 5.43 4.23 Good
7/1/85 113 45 5.48 4.05 Good
8/8/84 100 45 4.34 3.59 Excellent
8/8/83 105 50 4.61 3.84 Excellent
Elk Cr SR 1344 Alleghany 10-6-(2) 8/18/03 --- 34 --- 3.51 Good
8/20/98 --- 34 --- 3.55 Good
7/26/93 --- 36 --- 3.6 Excellent
Pine Swamp Cr SR 1128 Alleghany 10-9-5 8/18/03 --- 26 --- 3.64 Good-Fair
8/20/98 --- 34 --- 3.58 Good
A-IV-8

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT BI Rating
7/27/93 --- 33 --- 3.64 Good
Little R Be NC 18/SR
1141
Alleghany 10 5/13/98 71 40 2.46 1.74 Good

Little R SR 1128 Alleghany 10-9-(6) 8/18/03 75 36 4.04 3.52 Good
8/20/98 72 37 3.94 3.18 Good
7/26/93 84 45 3.37 2.62 Excellent
3/15/89 --- 43 --- 2.76 Good
Little R SR 1424 Allegheny 10-9-(6) 8/21/03 104 49 4.12 3.23 Excellent
8/20.98 80 41 3.93 2.95 Excellent
7/26/93 98 48 3.97 2.92 Excellent
3/15/89 --- 19 --- 3.26 Fair
Little R NC 18 Allegheny 10-9-(6) 8/20/03 89 47 3.96 3.4 Excellent
8/20/98 84 46 3.62 2.85 Excellent
7/27/93 89 49 3.78 2.93 Excellent
7/11/90 93 44 4.36 3.23 Excellent
3/15/89 106 56 3.75 2.61 Excellent
7/25/88 95 45 4.5 3.23 Excellent
8/6/86 111 46 4.5 3.1 Good
8/9/84 109 49 3.98 3.16 Excellent
Bledsoe Cr SR 1172 Allegheny 10-9-7 8/20/03 --- 30 --- 3.39 Good
8/19’98 --- 21 --- 4.68 Good-Fair
7/26/93 --- 33 --- 3.43 Good
Glade Cr SR 1422 Allegheny 10-9-9 8/20/03 82 42 4.39 4.0 Good
Glade Cr SR 1422
farther
dwnstrm
Allegheny 10-9-9 11/5/03 --- 35 --- 2.84 Good
Brush Cr SR 1422 Allegheny 10-9-10 8/20/03 83 42 3.93 3.34 Excellent
8/20/98 62 36 4.12 3.69 Good
7/27/93 96 40 4.78 3.5 Good
Laurel Br Off NC 21 Allegheny 10-9-10-2 9/3/92 --- 5 --- 6.39 Poor
8/31/88 --- 15 --- 3.43 Fair
8/31/88 --- 8 --- 2.77 Poor
Laurel Br SR 1105 Allegheny 10-9-10-2 8/18/03 66 33 4.13 3.53 Good
8/21/98 49 28 3.78 2.9 Good
9/3/92 --- 14 --- 4.52 Fair
8/16/89 --- 11 --- 4.0 Fair
8/31/88 --- 22 --- 2.83 Good-Fair
12/6/88 --- 17 --- 3.83 Fair
L Glade Br At Parkway Allegheny 10-9-10-3 9/2/92 99 46 3.4 2.43 Excellent
L Glade Br Be NC 21 Allegheny 10-9-10-3 9/2/92 92 46 3.76 2.71 Excellent
Crab Cr SR 1450 Allegheny 10-9-12 11/5/03 --- 33 --- 3.71 Good

Appendix V

Other Water Quality Data
in the
New River Basin

Appendices

Other Water Quality Research

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

High levels of confidence must be present in order
for outside quantitative information to carry the same
weight as information collected from within DWQ.
This is particularly the case when considering waters
for the Impaired categories in the Integrated Report.
Methodology for soliciting and evaluating outside
data is presented in North Carolina’s 2002
Integrated Report
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/2002%20Integrated%20Rept.pdf.
The next data solicitation period for the New River is
planned for Fall 2007.

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

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

Contact information must accompany all
submitted data and information.

Each county with monitoring stations has a coordinator to organize and train volunteers and to
ensure that all stations are monitored monthly. In the New River basin, the National Committee
for the New River (NCNR) initiated a monitoring program on five streams within Ashe County,
which includes the headwaters of North Fork New River. The locations are listed in the
following table. The locations generally agree with DWQ ambient monitoring stations or benthic
sampling sites; however, the data was not used for use support determinations.

VWIN has collected one year of monthly data for these streams. This provides a good base of
information, but it does not capture the variety of weather and other events that may affect
stream water quality. Parameters monitored include major nutrients, turbidity, suspended solids,
pH, alkalinity, conductivity and heavy metals such as zinc, copper and lead. The subbasin
chapters discuss streams where VWIN monitoring revealed water quality impacts.

A-V-1

A-V-2
County Stream
Name
Sampling
Location
Ashe Helton Creek Near Confluence with North Fork New River (SR 1538)
Big Horse Creek Near Confluence with North Fork New River
(SR 1514 and NC 194)
Buffalo Creek Near Confluence with North Fork New River
(NC 194 and SR 1351)
Big Laurel Creek Near Confluence with North Fork New River
(NC 88 and SR 1315)
North Fork New River Near Confluence with Three Top Creek (NC 88)

Appendix VI

NPDES Discharges
and
General Stormwater Permits

Appendices

NPDES Dischargers in the New River Basin (September 2004)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class MGD Flow Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0020621 Town of Boone Boone WWTP Watauga Winston-Salem Municipal, Large Major 4.82 05-07-01 South Fork New River
NC0032131 Tweetsie Railroad Tweetsie Railroad Watauga Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.07 05-07-01 Mid Fork South Fork New River
NC0032158 Roaring River Chalets Roaring River Chalets Watauga Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 05-07-01 Mid Fork South Fork New River
NC0067016 Watauga County Board of Education Parkway Elementary School Watauga Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 05-07-01 Laxon Creek

NC0087921 Crown Endeavors LLC Green Valley Townhomes Watauga Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0048 05-07-01 Rittle Fork (Rittle Creek)
NC0039608 Advanced Realty Property Management Summit Woods I WWTP Watauga Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.0083 05-07-01 Mid Fork South Fork New River
NC0021709 Town of Jefferson Jefferson WWTP Ashe Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.30 05-07-01 Naked Creek
NC0027286 Town of Blowing Rock Blowing Rock WWTP Watauga Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.80 05-07-01 Mid Fork South Fork New River
NC0083470 Town of Jefferson Jefferson WTP Ashe Winston-Salem Water Treatment Plant Minor Not Limited 05-07-01 Naked Creek
NC0044423

Appalachian State University

Appalachian State WTP

Watauga

Winston-Salem

Water Treatment Plant

Minor Not Limited

05-07-01

Norris Branch

NC0030325 Culligan Operating Services Inc Buffalo Meadows WWTP Ashe Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 05-07-02 Buffalo Creek
NC0000019 United Chemi-Con Manufacturing Inc United Chemi-Con Manufacturing Ashe Winston-Salem Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 1.018 05-07-02 North Fork New River
NC0020451 Town of West Jefferson West Jefferson WWTP Ashe Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.50 05-07-02 Little Buffalo Creek
NC0066028

Town of Lansing

Lansing WWTP

Ashe Winston-Salem

Municipal, < 1MGD

Minor 0.05 05-07-02

Big Horse Creek

NC0078158 O B G P Company Olde Beau Golf Club WWTP Alleghany Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 05-07-03 Laurel Branch (Laurel Creek)
NC0084832 Zdenko Peros Nikolas' Restaurant & High Meadow Inn LLC Alleghany Winston-Salem 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 05-07-03 Laurel Branch (Laurel Creek)
NC0026913 Town of Sparta Sparta WWTP Alleghany Winston-Salem Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 0.60 05-07-03 Little River
A-VI-1
General Stormwater Permits in the New River Basin (September 2004)
COC Number Facility Name Receiving Stream Subbasin County

NCG020129 Radford Quarries Of Boone, Inc. the South Fork New River 05-07-01 Watauga
NCG020227 Cardinal Stone Company Claybank Creek 05-07-01 Ashe
NCG030435 International Resistive Co. a UT to the South Fork New River 05-07-01 Watauga
NCG050182 The Gates Rubber Company UT To Naked Creek 05-07-01 Ashe
NCG080212 Garbage Disposal Service Mutton Creek 05-07-01 Watauga
NCG080492 NC Army National Guard-Jefferson NG Armory a UT to Naked Creek 05-07-01 Ashe
NCG080537 NC Army National Guard-Boone NG Armory Winklers Creek and the South Fork New River 05-07-01 Watauga
NCG140098 Watauga Ready Mix Corp - Ashe a UT of Beaver Creek 05-07-01 Ashe
NCG140100 Watauga Ready Mix Corp - Watauga Middle Fork Creek 05-07-01 Watauga
NCG140281 Watauga Ready Mix Corporation UT Dog Creek 05-07-01 Ashe
NCG160015 James R Vannoy & Sons Const. Co. Inc. Dog Creek 05-07-01 Ashe
NCG160147 Tri-County Paving, Inc. Little Buffalo Creek 05-07-01 Ashe
NCG180130 Watauga Wood Products Inc. a UT of Howard Creek 05-07-01 Watauga
NCG210117 Boone Custom Forest Products a UT to the South Fork New River 05-07-01 Watauga
NCG210211 PADDY MOUNTAIN LUMBER CO., INC Ezra Fork 05-07-01 Ashe
NCG210273 L & E Lumber Co., Inc. a UT to Nathans Creek 05-07-01 Ashe

NCG030138 United Chemi-Con, Inc. the North Fork New River 05-07-02 Ashe
NCG080062 Seagraves Oil Company, Inc. a UT to Buffalo Creek 05-07-02 Ashe
NCG120057 ASHE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SER. a UT to the North Fork New River 05-07-02 Ashe
NCG210047 West Jefferson Wood Products Little Buffalo Creek 05-07-02 Ashe

NCG020113 C.A. Mellott Dba Bullhead Prod a UT of Glade Creek 05-07-03 Alleghany
NCG030426 Bristol Compressors, A Division Of York International Bledsoe Creek 05-07-03 Alleghany
NCG050312 Sparta Industries a UT to the Little River 05-07-03 Alleghany
NCG140099 Watauga Ready Mix Corp - Alleghany a UT of Rock Creek 05-07-03 Alleghany
NCG210173 L.F. Delp Lumber Company Piney Branch 05-07-03 Alleghany

A-VI-2

Appendix VII

303(d) Listing
and
Reporting Methodology

Appendices

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

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

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

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

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

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

determination that some, but not all, uses are attained. Attainment status of the
remaining uses is unknown because there are insufficient or no data or information.
Future monitoring data will be used to determine if the uses previously found to be in
attainment remain in attainment, and to determine the attainment status of those uses for
which data and information were previously insufficient to make a determination.

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

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

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

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

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

Category 5: Impaired for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s) and
requires a TMDL. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units that are
Impaired by a pollutant and the proper technical conditions exist to develop TMDLs. As
defined by the EPA, the term pollutant means "dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator
residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar
dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into the water." When
A-VII-2

more than one pollutant is associated with the impairment of a single waterbody
assessment unit in this category, the assessment unit will remain in Category 5 until
TMDLs for all listed pollutants have been completed and approved by the EPA.

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

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

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

Delisting Waters

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

ƒ An updated 305(b) use support rating of Supporting, as described in the basinwide
management plans.
ƒ Applicable water quality standards are being met (i.e., no longer Impaired for a given
pollutant) as described in either basinwide management plans or in technical memoranda.
ƒ The basis for putting the water on the list is determined to be invalid (i.e., was mistakenly
identified as Impaired in accordance with 40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(iv) and/or National
Clarifying Guidance for State and Territory 1998 Section 303(d) Listing Decisions.
Robert Wayland, III, Director. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Aug 27,
1997).
ƒ A water quality variance has been issued for a specific standard (e.g., chloride).
ƒ Removal of fish consumption advisories or modification of fish eating advice.
ƒ Typographic listing mistakes (i.e., the wrong water was identified).
ƒ EPA has approved a TMDL.
A-VII-3

Scheduling TMDLs

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

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

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

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

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

A-VII-4

A-VII-5
Revising TMDLs

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

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

Should a TMDL be revised due to needed changes in TMDL targets, the entire TMDL would be
revised. This includes the TMDL target, source assessment, and load and wasteload allocations.
However, the Division may elect to revise only specific portions of the TMDL. For example,
changes may be justifiable to the load and wasteload allocation portions of a TMDL due to
incorrect calculations or inequities. In these cases, revisions to the TMDL allocations would not
necessarily include a revision of TMDL targets.

Appendix VIII

New River Basin
Nonpoint Source Program
Description and Contacts

Appendices

Agriculture
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), formerly the Soil Conservation Service. Technical specialists certify waste management
plans for animal operations; provide certification training for swine waste applicators; work with landowners on private lands to conserve
natural resources, helping farmers and ranchers develop conservation systems unique to their land and needs; administer several federal
agricultural cost share and incentive programs; provide assistance to rural and urban communities to reduce erosion, conserve and protect
water, and solve other resource problems; conduct soil surveys; offer planning assistance for local landowners to install best management
practices; and offer farmers technical assistance on wetlands identification. www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/
County Contact Person Phone Address
Area 1 Conservationist Carol S. Litchfield 828-456-6341 589 Raccoon Road, Suite 246, Waynesville NC 28786
Alleghany David Tucker 336-372-4645 90 South Main Street, County Office Building, Sparta NC
28675
Ashe David Tucker 336-246-8875 134 Government Circle, Jefferson NC 28640
Watauga Jane Shaw 828-264-0842 971 West King Street, Agriculture Service Center, Boone
NC 28607
Soil and Water Conservation Districts:
Boards and staff under the administration of the NC Soil and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC). Districts are responsible for:
administering the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control at the county level; identifying areas needing soil
and/or water conservation treatment; allocating cost share resources; signing cost share contracts with landowners; providing technical
assistance for the planning and implementation of BMPs; and encouraging the use of appropriate BMPs to protect water quality.
Alleghany 336-372-7777 90 South Main Street, County Office Building, Sparta NC
28675
Ashe 336-246-5258 134 Government Circle, Jefferson NC 28640
Watauga 828-264-3943 971 West King Street, Agriculture Service Center, Boone
NC 28607
Division of Soil and Water Conservation:
State agency that administers the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control (ACSP). Allocates ACSP funds to
the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, provides administrative and technical assistance related to soil science and engineering. Distributes
Wetlands Inventory maps for a small fee. www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/

Central Office David B. Williams 919-733-2302 512 N Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27604
Winston-Salem Region * Area Coordinator 336-771-4600 585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem NC 27107
NCDA&CS Regional Agronomists:
The NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) technical specialists: certify waste management plans for animal
operations; provide certification training for swine waste applicators; track, monitor, and account for use of nutrients on agricultural lands;
operate the state Pesticide Disposal Program, and enforce the state pesticide handling and application laws with farmers. www.ncarg.com
Central Office J. Kent Messick 919-733-2655 4300 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh NC 27607
Region 12 Lynn Howard 828-373-9982 604 Pine Mountain Road, Hudson NC 28638
A-VIII-1

Education
NC Cooperative Extension Service:
Provides practical, research-based information and programs to help individuals, families, farms, businesses and communities.
Alleghany 336-372-5597 90 South Main Street, P.O. Box 7, Sparta NC 28675
Ashe 336-219-2650 134 Government Circle, Jefferson NC 28640
Watauga 828-264-3061 971 West King Street, Boone NC 28607
Forestry
DENR Division of Forest Resources:
Develop, protect, and manage the multiple resources of North Carolina's forests through professional stewardship, enhancing the quality of our
citizens while ensuring the continuity of these vital resources.
Lenoir District Office
(DFR District 2)
Water Quality Forester
or Asst. District Forester 828-757-5611 1543 Wilkesboro Blvd. NE, Lenoir NC 28645-8215
Region III Mountains Regional Forester or
Asst. Regional Forester 828-251-6507 14 Gaston Mountain Road, Asheville NC 28806-9101
Raleigh Central Office
(Statewide)
Forest Hydrologist,
NPS Unit 919-733-2162 1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1616
Griffiths Forestry Center
(Statewide)
Water Quality &
Wetlands Forester
919-553-6178
ext. 230 2411 Old U.S. Hwy 70 West, Clayton NC 27250
Construction/Mining
DENR Division of Land Resources:
Administers the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program for construction and mining operations. Conducts land surveys and studies,
produces maps, and protects the state's land and mineral resources.
Central Office Floyd Williams 919-733-4574 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh NC 27626
Winston-Salem Region * 336-771-4600 585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem NC 27107
Local Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinances:
Several local governments in the basin have qualified to administer their own erosion and sedimentation control ordinances.
Watauga County Randy Woodrow 828-265-8043 842 West King Street, Boone NC 28607
Town of Boone James Perry 828-262-4540 1510 Blowing Rock Road, Boone NC 28607
A-VIII-2

General Water Quality
DENR DWQ Planning Section:
Coordinate the numerous nonpoint source programs carried out by many agencies; coordinate the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategies; administer the Section 319 grants program statewide; conduct stormwater permitting;
model water quality; conduct water quality monitoring; perform wetlands permitting; conduct animal operation permitting and
enforcement; and conduct water quality classifications and standards activities.
Planning Section Chief Alan Clark 919-733-5083 x 570 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
NPS Planning Rich Gannon 919-733-5083 x 356 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Modeling/TMDL Michelle Woolfolk 919-733-5083 x 505 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Classifications and
Standards Jeff Manning 919-733-5083 x 579 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Basinwide Planning Darlene Kucken 919-733-5083 x 354 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
Groundwater Planning Carl Bailey 919-733-5083 x 522 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699

DWQ Regional Offices:
Conduct permitting and enforcement field work on point sources, stormwater, wetlands and animal operations; conduct
enforcement on water quality violations of any kind; and perform ambient water quality monitoring.
Winston-Salem Region * Steve Tedder 336-771-4600 585 Waughton Street, Winston-Salem NC 27107
NC Wildlife Resources Commission:
To manage, restore, develop, cultivate, conserve, protect and regulate the wildlife resources of the state, and to administer the
laws enacted by the General Assembly relating to game, game and non-game freshwater fishes, and other wildlife resources in
a sound, constructive, comprehensive, continuing and economical manner.
Central Office Wildlife
Management 919-707-0050 1722 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Responsible for: investigating, developing and maintaining the nation's water and related environmental resources; constructing
and operating projects for navigation, flood control, major drainage, shore and beach restoration and protection; hydropower
development; water supply; water quality control, fish and wildlife conservation and enhancement, and outdoor recreation;
responding to emergency relief activities directed by other federal agencies; and administering laws for the protection and
preservation of navigable waters, emergency flood control and shore protection. Responsible for wetlands and 404 Federal
Permits.
Asheville Field Office Robert Johnson 828-271-7980 151 Patton Ave, Room 208, Asheville NC 28801

A-VIII-3

Solid Waste
DENR Division of Waste Management:
Management of solid waste in a way that protects public health and the environment. The Division includes three sections and
one program -- Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste, Superfund, and the Resident Inspectors Program. http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.us
Central Office Brad Atkinson 919-508-8409 401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150, Raleigh NC 27605
Winston-Salem Region * Brent Rockett 336-771-4600 585 Waughton Street, Winston-Salem NC 27107
On-Site Wastewater Treatment
Division of Environmental Health and County Health Departments:

Safeguard life, promote human health, and protect the environment through the practice of modern environmental health science,
the use of technology, rules, public education, and above all, dedication to the public trust. Services include: training of and
delegation of authority to local environmental health specialists concerning on-site wastewater; engineering review of plans and
specifications for wastewater systems 3,000 gallons or larger and industrial process wastewater systems designed to discharge
below the ground surface; and technical assistance to local health departments, other state agencies, and industry on soil
suitability and other site considerations for on-site wastewater systems.
Central Office Andy Adams 919-715-3274 2728 Capital Boulevard, Raleigh NC 27604
Winston-Salem * Kevin Neal 336-357-3821 585 Waughton Street, Winston-Salem NC 27107
County Primary Contact Phone Address
Appalachian District
(Alleghany) Danny Staley 336-372-5641 152 Health Services Road, Sparta NC 28675
Ashe Danny Staley 336-246-9449 413 McConnel Street, Jefferson NC 28640
Watauga Danny Staley 828-264-4995 126 Poplar Grove Connector, Boone NC 28607

* DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office covers the following counties: Alamance, Alleghany, Ashe, Caswell,
Davidson, Davie, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, Watauga, Wilkes and Yadkin.
A-VIII-4

Appendix IX

Use Support Methodology
and
Use Support Ratings

Appendices

Introduction to Use Support

All surface waters of the state are assigned a classification appropriate to the best-intended uses
of that water. Waters are assessed to determine how well they are meeting the classified or best-
intended uses. The assessment results in a use support rating for the use categories that apply to
that water.

Use Support Categories

Beginning in 2000 with the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, DWQ assesses
ecosystem health and human health risk through the use of five use support categories: aquatic
life, recreation, fish consumption, water supply, and shellfish harvesting. These categories are
tied to the uses associated with the primary classifications applied to NC rivers and streams.
Waters are Supporting if data and information used to assign a use support rating meet the
criteria for that use category. If these criteria are not met, then the waters are Impaired. Waters
with inconclusive data and information are Not Rated. Waters where no data or information are
available to make an assessment are No Data. The table below specifies which use support
categories apply to which primary classification.

A single water may have more than one use support rating corresponding to one or more of the
use support categories, as shown in the following table. For many waters, a use support category
will not be applicable (N/A) to the classification of that water (e.g., shellfish harvesting is only
applied to Class SA waters). A full description of the classifications is available in the DWQ
document titled: Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and
Wetlands of North Carolina (Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B .0100 and .0200).
Information can also be found at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/.

Use Support Categories

Primary
Classification
Ecosystem
Approach
Human Health
Approach
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Shellfish
Harvesting
C X X X N/A N/A
SC X X X N/A N/A
B X X X N/A N/A
SB X X X N/A N/A
SA X X X N/A X
WS I – WS IV X X X X N/A

Assessment Period

Data and information are used to assess water quality and assign use support ratings using a five-
year data window that ends on August 31 of the year of basinwide biological sampling. For
example, if biological data are collected in a basin in 2004, then the five-year data window for
A-IX-1

use support assessments would be September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2004. There are
occasionally some exceptions to this data window, especially when follow up monitoring is
needed to make decisions on samples collected in the last year of the assessment period.

Data and information for assessing water quality and assigning use support ratings for lakes uses
a data window of October 1 to September 30. Any data collected by DWQ during the five-year
data window that ends on September 30 of the year of biological sampling will be used to
develop a Weight-of-Evidence approach to lakes assessment. Refer to page 16 of this appendix
for more information.

Assessment Unit Numbers (AU#)

DWQ identifies waters by index numbers and assessment unit numbers (AU#). The AU# is used
to track defined stream segments or waterbodies in the water quality assessment database, for the
303(d) Impaired waters list, and in the various tables in basin plans and other water quality
documents. The AU# is a subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification
number). A letter attached to the end of the AU# indicates that the AU is smaller than the DWQ
index segment. No letter indicates that the AU# and the DWQ index segment are the same.

Interpretation of Data and Information

When interpreting the use support ratings, it is important to understand the associated limitations
and degree of uncertainty. Although these use support methods are used for analyzing data and
information and determining use support ratings, best professional judgment is applied during
these assessments. Use support ratings are intended to provide an assessment of water quality
using a five-year data window, describe how well surface waters support their classified use, and
document the potential stressors contributing to water quality degradation and the sources of
these contributions.

Use support methods continue to improve over time, and the information and technology used to
make use support determinations also continue to become more accurate and comprehensive.
These improvements sometimes make it difficult to make generalizations comparing water
quality between basin plans. However, improvements in technology and methods result in more
scientifically sound use support assessments.

Assessment Methodology

Introduction

Many types of data and information are used to determine use support ratings and to identify
stressors and sources of water quality degradation. All existing data pertaining to a stream
segment for each applicable use support category are entered into a use support database.
Assessments and data entries may include: use support ratings for each of the five use support
categories; basis of assessment; stressors and potential sources; biological, chemical/physical
(ambient monitoring) and lakes assessment data; fish consumption advisories from the NC
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); swimming advisories and shellfish
sanitation growing area classifications from the NC Division of Environmental Health (DEH);
A-IX-2

and available land cover and land use information. The following describes the data and
methodologies used to conduct use support assessments. These methods will continue to be
refined as additional information and technology become available.

Basis of Assessment

Assessments are made on an overall basis of either monitored (M) or evaluated (E), depending
on the level of information available. A monitored rating is based on the most recent five-year
data window and site-specific data and is therefore treated with more confidence than an
evaluated rating.

Rating
Basis
Use Support
Category Assessment Applicability*
S/M AL Biological community data or ambient water quality parameters do not exceed criteria in
AU during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are independently applied.
S/M REC Ambient fecal coliform bacteria levels do not exceed criteria in AU or AU with DEH
sites is posted with advisories for 61 days or less during assessment period.
S/M SH AU is a DEH Approved shellfish growing area.
I/M AL Biological community data or ambient water quality parameters exceed criteria in AU
during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are independently applied.
I/M REC Ambient fecal coliform bacteria levels exceeds criteria in AU or AU with DEH sites is
posted with advisories for more than 61 days during assessment period.
I/M FC Fish tissue data collected in AU during assessment period and basin is under mercury
advice or site-specific advisory.
I/M SH AU is a DEH Conditionally-Approved, Prohibited or Restricted shellfish growing area.
NR/M AL Biological community is Not Rated or inconclusive, or ambient water quality parameters
are inconclusive or there are less than 10 samples in AU during assessment period.
Biological and ambient data are independently applied.
NR/M REC Ambient fecal bacteria parameter exceeds annual screening criteria, but does not exceed
assessment criteria of five samples in 30 days in AU during assessment period.
NR/M FC AU does not have site-specific advisory and is not under a mercury advice or drains to
areas within a mercury advice; fish tissue data available.
S/E AL AU is a tributary to a S/M AU and land use is similar between AUs.
S/E WS AU is classified as WS, and DEH report notes no significant closures at time of
assessment.
I/E FC AU is in basin under a mercury advice or drains to areas within a mercury advice and
has no fish tissue data.
NR/E AL AU is tributary to I/M AU, or AU is in watershed with intensice and changing land use,
or other information suggests negative water quality impacts to AU. Discharger in AU
has noncompliance permit violations or has failed three or more WET tests during the
last two years of the assessment period.
NR/E REC Discharger has noncompliance permit violations of fecal bacteria parameter during last
two years of assessment period.
NR/E FC AU does not have site-specific advisory and is not under a mercury advice or drains to
areas within a mercury advice, or has no fish tissue data.
ND AL, REC,
SH
No data available in AU during assessment period.

A-IX-3

Note: S/M = Supporting/Monitored I/M = Impaired/Monitored NR/M = Not Rated/Monitored
S/E = Supporting/Evaluated I/E = Impaired/Evaluated NR/E = Not Rated/Evaluated
ND = No Data
AL = Aquatic Life REC = Recreation FC = Fish Consumption
SH = Shellfish Harvesting WS = Water Supply
AU# = Assessment Unit Number WET = Whole Effluent Toxicity
DEH = Division of Environmental Health
* = for lakes assessments, see page 15

Supporting ratings are extrapolated up tributaries from monitored streams when there are no
problematic dischargers with permit violations or changes in land use/cover. Supporting ratings
may also be applied to unmonitored tributaries where there is little land disturbance (e.g.,
national forests and wildlife refuges, wilderness areas or state natural areas). Problem stressors
or sources are not generally applied to unmonitored tributaries. Impaired ratings are not
extrapolated to unmonitored tributaries.

Stressors

Biological and ambient samplings are useful tools to assess water quality. However, biological
sampling does not typically identify the causes of impairment, and ambient sampling does not
always link water quality standards to a biological response. Linking the causes of impairment
and the biological response are a complex process (USEPA, 2000) that begins with an evaluation
of physical, chemical or biological entities that can induce an adverse biological response. These
entities are referred to as stressors. A stressor may have a measurable impact to aquatic health.
Not all streams will have a primary stressor or cause of impairment. A single stressor may not
be sufficient to cause impairment, but the accumulation of several stressors may result in
impairment. In either case, impairment is likely to continue if the stressor or the various
cumulative stressors are not addressed. Use support assessments evaluate the available
information related to potential stressors impacting water quality.

A stressor identification process may be initiated after a stream appears on the 303(d) list in
order to address streams that are Impaired based on biological data. Intensive studies are
required to summarize and evaluate potential stressors to determine if there is evidence that a
particular stressor plays a substantial role in causing the biological impacts. Intensive studies
consider lines of evidence that include benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community data,
habitat and riparian area assessment, chemistry and toxicity data, and information on watershed
history, current watershed activities and land uses, and pollutant sources. These studies result in
decisions regarding the probable stressors contributing to or causing impairment. The intensity
of a stressor study may be limited due to a lack of resources. In these cases, it may still be
appropriate to include stressors in use support assessments, but to also note where additional
information is needed in order to evaluate other stressors.

Where an ambient parameter is identified as a potential concern, the parameter is noted in the
DWQ database and use support summary table. Where habitat degradation is identified as a
stressor, DWQ and others attempt to identify the type of habitat degradation (e.g., sedimentation,
loss of woody habitat, loss of pools or riffles, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation,
streambed scour and bank erosion). Habitat evaluation methods are being developed to better
identify specific types of habitat degradation.
A-IX-4

Aquatic Life Category

The aquatic life category is an ecosystem approach to assessing the biological integrity of all
surface waters of the state. The biological community data and ambient water quality data are
used in making assessments in this category. These represent the most important monitoring
data for making water quality assessments in the aquatic life category. Evaluation information
such as compliance and whole effluent toxicity (WET) information from NPDES dischargers,
land cover, and other more anecdotal information are also used to identify potential stressors and
to refine assessments based on the monitoring data. The following is a description of each
monitoring data type and the criteria used in assigning use support ratings. Criteria used to
evaluate the other information and assign use support ratings are also described. Refer to page
14 for lakes and reservoir assessment methods as applied in the aquatic life category.

Biological Data

Benthic macroinvertebrate (aquatic insects) and fish community samples are the best way to
assess the biological integrity of most waterbodies. Unfortunately, these community measures
cannot be applied to every stream size and are further limited by geographic region. These
community measures are designed to detect current water quality and water quality changes that
may be occurring in the watershed. However, they are only directly applied to the AU# where
the sample was collected.

Where recent data for both benthic macroinvertebrates and fish communities are available, both
are evaluated for use support assessments. When two biological monitoring data types conflict,
best professional judgment is used to determine an appropriate use support rating. Where both
ambient monitoring data and biological data are available, biological data may be given greater
weight; however, each data type is assessed independently.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Criteria

Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications to most benthic macroinvertebrate
samples based on the number of taxa present in the pollution intolerant aquatic insect groups of
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT); and the Biotic Index (BI), which
summarizes tolerance data for all taxa in each sample. Because these data represent water
quality conditions with a high degree of confidence, use support ratings using these data are
considered monitored.

If a Fair macroinvertebrate bioclassification is obtained under conditions (such as drought or
flood conditions, recent spills, etc.) that may not represent normal conditions or is borderline Fair
(almost Good-Fair), a second sample should be taken within 12-24 months to validate the Fair
bioclassification. Such sites will be Not Rated until the second sample is obtained.

Use support ratings are assigned to AU# using benthic macroinvertebrate bioclassifications as
follows.

A-IX-5

Waterbody Sample
Type or Criteria Bioclassification Use Support
Rating
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Excellent Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Good Supporting
Swamp1 Natural Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Good-Fair Supporting
Smaller than criteria but Good-Fair2 Not Impaired Supporting
Swamp1 Moderate Stress Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Fair Impaired
Swamp1 Severe Stress Impaired
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A3 Poor Impaired
Criteria not appropriate to assign bioclassification Not Rated Not Rated
1 Swamp streams for benthos sampling are defined as streams in the coastal plain that have no visible flow for a part of the year,
but do have flow during the February to early March benthic index period.
2 This designation may be used for flowing waters that are too small to be assigned a bioclassification (less than three square
miles drainage area), but have a Good-Fair or higher bioclassification using the standard qualitative and EPT criteria.
3 Coastal A streams are those located in the coastal plain that have flow year round and are wadeable.

Fish Community Criteria

The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for assessing a stream’s
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The NCIBI
incorporates information about species richness and composition, indicator species, trophic
function, abundance and condition, and reproductive function. Because these data represent
water quality conditions with a high degree of confidence, use support ratings using these data
are considered monitored. Use support ratings are assigned to AU# using the NCIBI
bioclassifications as follows:

NCIBI Use Support Rating
Excellent Supporting
Good Supporting
Good-Fair Supporting
Fair Impaired
Poor Impaired

If a Fair fish bioclassification is obtained under conditions (such as drought or flood conditions,
recent spills, etc.) that may not represent normal conditions or is borderline Fair (almost Good-
Fair), a second sample should be taken within 12-24 months to validate the Fair
bioclassification. Such sites will be Not Rated until the second sample is obtained.

The NCIBI was recently revised (NCDENR, 2001), and the bioclassifications and criteria have
also been recalibrated against regional reference site data (NCDENR, 2000a, 2000b and 2001a).
A-IX-6

NCIBI criteria are applicable only to wadeable streams in the following river basins: Broad,
Catawba, Savannah, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, French Broad,
Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and Watauga. Additionally, the NCIBI criteria are only
applicable to streams in the piedmont portion of the Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar-Pamlico
River basins. The definition of "piedmont" for these four river basins is based upon a map of
North Carolina watersheds (Fels, 1997). Specifically:

ƒ In the Cape Fear River basin -- all waters except for those draining the Sandhills in Moore,
Lee and Harnett counties, and the entire basin upstream of Lillington, NC.
ƒ In the Neuse River basin -- the entire basin above Smithfield and Wilson, except for the
south and southwest portions of Johnston County and eastern two-thirds of Wilson County.
ƒ In the Roanoke River basin -- the entire basin in North Carolina upstream of Roanoke
Rapids, NC and a small area between Roanoke Rapids and Halifax, NC.
ƒ In the Tar-Pamlico River basin -- the entire basin above Rocky Mount, except for the lower
southeastern one-half of Halifax County and the extreme eastern portion of Nash County.

NCIBI criteria have not been developed for:

ƒ Streams in the Broad, Catawba, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Savannah, French Broad, Hiwassee,
Little Tennessee, New and Watauga River basins which are characterized as wadeable first
to third order streams with small watersheds, naturally low fish species diversity, coldwater
temperatures, and high gradient plunge-pool flows. Such streams are typically thought of
as "Southern Appalachian Trout Streams".
ƒ Wadeable streams in the Sandhills ecoregion of the Cape Fear, Lumber and Yadkin-Pee
Dee River basins.
ƒ Wadeable streams and swamps in the coastal plain region of the Cape Fear, Chowan,
Lumber, Neuse, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico and White Oak River basins.
ƒ All nonwadeable and large streams and rivers throughout the state.

Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Criteria

Chemical/physical water quality data are collected through the DWQ Ambient Monitoring
Program statewide and NPDES discharger coalitions in some basins. All samples collected
(usually monthly) during the five-year assessment period are used to assign a use support rating.
Ambient water quality data are not direct measures of biological integrity, but the
chemical/physical parameters collected can provide an indication of conditions that may be
impacting aquatic life. Because these data represent water quality conditions with a high degree
of confidence, use support ratings assigned using these data are considered monitored. Where
both ambient data and biological data are available, each data type is assessed independently.

The parameters used to assess water quality in the aquatic life category include dissolved oxygen
(DO), pH, chlorophyll a and turbidity. Criteria for assigning use support ratings to AU# with
ambient water quality data of a minimum of ten samples are as follows:
A-IX-7

Ratings Criteria Rating
Numerical standard exceeded in ≤10% of samples Supporting
Numerical standard exceeded in >10% of samples Impaired
Less than 10 samples collected Not Rated
DO and pH standard exceeded in swamp streams Not Rated

Some standards are written with more specific criteria than others, and these specific criteria are
used to assess use support. For example, the DO standard has a daily average of 5 mg/l and an
instantaneous value of 4 mg/l for Class C waters. Because DWQ does not collect daily DO
levels at the ambient stations, the instantaneous value is used for assessment criteria. In areas
with continuous monitoring, the daily average of 5 mg/l will also be assessed. In addition, pH
has a standard of not less than 6 and not greater than 9; each level is assessed. To assess the
fecal coliform bacteria standard, five samples must be collected within a 30 day period (see
Recreation Category for more information).

Multiple Monitoring Sites

There are AU# with more than one type of monitoring data. When the data from multiple
biological data types are not in agreement, best professional judgment is used to assign a
bioclassification and use support rating for that AU#. Biological monitoring is typically assessed
independent of ambient monitoring data and either may be used to assign a use support rating for
an AU#. Monitoring data are always used over the evaluation information; however, evaluation
information can be used to lengthen or shorten the monitored AU# and to assign use support
ratings on an evaluated basis to non-monitored AU#.

NPDES Wastewater Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Information

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests are required for all major NPDES discharge permit
holders, as well as those minor NPDES dischargers with complex effluent (defined as not being
of 100 percent domestic waste). WET tests are evaluated to determine if the discharge could be
having negative water quality impacts. If a stream with a WET test facility has not been sampled
for instream chronic toxicity, biological community data or has no ambient water quality data,
and that facility has failed three or more WET tests in the last two years of the assessment
period, the AU# is Not Rated. Because this information is not a direct measure of water quality
and the confidence is not as high as for monitoring data, this use support rating is considered
evaluated rather than monitored. Problems associated with WET test failures are addressed
through NPDES permits.

NPDES Discharger Daily Monitoring Report Information

NPDES effluent data monthly averages of water quality parameters are screened for the last two
years of the assessment period. If facilities exceed the effluent limits by 20 percent for two or
more months during two consecutive quarters, or have chronic exceedances of permit limits for
four or more months during two consecutive quarters, then the AU# is Not Rated if no biological
or ambient monitoring data are available. If biological or ambient data are available, that data
will be used to develop a use support rating for appropriate stream segments. Because this
A-IX-8

information is not a direct measure of water quality and the confidence is not as high as for
monitoring data, this use support rating is considered evaluated rather than monitored.

Fish Consumption Category

The fish consumption category is a human health approach to assess whether humans can safely
consume fish from a waterbody. This category is applied to all waters of the state. The use
support rating is assigned using fish consumption advisories or advice as issued by the NC
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The fish consumption category is different
from other categories in that assessments are based on the existence of a DHHS fish
consumption advice or advisory at the time of assessment. The advice and advisories are based
on DHHS epidemiological studies and on DWQ fish tissue data, so a fish tissue monitoring site
will constitute a monitored AU# and all other AU# will be evaluated. DWQ fish tissue data are
used to inform DHHS of potential fish tissue toxicity. DHHS is responsible for proclaiming a
fish tissue advisory for any waterbody. Fish tissue monitoring data are not used directly for
assigning a use support rating in this category.

If a limited site-specific fish consumption advisory or a no consumption advisory is posted at the
time of assessment, the water is Impaired. If there are no site-specific advisories posted or the
stream is not in a basin where mercury advice is applied, then the AU# will be Not Rated in this
category.
The DHHS has developed regional fish consumption advice (all waters south and east of I-85)
for certain fish species shown to have elevated levels of mercury in their tissue. DWQ applies
the DHHS fish consumption advice for mercury on a basinwide scale rather than an AU scale in
recognition that fish move up and downstream regardless of the presence of I-85. All AUs
draining below or intersecting I-85 are Impaired in the fish consumption category. AUs with
monitoring data are considered Impaired/Monitored, and AUs with no monitoring data are
considered Impaired/Evaluated. When a DHHS site-specific advisory is in place for a parameter
other than mercury, the assessment is based on that advisory and the mercury advice will take a
lower ranking in the assessment. Therefore, when a site-specific advisory is in place in a basin
with a mercury advice and the AU has fish tissue monitoring data, the AU will be considered
Impaired/Monitored for the specific parameter, rather than Impaired/Evaluated for mercury.

Basins under the mercury advice are the Cape Fear, Chowan, Lumber, Neuse, Pasquotank,
Roanoke, White Oak and Yadkin-Pee Dee. All waters in these basins are Impaired in the fish
consumption category, even when there is a site-specific advisory. All waters are also
considered Monitored or Evaluated, dependent upon the availability of monitoring data.

Only a small portion of the Catawba River basin is intersected by I-85 (lower Mecklenberg,
Union and Gaston counties). Due to the presence of dams that impede fish travel throughout the
Catawba River basin, only those waters draining to and entering the mainstem Catawba below I-
85 and are not impeded by dams are considered Impaired/Evaluated.
Basins not under the mercury advice are the Broad, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee,
New, Savannah and Watauga. All waters in these basins are Not Rated in the fish consumption
category if there is no site-specific advisory; waters are Impaired if there is a site-specific
A-IX-9

advisory. All waters are also considered Monitored or Evaluated, dependent upon the
availability of monitoring data.
In order to separate this regional advice from other fish consumption advisories and to identify
actual fish populations with high levels of mercury, only waters with fish tissue monitoring data
are presented on the use support maps.

Recreation Category

This human health related category evaluates waters for the support of primary recreation
activities such as swimming, water-skiing, skin diving, and similar uses usually involving human
body contact with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent
basis. Waters of the state designated for these uses are classified as Class B, SB and SA. This
category also evaluates other waters used for secondary recreation activities such as wading,
boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with water, and activities involving
human body contact with water where such activities take place on an infrequent, unorganized or
incidental basis. Waters of the state designated for these uses are classified as Class C, SC and
WS.

The use support ratings applied to this category are currently based on the North Carolina (1)
fecal coliform bacteria water quality standard where ambient monitoring data are available or (2)
on the duration of local or state health agencies posted swimming advisories. In the future, use
support ratings for the recreation category may be based on other bacteriological indicators and
standards.

DWQ conducts monthly ambient water quality monitoring that includes fecal coliform bacteria
testing. The Division of Environmental Health (DEH) tests coastal recreation waters (beaches)
for bacteria levels to assess the relative safety of these waters for swimming. If an area has
elevated bacteria levels, health officials will advise that people not swim in the area by posting a
swimming advisory and by notifying the local media and county health department.

The North Carolina fecal coliform bacteria standard for freshwater (Class B) is: (1) not to
exceed the geometric mean of 200 colonies per 100 ml of at least five samples over a 30-day
period and (2) not to exceed 400 colonies per 100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples
during the same period. The AU# being assessed for the five-year data window is Supporting in
the recreation category if neither number (1) nor (2) of the standard are exceeded. The AU being
assessed is Impaired in the recreation category if either number (1) or (2) is exceeded. Waters
without sufficient fecal coliform bacteria data (five samples within 30 days) are Not Rated, and
waters with no data are noted as having No Data.

Assessing the water quality standard requires significant sampling efforts beyond the monthly
ambient monitoring sampling and must include at least five samples over a 30-day period.
Decades of monitoring have demonstrated that bacteria concentrations may fluctuate widely in
surface waters over a period of time. Thus, multiple samples over a 30-day period are needed to
evaluate waters against the North Carolina water quality standard for recreational use support.
Waters classified as Class SA, SB and B are targeted for this intensive sampling effort due to the
greater potential for human body contact.

A-IX-10

Waters with beach monitoring sites will be Impaired if the area is posted with an advisory for
greater than 61 days of the assessment period. Waters with beach monitoring sites with
advisories posted less than 61 days will be Supporting. Other information can be used to Not
Rate unmonitored waters.

DWQ Ambient Monitoring Fecal Coliform Bacteria Screening Criteria

As with other information sources, all available information and data are evaluated for the
recreation category using the assessment period. However, DWQ conducts an annual screening
of DWQ ambient fecal coliform bacteria data to assess the need for additional monitoring or
immediate action by local or state health agencies to protect public health.

Each March, DWQ staff will review bacteria data collections from ambient monitoring stations
statewide for the previous sampling year. Locations with annual geometric means greater than
200 colonies per 100 ml, or when more than 20 percent of the samples are greater than 400
colonies per 100 ml, are identified for potential follow-up monitoring conducted five times
within 30 days as specified by the state fecal coliform bacteria standard. If bacteria
concentrations exceed either portion of the state standard, the data are sent to DEH and the local
county health director to determine the need for posting swimming advisories. DWQ regional
offices will also be notified.

Due to limited resources and the higher risk to human health, primary recreation waters (Class B,
SB and SA) will be given monitoring priority for an additional five times within 30 days
sampling. Follow-up water quality sampling for Class C waters will be performed as resources
permit. Any waters on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters for fecal coliform will receive a low
priority for additional monitoring because these waters will be further assessed for TMDL
development.

DWQ attempts to determine if there are any swimming areas monitored by state, county or local
health departments or by DEH. Each January, DEH, county or local health departments are
asked to list those waters which were posted with swimming advisories in the previous year.

Shellfish Harvesting Use Support

The shellfish harvesting use support category is a human health approach to assess whether
shellfish can be commercially harvested and is therefore applied only to Class SA waters. The
following data sources are used to assign use support ratings for shellfish waters.

Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Shellfish Sanitation Surveys

DEH is required to classify all shellfish growing areas as to their suitability for shellfish
harvesting. Estuarine waters are delineated according to DEH shellfish management areas (e.g.,
Outer Banks, Area H-5) which include Class SA, SB and SC waters. DEH samples growing
areas regularly and reevaluates the areas by conducting shellfish sanitation surveys every three
years to determine if their classification is still applicable. DEH classifications may be changed
after the most recent sanitary survey. Classifications are based on DEH bacteria sampling,
locations of pollution sources, and the availability of the shellfish resource. Growing waters are
classified as follows.
A-IX-11

DEH
Classification
DEH
Criteria
Approved
(APP)
Fecal Coliform Standard for Systematic Random Sampling:
The median fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) or the geometric mean MPN of
the water shall not exceed 14 per 100 milliliters (ml), and the estimated 90th percentile
shall not exceed an MPN of 43 MPN per 100 ml for a 5-tube decimal dilution test.

Fecal Coliform Standard for Adverse Pollution Conditions Sampling:
The median fecal coliform or geometric mean MPN of the water shall not exceed 14 per
100 ml, and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed 43 MPN per 100 ml for
a 5-tube decimal dilution test.
Conditionally
Approved-Open
(CAO)
Sanitary Survey indicates an area can meet approved area criteria for a reasonable period
of time, and the pollutant event is known and predictable and can be managed by a plan.
These areas tend to be open more frequently than closed.
Conditionally
Approved-Closed
(CAC)
Sanitary Survey indicates an area can meet approved area criteria for a reasonable period
of time, and the pollutant event is known and predictable and can be managed by a plan.
These areas tend to be closed more frequently than open.
Restricted
(RES)
Sanitary Survey indicates limited degree of pollution, and the area is not contaminated to
the extent that consumption of shellfish could be hazardous after controlled depuration or
relaying.
Prohibited
(PRO)
No Sanitary Survey; point source discharges; marinas; data do not meet criteria for
Approved, Conditionally Approved or Restricted Classification.

Assigning Use Support Ratings to Shellfish Harvesting Waters (Class SA)

DWQ use support ratings may be assigned to separate segments within DEH management areas.
In assessing use support, the DEH classifications and management strategies are only applicable
to DWQ Class SA (shellfish harvesting) waters. It is important to note that DEH classifies all
actual and potential growing areas (which includes all saltwater and brackish water areas) for
their suitability for shellfish harvesting. This will result in a difference of acreage between DEH
areas classified as CAC, PRO and RES, and DWQ waters rated as Impaired. For example, if
DEH classifies a 20-acre area CAC, but only 10 acres are Class SA, only those 10 acres of Class
SA waters are rated as Impaired.

The DEH "Closed" polygon coverage includes CAC, RES and PRO classifications, and it is not
currently possible to separate out the PRO from the RES areas. Therefore, these areas are a
combined polygon coverage, and DWQ rates these waters as Impaired.

Sources of fecal coliform bacteria are more difficult to separate out for Class SA areas. DEH
describes the potential sources in the sanitary surveys, but they do not describe specific areas
affected by these sources. Therefore, in the past, DEH identified the same sources for all Class
SA sections of an entire management area (e.g., urban runoff and septic systems). Until a better
way to pinpoint sources is developed, this information will continue to be used. A point source
discharge is only listed as a potential source when NPDES permit limits are exceeded.

DWQ and DEH are developing the database and expertise necessary to assess shellfish
harvesting frequency of closures. In the interim, DWQ has been identifying the frequency of
closures in Class SA waters using an interim methodology based on existing databases and GIS
shapefiles. There will be changes in reported acreages in future assessments using the permanent
methods and tools that result from this project.
A-IX-12

Past Interim Frequency of Closure-Based Assessment Methodology

The interim method was used for the 2001 White Oak, 2002 Neuse and 2003 Lumber River
basin use support assessments. Shellfish harvesting use support ratings for Class SA waters
using the interim methodology are summarized below.

Percent of Time Closed
within Basin Data Window
DEH
Growing Area Classification
DWQ
Use Support Rating
N/A Approved* Supporting
Closed ≤10% of data window Portion of CAO closed ≤10% of data window Supporting
Closed >10% of the data window Portion of CAO closed >10% of data window Impaired
N/A CAC and PRO/RES** Impaired
* Approved waters are closed only during extreme meteorological events (hurricanes).
** CAC and P/R waters are rarely opened to shellfish harvesting.

For CAO areas, DWQ worked with DEH to determine the number of days and acreages that
CAO Class SA waters were closed to shellfish harvesting during the assessment period. For
each growing area with CAO Class SA waters, DEH and DWQ defined subareas within the CAO
area that were opened and closed at the same time. The number of days these CAO areas were
closed was determined using DEH proclamation summary sheets and the original proclamations.

The number of days that APP areas in the growing area were closed due to preemptive closures
because of named storms was not counted. For example, all waters in growing area E-9 were
preemptively closed for Hurricane Fran on September 5, 1996. APP waters were reopened
September 20, 1996. Nelson Bay (CAO) was reopened September 30, 1996. This area was
considered closed for ten days after the APP waters were reopened.

Current Assessment Methodology

Use support assessment is now conducted such that only the DEH classification will be used to
assign a use support rating. By definition, CAO areas are areas that DEH has determined do not,
or likely do not, meet water quality standards and these areas will be rated Impaired, along with
CAC and PRO/RES areas. Only APP areas will be rated Supporting.

Growing areas that have been reclassified by DEH during the assessment period from a lower
classification to APP will be rated Supporting. Areas that are reclassified from APP to any other
classification during the assessment period will be rated Impaired.

Over the next few years, DWQ, DEH, Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMF) will be engaged in developing a database with georeferenced (GIS)
shellfish harvesting areas. The new database and GIS tools will be valuable for the above
agencies to continue to work together to better serve the public. Using the new database with
georeferenced areas and monitoring sites, DEH will be able to report the number of days each
area was closed excluding closures related to named storms.

A-IX-13

Water Supply Use Support

This human health related use support category is used to assess all Class WS waters for the
ability of water suppliers to provide potable drinking water. Water quality standards established
for drinking water apply to water delivered to consumers after it has been treated to remove
potential contaminants that may pose risks to human health. Ambient standards established by
states under the Clean Water Act are not intended to ensure that water is drinkable without
treatment. Modern water treatment technologies are required to purify raw water to meet
drinking water standards as established by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Health.

Water supply use support is assessed by DWQ using information from the seven DEH regional
water treatment plant consultant staff. Each January, the DEH staff consultants are asked to
submit a spreadsheet listing closures and water intake switch-overs for all water treatment plants
in their region. This spreadsheet describes the length and time of the event, contact information,
and the reason for the closure or switch.

The spreadsheets are reviewed by DWQ staff to determine if any closures/switches were due to
water quality concerns. Those closures/switches due to water quantity problems and reservoir
turnovers are not considered for use support. The frequency and duration of closures/switches
due to water quality concerns are considered when assessing use support. Using these criteria,
North Carolina’s surface water supplies are currently rated Supporting on an Evaluated basis.
Specific criteria for rating waters Impaired are to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Use of Outside Data

DWQ actively solicits outside data and information in the year before biological sampling in a
particular basin. The solicitation allows approximately 90 days for data to be submitted. Data
from sources outside DWQ are screened for data quality and quantity. If data are of sufficient
quality and quantity, they may be incorporated into use support assessments. A minimum of ten
samples for more than a one-year period is needed to be considered for use support assessments.

The way the solicited data are used depends on the degree of quality assurance and quality
control of the collection and analysis of the data as detailed in the 303(d) report and shown in the
table below. Level 1 data can be used with the same confidence as DWQ data to determine use
support ratings. Level 2 or Level 3 data may be used to help identify causes of pollution and
stressors. They may also be used to limit the extrapolation of use support ratings up or down a
stream segment from a DWQ monitoring location. Where outside data indicate a potential
problem, DWQ evaluates the existing DWQ biological and ambient monitoring site locations for
adjustment as appropriate.

A-IX-14

Criteria Levels for Use of Outside Data in Use Support Assessments
Criteria Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Monitoring frequency of at least 10 samples for
more than a one-year period Yes Yes/No No
Monitoring locations appropriately sited and
mapped Yes Yes No
State certified laboratory used for analysis
according to 15A NCAC 2B .0103 Yes Yes/No No
Quality assurance plan available describing
sample collection and handling
Yes, rigorous
scrutiny Yes/No No

Lakes and Reservoir Use Assessment

Like streams, lakes are classified for a variety of uses. All lakes monitored as part of North
Carolina’s Ambient Lakes Monitoring Program carry the Class C (aquatic life) classification,
and most are classified Class B and SB (recreation) and WS-I through WS-V (water supply).
The surface water quality numeric standard specifically associated with recreation is fecal
coliform bacteria. For water supplies, there are 29 numeric standards based on consumption of
water and fish. Narrative standards for Class B and Class WS waters include aesthetics such as
no odors and no untreated wastes. There are other numeric standards that also apply to lakes for
the protection of aquatic life and human health. These standards also apply to all other waters of
the state and are listed under the Class C rules. One of the major problems associated with lakes
and reservoirs is increasing eutrophication related to nutrient inputs. Several water quality
parameters help to describe the level of eutrophication.

For nutrient enrichment, one of the main causes of impacts to lakes and reservoirs, a more
holistic or weight of evidence approach is necessary since nutrient impacts are not always
reflected by the parameters sampled. For instance, some lakes have taste and odor problems
associated with particular algal species, yet these lakes do not have chlorophyll a concentrations
above 40 µg/l frequently enough to impair them based on the standard. In addition, each
reservoir possesses unique traits (watershed area, volume, depth, retention time, etc.) that
dramatically influence its water quality, but that cannot be evaluated through standards
comparisons. In such waterbodies, aquatic life may be Impaired even though a particular
indicator is below the standard. Where exceedances of surface water quality standards are not
sufficient to evaluate a lake or reservoir, the weight of evidence approach can take into
consideration indicators and parameters not in the standards to allow a more sound and robust
determination of water quality.

The weight of evidence approach uses the following sources of information to determine the
eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) level as a means of assessing lake use support in the aquatic
life category:

ƒ Quantitative water quality parameters - dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, pH, etc.
ƒ Algal bloom reports
ƒ Fish kill reports
A-IX-15

ƒ Hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics – watershed size, lake volume, retention
time, volume loss, etc.
ƒ Third party reports – citizens, water treatment plant operators, state agencies, etc.
‰ Taste and odor
‰ Sheens
‰ Odd colors
‰ Other aesthetic and safety considerations

In implementing the weight of evidence approach for eutrophication, more consideration is given
to parameters that have water quality standards (see table). Each parameter is assessed for
percent exceedance of the state standard. Parameters with sufficient (ten or more observations),
quality-assured observations are compared to surface water quality standards. When standards
are exceeded in more than 10 percent of the assessment period, portions or all of the waterbody
are rated Impaired.

In many cases, however, the standards based approach is incapable of characterizing the overall
health of a reservoir. The eutrophication-related parameters and water quality indicators without
numeric standards are reviewed based on interpretation of the narrative standards in 15A NCAC
2B .0211(2) and (3).

A modification to lake use assessment is the evaluation and rating of a lake or reservoir by
assessment unit numbers (AU#). Each lake or reservoir may have one or more AU# based on the
classification segments (DWQ index numbers). Each sampling date is considered one sample.
Multiple sampling locations within one AU are considered one sample. A minimum of ten
samples is needed to assess use support for any AU. Each AU with documented problems
(sufficient data, ambient data above standards, and supporting public data) will be rated as
Impaired while the other portions are rated as Supporting or Not Rated. The following table lists
the information considered during a lake/reservoir use assessment, as well as the criteria used to
evaluate that information.
A-IX-16

Lake/Reservoir Weight of Evidence Use Assessment for Aquatic Life Category
Assessment Type Criteria
EUTROPHICATION
Water Quality Standards (a minimum of 10 samples is required for use support assessment)
Chl a Above standard in >10% of samples.
DO Below or above standard in >10% of samples.
pH Below or above standard in >10% of samples.
Turbidity Above standard in >10% of samples.
% Total Dissolved Gases Above standard in >10% of samples.
Temperature Minor and infrequent excursions of temperature standards due to anthropogenic
activity. No impairment of species evident.
Metals (excluding copper,
iron and zinc) Above standard in >10% of samples.
Other Data
% Saturation DO >10% of samples above >120%
Algae Blooms during 2 or more sampling events in 1 year with historic blooms.
Fish Kills related to eutrophication.
Chemically/
Biologically Treated For algal or macrophyte control - either chemicals or biologically by fish, etc.
Aesthetics Complaints Documented sheens, discoloration, etc. - written complaint and follow-up by a state
agency.
TSI Increase of 2 trophic levels from one 5-year period to next.
Historic DWQ Data Conclusions from other reports and previous use support assessments.
AGPT Algal Growth Potential Potential Test ≥5 mg/L
Macrophytes Limiting access to public ramps, docks, swimming areas; reducing access by fish and
other aquatic life to habitat; clogging intakes.
Taste and Odor Public complaints; potential based on algal spp
Sediments Clogging intakes - dredging program necessary.

A-IX-17

A-IX-18
References

Fels, J. 1997. North Carolina Watersheds Map. North Carolina State University Cooperative
Extension Service. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2000a. Fish
Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the Inner Piedmont,
Foothills, and Eastern Mountains (Broad, Catawba, Savannah, and Yadkin River
Basins). September 22, 2000. Biological Assessment Unit. Environmental Sciences
Branch. Water Quality Section. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.

____. 2000b. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the
Outer Piedmont (Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar River Basins). October 17, 2000.
Ibid.

____. 2001a. Standard Operating Procedure. Biological Monitoring. Stream Fish
Community Assessment and Fish Tissue. Biological Assessment Unit. Environmental
Sciences Branch. Water Quality Section. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.

____. 2001b. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the
Western and Northern Mountains (French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and
Watauga River Basins). January 05, 2001. Ibid.

USEPA. 2000. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. EPA/822/B-00/025. Office of
Water. Washington, DC.

Appendix X

Glossary
of
Terms and Acronyms

Appendices

Glossary

§ Section.
30Q2 The minimum average flow for a period of 30 days that has an average recurrence of one in
two years.
7Q10 The annual minimum 7-day consecutive low flow, which on average will be exceeded in 9
out of 10 years.
B (Class B) Class B Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C. Primary recreational activities
include frequent and/or organized swimming and other human contact such as skin diving
and water skiing.
basin The watershed of a major river system. There are 17 major river basins in North Carolina.
benthic Aquatic organisms, visible to the naked eye (macro) and lacking a backbone (invertebrate),
macroinvertebrates that live in or on the bottom of rivers and streams (benthic). Examples include, but are not
limited to, aquatic insect larvae, mollusks and various types of worms. Some of these
organisms, especially aquatic insect larvae, are used to assess water quality. See EPT index
and bioclassification for more information.
benthos A term for bottom-dwelling aquatic organisms.
best management Techniques that are determined to be currently effective, practical means of preventing or
practices reducing pollutants from point and nonpoint sources, in order to protect water quality.
BMPs include, but are not limited to: structural and nonstructural controls, operation and
maintenance procedures, and other practices. Often, BMPs are applied as system of
practices and not just one at a time.
bioclassification A rating of water quality based on the outcome of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling of a
stream. There are five levels: Poor, Fair, Good-Fair, Good and Excellent.
BMPs See best management practices.
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the
decomposition of biological matter or chemical reactions in the water column. Most
NPDES discharge permits include a limit on the amount of BOD that may be discharged.
C (Class C) Class C Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and
others uses.
channelization The physical alteration of streams and rivers by widening, deepening or straightening of the
channel, large-scale removal of natural obstructions, and/or lining the bed or banks with
rock or other resistant materials.
chlorophyll a A chemical constituent in plants that gives them their green color. High levels of
chlorophyll a in a waterbody, most often in a pond, lake or estuary, usually indicate a large
amount of algae resulting from nutrient overenrichment or eutrophication.
coastal counties Twenty counties in eastern NC subject to requirements of the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). They include: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan,
Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico,
Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington.
Coastal Plain One of three major physiographic regions in North Carolina. Encompasses the eastern
two-fifths of state east of the fall line (approximated by Interstate I-95).
conductivity A measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. It is dependent on the
concentration of dissolved ions such as sodium, chloride, nitrates, phosphates and metals in
solution. Levels too high or too low may limit an organism’s survival, growth and
reproduction.
degradation The lowering of the physical, chemical or biological quality of a waterbody caused by
pollution or other sources of stress.
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
A-X-1

DO Dissolved oxygen.
drainage area An alternate name for a watershed.
DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality, an agency of DENR.
dystrophic Naturally acidic (low pH), "black-water" lakes which are rich in organic matter.
Dystrophic lakes usually have low productivity because most fish and aquatic plants are
stressed by low pH water. In North Carolina, dystrophic lakes are scattered throughout the
Coastal Plain and Sandhills regions and are often located in marshy areas or overlying peat
deposits. NCTSI scores are not appropriate for evaluating dystrophic lakes.
EEP Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
effluent The treated liquid discharged from a wastewater treatment plant.
EMC Environmental Management Commission.
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency.
EPT Index This index is used to judge water quality based on the abundance and variety of three
orders of pollution sensitive aquatic insect larvae: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies).
eutrophic Elevated biological productivity related to an abundance of available nutrients. Eutrophic
lakes may be so productive that the potential for water quality problems such as algal
blooms, nuisance aquatic plant growth and fish kills may occur.
eutrophication The process of physical, chemical or biological changes in a lake associated with nutrient,
organic matter and silt enrichment of a waterbody. The corresponding excessive algal
growth can deplete dissolved oxygen and threaten certain forms of aquatic life, cause
unsightly scums on the water surface and result in taste and odor problems.
fall line A geologic landscape feature that defines the line between the piedmont and coastal plain
regions. It is most evident as the last set of small rapids or rock outcroppings that occur on
rivers flowing from the piedmont to the coast.
FS Fully supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that fully supports its designated uses and
generally has good or excellent water quality.
GIS Geographic Information System. An organized collection of computer hardware, software,
geographic data and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate,
analyze and display all forms of geographically referenced information.
habitat degradation Identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or change in habitat
quality. This term includes sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian
vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour.
headwaters Small streams that converge to form a larger stream in a watershed.
HQW High Quality Waters. A supplemental surface water classification.
HU Hydrologic unit. See definition below.
Hydrilla The genus name of an aquatic plant - often considered an aquatic weed.
hydrologic unit A watershed area defined by a national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council. This system divides the country into 21 regions, 222
subregions, 352 accounting units and 2,149 cataloging units. A hierarchical code
consisting of two digits for each of the above four levels combined to form an eight-digit
hydrologic unit (cataloging unit). An eight-digit hydrologic unit generally covers an
average of 975 square miles. There are 54 eight-digit hydrologic (or cataloging) units in
North Carolina. These units have been further subdivided into eleven and fourteen-digit
units.
hypereutrophic Extremely elevated biological productivity related to excessive nutrient availability.
Hypereutrophic lakes exhibit frequent algal blooms, episodes of low dissolved oxygen or
periods when no oxygen is present in the water, fish kills and excessive aquatic plant
growth.
impaired Term that applies to a waterbody that has a use support rating of partially supporting (PS)
or not supporting (NS) its uses.
A-X-2

impervious Incapable of being penetrated by water; non-porous.
kg Kilograms. To change kilograms to pounds multiply by 2.2046.
lbs Pounds. To change pounds to kilograms multiply by 0.4536.
loading Mass rate of addition of pollutants to a waterbody (e.g., kg/yr)
macroinvertebrates Animals large enough to be seen by the naked eye (macro) and lacking backbones
(invertebrate).
macrophyte An aquatic plant large enough to be seen by the naked eye.
mesotrophic Moderate biological productivity related to intermediate concentrations of available
nutrients. Mesotrophic lakes show little, if any, signs of water quality degradation while
supporting a good diversity of aquatic life.
MGD Million gallons per day.
mg/l Milligrams per liter (approximately 0.00013 oz/gal).
NCIBI North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity. A measure of the community health of a
population of fish in a given waterbody.
NH3-N Ammonia nitrogen.
nonpoint source A source of water pollution generally associated with rainfall runoff or snowmelt. The
quality and rate of runoff of NPS pollution is strongly dependent on the type of land cover
and land use from which the rainfall runoff flows. For example, rainfall runoff from
forested lands will generally contain much less pollution and runoff more slowly than
runoff from urban lands.
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NPS Nonpoint source.
NR Not rated. A waterbody that is not rated for use support due to insufficient data.
NS Not supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that does not support its designated uses
and has poor water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and NS are called
impaired.
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended for waters
needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Waters classified as NSW include the Neuse, Tar-
Pamlico and Chowan River basins; the New River watershed in the White Oak basin; and
the watershed of B. Everett Jordan Reservoir (including the entire Haw River watershed).
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units. The units used to quantify turbidity using a turbidimeter.
This method is based on a comparison of the intensity of light scattered by the sample
under defined conditions with the intensity of the light scattered by a standard reference
suspension under the same conditions.
oligotrophic Low biological productivity related to very low concentrations of available nutrients.
Oligotrophic lakes in North Carolina are generally found in the mountain region or in
undisturbed (natural) watersheds and have very good water quality.
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended to
protect unique and special resource waters having excellent water quality and being of
exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance. No new or expanded
wastewater treatment plants are allowed, and there are associated stormwater runoff
controls enforced by DWQ.
pH A measure of the concentration of free hydrogen ions on a scale ranging from 0 to 14.
Values below 7 and approaching 0 indicate increasing acidity, whereas values above 7 and
approaching 14 indicate a more basic solution.
phytoplankton Aquatic microscopic plant life, such as algae, that are common in ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries.
Piedmont One of three major physiographic regions in the state. Encompasses most of central North
Carolina from the Coastal Plain region (near I-95) to the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge
Mountains region.
A-X-3

PS Partially supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that only partially supports its
designated uses and has fair water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and
NS are called impaired.
riparian zone Vegetated corridor immediately adjacent to a stream or river. See also SMZ.
river basin The watershed of a major river system. North Carolina is divided into 17 major river
basins: Broad, Cape Fear, Catawba, Chowan, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee,
Lumber, Neuse, New, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Savannah, Tar-Pamlico, Watauga, White Oak
and Yadkin River basins.
river system The main body of a river, its tributary streams and surface water impoundments.
runoff Rainfall that does not evaporate or infiltrate the ground, but instead flows across land and
into waterbodies.
SA Class SA Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters that have sufficient
water quality to support commercial shellfish harvesting.
SB Class SB Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality for frequent and/or organized swimming or other human contact.
SC Class SC Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality to support secondary recreation and aquatic life propagation and survival.
sedimentation The sinking and deposition of waterborne particles (e.g., eroded soil, algae and dead
organisms).
silviculture Care and cultivation of forest trees; forestry.
SOC Special Order by Consent. An agreement between the Environmental Management
Commission and a permitted discharger found responsible for causing or contributing to
surface water pollution. The SOC stipulates actions to be taken to alleviate the pollution
within a defined time. The SOC typically includes relaxation of permit limits for particular
parameters, while the facility completes the prescribed actions. SOCs are only issued to
facilities where the cause of pollution is not operational in nature (i.e., physical changes to
the wastewater treatment plant are necessary to achieve compliance).
streamside The area left along streams to protect streams from sediment and other pollutants, protect
management streambeds, and provide shade and woody debris for aquatic organisms.
zone (SMZ)
subbasin A designated subunit or subwatershed area of a major river basin. Subbasins typically
encompass the watersheds of significant streams or lakes within a river basin. Every river
basin is subdivided into subbasins ranging from one subbasin in the Watauga River basin
to 24 subbasins in the Cape Fear River basin. There are 133 subbasins statewide. These
subbasins are not a part of the national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council (see hydrologic unit).
Sw Swamp Waters. A supplemental surface water classification denoting waters that have
naturally occurring low pH, low dissolved oxygen and low velocities. These waters are
common in the Coastal Plain and are often naturally discolored giving rise to their
nickname of “blackwater” streams.
TMDL Total maximum daily load. The amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can
assimilate and maintain its uses and water quality standards.
TN Total nitrogen.
TP Total phosphorus.
tributary A stream that flows into a larger stream, river or other waterbody.
trophic classification Trophic classification is a relative description of a lake's biological productivity, which is
the ability of the lake to support algal growth, fish populations and aquatic plants. The
productivity of a lake is determined by a number of chemical and physical characteristics,
including the availability of essential plant nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), algal
growth and the depth of light penetration. Lakes are classified according to productivity:
unproductive lakes are termed "oligotrophic"; moderately productive lakes are termed
"mesotrophic"; and very productive lakes are termed "eutrophic".
A-X-4

A-X-5
TSS Total Suspended Solids.
turbidity An expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather
than transmitted in straight lines through a sample. All particles in the water that may
scatter or absorb light are measured during this procedure. Suspended sediment, aquatic
organisms and organic particles such as pieces of leaves contribute to instream turbidity.
UT Unnamed tributary.
watershed The region, or land area, draining into a body of water (such as a creek, stream, river, pond,
lake, bay or sound). A watershed may vary in size from several acres for a small stream or
pond to thousands of square miles for a major river system. The watershed of a major river
system is referred to as a basin or river basin.
WET Whole effluent toxicity. The aggregate toxic effect of a wastewater measured directly by
an aquatic toxicity test.
WS Class WS Water Supply Water Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters used
as sources of water supply. There are five WS categories. These range from WS-I, which
provides the highest level of protection, to WS-V, which provides no categorical
restrictions on watershed development or wastewater discharges like WS-I through WS-IV.
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant.