Chapter 1 with App

1.1
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
o
r
t
h

F
o
r
k

N
e
w

R
i
v
e
r

W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

H
U
C

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
CHAPTER 1
North Fork New
river watershed
HUC 0505000101
Includes: Three Top Creek, Big Laurel Creek, Buffalo & Little
Buffalo Creeks, Little & Big Horse Creeks & Helton Creek
watershed at a GlaNce
couNties:
Ashe & Watagua
MuNicipalities:
Lansing & West Jefferson
ecoreGioNs:
Amphibolite Mountains, New River Plateau, Southern Crystaline Ridges and Mountains, & Southern Sedimentary Ridges
perMitted Facilities:
NPDES WWTP: ........................6 Major ...........................................0 Minor ...........................................6
Non-Discharge Facilities: ..........3
Stormwater: ..............................2
General .......................................2
Individual .....................................0
Animal Operations: ...................0
populatioN:
2010: .................Coming Soon
2006 laNd cover:
Developed .........................3.81%
Forest ...............................81.1%
Agriculture .......................14.98%
Wetlands ...........................0.11%
2001 Impervious Surface ..0.24%
GeNeral watershed descriptioN
This ten-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed, with an area of
about 250 square miles, is the equivalent to DWQ’s old subbasin 05-07-
02 and contains the North Fork New River and its tributaries (See DWQ’s
Old Subbasins to New HUC Conversion map in the Maps Chapter). The
majority of the watershed 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.
The land cover within this watershed is mostly forested (80%) with
areas of agriculture (14%) and the least amount of developed land in
the New River basin (3.7%). Rural residential properties and pasture
lands are scattered throughout this watershed. Agricultural activities
have historically consisted of pasture and cultivated croplands, but within
the past 20 years has expanded to include Christmas tree farming.
The majority of agricultural lands in this watershed are found along
streambanks.
Roughly 16,000 acres of conservation land are found in this watershed
and include easements held by local watershed groups (Elk Knob State
Park, Cherokee National Forest and Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust).
This watershed’s population is centered mostly around the towns of
Lansing and West Jefferson. Lansing’s population declined by 12%
between 1990 and 2000, and was estimated to decline by another
one percent by 2010 according to the 2000 census. West Jefferson’s
population increased by 8% in 2000 and was estimated to increase by
another 12% by 2010.
1.2
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
FIgUR
E
1
-
1
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED
(
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
#*
XY
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
KB28
M
i
d
dle
ForkHC
BigHorseCreek
LongShoalsCr.
BigLaurelCreek
Buffalo
C
r
e
e
k
LittleHorseCreek
N.ForkNewRiver
MillCr.
LongHopeCreek
StaggCr.
Hoski
n
F
o
r
k
PotatoCr.
RichHillCreek
H
elt
onCreek
Brus
h
F
or
k
PineyCreek
ThreeTopCreek
L
i
t
t
leLaurelCreek
RoundaboutCr.
R
i
p
s
h
i
n
Bran
c
h
LittleBuffaloCr.L.Ph
o
e
nix Cr.OldFiel
dCr.
PineyCr.
RockCreek
BigLaurelCreek
R oaring
Fork
DixonCreek
N.ForkNewR.
N
orth
F
o
r
k
N
e
w
River
ASHE
ALLEGHANY
WATAUGA
Jefferson
West
Jefferson
Lansing
¬«16
¬«88
18
221
UV194
UV163
¬«93
UV194
¬«88
¬«16
£¤221
£¤221
K7500000
KB86
KB27
KB23
KB63
KB32
KB26
KB25
KB31
KB33
KB30
KB117
KB138
KB120
KB127
KB141
KB135
KB121
KB123
KB125
KB136
KB137
KB134
KB119
KB122
KB118
KB29
KF5
KF1
KF23
KF10
KF
21
KF
220
2
4
6
8
1
Miles
Monitoring
Sites
Minor
WW
Discharge
Hydrology
-
Use
Support
Watershed
Boundary
County
Boundaries
Conservation
Lands
Municipalities
Primary
Roads
#*
Ambient
Fish
Community
Supporting
Impaired
No
Data
Benthos
¢¡[¡"à)Legend
Major
WW
Discharge
XY NPDES
Permits
1.3
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
watershed water Quality overview
The North Fork New River watershed has some of the best water quality in the basin and water quality has
changed little in the five years since the last planning cycle. The large areas of forest and minimal agriculture
and urban areas create only a minimal human impact to water quality. In DWQ’s efforts to protect the pristine
nature of this watershed, a watershed-wide study was conducted to determine if these waters could be
reclassified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). As a result, almost the
entire watershed was reclassified as ORW. For a map of the affected area and a more detailed discussion
see the Additional Studies section below. Little Buffalo Creek, near West Jefferson, is the only Impaired water
body in the watershed and was not included in the reclassification.
water Quality data suMMary For this watershed
Monitoring stream flow, aquatic biology and chemical/physical parameters are a large part of the basinwide
planning process. More detailed information about DWQ monitoring and the effects each parameter has on
water quality is discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide
Planning document.
uNderstaNdiNG the data
Biological & Ambient Rating Converted to Use Support Category
Biological (benthic and fish community) samples are given a
bioclassification/rating based on the data collected at the site
by DWQs Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). These
bioclassifications include Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Not
Impaired, Not Rated, Fair and Poor. For specific methodology
defining how these rating are given see Benthic Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) or the Fish Community SOP.
Once a rating is given, it is then translated into a Use Support
Category (see Figure 1-2).
Ambient monitoring data are analyzed based on the percent of
samples exceeding the state standard for individual parameters
for each site within a two-year period. If a standard is exceeded
in greater than 10.0% of samples taken for a particular parameter,
that stream segment is Impaired for that parameter. The fecal
coliform bacteria parameter is the exception to the rule. See the Fecal Coliform Bacteria section in
the Ambient Data portion below. For the purposes of this plan, any site with greater than 7.0% to
10.0% of samples not meeting a parameter’s standard will be considered Impacted.
Each biological parameter (benthic and fish community) and each
ambient parameter is assigned a Use Support Category based on its
rating or percent exceedance. Definitions for each category can be
found in Use Support Methodology Chapter. Each monitored stream
segment is then given an overall category which reflects the highest
individual parameter category. For example, using the data from
Figure 1-3, the individual parameter categories would be as follows:
Benthos - 5, Fish Community - 1, Turbidity - 5. Therefore, the overall
category, which is reported on the Integrated Report, would be 5
(Impaired). An Integrated Report is developed by the state every two
years and reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FIgURE 1-2: USE SUPPoRt
CAtEgoRIES FoR BIoLogICAL RAtINgS
Biological
Ratings
Aquatic Life
Use Support
Excellent
Supporting
(Categories 1-2)
Good
Good-Fair
Not Impaired
Not Rated Not Rated
(Category 3)
Fair Impaired
(Categories 4-5)Poor
FIgURE 1-3: ExAmPLE oF A USE
SUPPoRt AND moNItoRINg Box
USE SUPPoRt: iMpaired (14 mI)
2008 IR Cat.5
2010 IR Cat.5
Benthos
(CB1)Fair (2008)
Fish Com
(CF1)Good-Fair (2008)
AMS (C1234500)
Turbidity - 12%
FCB - 48%
1.4
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
streaM Flow
The basin experienced prolonged
droughts in 1998-2002 and 2007-2008
and exceptionally high flows resulting
from the remnants of several hurricanes
(Figure 1-4). During a three-week
period in September 2004, the tropical
storm remnants of Hurricanes Frances,
Ivan, and Jeanne lead to wide-spread
flooding throughout the central and
northern mountains in the Catawba,
French Broad, New, and Watauga
River basins. Rainfall estimates for
the combined three storms totaled
more than 20-30 inches in certain
watersheds. Runoff from the storms
produced flash floods throughout the
region, with peak flows in excess of
10,000 cfs (approximately 500 times
median flows) in upper tributary
streams; peaks flows in some tributary rivers exceeded 50,000 cfs. In the New River basin, the peak flow
during Hurricane Frances (September 7th - 9th) was 14,700 cfs, which has an approximate recurrence interval
of 10 to 25 years. During Hurricane Ivan (September 17th - 18th) the peak flow was 7,550 cfs, which has an
approximate recurrence interval of 2 to 5 years. More detail about flows in the New River Basin can be found
in the 2009 Basinwide Assessment Report: New River Basin produced by DWQ-Environmental Science
Section.
BioloGical data
Biological samples were collected during the spring and summer months of 2004 and 2008 by the DWQ-
Environmental Sciences Section as part of the five-year basinwide sampling cycle, in addition to special
studies. Overall, 30 biological sampling sites were monitored within the North Fork New River Watershed.
The ratings for each station can be seen in Appendix 1-B.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure
1-5 and color coded based on its current rating. As seen on the map, the
majority of samples taken in this watershed received an Excellent rating.
This is reflected in the reclassification of almost the entire watershed to
either High Quality Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters. The recent
reclassification is discussed in more detail in the Special Studies in this
Watershed Section below.
As seen in Figure 1-6, 90% of the 30 sampling events received a Supporting rating and only 3% received an
Impaired rating. These ratings are very similar to the previous sampling cycle. Figure 1-7 is a comparison of
benthic site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall shifts in ratings.
Eight percent of the samples improved their rating from the previous cycle and four percent declined in rating.
Twenty-four percent of the benthic ratings had no change, indicating a semi-stable community.
FIgURE 1-4: YEARLY AVERAgE FLoW RAtES (CFS) oF thE USgS gAgE
StAtIoN IN thE NEW RIVER BASIN BEtWEEN 1997 & 2008
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
cf
s
USGS Flow Guage 03161000 -SF New River
Indicates periods of drought in the New River Basin
BeNthic saMpliNG suMMary
£Total Stations Monitored .....25
£Total Samples Taken ...........30
£Stations Monitored Twice ..... 4
£Number of New Stations .....16
1.5
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
FIgURE 1-5: BENthIC StAtIoNS CoLoR CoDED BY CURRENt
RAtINg IN thE NoRth FoRk NEW RIVER WAtERShED
FIgURE 1-6: CURRENt BENthIC SItE RAtINgS
73%
10%
3%7%7%
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Poor
Not Rated
Not Impaired
FIgURE 1-7: ChANgE IN BENthIC SItE RAtINgS
8%4%
24%
64%
Improved
Declined
No Change
New Station
Fish Community Sampling
Each fish community station monitored during the current cycle is shown in
Figure 1-8 and color coded based on their current rating. Two of the sites
were new monitoring sites located in rural watersheds with no NPDES
dischargers. These sites were selected to determine their potential for
becoming fish community regional reference sites.
As shown in Figure 1-9, 60% of the five sampling events received a Supporting rating. Two of the samples
were Not Rated; therefore, the segments are neither Impaired nor Supporting. Figure 1-10 is a comparison of
fish community site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall watershed
shifts in ratings. The community has remained stable with no change in ratings between the last sampling
cycle and the current cycle.
Fish coM. saMpliNG suMMary
£Total Stations Monitored .......5
£Total Samples Taken .............5
£Number of New Stations .......2
1.6
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
FIgURE 1-8: FISh CommUNItY StAtIoNS CoLoR CoDED BY
CURRENt RAtINg IN thE NoRth FoRk NEW RIVER WAtERShED
FIgURE 1-9: CURRENt FISh CommUNItY SItE RAtINgS
60%
40%
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Poor
Not Rated
Not Impaired
FIgURE 1-10: ChANgE IN FISh CommUNItY SItE RAtINgS
50%50%
Improved
Declined
No Change
New Station
For more information about biological data in this watershed, see the 2009 New River Basinwide Assessment
Report. Detailed data sheets for each sampling site can be found in Appendix 1-B.
Fish Kills/Spill Events
No fish kills were reported in this watershed during this planning cycle.
1.7
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
aMBieNt data
Chemical and physical samples were taken by DWQ once a month at six sites throughout the New River basin.
One Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) station is located in the North Fork New River watershed (see Figure
1-1 for the station location). For more information about the ambient monitoring, parameters, how data are
used for use support assessment and other information, see Chapter 2 of the Supplemental Guide to North
Carolina’s Basinwide Planning.
The ambient data are used to develop use support ratings biannually, which are then reported to the EPA via
the Integrated Report (IR). The IR is a collection of all monitored waterbodies in North Carolina and their water
quality ratings. The most current IR is the 2010 version and is based on data collected between 2004 and
2008. If a waterbody receives an Impaired rating, it is then placed on the 303(d) Impaired Waters List. The
New River Basin portion of the 2010 IR can be found in Appendix 1-A and statewide on the Modeling & TMDL
Unit’s website. Additional information about data from this cycle and seasonal variation in this basin can be
found in the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report.
Long Term Ambient Monitoring
The following discussion of ambient monitoring parameters includes graphs showing the median and mean
concentration values for ambient station K7500000 in this watershed by specific parameter over a 13 year
period (1997-2009). Each major parameter is discussed, even if no current impairment exists. The graphs
are not intended to provide statistically significant trend information, but rather give an idea of how changes
in land use or climate conditions can affect parameter readings over the long term. The difference between
median and mean results indicate the presence of outliers in the data set. Box and whisker plots of individual
ambient stations were completed by parameter for data between 2004 and 2008 by DWQ’s ESS and can be
found in the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report.
pH
AMS site K7500000 had no pH standard exceedances during this monitoring cycle, as shown in Figure 1-11 by
a small green dot. Figure 1-12 shows the mean and median pH levels for all samples taken over the course
of 13 years in the North Fork New River watershed. The pH pattern seen over these 13-years is a steady
increase. This trend is seen in all three 10-digit watersheds in the New River Basin and is discussed further
in the Executive Summary.
FIgURE 1-11: PERCENtAgE oF
SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE Ph
StANDARDS (2003-2008)
FIgURE 1-12: SUmmARIzED Ph VALUES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At
AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN hUC 0505000101
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
pH
Median Mean
* NC pH Standard: Between 6 and 9 su
1.8
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
Turbidity
As seen in Figure 1-13, AMS site K7500000 exceeded the turbidity standard in 8.8% of the samples collected
during this cycle. Possible sources of the elevated turbidity levels are discussed in the 12-digit subbwatershed
section. Figure 1-14 shows the mean and median turbidity levels for all samples taken over the course of 13
years in the North Fork New River watershed. The yearly averages are well below the state standard of 50
NTUs, with the exception of the 2007 mean. There were a few turbidity samples measuring between 100 and
300 NTUs in 2007 that were not seen in any other year.
While some erosion is a natural phenomenon, human land use practices accelerate the process to unhealthy
levels. Construction sites, mining operations, agricultural operations, logging operations and excessive
stormwater flow from impervious surfaces are all potential sources. Turbidity violations demonstrate the
importance of protecting and conserving stream buffers and natural areas.
FIgURE 1-13: PERCENtAgE oF
SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE tURBIDItY
StANDARD (2003-2008)
FIgURE 1-14: SUmmARIzED tURBIDItY VALUES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At
AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN hUC 0505000101
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y

(
N
T
U
)
Median Mean
* NC Turbidity Standard: 50 NUTDissolved Oxygen
As seen in Figure 1-15, AMS site K7500000 had no DO standard exceedances during this monitoring cycle.
Figure 1-16 shows the mean and median of DO levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the
North Fork New River watershed. DO at this station has been stable for the past 13 years and has seen little
to no change.
FIgURE 1-15: PERCENtAgE oF
SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE Do
StANDARD (2003-2008)
FIgURE 1-16: SUmmARIzED Do VALUES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At
AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN hUC 0505000101
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
DO

(
m
g
/
l
)
Median Mean
* NC DO Standard: Not < 5 mg/l daily avg. or not < 4 mg/l instantaneous
1.9
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
Temperature
No stream segments in this watershed are Impaired or Impacted due to high temperatures (Figure 1-17).
Figure 1-18 shows the mean and median of temperature levels for all samples taken over the course of 13
years in the North Fork New River watershed. The water temperature trend for this AMS station is closely
linked to the stream flow levels. During low flow or drought periods, water can sit in small pools and become
heated by the sun. This can especially be seen in Figure 1-18 between 2000 and 2002.
FIgURE 1-17: PERCENtAgE oF
SAmPLES ExCEEDINg tEmPERAtURE
StANDARD (2003-2008)
FIgURE 1-18: SUmmARIzED tEmPERAtURE VALUES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED
At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN hUC 0505000101
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
˚

C
)
Median Mean
* NC Temperature Standard for Mountain/Upper Piedmont Region: 29°C (84.2°F)
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Fecal coliform bacteria occurs in water as a result of the overflow of
domestic sewage and from other nonpoint sources of human and
animal waste, including pets, wildlife and farm animals. The FCB
standard for freshwater streams is not to exceed the geometric mean
of 200 colonies/100 ml or 400 colonies/100 ml in 20% of the samples
where five samples have been taken in a span of 30 days (5-in-30).
Only results from a 5-in-30 study are to be used to indicate whether
a stream is Impaired or Supporting. Waters with a use classification
of B (primary recreational waters) receive priority for 5-in-30 studies.
Other waters are studied as resources permit.
As seen in Figure 1-19, 20% of samples taken at station K7500000
during this cycle, resulted in levels over 400 colonies/100 ml. However,
the geometric mean (calculated average) was 82 colonies/100 ml,
indicating only pulses of elevated levels. When the geometric mean
breaches 200 colonies/100 ml at a station, it is likely a 5-in-30 study would result in an impairment. Possible
sources of the short term elevated FCB levels at this station are discussed in the subwatershed section.
Figure 1-20 shows the geometric mean of FCB levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the
North Fork New River watershed. The geometric mean is a type of mean or average that indicates the central
tendency or typical value of a data set. The highest yearly geometric mean for FCB was recorded in 2005
(125 colonies/100 ml). The figure also includes the yearly average stream flow, as seen in Figure 1-4, to show
how flow can be closely linked to FCB levels. These slightly elevated FCB levels might have been caused
by livestock with access to streams, failing septic systems or leaking municipal collection systems. For more
specific information about AMS station K7500000 and its subwatershed see the subwatershed discussion
below.
FIgURE 1-19: PERCENtAgE oF SAmPLES
WIth ELEVAtED FCB LEVELS (2003-
2008)
1.10
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
FIgURE 1-20: SUmmARIzED FECAL CoLIFoRm BACtERIA VALUES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At
AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN hUC 0505000101 WIth oVERLAYINg FLoW
Av
e
r
a
g
e

Y
e
a
r
l
y

F
l
o
w

(c
f
s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
FC
B

(
c
o
l
o
n
i
e
s
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Geometricmean
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
cf
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
cf
s
* NC FCB Standard (5-in-30 data only): Geomean not > 200/100 ml or 400/100 ml in 20% of samples.
For more information regarding any of the parameters listed above, see Section 3.3 of the Supplemental
Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning. For additional information about ambient monitoring data
collected in this river basin, see the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report.
additioNal studies
North Fork New River Sampling to Support Potential Reclassification
Purpose of Study:
A request for benthic sampling was received by the DWQ Biological Assessment Unit (BAU) from staff in the
WSRO to support the potential reclassification of streams in the North Fork New River 10-Digit Watershed to
either High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) (BF-20090316). Six stream sites
were selected for benthic sampling in addition to those sites already scheduled for sampling in the watershed
for 2008. Reclassification of streams would lead to better protection of the high water quality exhibited in
much of the North Fork New River Watershed. The watershed is home to the Kanawha Minnow (Phenacobius
teretulus) which is listed as Vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the
Kanawha Darter (Etheostoma kanawhae) listed as Near Threatened by the IUCN, as well as many other
endemic fish species.
Study Results:
Twenty-five benthic samples were collected from 24 sites in the North Fork New River watershed in 2008.
Eleven of the 25 samples were collected as part of routine basinwide sampling that occurs every five years in
the New River basin; seven were collected at the request of staff from DWQ’s Planning Section, WSRO, or Soil
and Water Conservation for various studies; and one was collected as part of an internal quality assurance
procedure. The remaining six samples were collected specifically to help support potential reclassification
of waters in the North Fork New River Watershed. Data from all 25 samples were considered in this special
study. Geographic data, habitat conditions, and physical and chemical water data are provided in the special
study document.
All but one of the 12 benthic sampling events at large-stream sites requested for special studies and nine of the
eleven basinwide sampling events in the North Fork New River Watershed in 2008 resulted in classifications
of Excellent. The two small-stream sites collected were assigned either Not Impaired or Not Rated (no DWQ
criteria currently exist for classifying small-stream sites with drainage areas under 3.0 square-miles). All
five benthic collections on North Fork New River proper, from the uppermost site near the headwater to the
site furthest downstream one-quarter miles from the mouth, were among those resulting in classifications of
Excellent.
1.11
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
Recommendations for HQW status were based upon classification of Excellent following benthic sampling
during 2008. ORW recommendations are based upon brook trout and hellbender records in addition to
biological classification of Excellent. The recommendations were generated by the Environmental Science
Section to the Planning Section within DWQ. The Planning Section examined other variables, held public
hearings and based the final recommendation to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on all
available information.
Approval of Proposed Reclassification:
In preparation of the reclassification, DWQ held a public meeting, reviewed public comments and worked
closely with local governments and environmental groups. The National Committee for the New River (NCNR)
was instrumental in helping DWQ spread the reclassification notice to the public and organizing the public
hearings in the area. Local governments, NCNR and DWQ worked together to ensure the reclassification
would sufficiently protected water quality and aquatic life while not placing an economical burden on local
municipalities. The results of the public comments and meetings were all taken into consideration by the
hearing officers and compiled into a collaborative conclusion to be finalized by the EMC.
The reclassification was presented to the EMC in September 2010, and the rule went into effect December
1, 2010. The approved reclassifications can be seen in Figure 1-21. The majority of the North Fork New
River Watershed received the ORW supplemental classification, which is shown in green on the map. Other
portions of the watershed received the supplemental designation of HQW: Buffalo Creek; a portion of the
North Fork New River from the confluence of Buffalo Creek to the confluence of Big Horse Creek; a portion of
Big Horse Creek from the confluence of the North Fork New River to the confluence of Little Horse Creek; and
Old Field Branch (Grass Branch). These HQW waters are shown in blue on the map. Claybank Creek and
Little Buffalo Creek remain C Tr +, which is shown in yellow.
Special Management Strategy (+)
The “+” is a special management strategy that will comply with the HQW Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0224) to
protect the excellent water quality downstream. Therefore, all waters designated as “+” in this watershed are
regulated as if the waterbody was designated as HQW.
ORW Designation
The ORW supplemental designation does not allow any new NPDES discharges or expansion of existing
discharges. It also requires more stringent stormwater management measures for development activities
requiring sediment and erosion control plans (15A NCAC 02B.0225).
HQW Designation
The HQW supplemental designation does not permit single family discharges to surface waters, and any new
or expanded dischargers must abide by more stringent waste treatment guidelines. More stringent stormwater
management measures apply for waters that are draining to and within one mile of HQW waters (15A NCAC
02B.0224).
1.12
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
FIgURE 1-21: NoRth FoRk NEW RIVER APPRoVED oRW & hQW RECLASSIFICAtIoN
Ne
w

R
i
v
e
r
N

o

r

t

h

F

o

r

k

N

e

w

R

i

v

e

r
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
We
s
t

J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
La
n
s
i
n
g
Big L
a
u
r
e
l

C
r
e
e
k
Littl
e

H
o
r
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
North Fork
N
e
w

R
i
v
e
r
Mill Cre
e
k
Sila
s

C
r
e
e
k
Long
H
o
p
e

C
r
e
e
k
Hoskin Fo
r
k
Stagg

C
r
e
e
k
Rich
H
i
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
He
l
t
o
n

C
r
e
e
k
B
r
u
s
h

F
o
r
k
Piney Cree
k
Three Top Creek
Big

H
o
r
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
Buffalo Cr
e
e
k
Littl
e

L
a
u
r
e
l

C
r
e
e
k
Kilby Creek
Rou
n
d
a
b
o
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
R
i
p
s
h
i
n

B
r
a
n
c
h
J
e
r
d

B
r
a
n
c
h
Big Bra
n
c
h
R
o
a
r
i
n
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
Little Phoe
n
i
x

C
r
e
e
k
Los
t

B
r
a
n
c
h
Cab
b
a
g
e

C
r
e
e
k
Millpon
d

B
r
a
n
c
h
Doe Bra
n
c
h
Swift Branch
Little Pin
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Wa
l
l
a
c
e

B
r
a
n
c
h
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

O
R
W

w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

H
Q
W
"+
"

a
r
e
a
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

C
:
+
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

C
;
T
r
:
+
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

C
;
T
r
,
H
Q
W
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

H
Q
W
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

O
R
W
No
r
t
h

F
o
r
k

N
e
w

R
i
v
e
r

O
R
W
/H
Q
W
R
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
As
h
e

a
n
d

W
a
t
a
u
g
a

C
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
,

N
e
w

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
0

1

2

3

4
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
Ma
p

S
o
u
r
c
e
:

N
C
D
W
Q
,

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

1
9
J
u
n
2
0
0
9
;

H
y
d
r
o
g
r
a
p
h
y

S
o
u
r
c
e
:

N
C
D
W
Q
,

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

3
0
N
o
v
2
0
0
7
Th
i
s

m
a
p

i
s

o
n
l
y

a
s

g
o
o
d

a
s

t
h
e

d
a
t
a

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

w
h
e
n

i
t

w
a
s

p
r
i
n
t
e
d

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

a
n
y

r
u
l
e
,

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
South F
o
r
k

N
e
w

R
i
v
e
r
1.13
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
recoMMeNdatioNs & actioN plaNs at the watershed scale
dwQ priority suMMary
Table 1-1 is a list of waters in the North Fork New River Watershed that DWQ has prioritized for restoration/
protection. The order of priority is not based solely on the severity of the steams impairment or impacts, but
rather by the need for particular actions to be taken. A stream that is currently supporting its designated uses
may be prioritized higher within this table than a stream that is currently impaired. This is based on a more
wholistic evaluation of the drainage area which includes monitoring results, current and needed restoration/
protection efforts, land use and other activities that could potentially impact water quality in the area. Some
supporting streams may have a more urgent need for protections than an Impaired stream with restoration
needs already being implemented.
The third and fourth columns of this table list potential stressors and sources that may be impacting a stream
based on in-field observations, monitoring data, historical evidence, permit or other violations, and other staff
and public input. In many cases, additional study is needed to determine exact source(s) of the impact(s). The
last column includes a list of recommended actions.
tABLE 1-1: PRIoRItIzAtIoN oF WAtERS IN thE NoRth FoRk NEW RIVER WAtERShED (hIghESt to
LoWESt PRIoRItY)
StREAm NAmE AU#CLASS.PotENtIAL
StRESSoR(S)
PotENtIAL
SoURCE(S)StAtUS ACtIoNS
NEEDED
Little Buffalo Cr.10-2-20-1 C;Tr:+Habitat Degradation
(Riparian Zones),
Elevated Nutrients
WWTP, Urban Runoff,
Piped Streams,
Agriculture
Impaired RBR, WRP, DS,
E, Ag, NMC
Helton Cr.10-2-27 C;ORW;Tr Sediment, Elevated Nutrients, Over
Stocking
Agriculture, Logging Impacted SS, Protection (Hellbender Sal.)
Three Top Cr.10-2-13 C;ORW;Tr Turbidity Supporting SEC, RBR, Protection
(Hellbender Sal.)
Little Horse Cr.10-2-21-8 C;ORW;Tr Habitat Degradation Upstream Erosion Supporting Ag, RBR
Middle Fork Little
Horse Cr.
10-2-21-8-1 C;ORW;Tr Habitat Degradation
(Bank Erosion)
Supporting RBR
Long Shoals Cr.10-2-25 C;ORW;Tr Supporting M
Big Horse Cr.10-2-21-(7),
10-2-21-(4.5) &
10-2-21-(1.5)
C;ORW
C;ORW;Tr
C;ORW;Tr
Habitat Degradation
(Riparian Zones)
Supporting RBR
North Fork New
R. (NFNR)
10-2-(12)C;ORW Habitat Degradation,
Turbidity
Supporting Protection
(Hellbender Sal.)
NFNR 10-2-(1)C;ORW;Tr Supporting P
Big Laurel Cr.10-2-14 C;ORW;Tr Supporting Protection
(Hellbender Sal.)
Hoskin Fork 10-2-7 C;ORW;Tr Supporting None
Class.: Classification (e.g., C, S, B, WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV, WS-V, Tr, HQW, ORW, SW, UWL)
Stressor: Chemical parameters or physical conditions that at certain levels prevent waterbodies from meeting the standards for their designated
use (e.g., low/high DO, nutrients, toxicity, habitat degradation, etc.).
Source: The cause of the stressor. (Volume & Velocity: when a stream receives stormwater runoff at a much higher volume and velocity than it would naturally receive due to ditching, impervious surfaces, etc.)
Status: Impaired, Impacted, Supporting, Improving
Actions Needed: Restoration (R), Protection (P), Stormwater Controls (SC), Stressor Study (SS), Education (E), Local Ordinance (LO), Best
Management Practices (BMPs), Sediment and Erosion Control BMPs (SEC), Species Protection Plan (SPP), Forestry BMPs (F), Agriculture BMPs (Ag), Nutrient Mgnt Controls (NMC), Riparian Buffer Restoration (RBR), Daylight Stream (DS), Monitoring (M), Watershed Restoration Plan
(WRP).
1.14
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
status & recoMMeNdatioNs For MoNitored waters
uNderstaNdiNG this sectioN
In this Section, more detailed information about stream health, special studies, aquatic life stressors
and sources and other additional information is provided by each 12-digit Hydrological Unit Code
(HUC). Waterbodies discussed in this Chapter include all monitored streams, whether monitored
by DWQ or local agencies with approved methods. Use Support information on all monitored
streams within this watershed can be seen on the map in Figure 1-1, and a Use Support list of all
monitored waters in this basin can be found in the Use Support Methodology Chapter.
Use Support & Monitoring Box:
Each waterbody discussed in the Status & Recommendations for
Monitored Waters within this Watershed section has a corresponding
Use Support and Monitoring Box (Table 1-2). The top row indicates
the 2010 Use Support and the length of that stream or stream
segment. The next two rows indicate the overall Integrated Report
category which further defines the Use Support for both the 2008
and the 2010 reports. These first three rows are consistent for all
boxes in this Plan. The rows following are based on what type of
monitoring stations are found on that stream or stream segment
and may include benthic, fish community and/or ambient monitoring
data. If one of these three types of monitoring sites is not shown,
then that stream is not sampled for that type of data. The first column
indicates the type of sampling in bold (e.g., Benthos) with the site
ID below in parenthesis (e.g., CB79). The latest monitoring result/rating of that site is listed in the
next column followed by the year that sample was taken. If there is more than one benthic site, for
example, on that stream, the second site ID and site rating will be listed below the first. The last
row in the sample box in Table 1-2 is the AMS data. The data window for all AMS sites listed in the
boxes in this Plan is between 2004-2008. Only parameters exceeding the given standard are listed
in the second column with the percent of exceedance listed beside each parameter.
Please note any fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) listing in the last row (as seen in Table 1-2) only
indicates elevated levels and a study of five samples in 30 days (5-in-30) must be conducted
before a stream becomes Impaired for FCB.
tABLE 1-2: ExAmPLE oF A USE
SUPPoRt AND moNItoRINg Box
USE SUPPoRt: iMpaired (14 mI)
2008 IR Cat.4a
2010 IR Cat.4
Benthos
(CB79) (CB80)Fair (2002)Fair (2002)
Fish Com
(CF33)Good-Fair (2002)
AMS
(C1750000)
Turbidity - 12%
FCB - 48%
North Fork New river (NFNr)
The North Fork New River flows through several 12-Digit subwatersheds. Each of the two segments are
discussed below.
North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(1)]
The North Fork New River begins at the southern most tip of the Headwaters
North Fork New River subwatershed (050500010103). The river flows 50 miles
northeast, where it joins the South Fork New River to create the New River. This
segment of the North Fork is approximately 14 miles long.
Water Quality Status
The most upstream site (KB141) was sampled in 2008 as part of the North Fork
New River Sampling to Support Potential Reclassification special study. Details
about that study can be found above. The river received an Excellent rating at this site; however, one bank
was moderately eroded. A large portion of this drainage area is forested, with some agriculture along the
stream banks.
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG (14 mI)
2008 IR Cat.--
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB141)Excellent (2008)
Fish Com
(KF10)Good (2008)
1.15
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
A fish community sample (KF10) was taken in 2008 just downstream of the confluence with Brush Fork.
The last sample taken at this station was in 1998. Results of both samples were very similar and included
intolerant cool and cold water species indicating little to no change in water quality over the past ten years.
Recommendations
Protection efforts should be taken for this section of the North Fork New River to ensure the continuation of
good water quality.
North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]
This segment of the North Fork New River stretches over 36 miles across three
different subwatersheds (Upper North Fork New River: 050500010106; Middle
North Fork New River: 050500010107; and Lower North Fork New River:
050500010109). Land use along this segment is a mixture of agriculture along
the stream banks, forest and a few scattered urban residential and commercial
areas.
Water Quality Status
A benthic site (KB23), located just downstream of Three Top Creek, was
sampled in 2008. This basinwide site has been sampled four times since 1993
and has consistently received an Excellent rating. The latest sample showed
no impacts to the river’s stable macroinvertebrate community and received a high habitat score.
The second benthic monitoring station (KB27) is located at SR-1644 (McNeil Rd), just before the river crosses
into the Middle North Fork New River subwatershed (050500010107). The site has been monitored and rated
Excellent every cycle since 1993, including 2008. Even though the habitat score for this site was low (65 out
of 100) due to low quality riparian buffers, there is a healthy and stable benthic community. Helicopsyche
paralimnella was found for the first time at this site in the 2008 sample. This taxa has only been collected at
five other sites within the entire state by DWQ. This and other taxa collected indicate an absence of stressors
and healthy water quality for aquatic life along this segment.
The third site (KB135) is located at the Millpond Branch confluence where it received an Excellent rating in
2008. Due to difficult access, this site replaces the site about two miles upstream at NC-16, which has had a
long history of Excellent ratings. Even though habitat was not ideal for aquatic life (65 out of 100), the benthic
community is healthy and stable.
The only AMS station in this watershed is located at the same spot on the river as benthic site KB135. Between
2004 and 2008, there were no major parameter exceedances; however, turbidity levels were elevated. Each
parameter is explained in greater detail in the Ambient Data section above along with long term trends.
The fourth benthic site (KB127) is about a fourth of a mile upstream from where the North Fork and South Fork
merge into the New River [AU#: 10a]. This site was specifically monitored as part of the North Fork New River
Reclassification Study which is discussed in greater detail above. The benthic community and habitat were
very similar to the KB135 site just upstream and resulted in an Excellent rating as well.
In September 2010, a survey was conducted to identify locations throughout the state where the Hellbender
salamander is present. A population was found in the North Fork New River. More information about the
Hellbender Salamander can be found on the NC National Heritage Program website.
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG (36.5 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB23) (KB27)
(KB135)
(KB127)
Excellent (2008)Excellent (2008)
Excellent (2008)
Excellent (2008)
AMS (K7500000)No Exceedances
1.16
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
three top creek (050500010101)
Includes: Three Top Creek [AU#: 10-2-13], Long Hope Creek
[AU#: 10-2-13-3], & Ben Bolen Creek [AU#:10-2-13-2]
This subwatershed is mostly forested land with areas of agricultural activities
scattered across the 24 square miles. There are no NPDES dischargers in this
subwatershed and the majority of streams hold the secondary classification of Trout
Waters. All streams in this 12-digit subwatershed drain to Three Top Creek.
Three Top Creek [AU#: 10-2-13]
Three Top Creek is approximately 13 miles from source to the North Fork New
River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The majority of the drainage area is forested, with
some areas of agriculture.
Water Quality Status
All streams in this 12-digit subwatershed drain to Three Top Creek. The stream
was sampled for both benthic and fish communities during this cycle. Both
sites are new basinwide sampling stations.
The fish community sample contained a pollution intolerant population. The site was officially given a Not
Rated due to absence of criteria for rating high gradient mountain trout waters. However, the combination of
good habitat and a healthy stable fish population shows no indication of water quality issues.
Two benthic samples were taken at the new monitoring station (KB138). The first sample was taken as part
of the regular basinwide monitoring and received a Good rating. Biologists noted the sample may have been
adversely affected by extreme low flow during a record drought at the time. The creek was part of the North
Fork New River Reclassification Study (discussed above); therefore, the site was resampled to determine
the bioclassification during normal flow level. The results of the July 2009 sample far exceeded the minimum
requirements for an Excellent rating.
In September 2010, a survey was conducted to identify locations throughout the state of the Hellbender
salamander. A small population was found in Three Top Creek. Surveyors talked to local land owners who
explained the population of the salamanders used to be much larger over ten years ago. This could be
an indication of water quality impacts in the drainage area. Surveyors noted the stream was moderately
turbid and the substrate was covered in silt at the time of sampling. More information about the Hellbender
Salamander can be found on the NC National Heritage Program website.
Recommendations
Due to the presence of the Hellbender salamander, it is recommended that extra precautions be taken in this
drainage area to prevent sediment from reaching the stream. Riparian buffers along this stream should be of
adequate width and contain trees and shrubs.
BiG laurel creek (050500010102)
Includes: Big Laurel Creek [AU#: 10-2-14], Roaring Fork [AU#:
10-2-14-7], & Dixion Creek [AU#: 10-2-14-1]
This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture spread across the
29 square miles. Small Christmas tree farms are scattered across this area with
larger tree farms in the northern headwaters. There are no NPDES dischargers in
this subwatershed and the majority of streams hold the secondary classification of
Trout Waters.
USE SUPPoRt: support (13 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB138)Good (2008)
Fish Com (KF23)Not Rated (2008)
1.17
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
Big Laurel Creek [AU#: 10-2-14]
Big Laurel Creek is approximately 18 miles long from source to the North
Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The source of the creek is located near Ivy
Hill Road and Three Top Road, and is the collecting stream for all waters in
this subwatershed. Land use in this drainage area is a mixture of forest and
agriculture, with the majority of the agricultural lands lining the streambanks.
Water Quality Status
The creek was sampled for both benthic and fish communities about a tenth
of a mile upstream of its confluence with the North Fork. All waters in this subwatershed pass through this
point which gives a wholistic view of water quality for the subwatershed. The first set of samples taken during
this cycle occurred in 2008, resulting in an Excellent benthic rating and a Good fish community rating. Both
ratings were mimicked during the 2009 samples. Benthic samples from 1998 to 2008 indicate water quality
slightly improving over the years. The fish station was a new basinwide site in 2008, and was noted as having
a highly-diverse and trophically-balanced population. Aquatic habitat was over all in good condition with
sufficient riparian buffers, but lacked riffle habitat and pool variety.
Two Hellbender salamanders were collected during the fish community sample; one of adult age and the other
young-of-year. The presence of this particular salamander and their age difference suggests high quality
water.
Recommendations
Due to the presence of the Hellbender salamander, it is recommended that extra precautions be taken in this
drainage area to prevent sediment from reaching the stream. Riparian buffers along this stream should be
protected.
headwaters North Fork New river (050500010103)
Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(1) & (12)], Hoskin
Fork [AU#: 10-2-7], Brush Fork [AU#: 10-2-8], Rock Creek [AU#:
10-2-9] & Roundabout Creek [AU#: 10-2-10]
This subwatershed has mixed land cover of forest and agriculture spread across the
42 square miles. As seen in much of the New River Basin, agricultural lands are
mostly located along the banks of major creeks. There are no NPDES dischargers
in this subwatershed and the majority of streams hold the secondary classification
of Trout Waters.
North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(1) & (12)]
Two segments of the North Fork New River flow through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other
information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section.
Hoskin Fork [AU#: 10-2-7]
Hoskin Fork is roughly five miles from source to the North Fork New River [AU#:
10-2-(2)], mostly flowing parallel to NC-88. The land use is a mix of agriculture
and forest.
Water Quality Status
The benthic station located below Wilson Branch has been monitored during each five-year cycle since 1993.
Each sample taken since 1993 has received a higher score than the last, suggesting water quality is gradually
improving. The 2008 sample resulted in an Excellent rating as it did in 2003.
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG (17.5 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB30)Excellent (2008)
Fish Com
(KF22)Good (2008)
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG
(5 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos (KB26)Excellent (2008)
1.18
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
little horse creek (050500010104)
Includes: Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8], & Middle Fork
Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8-1]
This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture. As seen in much of
the New River Basin, agricultural lands are mostly located along the banks of major
creeks. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed and the majority of
streams hold the secondary classification of Trout Waters.
Middle Fork Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8-1]
Middle Fork Little Horse Creek is approximately four and a half miles from source
to Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8]. Land use in this drainage area is mostly
forest, with some agriculture along the streambanks.
Water Quality Status
Middle Fork Little Horse Creek was monitored as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study.
There are no historical data for the stream. The stream substrate was covered in sand and silt and banks had
noticeable erosion. Vegetation in the riparian zones consisted of only grasses and had little to no tree canopy.
Despite the habitat deficiencies, the site (KB121) was among the sites with the most diverse pollution intolerant
benthic populations within the study. Because of the Excellent rating given, the stream was recommended for
a reclassification to HQW. Results of that study and reclassification are discussed above.
Recommendations
Riparian buffer restoration is suggested for Middle Fork Little Horse Creek. Establishment of shrubs and
trees within the riparian buffer zone will assist with stabilizing banks and reducing the amount of sediment that
reaches the stream bed. Additional trees will also provide a shaded canopy, keeping the water temperature
cooler to support local trout populations.
Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8]
Little Horse Creek is almost 11 miles from source to Big Horse Creek [AU#:
10-2-21-(7)]. This stream is the main receiving stream for this subwatershed.
Land use is a mixture of forest in the head waters and agriculture along the
streambanks.
Water Quality Status
Little Horse Creek has been monitored since 1998 just upstream on the Middle Fork Little Horse Creek
confluence. In 1998 and 2003 the creek received a Good benthic rating and displayed a stable population.
The 2008 sample increased a rating to an Excellent due to a more diverse community. A stonefly (Isogenoides
hansoni), which has only been collected at 44 sites statewide, was present in the 2008 sample and had not
been previously seen in this stream.
However, despite the current rating, habitat at the site was not ideal for a thriving benthic community. The lack
of riparian zone, canopy cover and root mats are likely limiting fauna. Also, a layer of sand and silt indicates
erosion issues upstream.
This sample was used for the North Fork New River Reclassification Study. Little Horse Creek was recommended
to be reclassified as ORW. Results of that study and reclassification are discussed above.
Recommendations
In order to maintain the water quality in Little Horse Creek, DWQ recommends local agencies work with farm
owners to install agricultural best management practices to reduce sedimentation and erosion.
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG (4.5 mI)
2008 IR Cat.--
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos (KB121)Excellent (2008)
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG (10.9 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB63)Excellent (2008)
1.19
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
BiG horse creek (050500010105)
Includes: Big Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-(7), (4.5) & (1.5)]
This subwatershed has a mixed land use of forest in the headwaters and agriculture
scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks. There is one minor NPDES
discharger in this subwatershed. Majority of streams in the subwatershed hold the
secondary use classification of Trout Waters. The Town of Lansing is located in the
southern portion.
Big Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-(7), (4.5) & (1.5)]
Big Horse Creek is approximately 20 miles long from source to the North Fork
New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. Shortly downstream of its source, the creek crosses
the state line into Virginia for roughly two miles before flowing back into North
Carolina. The creek is the major receiving stream of this subwatershed and
provides a good representation of overall water quality for the area.
Water Quality Status
There is one benthic and one fish community basinwide sampling station on this creek, located just upstream
of the North Fork confluence and downstream of the Town of Lansing. Both sites received relatively low
habitat scores due to lack of pool variety and small riparian zones. The fish community received a Good rating
and was noted as having a diverse and trophically-balanced community of cool and cold water fish species.
The benthic sample resulted in an Excellent rating. This sample consisted of the most pollution tolerant taxa
collected since sampling started at this site in 1993. However, many new taxa were collected and in greater
abundance.
An additional benthic sample was collected at SR-1365 as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification
Study. The sample resulted in an Excellent rating. The first two segments within North Carolina [AU#: 10-2-
21-(1.5) & (4.5)] were recommended to be reclassified as ORW. Results of that study and reclassification are
discussed above.
Recommendations
Riparian buffer restoration is recommended to increase tree canopy cover and to help filter pollutants in
stormwater runoff.
upper North Fork New river (050500010106)
Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)], Rich Hill
Creek [AU#: 10-2-15], Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20] & Little Buffalo
Creek [AU#: 10-2-20-1]
This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest in the headwaters, some residential
and agriculture scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks. There is one
major and four minor NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed. Majority of streams
in the subwatershed, excluding the North Fork New River, hold the secondary use
classification of Trout Waters. Majority of the Town of West Jefferson is located in
the southeastern portion of this subwatershed.
Rich Hill Creek [AU#: 10-2-15]
Rich Hill Creek is approximately five miles from source to the North Fork New
River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. Land use in this drainage area is a mix of forest and
agriculture in the headwaters and along streambanks with scattered residential
areas.
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG
(19.4 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB122)
(KB33)
Excellent (2008)
Excellent (2008)
Fish Com (KF1)Good (2008)
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG
(4.9 mI)
2008 IR Cat.--
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB86)Excellent (2008)
1.20
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
Water Quality Status
Rick Hill Creek was specifically monitored as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study near the
confluence of the North Fork. This site (KB86) was monitored once before in 1993; both events resulted in
an Excellent rating. The stream was recommended for a reclassification to HQW. Results of that study and
reclassification are discussed above.
Little Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20-1]
Little Buffalo Creek is approximately four and a half miles from its source within
the Mt. Jefferson State Park, through the town of West Jefferson, to Buffalo
Creek [AU#: 10-2-20]. Land use within this drainage area is a mixture of forest,
agriculture, urban and residential. Portions of the stream that flow through urban
areas of West Jefferson are piped underground. Little Buffalo Creek has been
on the Impaired Waters List since 1998 when it was listed for impacts from urban
runoff and municipal pretreatment. In 2006, impervious surfaces and the West Jefferson WWTP were added
to the list of potential sources of impairment.
Water Quality Status
A benthic station (KB32) located at Doggett Road crossing has been sampled four times between 1993 and
2008, receiving either a Fair or a Poor rating each time. The site received a Fair rating in 2008, showing a
slight increase in abundance and diversity from the 2003 Poor sample. Biologists noted each of the four
samples greatly varied in types of taxa collected. High levels of specific conductivity indicate the presence
of waterborne pollutants. The stream received a fairly low habitat score and portions of the stream not piped
underground have little to no riparian zones.
An unnamed tributary which drains the majority of West Jefferson merges with Little Buffalo Creek near
the West Jefferson WWTP. Large portions of this stream are also piped under commercial areas of West
Jefferson. The majority of the town’s stormwater runoff flows into this unnamed tributary with little to no natural
filtering, such as a riparian buffer.
There are many possible sources for this impairment which have varied over the years. The West Jefferson
WWTP was noted in the previous basin plan as having several discharge permit violations. Between 2003
and 2005, the Town had a few violation causing issues, including discovering a local industry knowingly
discharging mercury and cadmium into the towns collection system. After confirming with samples, West
Jefferson worked with the WSRO to conduct an unannounced inspection resulting in further confirmation of
the illegal discharging. The Town issued civil penalties and pretreatment permit resolving the problem. West
Jefferson also had operational issues where they failed to properly remove and land apply solids. The WSRO
took enforcement actions and held meetings with the Town. The Town responded by hiring a contractor and
a new operator. Discharge from the facility has been considered outstanding by the WSRO since that time.
However the facility remains a possible source of Little Buffalo Creek’s Impairment during this cycle. The
WWTP will be removed as a possible source, providing the facility stays in good standing during the upcoming
monitoring cycle.
Another possible source of impact is urban stormwater runoff. Much of West Jefferson’s stormwater runoff
drains into portions of the unnamed tributary which has been piped underground. Bypassing natural riparian
buffer zones, which can absorb waterborne pollutants, the contaminated runoff has little to no opportunity to
be filtered before reaching Little Buffalo Creek. This concentration of stormwater runoff can be toxic to aquatic
life.
Downstream of West Jefferson, land use transitions to pasture land and Christmas tree farms. Agriculture is
often a source of excess nutrients if proper BMPs are not utilized. Nutrients were added to the list of possible
causes of impairment in 2000.
USE SUPPoRt: iMpaired (4.4 mI)
2008 IR Cat.5
2010 IR Cat.5
Benthos (KB32)Fair (2008)
1.21
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
Drought-like conditions in 2007 and 2008 likely increased the impacts of the pollutants listed above on aquatic
life. Samples taken during the previous cycle were also impacted by a similar drought. The slight increase in
bioclassification rating (Poor in 2003 to Fair in 2008) indicates somewhat of an improvement in water quality.
This is likely due to upgrades made to the WWTP, which can be seen in the few violations the facility received
as compared to the previous cycle.
Recommendations
DWQ recommends developing a local stakeholder group to determine the possibility of day-lighting the
full length of the creek. DWQ supports the need for funding a project of this nature that would include a
Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP), as well as follow up monitoring. The WRP should also include planning
for implementation of proper riparian buffers, determining the best locations for additional stormwater control
measures and efforts to educate affected property owners and the local community about the purpose of this
work.
Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20]
Buffalo Creek is approximately ten miles long from source to the North Fork
New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The drainage area consists of mostly forest with
agriculture clustered along streambanks. Headwaters of Buffalo Creek and a
few upstream tributaries are within the Bluff Mountain Preserve and Three Top
Mountain Game Land.
Water Quality Status
In 2008, two benthic samples, including one above and below the Little Buffalo
Creek confluence, were collected and rated as Excellent. The sample above
Little Buffalo Creek (KB134) was collected as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study, with
the purpose of assessing conditions in the catchment without the urban influence of West Jefferson. There
was little difference between the two benthic sites. The downstream site (KB31) had a slightly higher specific
conductivity and pH level, as well as a more pollution tolerant population. However, the site received a higher
habitat score due to larger, more stable riparian buffers.
A fish community sample (KF21) was also collected at the same location as the upstream benthic sample.
This new basinwide site was given a Not Rated due to lack of criteria for high gradient mountain trout waters.
This stretch of Buffalo Creek provides excellent habitat for a diverse and fairly trophic balance mix of cool and
cold water fish. Fifty-nine percent of species collected were pollution intolerant, indicating the stream supports
a reasonably healthy population and appears to have no obvious water quality issues.
North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]
A portion of this segment flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about
the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section.
Middle North Fork New river (050500010107)
Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)], Little Phoenix
Creek [AU#: 10-2-23] & Long Shoals Creek [AU#: 10-2-25]
This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest in the headwaters, with some
residential and agriculture scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks.
There is one minor NPDES discharger in this subwatershed. Majority of streams
in the subwatershed, excluding the North Fork New River, hold the secondary use
classification of Trout Waters.
Long Shoals Creek [AU#: 10-2-25]
Long Shoals Creek is approximately three miles long from source to the North
Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The drainage area consists of mostly forested
area with agriculture clustered along streambanks.
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG (9.7 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB134)
(KB31)
Excellent (2008)
Excellent (2008)
Fish Com
(KF21)Not Rated (2008)
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG (2.7 mI)
2008 IR Cat.--
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB123)
Not Impaired
(2008)
1.22
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
Water Quality Status
A one time benthic sample was taken in June 2008 to determine if the stream was being impacted by recent
development. The site KB123 is located a mile upstream of the confluence with the North Fork New River and
had overall good habitat; however, pools were infrequent and filling with silt and sand. The stream’s drainage
area is less than 3.0 square miles. The site would have received a classification of Good if criteria for larger
stream sites were used. Because, criteria for small streams are still in development, the site is currently
classified as Not Impaired.
Recommendations
The benthic site is located just upstream from its confluence with Foster Springs Branch [AU#: 10-2-25-1] and
therefore does not reflect influences from that drainage area. An additional site will be considered on Foster
Springs Branch for benthic sampling to assess conditions prior to further development (DWQ, B-20081007).
If resources are limited, DWQ will consider moving the current site below the confluence.
Little Phoenix Creek [AU#: 10-2-23]
Little Phoenix Creek is approximately five miles long from source to the North
Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The drainage area consists of mostly forested
area with agriculture and residential areas clustered along streambanks.
Water Quality Status
A one time benthic sample was taken in June 2008 to determine if upstream land clearing activities in 2006
had any long-term impacts on the community downstream. The site was given an Excellent bioclassification
and had no signs of impacts from sediment on the benthic community. However, the site was somewhat
deficient of available macroinvertebrate habitat, pool frequency and riparian zone condition along one bank.
(DWQ, B-20081007)
DWQ Special Study (B-20070904):
Approximately 85 acres of land in the headwaters of the unnamed tributary (UT) had been cleared for planting
of Christmas trees and pasture in 2006. The resulting runoff from the steep slopes of the cleared land had
caused extreme scouring of the UT, resulting in large rocks blocking a downstream culvert over a driveway.
This caused flooding and sediment deposition on the property of the downstream landowner. DWQ took
benthic samples at two locations to determine the water quality impacts of this land clearing activity. One
sample location was just below the impacted area and the second site was located on a comparable site
draining to the opposite side of Little Phoenix Creek.
The impacted sampling site (KB117) was a little over a tenth of a mile upstream of the culvert, in a heavily
wooded area. Massive rocks and other debris had been washed downstream and extreme scouring, roughly
five meters in height, can be seen in photos taken by biologists in the special study document. The stream
wetted width was about one meter where as the channel had been scoured out to four and five meters wide.
The habitat still received a relatively good score (78 out of 100); however, the bottom substrate consisted of
bedrock, boulders, rubble, no leaf packs and exposed tree roots. The control site (KB118) had similar slope
and substrate as the impacted site. However, K118 had no scouring and a channel with similar width as
the streams wetted width (one meter) and included leaf packs and other characteristics of a small mountain
stream.
Sample results from KB117 indicated the majority of the benthic community had been washed away. Only 24
total individual organisms were found at the site and none of the taxa were found in abundance. However, the
control site, had 36 total taxa that were found to be in abundance. The majority of these diverse taxa were
intolerant species, commonly found in small mountain streams.
The study indicated a devastating impact to the benthic community due to the recent complete rearrangement
of the stream bed and the extreme streambank erosion from unusually high flow levels. Recovery of the
impacted UT will be slowed by the fact that the entire stream, including the headwaters, have been scoured.
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG (4.6 mI)
2008 IR Cat.--
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos (KB125)Excellent (2008)
1.23
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
This leaves recolonization of the stream primarily to aerial recolonization as adults emerge from Little Phoenix
Creek and lay eggs in the UT, rather than downstream drift of individuals from headwater fauna because that
fauna has been severely reduced both in diversity and abundance.
Basinwide Planning staff visited the impacted property a month prior to the sampling event. The pictures
below show the impacts on the downstream property during a light to moderate rain event which occurred at
the time of the visit.
FIgURE 1-22: ImPACtS FRom ImPRoPER LAND CLEARINg ACtIVItY UPStREAm. LookINg UPStREAm (LEFt), LookINg
DoWNStREAm (RIght).

FIgURE 1-23: PoSt StREAmBANk StABILIzAtIoN REStoRAtIoN PRojECt. LookINg UPStREAm (LEFt), LookINg
DoWNStREAm (RIght).

UT Little Phoenix Creek Stream Restoration & Success Story:
In 2007, the National Committee for the New River (NCNR) was awarded a Federal 319 Grant in the amount of
$65,400 for restoring an unnamed tributary to Little Phoenix Creek (Figure 1-22). The purpose of this project
was to repair 315 feet of a UT- Little Phoenix Creek which was severely damaged by excessive flooding as the
result of upstream land clearing activities.
The stream restoration was based on natural channel design concepts. Rock step-pool structures were installed
in the impacted reach and streambanks reshaped to the proper profile. Once the work was completed, native
riparian vegetation was planted along the streambanks to aid in bank stability and to lessen the impacts of
thermal pollution on this small headwater stream.
1.24
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
An existing culvert was removed since it acted as a dam, interfering with proper sediment transport. A bridge
that spans the entire flood plane was built that allowed the stream profile to be maintained through the reach.
The goal of the project, to stabilize the lower reach of UT Little Phoenix Creek at the property, was met. DENR
officials worked with the landowner at the top of the mountain to stabilize the 85 acres that had been cleared.
NCNR worked with both upstream and downstream landowners to develop and implement a site plan. The
result is a functional, stable stream that is also attractive.
See the project’s Final Report for more detailed information about the purpose, restoration details and final
results.
heltoN creek (050500010108)
Includes: Helton Creek [AU#: 10-2-27]
This subwatershed has mixed land use of agriculture, some residential and forest in
the headwaters. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed. Majority of
streams in the subwatershed hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters.
Helton Creek [AU#: 10-2-27]
Helton Creek is approximately 19 miles from the NC/
VA state line to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10-
2-(12)]. This is the main receiving creek for this subwatershed. Land use is
a mixture of mostly forest on the south side of the stream and agriculture and
residential on the north side.
Water Quality Status
Helton Creek was monitored at four biological sites during 2008 and 2009. Five
benthic samples were taken at three locations along the creek. Two of the three
sites were sampled for purposes of a special study. The most downstream benthic site (KB25) is a basinwide
site and has been sampled since 1998. Each sample since 1998 has resulted in an Excellent rating, indicating
the stream has a stable benthic community. The rating at this site dropped to a Good when it was sampled a
second time in 2008 and maintained that Good rating when sampled again in 2009.
The fish community site, which is in the same location as KB25 and is a fish community reference site, was
monitored in 2008 and received a Not Rated. This rating was given due to unexpected nature of the number
and the type of species collected until further sampling could be completed. None of the trout species were
native or wild and all appeared to be stocked. The 2009 sample showed similar results and was rated Good-
Fair. The large number of stocked species is either an indication of nutrient inputs upstream from nonpoint
sources, or the managed trout fishery is affecting the natural fish predators so that prey species are not being
controlled. The specific cause of the drop in rating is not known at this time and the stream is considered to
be impacted.
In September 2010, a survey was conducted to identify locations throughout the state of the Hellbender
salamander. A population was found in Helton Creek. More information about the Hellbender Salamander
can be found on the NC National Heritage Program website.
DWQ Special Study - Helton Creek (B-20081202):
A request for benthic sampling was received from the WSRO for three sites on Helton Creek in Ashe County.
Sediments from logging, farming, and other agricultural activities in the watershed have filled in the stream
above a small low-head dam upstream of SR 1526/Ashe County (KB136), causing a shift in the stream
channel. The banks of the new channel are unstable and are a source of additional sediments to the stream.
Benthic sampling was requested to assess potential effects of the sediments on the benthic community.
USE SUPPoRt: supportiNG (19 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB25)
(KB136) (KB137)
Good (2008)
Excellent (2008)Excellent (2008)
Fish Com
(KF5)Not Rated (2008)
Good-Fair (2009)
1.25
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
The locations of the three benthic sites sampled on 13 October 2008 can be seen in Figure 1-1 (KB137, KB136
& KB25). The quarter mile segment of Helton Creek where the stream channel had shifted is located just
above the middle site (KB136) and is the source of increased sedimentation. One site was selected upstream
of the altered channel, one directly downstream, and a third site near the confluence with North Fork New
River.
The two upstream sites rated Excellent and the downstream site rated Good. It was concluded that the benthic
data did not indicate impacts to the benthic community downstream of the new channel. A more detailed
summary of the biological data and resultant bioclassifications can be found in the Special Study document.
Recommendations
A stressor study is recommended to determine the source of the large amount of stocked fish.
lower North Fork New river (050500010109)
Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] & Millpond
Branch [AU#: 10-2-28]
This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest in the headwaters, some residential
and agriculture scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks. There are no
NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed.
North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]
A portion of this segment flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about
the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section.
1.26
NC

D
W
Q

N
E
W

R
I
V
E
R

B
A
S
I
N

P
L
A
N
:

N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1

2
0
1
1
reFereNces
References marked with (*) indicates a DWQ special study report. These reports are not currently available
online. Contact Jay Sauber by phone at [phone] or by e-mail at [e-mail] to receive a
hardcopy.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 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. Raleigh, NC. (http://
h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/)
____. DWQ. Planning Section. Basinwide Planning Unit (BPU). November 2008. Supplemental Guide to
Basinwide Planning: A support document for basinwide water quality plans. Raleigh, NC. (http://por-
tal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/about/supplementalguide)
____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Ecosystems Unit. April 2010. New River Basin Am-
bient Monitoring Systems Report (January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2008). Raleigh, NC.
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=01be0501-d4a0-42ae-b4c3-
1349dd8d0ea6&groupId=38364)
____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Biological Assessment Unit (BAU). April 2009. Basin-
wide Assessment Report: New River Basin. Raleigh, NC. (http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/docu-
ments/NewBasinwideFinal_09.pdf)
____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. December 2008. (B-20081202) Results from benthic sampling of three sites on
Helton Creek in Ashe County, HUC 05050001 (New River Basin) October 2008. Raleigh, NC.
____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. October 2008. (B-20081007) Results from benthic sampling of eight sites re-
quested by DWQ Planning Section and Division of Soil and Water Conservation in HUCS 06010103
(Watauga River Basin) and 05050001 (New River Basin) during summer 2008. Raleigh, NC.
____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. March 2009. (BF-20090316) Results From Sampling of Sites in the North Fork
New River Catchment to Support Potential HQW/ORW Reclassifications. Raleigh, NC.
____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. March 2009. (B-20070904) Benthos Sampling below Shatley Farm land clearing,
Ashe County, New River Subbasin 02, August, 2007. Raleigh, NC.
Pate, Travis. 2009. Watershed Assessment in North Carolina: Building a Watershed Database with Popula-
tion, Land Cover, and Impervious Cover Information. Master Theses, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
Note: URL addresses for hyperlinks found in this plan are listed in the Acronyms & Definitions Chapter.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.1
DRAFt 2010
IR CAtEgoRY
INtEgRAtED REPoRtINg CAtEgoRIES FoR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSmENt UNIt/USE SUPPoRt CAtEgoRY/
PARAmEtER ASSESSmENtS. A SINgLE AU CAN hAVE mULtIPLE ASSESSmENtS DEPENDINg oN DAtA
AVAILABLE AND CLASSIFIED USES.
1 All designated uses are monitored and supporting
1b Designated use was impaired, other management strategy in place and no standards violations for the parameter of interest (POI)
1nc DWQ have made field determination that parameter in exceedance is due to natural conditions
1r Assessed as supporting watershed is in restoration effort status
1t No criteria exceeded but approved TMDL for parameter of interest
2 Some designated uses are monitored and supporting none are impaired Overall only
2b Designated use was impaired other management strategy in place and no standards violations Overall
only
2r Assessed as supporting watershed is in restoration effort status overall only
2t No criteria exceeded but approved TMDL for POI Overall only
3a Instream/monitoring data are inconclusive (DI)
3b No Data available for assessment
3c No data or information to make assessment
3n1 Chlorophyll a exceeds TL value and SAC is met-draft
3n2 Chlorophyll a exceeds EL value and SAC is not met first priority for further monitoring-draft
3n3 Chlorophyll a exceeds threshold value and SAC is not met first second priority for further monitoring-draft
3n4 Chlorophyll a not available determine need to collect-draft
3t No Data available for assessment –AU is in a watershed with an approved TMDL
4b Designated use impaired other management strategy expected to address impairment
4c Designated use impaired by something other than pollutant
4cr Recreation use impaired no instream monitoring data or screening criteria exceeded
4cs Shellfish harvesting impaired no instream monitoring data- no longer used
4ct Designated use impaired but water is subject to approved TMDL or under TMDL development
4s Impaired Aquatic Life with approved TMDL for Aquatic Life POI or category 5 listing
4t Designated use impaired approved TMDL
5 Designated use impaired because of biological or ambient water quality standards violations and needing
a TMDL
5r Assessed as impaired watershed is in restoration effort status
appeNdix 1-a
USE SUPPoRt RAtINgS FoR ALL
moNItoRED WAtERS IN thE
NoRth FoRk NEW RIVER WAtERShED
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.2

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species

NC 2010 Integrated Report

North Fork New River 0505000101New River Basin Watershed
Upper New River 05050001New River Basin Subbasin
North Fork New River 0505000101New River Basin Watershed
Big Horse Creek10-2-21-(4.5)From SR#1362 to SR#1353 (Tuckerdale)5.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
Big Horse Creek
(Horse Creek)
10-2-21-(7)From SR#1353 (Tuckerdale) to North Fork
New R
6.5 FW Miles C:+
 1
 1
Big Laurel Creek10-2-14 From source to North Fork New River 17.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
 1
Brush Fork10-2-8 From source to North Fork New River 5.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
Buffalo Creek10-2-20 From source to North Fork New River 9.7 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
 3a
Helton Creek10-2-27 From NC-VA State Line to North Fork New
River
19.0 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
 3a
Hoskin Fork10-2-7 From source to North Fork New River 5.2 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1 From source to Buffalo Creek 4.4 FW Miles C;Tr:+
  5
Little Horse Creek10-2-21-8 From source to Big Horse Creek 10.9 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
Little Phoenix Creek10-2-23 From source to North Fork New River 4.6 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
Long Shoals Creek10-2-25 From source to North Fork New River 2.7 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
10/20/2010 Page 198 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.3

AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification
All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species

NC 2010 Integrated Report

North Fork New River 0505000101New River Basin Watershed
Middle Fork Little
Horse Creek
10-2-21-8-1 From source to Little Horse Creek 4.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
Millpond Branch10-2-28 From source to North Fork New River 2.0 FW Miles C:+
 1
North Fork New River10-2-(1)From source to Three Top Creek 14.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
 1
North Fork New River10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River 36.5 FW Miles C:+
 1
 1
 1
Rich Hill Creek10-2-15 From source to North Fork New River 4.9 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
Roundabout Creek10-2-10 From source to North Fork New River 4.0 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
Three Top Creek10-2-13 From source to North Fork New River 13.2 FW Miles C;Tr:+
 1
 3a
South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed
Cranberry Creek
(Mulberry Creek)
10-1-37 From source to South Fork New River 18.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+
 1
 1
East Fork South Fork
New River
10-1-3-(1)From source to Watauga County SR 1524 2.3 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+
  5
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 Miles WS-IV;CA:+
 1
10/20/2010 Page 199 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-A.4
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.1
appeNdix 1-B
BIoLogICAL (BENthIC & FISh)
SAmPLE SItE DAtA ShEEtS
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.2
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.3
StAtIoN
ID*WAtERBoDY ASSESSmENt
UNIt #DESCRIPtIoN CoUNtY SItE
LoCAtIoN SAmPLE RESULtS
Benthic Sample Sites
KB117 Ut. L. Phoenix
Cr.
10-2-23ut5 Source to L Phoenix Cr.Ashe Old NC 16 08 - Not Rated
07 - Not Rated
KB118*Ut. L. Phoenix Cr.10-2-23ut6 Source to L Phoenix Cr.Ashe SR 1649 07 - Not Impaired
KB119*Brush Fk.10-2-8 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88 08 - Excellent
KB120*Roundabout Cr.10-2-10 From source to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1308 08 - Excellent
KB121*M. Fk. Little
Horse Cr.
10-2-21-8-1 From source to Little Horse Cr.Ashe SR 1334 08 - Excellent
KB122*Big Horse Cr.10-2-21-(4.5)From SR 1362 to SR 1353
(Tuckerdale)
Ashe SR 1362 08 - Excellent
KB123*Long Shoals Cr.10-2-25 From source to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1574 08 - Not Impaired
KB125*L. Phoenix Cr.10-2-23 From source to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1513 08 - Excellent
KB127*N. Fk. New R.10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River Ashe SR 1549 08 - Excellent
KB129*Ut. Mill Cr.10-1-18ut4 Source to Mill Cr.Ashe SR 1111 07 - Not Impaired
KB134*Buffalo Cr.10-2-20 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 194-88 08 - Excellent
KB135*N. Fk. New R.10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River Ashe Old NC 16 08 - Excellent
KB136*Helton Cr.10-2-27 From NC-VA State Line to North Fork
New River
Ashe SR 1526 08 - Excellent
KB137*Helton Cr.10-2-27 From NC-VA State Line to North Fork
New River
Ashe SR 1370 08 - Excellent
KB138*Three Top Cr.10-2-13 From source to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1100 09 - Excellent 08 - Good
KB141*N. Fk. New R.10-2-(1)From source to Three Top Creek Ashe SR 1118 08 - Excellent
KB23 N. Fk. New R.10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River Ashe SR 1100 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent
KB25 Helton Cr.10-2-27 From NC-VA State Line to North Fork
New River
Ashe SR 1536 08 - Excellent
03 - Excellent
KB26 Hoskin Fk.10-2-7 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88 08 - Excellent
03 - Excellent
KB27 N. Fk. New R.10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River Ashe SR 1644 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent
KB30 Big Laurel Cr.10-2-14 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88 08 - Excellent
03 - Excellent
KB31 Buffalo Cr.10-2-20 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 194-88 08 - Excellent
03 - Excellent
KB32 L. Buffalo Cr.10-2-20-1 From source to Buffalo Creek Ashe SR 1153 08 - Fair 03 - Poor
KB33 Big Horse Cr.
(Horse Cr.)
10-2-21-(7)From SR#1353 (Tuckerdale) to North
Fork New R
Ashe NC 194 08 - Excellent
03 - Excellent
KB63 L. Horse Cr.10-2-21-8 From source to Big Horse Creek Ashe SR 1334 08 - Excellent
03 - Good
KB86*Rich Hill Cr.10-2-15 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88 08 - Excellent
Fish Community Sample Sites
KF21*Buffalo Cr.10-2-20 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88/194 08 - Not Rated
KF2 Cranberry Cr.10-1-37 From source to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1600 08 - Good
98 - Excellent
KF16*Grassy Cr.10-3 From North Carolina-Virginia State Ashe SR 1549 08 - Good-Fair
KF1 Big Horse Cr.10-2-21-(7)From SR#1353 (Tuckerdale) to North
Fork New R
Ashe SR 1350 08 - Good
98 - Good
* New station location; therefore, no data from the previous cycle.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.4
StAtIoN
ID*WAtERBoDY ASSESSmENt
UNIt #DESCRIPtIoN CoUNtY SItE
LoCAtIoN SAmPLE RESULtS
KF22*Big Laurel Cr.10-2-14 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88 08 - Good
KF5 Helton Cr.10-2-27 From NC-VA State Line to North Fork
New River
Ashe SR 1536 08 - Not Rated
98 - Good
KF10 N. Fk. New R.10-2-(1)From source to Three Top Creek Ashe SR 1119 08 - Good 98 - Good
KF23*Three Top Cr.10-2-13 From source to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1123 08 - Not Rated
* New station location; therefore, no data from the previous cycle.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.5
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Southern Crystalline Ridges & Mountains
Level IV EcoregionAU Number
10-2-(1)
Waterbody
N FK NEW R
County
ASHE
Subbasin
2
Latitude
36.407098
Good
Bioclassification
Longitude
-81.681014
KF1005/21/08
Date Station ID
Forested/Wetland
035
None
Rural Residential
5
Volume (MGD)
0.5
Agriculture Other (describe)
No
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- Bluehead Chub, Bigmouth Chub.Losses -- Rosyface Shiner.
05/21/08
06/29/98
Site Photograph
18
8
Brown Trout.
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
9
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
60
Elevation (ft)
Good
Good
NCIBI
48
50
4
98-56
16
Sample ID
2008-46
4
4
4
5
11.2
Species Total
15
14
10.2
59
6.5
Clear
5
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Watershed -- located along the rural west-central edge of the New River basin where Watauga and Ashe Counties meet; this catchment drains the North
Fork New River's headwaters plus the main tributaries of Pine Mountain Branch, Brush Fork, and Hoskin Fork.Habitats -- primarily riffles and runs with
some chutes that were holding trout, and a few silt bottom pools; the reach is mostly sunlit because of the vegetation type along the banks and in the
riparian corridor (majority of shrubs and grasses vs. trees); substrates exhibited moderate to high embededdness.2008 -- a diverse and abundant
population of cool and cold water fish species were present, including three intolerant taxa (New River Shiner, Tonguetied Minnow, and Kanawha Darter);
more than twice the total abundance was collected than in 1998 (1368 vs. 552); Western Blacknose Dace (n=553) represented 40% of the sample.1998-
2008 -- very similar species compositions were observed and nearly identical NCIBI metrics were calculated for both monitoring years, indicating that water
quality in this headwater catchment has remained good over a ten year period.
3
Western Blacknose Dace. Most Abundant Species
71 cobble, gravel, sand, boulder.Substrate
Exotic Species
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Bioclassification
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr,+
SR 1119
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001
3118
Drainage Area (mi2)
23.9
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.6
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
N FK NEW R SR 1100 KB23 07/31/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ASHE 2 05050001 36.430000 -81.620833 10-2-(12)Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C:[phone] 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)0 10 90 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)20.3
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.6
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)61
pH (s.u.)6.5
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)5
Riffle Habitat (16)15
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)3
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)81 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
07/31/08 10517 119 57 3.67 2.73 Excellent
08/19/03 9222 81 44 3.96 3.51 Excellent
08/17/98 7710 96 52 4.05 3.23 Excellent
07/29/93 6296 102 50 3.95 3.01 Excellent
Taxonomic Analysis
The greatest number of EPT taxa collected at the site occurred in 2008. A few EPT taxa were collected for the first time, including: Acroneuria
carolinensis, Hydroptila, and Nectopsyche exquisita .
Data Analysis
The site is 8.2 miles west of Jefferson. This is the site furthest upstream of the three basinwide sites on North Fork New River.
The site has consistently received classifications of Excellent following each summer sampling event (a Good was received after a non-summer
sampling event in March 1989). No indications of impact are exhibited by the benthic community.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.7
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
N FK NEW R SR 1644 KB27 08/20/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ASHE 2 05050001 36.485556 -81.493889 10-2-(12)New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C:[phone] 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)0 10 90 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
United Chemi-Con, Inc.NC0000019 1.018
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)24.1
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.4
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)80
pH (s.u.)8.0
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)12
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)15
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)2
Left Riparian Score (5)2
Right Riparian Score (5)0
Total Habitat Score (100)65 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, sand; some boulder, silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/20/08 10541 99 49 3.93 3.31 Excellent
08/21/03 9234 72 45 3.66 3.31 Excellent
08/19/98 7719 87 50 3.77 2.91 Excellent
07/28/93 6294 93 46 4.00 2.94 Excellent
Taxonomic Analysis
EPT Richness at the site has shown very little change for the four summer sampling events between 1993 and 2008. Helicopsyche paralimnella has
been recorded for the first time from the site; this is only one of five sites in the state so far at which the species has been found by BAU, though
undoubtedly more sites will be found.
Data Analysis
The site is 4.6 miles NNW of Jefferson and is directly upstream of the mouth of Big Horse Creek. The town of West Jefferson is almost entirely
included in the catchment above the site.
Consistently high EPT Richness and low NCBI values have resulted in classifications of Excellent for each sampling event between 1993 and 2008.
The healthy benthic community indicates an absence of stressors at the site.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.8
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
N FK NEW R OLD NC 16 KB135 08/20/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ASHE 2 05050001 36.503889 -81.390278 10-2-(12)New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C:[phone] 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)50 30 20 0
0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
United Chemi-Con, Inc.NC0000019 1.018
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)22.2
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.4
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)73
pH (s.u.)7.4
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)10
Pool Variety (10)5
Riffle Habitat (16)5
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)1
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)65 Substrate primarily cobble and gravel; some sand, silt, boulder
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/20/08 10539 108 55 4.08 3.07 Excellent
Taxonomic Analysis
There is little difference between this new basinwide site and the former upstream basinwide site in terms of richness within the major groups; the
number of taxa collected within each group at the new site is within the range of taxa collected at the upstream site with the exception of Lepidoptera
(one taxon collected at this site; never collected at the former site) and Oligochaeta (only lumbriculids collected at this site in 2008; at least two taxa
collected upstream). However, there were a few EPT taxa collected at Old NC 16 that have not been collected at NC 16 over eight sampling events,
including (all rare within the sample except as noted): Acerpenna pygmaea, Heterocloeon anoka (common), Anthopotamus distinctus, Agnetina,
Hydroptila,and Pycnopsyche lepida group.
Data Analysis
The site is 7.4 miles northeast of Jefferson and six stream-miles above the confluence with South Fork New River. This is the furthest downstream site
of the three basinwide sites on North Fork New River. The town of West Jefferson is almost entirely included in the catchment above the site. This site
replaces the basinwide site at NC 16, which is about two stream-miles upstream of this site, due to difficult access to the river at NC 16.
The four summer sampling events in 1989, 1993, 1998, and 2003 resulted in classifications of Excellent at the former basinwide site. There appears to
be little difference in water quality either temporally or longitudinally between sampling events on this lower segment of North Fork New River.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.9
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
HOSKIN FK OFF NC 88 BELOW WILSON
BR KB26 07/31/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ASHE 2 05050001 36.390480 -81.702190 10-2-7 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr:+6.7 3125 3 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)0 10 90 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)17.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.1
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)85
pH (s.u.)7.0
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)2
Left Riparian Score (5)2
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)75 Substrate mix of cobbole, gravel, boulder; some sand
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
07/31/08 10514 ---38 ---3.18 Excellent
08/19/03 9221 ---37 ---2.92 Excellent
08/17/98 7709 ---35 ---3.59 Good
07/23/93 6299 ---30 ---3.56 Good
Taxonomic Analysis
The number of EPT taxa identified from the site has increased with each successive sampling event since 1993. A few taxa were collected for the first
time at the site, including: Ephemerella subvaria, Serratella deficiens, Hexagenia, Acroneuria carolinensis, and Leucotrichia pictipes.
Data Analysis
The site is about 1.5 miles east of the closest point on the Tennessee Valley Divide and 0.8 stream-miles from the confluence with North Fork New
River.
Increasing EPT richness with each successive sampling event since 1993 is suggestive of improving water quality at the site.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.10
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
THREE TOP CR OFF SR 1100 BELOW LONG
HOPE CR KB138 08/21/08 Good
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ASHE 2 05050001 36.410710 -81.619600 10-2-13 Amphibolite Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr:+22 2915 8 0.4
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)90 0 0 10 (road)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)18.8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.2
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)48
pH (s.u.)---
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)16
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)10
Riffle Habitat (16)15
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)86 Substrate mostly cobble and boulder; some gravel, bedrock, sand, silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/21/08 10545 ---35 ---2.60 Good
Taxonomic Analysis
A fairly diverse EPT community exists at the site. There are no historical data for the site, so trends in community composition can not be analyzed. A
few taxa were collected here that have not been collected at the former basinwide site downstream, including: Procloeon, Maccaffertium pudicum,
Diplectrona modestum, Ceraclea, and Chimarra.
Data Analysis
The site is 8.1 miles west of Jefferson. This new basinwide site is 1.3 stream-miles upstream of the former site at SR 1100. The site was moved to
remove the influence of development directly upstream of the old basinwide site, and to locate it in the Amphibolite Mountains ecoregion so that a
potential reference site for the ecoregion could be established.
The same number of EPT taxa were recorded for this site in 2008 as were for the former site in 2003. In both cases the additional of a single EPT
taxon would have resulted in a classification of Excellent.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.11
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
New basinwide site.Watershed -- a tributary to the North Fork New River that flows north, draining part of west-central Ashe County.Habitats -- high
quality instream habitats consisting of riffles and runs with deep chutes that were holding trout, and some small side pools; roads on both sides of the
stream prevent broad riparian widths, but the stream's banks were very stable, with some Mountain Laurel on the right bank; the tree canopy provides about
50% shading to the stream.2008 -- a diverse assemblage of cool and cold water fish fauna were collected from the stream, including four species that are
considered to be intolerant to pollution (Rock Bass, Tonguetied Minnow, Kanawha Darter, and Appalachia Darter); Fantail Darters represented 36% of the
sample and Mottled Sculpin comprised 29%; overall, the fish community of Three Top Creek appears to be healthy, and suggests no obvious water quality
issues.
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
THREE TOP CR
AU Number
10-2-13
County
ASHE
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Amphibolite Mountains
Subbasin
2
Latitude
36.420699
05/20/08 KF23 Not Rated
0.4
Other (describe)
Yes
5
Agriculture
Bioclassification
1565
Site Photograph
Volume (MGD)
Forested/Wetland Rural Residential
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
N/A
05/20/08
15 (lumber mill)
Rock Bass, Brown Trout.
Clear
5
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
10
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
14.4
9.5
38
6.4
Fantail Darter.
20
12
7
7
6
16
Most Abundant Species
85 flat cobble, boulder, bedrock, gravel, sand.Substrate
Exotic Species
Species Total
15
Sample ID
2008-45 Not Rated
NCIBI
--
2900
Drainage Area (mi2)
23.1
7
3
2
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1123
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001
Longitude
-81.621819
Elevation (ft)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.12
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
BIG LAUREL CR NC 88 KB30 06/19/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ASHE 2 05050001 36.443056 -81.613611 10-2-14 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr:+29 2805 8 0.4
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)60 0 40 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)14.1
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.3
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)42
pH (s.u.)7.1
Water Clarity slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)15
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Left Bank Stability (7)6
Right Bank Stability (7)6
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)76 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, sand; some boulder, silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
06/19/08 10468 ---53 ---2.62 Excellent
08/19/03 9225 ---38 ---2.92 Excellent
07/17/98 7712 ---40 ---3.49 Excellent
07/29/93 6298 ---48 ---3.29 Excellent
Taxonomic Analysis
The greatest number of EPT taxa collected from the site occurred in 2008. Taxa collected for the first time included: Eurylophella verisimilis,
Ephemera, Anthopotamus distinctus, Brachycentrus appalachia, Ceratopsyche slossonae, Oecetis persimilis, and Triaenodes ignitus.
Data Analysis
The site is near the confluence with North Fork New River and about eight miles west of Jefferson.
The highest EPT richness and the lowest EPT BI values were recorded for the site in 2008. Each time the site has been sampled it has received a
classification of Excellent. The benthic community does not exhibit signs of impact.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.13
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
BIG LAUREL CR
County
ASHE
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
13.8
Species Total
19
Bioclassification
Subbasin
2
Latitude
36.443095
05/20/08
Date Station ID
Longitude
KF 22
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
N/A
05/20/08
Site Photograph
8
10
Sample ID
Rock Bass, Brown Trout.
Good
Rural Residential
10
Volume (MGD)
0.8
Agriculture Other (describe)
Yes
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)
10
Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
85
Forested/Wetland
05
9.9
42
6.4
Turbid
5
16
8
5
5
5
5
4
Mountain Redbelly Dace. Most Abundant Species
71
2008-44
Bioclassification
Good
NCIBI
52
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
NC 88
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001 -81.613795
2835
Elevation (ft)
New basinwide site. Watershed -- a tributary to the North Fork New River that drains the northwestern-most edge of Ashe County.Habitats -- good
instream habitat qualities in this large mountain stream, consiting primarily of runs and some riffles; moderate to high embeddedness of substrates; good
bank stabilities and vegetated riparian widths, but shading is limited to the stream's edges.2008 -- a highly diverse and trophically balanced population of
mostly cool and cold water fish species was collected, including seven taxa that are considered intolerant to pollution (Rock Bass, Tonguetied Minnow, New
River Shiner, Rosyface Shiner, Kanawha Minnow, Kanawha Darter, and Appalachia Darter); Mountain Redbelly Dace represented 47% of the sample
(n=350); two Hellbenders (one adult and one young-of-year) were also collected, suggesting high quality water.
Southern Crystaline Ridges & Mountains
Level IV EcoregionAU Number
10-2-14
Drainage Area (mi2)
29
sand, gravel, cobble, boulder.Substrate
Exotic Species
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.14
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
BUFFALO CR NC 88/194 ABOVE
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK KB134 08/20/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ASHE 2 05050001 36.432880 -81.511380 10-2-20 Amphibolite Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr:+13 2785 5 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)70 20 0 10
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)21.6
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.0
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)70
pH (s.u.)6.7
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)14
Pool Variety (10)5
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)6
Left Riparian Score (5)3
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)82 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, boulder; some sand
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/20/08 10542 ---39 ---2.51 Excellent
Taxonomic Analysis
The EPT portion of the benthic community at the site is diverse. Baetisca berneri, a mayfly often collected in the New River basin but uncollected at
the prior basinwide site on Buffalo Creek, was abundant at this site. The low EPT BI indicates a community intolerant to the presence of pollutants.
Data Analysis
The site is about 2 miles west of Jefferson. The basinwide site for Buffalo Creek was relocated to above the mouth of Little Buffalo Creek to assess
conditions in the catchment without the influence of West Jefferson WWTP; the original basinwide site is about 0.4 stream-miles downstream of the
present site. At the new location the catchment is mostly forest and pasture with no urban influence.
The high EPT Richness and low EPT BI value indicates a healthy benthic community and the absence of stressors.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.15
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
2833
Drainage Area (mi2)
12.6
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
NC 88/194
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001
Longitude
-81.511071
Elevation (ft)
Fantail Darter. Most Abundant Species
83 flat cobble, gravel, boulder.Substrate
Exotic Species
2008-42
Rock Bass, Bluegill, Saffron Shiner, Rainbow
Trout, Brown Trout.
Bioclassification
Not Rated
17.0
Species Total
15
9.3
62
6.9
Clear
5
20
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
4
16
Sample ID
12
6
6
7
4
3
NCIBI
--
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
N/A
05/19/08
NPDES Number
------
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
50
Forested/Wetland
15 (road - NC 88 and 194)
Agriculture
5
Residential/Commercial
30
Site Photograph
Volume (MGD)
Reference SiteStream Width (m) Average Depth (m)
None
0.4
Other (describe)
Yes7
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
Amphibolite MountainsASHE
Subbasin
1
Latitude
36.433146
KF 21 Not Rated
New basinwide site.Watershed -- a tributary to the North Fork New River that drains part of central Ashe County, just to the west of Jefferson.Habitats --
high quality instream habitats including swift riffles and runs with a few chutes and a few shallow side pools that were holding trout; good bank stabilities
and vegetated riparian widths; the canopy was providing equal amounts of shade and sunlight to the stream; low to moderate embeddedness of substrates;
the Buffalo Meadows WWTP (<1MGD, 100% domestic) located 2.8 miles upstream may be contributing to the slightly elevated conductivity.2008 -- a
diverse and fairly trophically balanced mix of mostly cool and cold water fish taxa was collected, including three species that are considered intolerant to
pollution (Rock Bass, Kanawha Darter, and Rainbow Trout); Fantail Darters (intermediately tolerant insectivores) represented 59% of the collected sample;
overall, this stream is supporting a reasonably healthy fish population and appears to have no obvious water quality issues.
05/19/08
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
BUFFALO CR
AU Number
10-2-20
County
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.16
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
L BUFFALO CR OFF SR 1153 KB32 08/21/08 Fair
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ASHE 2 05050001 36.420480 -81.493220 10-2-20-1 New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr:+3.0 2865 2 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)0 80 20 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
West Jefferson WWTP NC0020451 0.5
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)18.1
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.7
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)276
pH (s.u.)---
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)3
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)9
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)15
Left Bank Stability (7)5
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)2
Left Riparian Score (5)2
Right Riparian Score (5)1
Total Habitat Score (100)66 Substrate mix of boulder, gravel, cobble; some sand
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/21/08 10543 63 13 6.00 5.00 Fair
08/20/03 9228 22 6 6.40 4.11 Poor
08/18/98 7713 39 14 7.07 5.28 Fair
07/13/93 6265 24 0 8.31 ---Poor
Taxonomic Analysis
The EPT portion of the benthic community has differed significantly with each sampling event. Even for the two sampling events with similar EPT
richness (1998 and 2008) only four taxa were in common. In 2008 four EPT taxa were collected that had not been collected during prior sampling
events, and three of those (Maccaffertium pudicum, Hydropsyche betteni, and Leucotrichia pictipes) were abundant in the sample.
Data Analysis
The site is one mile west of downtown Jefferson and within 0.9 stream-miles downstream of the West Jefferson WWTP. The stream is on the state's
303(d) list for nutrients and impaired biological integrity.
For the four sampling events since 1993 the lowest NCBI value is shown for 2008, and EPT Richness is close to the high value from 1998. Of the four
years that benthic sampling was performed 2008 exhibited the lowest flows for area streams. Dry conditions should increase instream effluent
concentrations from the WWTP upstream; the benthic community does not reflect this.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.17
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Watershed -- a tributary to the North Fork New River that drains a good portion of the northwestern tip of Ashe County; the site is located just southeast of
Lansing.Habitats -- low quality instream habitats composed of wide and swift sandy runs with some boulder and cobble, few pools, and very few riffles for
a mountain stream; the banks were generally healthy except for a 25 foot area on the right bank that was sloughng into the stream; riparian zones
vegetated with mostly grasses, shrubs and very few trees; full sun over most of the stream due to its' width and the lack of canopy trees.2008 -- a diverse
and trophically balanced community of cool and cold water fish species was collected, including six intolerant taxa (Rock Bass, Smallmouth Bass,
Tonguetied Minnow, Silver Shiner, Kanawha Minnow, and Kanawha Darter); almost three times the total abundance than in 1998 (652 vs. 242).1998-2008
-- a total of 20 fish species have been collected from this site; in spite of some habitat issues, this stream is supporting a healthy assemblage of fish, and
continues to exhibit good water quality.
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
BIG HORSE CR
AU Number
10-2-21-(7)
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
New River Plateau
County Subbasin
2
Latitude
36.487395ASHE
05/20/08
-81.500386
KF1
Site Photograph
015
0.7
Agriculture Other (describe)
No
Good
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
Gains -- White Sucker, Mottled Sculpin, Kanawha Darter, Smallmouth Bass, Kanawha Minnow, Longnose
Dace, Brown Trout.Losses -- Rosyside Dace, Bigmouth Chub, Saffron Shiner, New River Shiner, Rosyface
Shiner.
05/20/08
06/29/98
Bioclassification
75
48
Rural Residential
10
Forested/Wetland
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
Town of Lansing WWTP (<1MGD - 1.1 miles upstream)
4
12.5
9.7
46
268156.2
48
Reference Site
NPDES Number
NC0066028
Stream Width (m)
13
Average Depth (m)
0.05
5
4
2
5
6.0
Slightly turbid
5
16
8
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
5
Fantail Darter. Most Abundant Species
59
98-57
5
Sample ID
2008-43
sand, cobble, boulder, gravel.Substrate
Exotic Species
Species Total
15
13
Rock Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Brown Trout.
Good
Good
NCIBI
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr,+
SR 1350
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001
Elevation (ft)Drainage Area (mi2)
Longitude
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.18
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
BIG HORSE CR NC 194 KB33 06/10/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ASHE 2 05050001 36.485556 -81.498611 10-2-21-(7)New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C:+56 2635 7 0.4
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)60 10 30 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)17.7
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.9
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)57
pH (s.u.)7.6
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)15
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Left Bank Stability (7)6
Right Bank Stability (7)6
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)2
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)75 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, boulder; some sand
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
06/10/08 10470 123 60 4.33 2.84 Excellent
08/19/03 9226 89 50 3.95 3.42 Excellent
08/18/98 7715 103 56 4.18 3.14 Excellent
07/28/93 6293 129 56 4.10 2.78 Excellent
Taxonomic Analysis
A large number of EPT taxa have always been collected from the site; the highest number was in 2008. Many taxa were recorded for the first time,
including:Brachycercus, Dannella simplex, Ephemerella dorothea, Eurylophella aestiva, Rhithrogena uhari, Ceraclea enodis, and Neophylax fuscus.
There were several highly tolerant taxa (i.e. with a tolerance value of 8.0 or greater) either common or abundant that helped to drive the NCBI value
up: Corixidae; the midges Chironomus, Polypedilum illinoense group, Procladius, Thienemannimyia group; and Nais , an oligochaete.
Data Analysis
The site is about 4.7 miles NNW of Jefferson and about 0.25 stream-miles above the confluence with North Fork New River.
The site has received a classification of Excellent during each summer sampling event since 1993, in most cases driven by high EPT abundance and
richness.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.19
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
L HORSE CR SR 1334 KB63 08/21/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ASHE 2 05050001 36.533056 -81.577778 10-2-21-8 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr:+4.4 2940 2 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)10 90 0 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)17.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.0
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)47
pH (s.u.)---
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)4
Riffle Habitat (16)15
Left Bank Stability (7)2
Right Bank Stability (7)4
Light Penetration (10)2
Left Riparian Score (5)0
Right Riparian Score (5)0
Total Habitat Score (100)61 Substrate mix of cobble, boulder, gravel, sand; some silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/21/08 10544 ---38 ---2.92 Excellent
08/19/03 9227 ---33 ---3.03 Good
08/18/98 7716 ---35 ---3.62 Good
Taxonomic Analysis
EPT Richness was higher in 2008 than for previous years, improving the classification for the site from Good to Excellent. Isogenoides hansoni was
identified from the site for the first time in 2008; this is one of 44 sites from which the BAU has collected the stonefly. Leptocerids have not been
collected from the site, reflecting the paucity of root mat habitat.
Data Analysis
The site is about 9.7 miles northwest of Jefferson and 3.6 miles south of the Virginia border.
The site attained a classification of Excellent for the first time in 2008. Though the benthic community does not reflect stress, the lack of a riparian
zone at the reach sampled is likely limiting the fauna. A canopy over the stream would increase the presence of coldwater stenotherms, root mats
provided by trees would diversify benthic habitat, and streamside vegetation would filter pollutants from runoff.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.20
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
HELTON CR SR 1536 KB25 08/20/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ASHE 2 05050001 36.535000 -81.422222 10-2-27 New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr:+44 2575 8 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)90 10 0 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)16.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.6
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)69
pH (s.u.)5.9
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)14
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)5
Left Riparian Score (5)0
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)82 Substrate mostly boulder, cobble; some gravel, sand
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/20/08 10538 ---37 ---2.93 Excellent
08/18/03 9220 ---40 ---3.12 Excellent
08/18/98 7718 ---37 ---3.14 Excellent
Taxonomic Analysis
Though abundant and common in the sample in 1998 and 2003 respectively, Tallaperla was uncollected in August 2008 in spite of ample leafpacks
for habitat. The only leptocerid collected during summer sampling was Setodes (rare in the sample) in 1998, reflecting the paucity of root mats at the
site.Glossosoma, which was abundant in 2003, was uncollected in both 1998 and 2008. Otherwise the EPT portion of the benthic community was
similar among the three summer sampling events at the site, primarily with taxa rare at the site dropping in and out.
Data Analysis
The site is 8.4 miles NNE of Jefferson, and 1.7 stream-miles from the confluence with North Fork New River.
There has been little change in the benthic community among the three summer sampling events, suggesting stable conditions at the site since 1998.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.21
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr,+
SR 1536
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001
Longitude
2
Latitude
Most Abundant Species
80 Cobble, boulder, gravel, and detritusSubstrate
Exotic Species Saffron Shiner
Bioclassification
Not Rated
Good
NCIBI
98-58
Sample ID
2008-34
Species Total
15
6
9.7
57
7.4
Clear
15
14.9
5
18
13
10
---
52
Watershed -- drains southern Grayson County, VA and northern Ashe County; no municipalities within the watershed; tributary to the N Fk New River, site
is ~ 2 miles from the creek's confluence with the river.Habitat -- runs, riffles, shallow uniform pools, narrow riparian zone on the right; total score in 1998
was 88; bank stability and quality of pools appeared to have declined.2008 -- Rock Bass+Smallmouth Bass+Trout absent; ~ 60% of the fish were
Mountain Redbelly Dace, Bluehead Chub, and Central Stoneroller; Mountain Redbelly Dace were extremely abundant along the stream margins;
community is Not Rated pending an evaluation in 2009.1998 & 2008 -- 18 species known from the site, including the endemic Kanawha Minnow and
Kanawha Darter and the nonindigenous Saffron Shiner, Rainbow Trout, and Rock Bass; 2.4 times more fish collected in 2008 than in 1998 (1,388 vs. 581);
10 times more Mountain Redbelly Dace were collected in 2008 than in 1998; species absent in 2008 were represented by 2-4 fish/species in 1998; and
fishery is managed by NCWRC as Delayed Harvest Waters, within the reach, eight 230-389 mm TL stocked Brook Trout and Rainbow Trout were collected.
Rural Residential
5
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
Drainage Area (mi2)
43.7
00
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
Yes
Waterbody
HELTON CR
95
Elevation (ft)
Subbasin
Forested/Wetland
County
ASHE 36.53472222
2580
Species Change Since Last Cycle
05/08/08
06/30/98
4
Gains -- Kanawha Minnow, Mottled Sculpin, and Kanawha Darter.Losses -- Bluntnose Minnow, Rainbow
Trout, and Rock Bass.
7
5
3
Mountain Redbelly Dace
15
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
New River Plateau
AU Number
10-2-27
05/08/08
Date Station ID
-81.42138889
KF5 Not Rated
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
4
Site Photograph
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)Average Depth (m)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-B.22
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-C.1
appeNdix 1-c
AmBIENt moNItoRINg SYStEmS
StAtIoN DAtA ShEEtS
StAtIoN ID WAtERBoDY AU#LoCAtIoN ImPAIRED
(BY PARAmEtER)
ImPACtED
(BY PARAmEtER)
K7500000 North Fork New R.10-2-(12)SR 1573 at Crumpler Fecal Coliform (20%)Turbidity (7%)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-C.2
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-C.3
Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Station #:K7500000
Location:N FORK NEW RIV AT SR 1573 AT CRUMPLER
Stream class:C +
NC stream index:10-2-(12)
Hydrologic Unit Code:05050001
Latitude:36.50403 Longitude:-81.39004
Agency:NCAMBNT
PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
# ND EL # %%Conf
Field
D.O. (mg/L)<4 7 8 8.6 9.9 11.4 13.4 14.357000
<5 7 8 8.6 9.9 11.4 13.4 14.357000
pH (SU)<6 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.6 8 8.2 8.657000
>9 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.6 8 8.2 8.657000
Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 54 58 61 66 72 79 100560
Water Temperature (°C)>29 0.8 3.6 7.2 14.3 20.8 24.2 25.657000
Other
TSS (mg/L)N/A 6 6.2 6.2 11.5 22.2 262.6 268184
Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1.5 3.1 6.3 13.5 28.2 33057427
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 82 82 262 330 518 610 61080
Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 58080
Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 1.2 2 2 2 28080
Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 14 25 25 25 258080
Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 2 2 28080
Iron, total (Fe)>1000 260 260 478 575 922 1000 10008000
Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 108080
Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.26060
Nickel, total (Ni)>88 10 10 10 10 10 10 108080
Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 10 33 338070
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
# results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf:
55 73.7 11 20
02/01/2005Time period:12/17/2009to
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-C.4
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.1
appeNdix 1-d
12-DIgIt
SUBWAtERShED mAPS
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.2
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#*
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
ASHE
WATAUGA
KB30
KB31
KB22
KB21
KB32
KB23
KB26
KB30
KB86
KB138
KB134
KB120
KB119
KB141
KB129
BigLaurelCreek
B
e
a
v
erCreek
Buffal
o
Cre
e
k
N
o
rt
h
F
ork
N
e
w
R
i
v
e
r
OldFieldCreek
South
F
o
rk
New
River
NorrisFork
LongHopeCreek
ElkCreek
Hoskin
F
o
r
k
StaggCreek
Bru
s
h
F
o
r
k
MeatCampCreek
ThreeTopCreek
LittleLaurelCreek
RoundaboutCreek
Rock(Stone)Creek
LittleCreek
CranberryCreek
CopelandCreek
ClaybankCreek
Cabbage
Creek
B
e
n
Bol
e
n
C
r
eekMillCreek(GrassyCreek)
CallCreek(WestProngOldFieldCreek)
Littl
e
G
a
p
C
r
e
e
k
S
o
u
t
h
Br
a
n
ch
S
o
u
th
Beaver
Creek(LakeAshe)
RushB
r
a
n
c
h
PineOrchardCreek
DoeBranch
UTMILL
C
R
CouchesCreek
MineBranch
W
o
lf
p
e
n
C
r
e
ek
WallaceBran
c
h
Jo
n
esBranch
Maine
B
r
anch
WilsonBranch
PineMountainBranch
SugarTreeBranch(SugarBranch)
GraybealBranch
Snyder
B
r
a
n
c
h
BigBranch
KF23
0
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
0.4
Miles
Three
Top
Creek
Subwatershed
(050500010101)
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
January
2011 ®
Legend
¢¡
RandomAmbient
Stations
¢¡
Ambient
[¡
Fish
Community
"à)
Benthos
!(
USGS
Gages
Monitoring
Stations
#*
NPDES
Discharge
(Minor)
XY
NPDES
Discharge
(Major)
Permits
¡³
Animal
Operation
(Cattle)
E
Stormwater
2010
Use
Support
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
Hydrology
Major
Roads
Municipalities
Conservation
Land
County
Boundary
12-Digit
HUCs
#0
NPDES
Non-Discharge
(Minor)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.3
¡³#0#0 #0#0#0
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)[¡[¡
[¡
KB30
KB31
KB63
KB32KB27
KB23
KB26
KB33
KB30
KB86
KB138
KB137 KB134KB122
KB121
KB120
KB119
KB141
B i g LaurelCreek
Buffalo
Cree
k
LittleHorseCreek
NorthForkNewRiver
MillCreek
S t a g g C r e ek
Ri ch Hill C r e ek
Bru
s
h
F
o
r
k
Dixo n C r e e k
T hr e e Top Cree k
B
igHorseCreek
LittleLaurelCreek
Kilby C reek
Roundabout C re e k
Ripshin
Branch
Je r d Branch
BigBranch
Rock(S t o n e )Creek
C ut L a urelCre e k
Roaring
B
ra
n
c
h
LongBranch
C o p e la n d C re e k
ClaybankCreekLostBranch
CabbageCreek
B
e
n
B
o
len
Cr
eek
MiddleForkLittleHorseCreek
RushB
r
a
n
c
h
GreerBranch
SwiftBranch
O ld F i el d B r a n c h (G r as s B r a n c h)
Bi
g
HorseCreek(HorseCreek)
EastFork
R
oaring
Fork
WallaceBranc
h
BigWindfallBranch(Windfall Creek)
SouthForkLittleHorseCreek
W
o
o
d
a
r
d
Branch
Wilson Branch
P i n e M o untain Bra n c h
Lit
t
l
e
WindfallBranch
S u g ar Tre e B r a n c h (S u g ar Bra n c h)
SoupBeanBranch
G r a y b e a l B r a n c h
BigBranch
KF1
KF23
KF10
KF22
KF21
KF
22
0
1
2
3
4
0.5
Miles
Big
Laurel
Creek
Subwatershed
(050500010102)
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
January
2011®
Legend
¢¡
Random
Ambient
Stations
¢¡
Ambient
[¡
Fish
Community
"à)
Benthos
!(
USGS
Gages
Monitoring
Stations
#*
NPDES
Discharge
(Minor)
XY
NPDES
Discharge
(Major)
Permits
¡³
Animal
Operation
(Cattle)
E
Stormwater
2010
Use
Support
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
Hydrology
Major
Roads
Municipalities
Conservation
Land
County
Boundary
12-Digit
HUCs
#0
NPDES
Non-Discharge
(Minor)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.4
¡³
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
ASHE
WATAUGA
N o rt h ForkNe
w
River
N
ort
h
ForkNew
River
ASHE
WATAUGA
NC-88
KB30
KB31
KB22
KB20
KB21
KB63
KB20
KB23
KB26
KB33
KB30
KB86
KB138
KB134
KB121
KB120
KB119KB141
KB140
KB130
KB129
BigLaurelCreek
B
e
a
v
erCreek
Buffalo
Cree
k
North
Fork
N
e
w
R
iv
er
MillCreek
OldFieldCreek
South
F
ork
New
River
NorrisFork
LongHopeCreek
ElkCreek
Hoskin
Fo
r
k
StaggCreek
RichHillCreek
Brus
h
F
o
r
k
MeatCampCreek
DixonCreek
ThreeTopCreekGrassy
Cr
e
e
k
LittleLaurelCreek
CobbCreek
KilbyCreek
RoundaboutCreek
BigBranch
Rock(Stone)Creek
LittleCreek
CutLaurelCreek
Roaring
B
ra
nch
Long
Br
a
n
c
h
CranberryCreek
CopelandCreek
ClaybankCreek
Cabbage
Creek
B
e
n
Bolen
Cr
eekMillCreek(GrassyCreek)
CallCreek(WestProngOldFieldCreek)
Little
G
a
p
C
r
e
e
k
MiddleForkLittleHorseCreek
Triv
e
tt
B
r
a
n
c
h
S
o
uth
Br
a
nch
S
o
u
thBeaverCreek(LakeAshe)
RushB
r
a
n
c
h
PineOrchardCreek
GreerBranch
DoeBranch
SwiftBranch
UTMILLC
R
PineBranch
CouchesCreek
MineBranch
OldFieldBranch(GrassBranch)
EastFork
R
oaring
Fork
WallaceBranc
h
BigWindfallBranch(WindfallCreek)
SouthForkLittleHorseCreek
J
o
n
esBranch
MaineB
r
anch
W
o
o
d
ar
d
Branch
WilsonBranch
PineMountainBranch
SugarTreeBranch(SugarBranch)
SoupBean
Branch
Mor
etz
B
ranch
BigBranch
KF1
KF23
KF10
KF24
KF22
KF
21
KF
22
0
1
2
3
4
0.5
Miles
Headwaters
North
Fork
New
River
Subwatershed
(050500010103)
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
January
2011 ®
Legend
¢¡
Random
Ambient
Stations
¢¡
Ambient
[¡
Fish
Community
"à)
Benthos
!(
USGS
Gages
Monitoring
Stations
#*
NPDES
Discharge
(Minor)
XY
NPDES
Discharge
(Major)
Permits
¡³
Animal
Operation
(Cattle)
E
Stormwater
2010
Use
Support
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
Hydrology
Major
Roads
Municipalities
Conservation
Land
County
Boundary
12-Digit
HUCs
#0
NPDES
Non-Discharge
(Minor)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.5
E
¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#*
#*
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)[¡
N
ort
h
F
ork N ewRiver
KB30
KB31
KB63
KB27
KB33
KB30
KB86
KB137
KB136
KB117KB125
KB122
KB121
KB120
KB118 KB117
B i g LaurelCreek
Little H orseCreek
N
o
r
t
h
F
or
k
N
e
w
R
i
v
e
r
MillCreek
SilasCre ek
S t a g g C r e e k
R i c h Hill C r e ek
Ezr a F o rk
P i n e y C r e e k
D ixo n C r e e k
B
igHorseCree k
LittleLaurelCreek
Kilby C r e e k
Roundabout C re e k
R
ipshin
Branch
J e r d Branch
BigBranch
Rock(S t o n e )Creek
C u t L a urelCre e k
Little H e l t o n C re e k
Roaring
B
r
a
n
c
h
Lon
g
B
ra
n
c
h
C o p e l a n d C re e k
LittlePhoenixCreek
ClaybankCreek
LostBranch
C abbage
Creek
Middle
ForkLittleHorseCreek Greer
Branch
SwiftBranch
L it tl e P i n e y C re e k
O l d F i e l d B r a n c h (G r a s s B r a n c h )
B
i
g
H
orseCreek(HorseCreek)
EastFork
R
o
aring
Fork
BigWindfallBranch(Windfall Creek)
SouthForkLittleHorseCreek
U
TLPHOENIXCR
W
o
o
d
a
r
d
Branch
P i n e M o untain B ra n c h
L
i
t
t
l
e
Windfal
l
Br
a
n
c
h
F oste r S p ri n g s B r a n c h
S u g ar T re e B r a n c h (S u g a r B r a n c h )
Soup
Bean
Branch
ShippyBranch OldField Cre e kLongBranchKF5
KF1
KF22
KF
21
KF
220
0.7
1.4
2.1
2.8
0.35
Miles
Little
Horse
Creek
Subwatershed
(050500010104)
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
January
2011®
Legend
¢¡
RandomAmbient
Stations
¢¡
Ambient
[¡
Fish
Community
"à)
Benthos
!(
USGS
Gages
Monitoring
Stations
#*
NPDES
Discharge
(Minor)
XY
NPDES
Discharge
(Major)
Permits
¡³
Animal
Operation
(Cattle)
E
Stormwater
2010
Use
Support
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
Hydrology
Major
Roads
Municipalities
Conservation
Land
County
Boundary
12-Digit
HUCs
#0
NPDES
Non-Discharge
(Minor)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.6
E
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#*
#*
#*
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
NorthFork
N
e
w
River
N
o
r
t
h
ForkNewRiver
Lansing
N C-1 9 4
KB7
KB8
KB25
KB30
KB25
KB31
KB63
KB32
KB27
KB25
KB23
KB33
KB30
KB86
KB138
KB137
KB136
KB139
KB134
KB117
KB135
KB126
KB125
KB123
KB122
KB121
KB120
KB119
KB118KB117
BigLaurelCreek
Buffal
o
Cre
e
k
LittleHorseCreek
Nor
t
h
Fork
Ne
w
Rive
r
MillCreek
RoanCreek
SilasCreek
NakedCreek
DogCreek
StaggCreek
RichHillCreek
EzraFork
HeltonCreek
BrushFork
PineyCreek
DixonCreek
ThreeTopCreek
B
igHorseCreek
NathansCreek
LittleLaurelCreek
KilbyCreek
RoundaboutCreek
Ripshin
Branch
JerdBranch
BigBranch
Rock(Stone)Creek
CutLaurelCreek
LittleHeltonCreek
Roaring
B
r
a
n
c
h
Long
Bra
n
c
h
CopelandCreek
LittlePh
o
e
n
ix
Creek
ClaybankCreek
LostBranch
CabbageCreek
SilasB
r
anch
Little
Nak
e
d
Creek
B
e
n
Bole
n
Creek
MiddleForkLittleHorseCreek
PotterBranch
MillpondBranch
GreerBranch
LongShoalsCreek
SwiftBranch
LittlePineyCreek
EastFork
R
oaring
Fork
BigWindfallBranch(WindfallCreek)
SouthForkLittleHorseCreek
U
T
L
P
H
OENIXCR
W
o
o
d
ar
d
Branch
WilsonBranchPineMountainBranch
Lit
t
le
Windfall
Br
a
n
c
h
FosterSpringsBranch
SugarTreeBranch(SugarBranch)
SoupBeanBranch
UT HE
A
L
IN
G
S
P
RIN
GS
Shippy Branch
Old
FieldCreek
LongBranch
GrassyCreek
LongBranch
KF5
KF5
KF1
KF23
KF20
KF14
KF10
KF22
KF
21
KF
22
0
1
2
3
4
0.5
Miles
Big
Horse
Creek
Subwatershed
(050500010105)
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
January
2011 ®
Legend
¢¡
Random
Ambient
Stations
¢¡
Ambient
[¡
Fish
Community
"à)
Benthos
!(
USGS
Gages
Monitoring
Stations
#*
NPDES
Discharge
(Minor)
XY
NPDES
Discharge
(Major)
Permits
¡³
Animal
Operation
(Cattle)
E
Stormwater
2010
Use
Support
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
Hydrology
Major
Roads
Municipalities
Conservation
Land
County
Boundary
12-Digit
HUCs
#0
NPDES
Non-Discharge
(Minor)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.7
E
E
E
E
EE
¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#*
XY
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
!(
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
¢¡
ASHE
WATAUGA
NorthFork
N
e
w
River
Lansing
NC-194
NorthFor
k
New
Ri
ver
Li
ttle B u ff aloCree k
NC-88
NC-194
NC -1 94
West
JeffersonClaybankCreek
KB7
KB8
KB3
KB5
KB6KB25
KB30
KB25
KB31
KB22
KB63
KB32
KB27
KB25
KB23
KB26
KB33
KB30
KB86
KB138
KB137
KB136
KB139
KB108
KB134
KB117
KB135KB126
KB125
KB123
KB122
KB121
KB120
KB119
KB141
KB118 KB117
KB129
B i g LaurelCreek
B
e
a
v
erCreek
Buff
a
lo
C
r
e
e
k
LittleHorseCreek
North
F
ork
N
e
w
R
i
v
er
MillCreek
Ol d Field Creek
R oanCreek
SilasCreek
O bidsCre e k
LongHopeCreek
Naked Creek
ElkCreek
DogCreek
Hoskin
Fork
S t a g g C r e ek
R ich Hill C r e ek
Ezra F ork
H elt o n Creek
Bru
s
h
F
o
r
k
P in ey C re e k
DixonCreek
B ear Creek
T hre e Top Cree k
B
igHorseCreek
NathansCreek
LittleLaurelCreek
KilbyCree k
Roundabout Creek
Ripshin
Branch
JerdBranch
BigBranch
Rock(S t o n e)Creek
LittleCreek
CutLaurelCre e k
LittleHeltonCreek
Roaring
Br
a
n
c
h
C
ole
Branch
Long
Bra
n
c
h
C o p e la n d C re e k
LittlePh
o
e
ni
x
Creek
LostBranch
Cabbage
Creek
SilasBranch
LittleNak
e
d
Creek
B
e
n
Bolen
Cr
eek Mill Creek(Gra s syCreek )
CallCreek(WestPro n g Old Field Cre e k)
MiddleForkLittleHorseCreek
PotterBra n c hMillpondBranch
S
o
uth
Br
a
nch
S
o
u
thBeaverCreek(LakeAshe)
RushB
r
a
n
c
h
P in e Orc h ard Creek
GreerBranch
LongShoalsCreek
D o e B r a n ch
SwiftBranch
LittlePeakCreek
Littl e Pi n e y C reek
UTMILL
C
R
Couches Creek
Min e Branch
EastFork
R
oaring
Fork
WallaceBran
c
h
BigWindfallBranch(WindfallCreek)
SouthForkLittleHorseCreek
MaineB
r
anch
U
T
L
P
H
OENIX
CR
W
o
o
d
ar
d
Branch
Wilson Branch
Cre
as
e
yBranch
P in e M ountain Bra n c h
Lit
t
l
e
Windfall
Br
a
n
c
h
F oster S p rin g s Bra n c h
S u g ar Tre e B ra n c h (S u g ar B ra n c h)
Soup
Bean
Branch
UTHEALINGSPRINGS
ShippyBranch
Old
Field Cre e kNewRiver(NorthCarolinaPortion)Long B r a nc h
SouthBeaverCreek(Lake Ashe)
GrassyCreek
BigBranch
LongBranch
KF5
KF5
KF1
KF23
KF20 KF13KF14
KF10
KF22
KF
21
KF
22
0
1
2
3
4
0.5
Miles
Upper
North
Fork
New
River
Subwatershed
(050500010106)
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
January
2011®
Legend
¢¡
Random
Ambient
Stations
¢¡
Ambient
[¡
Fish
Community
"à)
Benthos
!(
USGS
Gages
Monitoring
Stations
#*
NPDES
Discharge
(Minor)
XY
NPDES
Discharge
(Major)
Permits
¡³
Animal
Operation
(Cattle)
E
Stormwater
2010
Use
Support
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
Hydrology
Major
Roads
Municipalities
Conservation
Land
County
Boundary
12-Digit
HUCs
#0
NPDES
Non-Discharge
(Minor)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.8
E
E
E
E
E
E
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#*
#*
#*
#*
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
Lansing
N C-1 9 4
NorthForkNewRiver
L
i
ttleBuffaloCreek
NC-88
NC-194
NC-194
West
Jefferson
NC-16
KB7
KB8
KB3
KB25
KB25
KB10
KB15
KB13
KB14
KB31
KB63
KB32
KB27
KB25
KB10
KB11
KB33
KB137
KB136
KB139
KB134
KB117
KB135
KB127
KB126
KB125
KB123
KB122KB121
KB118
Peak
C
r
e
e
k
BuffaloCreek LittleHorseCreek
NorthForkNewRiver
RoanCreek
SilasCreek
NakedCreek
DogCreek
StaggCreek
EzraFork
HeltonCreek
PineyCreek
BigHorseCreek
NathansC
r
e
ek
JerdBranch
LittleHeltonCreek
C
ole
Branch
LongBranch
CranberryCreek
(
M
ulberryCreek)
LittlePh
o
e
n
i
x
C
re
ek
ClaybankCreek
LostBranch
Silas
B
r
anch
Little
Nak
e
d
CreekPotterBranch
MillpondBranch
LongShoalsCreek
Little
P
e
a
k
C
r
e
e
k
LittlePineyCreek
B
e
a
verBranch
BigWindfallBranch(WindfallCreek)SouthForkLittleHorseCreek
U
T
L
P
h
o
e
n
ix
Cr
Cre
a
s
e
y
B
r
a
n
c
h
LittleWindfallBranch
FosterSpringsBranch
SugarTreeBranch(SugarBranch)
UT HE
A
L
I
N
G
S
P
RI
N
GS
Shippy Branch
O
ld
FieldCreek
WolfBranch
New
R
i
v
e
r
(NorthCarolina
Portion)
LongBranch
Pi
n
e
y
Creek
GrassyCreek
LongBranch
KF5
KF5
KF2
KF1
KF20
KF15
KF14
KF16
KF
21
0
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
0.4
Miles
Middle
North
Fork
New
River
Subwatershed
(050500010107)
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
January
2011 ®
Legend
¢¡
Random
Ambient
Stations
¢¡
Ambient
[¡
Fish
Community
"à)
Benthos
!(
USGS
Gages
Monitoring
Stations
#*
NPDES
Discharge
(Minor)
XY
NPDES
Discharge
(Major)
Permits
¡³
Animal
Operation
(Cattle)
E
Stormwater
2010
Use
Support
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
Hydrology
Major
Roads
Municipalities
Conservation
Land
County
Boundary
12-Digit
HUCs
#0
NPDES
Non-Discharge
(Minor)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.9
E
¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#*
#*
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
¢¡
¢¡
Lansing
NC-194
NorthFork
N
e
w
River
NC-88
NC-194
NC-16
H e lt o n Cree k
NC-194
NC-16
KB10 KB15
KB63
KB27
KB25
KB10
KB33
KB137
KB136
KB117
KB135
KB127
KB126
KB125
KB123
KB122
KB121
KB118
Little H orseCreek
N o rt h F o rk N e w R iv er
MillCreek
Silas Cre ek
S t a g g C r e e k
H e l t o n Cree k
P in e y C r e e k
B
igHorse C re ek
NathansCree
k
Je r d Branch
Little H e l t o n C re e k
Roaring
B
r
a
n
c
h
Lo
n
g
Bra
n
c
h
C o p e l a n d C re e k
LittlePh
o
e
n
i
x
Creek
ClaybankCreek
L ostBranch
Middle
ForkLittleHorseCreek
MillpondBranch
GreerBranch
LongShoalsCreek
L it tl e P i n e y C re e k
BeaverBranch
BigWindfallBranch(Windfall Creek)
SouthForkLittleHorseCreek
U
T
L
P
h
o
enix
Cr
L
i
t
t
l
e
Windfal
l
Br
a
n
c
h
F oste r S p ri n g s B ra n c h
S u g ar Tr e e B r a n c h (S u g ar B ra n c h)
UTHE
A
L
I
N
G
S
P
RI
N
GS
O
l
d
Field Cre e k
Ne
w
River(NorthCarolinaPortion)
Long B r a n c h
PineyCreek
G rassyCreek
L o n g B r a nch
KF5
KF2
KF1
KF15KF16
0
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
0.4
Miles
Helton
Creek
Subwatershed
(050500010108)
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
January
2011®
Legend
¢¡
Random
Ambient
Stations
¢¡
Ambient
[¡
Fish
Community
"à)
Benthos
!(
USGS
Gages
Monitoring
Stations
#*
NPDES
Discharge
(Minor)
XY
NPDES
Discharge
(Major)
Permits
¡³
Animal
Operation
(Cattle)
E
Stormwater
2010
Use
Support
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
Hydrology
Major
Roads
Municipalities
Conservation
Land
County
Boundary
12-Digit
HUCs
#0
NPDES
Non-Discharge
(Minor)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
N
oRth
F
oRk N
EW
R
IV
E
R
W
AtER
S
hED

(
hUC

0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
)

APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
1-D.10
E E
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
#0
#0#0
#0#0
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
[¡
[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
NC-16
NC-194
NC-16
KB10
KB15
KB27
KB25
KB10
KB33 KB137KB136
KB117
KB135
KB127
KB126
KB125
KB123
KB118
PeakC
r
e
e
k
NorthForkNewRiver
P
r
a
t
h
e
r
s
Creek
SilasCreek
DogCreek
EzraFork
PotatoCreek
HeltonCreek
C
r
a
b
F
o
r
k
PineyCreek
NathansCr
e
e
k
Piney
B
r
a
nc
h
LittleHeltonCreek
LittlePhoenixCreekClaybankCreek
MapleBranch
Silas
B
r
anch
MillpondBranch
LongShoalsCreek
LittlePineyCreek
B
e
a
verBranch
UTLPhoenixCr
FosterSpringsBranch
O
l
d
FieldCreek
Ne
w
R
i
v
e
r
(
NorthCarolina
Portion)
LongBranch
Pi
n
ey
Creek
GrassyCreek
LongBranch
KF5
KF2
KF15
KF16
K7500000
K4500000
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0.25
Miles
Lower
North
Fork
New
River
Subwatershed
(050500010109)
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
January
2011 ®
Legend
¢¡
Random
Ambient
Stations
¢¡
Ambient
[¡
Fish
Community
"à)
Benthos
!(
USGS
Gages
Monitoring
Stations
#*
NPDES
Discharge
(Minor)
XY
NPDES
Discharge
(Major)
Permits
¡³
Animal
Operation
(Cattle)
E
Stormwater
2010
Use
Support
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
Hydrology
Major
Roads
Municipalities
Conservation
Land
County
Boundary
12-Digit
HUCs
#0
NPDES
Non-Discharge
(Minor)