The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutChapter 2 with AppNC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 2.1 CHAPTER 2 South Fork New river & Fox Creek waterShedS HUCs 0505000102 & 0505000103 Includes: Meat Camp Creek, Elk Creek, Pine Swamp Creek, Beaver Creek, Naked Creek, Peak Creek, Cranberry Creek, Prather Creek, Grassy Creek & Bridle Creek waterShed at a GlaNCe CouNtieS: Alleghany, Ashe & Watagua MuNiCipalitieS: Jefferson, Lansing & West Jefferson eCoreGioNS: Amphibolite Mountains, New River Plateau, Southern Crystaline Ridges and Mountains, Southern Metasedimentary Mountains, & Southern Sedimentary Ridges perMitted FaCilitieS: NPDES WWTP: ......................14 Major ...........................................2 Minor .........................................12 Non-Discharge Facilities: ..........9 Stormwater: ..............................6 General .......................................6 Individual .....................................0 Animal Operations: ...................0 populatioN: 2010: .................Coming Soon 2006 laNd Cover: Developed .........................8.42% Forest .............................64.72% Agriculture .......................26.74% Wetlands ...........................0.11% 2001 Impervious Surface ..0.84% GeNeral waterShed deSCriptioN These two ten-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds, with an area of about 351 square miles, are the equivalent to DWQ’s old subbasin 05-07-01 and contain the South Fork New River, Fox Creek and its tributaries (See DWQ’s Old Subbasins to New HUC Conversion map in the Maps Chapter). These two watersheds are combined in the same chapter due to the small size of the Fox Creek watershed (0505000103). Majority of these watersheds lie within Watauga and Ashe Counties. When combined, the South Fork New River and Fox Creek are the largest watersheds in this basin. The river flows north northeast through fairly mountainous terrain before joining with the North Fork New River to form the New River in northern Ashe County. The land cover within these watersheds is mostly forested (64%) and has the largest amount of developed/urban area (8.2%) within the New River basin. These areas include the Towns of Blowing Rock, Boone, and Jefferson. Outside these urban areas, the land is dotted with rural residential communities, pastures and Christmas tree farms. Agricultural activities (25% of land cover) have historically consisted of cattle grazing, but within the last 15 years have expanded to include Christmas tree farming. Roughly 7,800 acres of conservation land are found in these watersheds, and including easements held by local watershed groups and State agencies: Elk Knob State Park, Mt. Jefferson State Natural Area, New River State Park and Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust among others. The population in these watersheds is centered mostly around the towns of Blowing Rock, Boone and Jefferson. The population of all three municipalities increased between 1990 and 2000 by a collective 22%. Boone is estimated to increase 10%, Blowing Rock by 5% and Jefferson by 1.4% by 2010 according to the 2000 census. 2.2 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 FIguRE 2-1: South FoRk NEW RIVER/Fox CREEk WAtERShEDS (0505000102 & 0505000103) "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) "à)"à) "à)"à)"à) "à)"à)"à) "à) "à)"à) "à)"à) [¡ [¡[¡[¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ #* #*#*#* #* XY #* XY #* #* South F o r k N ew River PineOrchardCr. MeatCampCr. KB67 KB17 KB19 KF6 KF24 KF13 KF2 KF15 ASHE WILKES WATAUGA ALLEGHANY CALDWELL PeakCreek BeaverCreek M e ad o w Fork RoanCreek NakedCr. ObidsCr. Pin e y F o r k DogCr. Winkl er C r . HowardCr.Middle Fo r k EastFor k PineSwamp S.BeaverCr. CranberryCreek S.ForkNewR. N e wR. Boone Sparta Blowing Rock Jefferson Seven Devils West Jefferson Lansing K2500000 K4500000 KB2 KB5 KB6 KB10 KB22 KB13KB11 KB21 KB20 KB14 KB18 KB15 KB130 KB129 KB108 KB140 KB126 0 4 8 12 16 2 Miles "à)"à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à)"à)[¡ [¡ ¢¡#* XY #* Nake d Creek S o u t h ForkNR KB3 KB7 KB9 KB8 KB139 KF20 KF14 K3250000 "à)"à)"à) "à) "à)"à)"à) "à)"à)"à) [¡ [¡ [¡¢¡ #*#* #* XY #* EastForkSFNR S FN R KB1 KB17 KB16 KB12 KB103 KF8 KF12 K2100000 LegendRandom Ambient ¢¡NPDES WW Discharge Monitoring Sites Minor Hydrology - Use Support Watershed Boundary County Boundaries Conservation Lands Municipalities Major #* Ambient Fish Community Supporting Impaired No Data Benthos Primary Roads XY¢¡[¡"à) 2.3 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 waterShed water Quality overview The South Fork New River/Fox Creek watershed contains seven out of the eight Impaired stream segments within the New River basin. Four of those segments include Naked Creek, Ore Knob Branch, Peak and Little Peak Creeks, which have been on the Impaired Waters list for several years. The remaining three Impaired segments (two segments of the South Fork New River and the East Fork South Fork New River) were added to the 2008 Impaired Waters list. This watershed has the largest population of the three watersheds in the New River basin and contains more of an of urban and agriculture land use mix. Several waterbodies in the watershed have pristine water quality conditions and are in need of protection as land use changes from forest to urban or agriculture areas. water Quality data SuMMary For theSe waterShedS Monitoring stream flow, aquatic biology and chemical/physical parameters is 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 DWQ’s 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 2-2). 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 2-3 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 2-2: 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 2-3: 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% 2.4 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 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 2-4). 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. 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 had an approximate recurrence interval of 10 to 25 years. During Hurricane Ivan (September 17th - 18th) the peak flow was 7,550 cfs, which had 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 ESS as part of the five year basinwide sampling cycle, in addition to special studies. Overall, 36 biological sampling sites were monitored within the South Fork New River Watershed. The ratings for each of the sampling stations can be seen in Appendix 2-B. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure 2-5 and color-coded based on the current rating. As seen on the map, the majority of samples taken in this watershed were Supporting. This map also shows where the Impaired benthic sites are clustered in the basin. Each of these sites are discussed in more detail in the subwatershed discussions below. Figure 2-6 shows 81% of the 27 sampling events received a Supporting rating and 12% received an Impaired rating. Figure 2-7 is a comparison of benthic site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall shifts in ratings. Twenty-four percent of ratings declined and 12% improved in rating. Majority of ratings however, did not change which indicates no watershed scale shift in water quality. FIguRE 2-4: 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 ...........27 £Stations Monitored Twice ..... 2 £Number of New Stations ...... 5 2.5 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 FIguRE 2-5: BENthIC StAtIoNS CoLoR CoDED BY CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE South FoRk NEW RIVER WAtERShED FIguRE 2-6: CuRRENt BENthIC SItE RAtINgS Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired FIguRE 2-7: ChANgE IN BENthIC SItE RAtINgS Improved Declined No Change New Station Fish Community Sampling Each fish community station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure 2-8 and color coded based on the current rating. Five of the sites were new monitoring sites located in rural watersheds with no NPDES dischargers. These sites were selected to determine potential for becoming fish community regional reference sites. As shown in Figure 2-9, 55% of the 11 sampling events were Supporting and nine percent received an Impaired rating. Thirty-six percent of the samples were Not Rated; therefore, the segments are neither Impaired nor Supporting. These four sites were Not Rated due to their location in a small mountain trout stream which does not currently have rating criteria. DWQ is developing this criteria and will apply it to these sites once completed. Figure 2-10 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. It shows 10% declined and 40% had no change in rating, indicating a somewhat stable fish community. FiSh CoM. SaMpliNG SuMMary £Total Stations Monitored .....11 £Total Samples Taken ...........11 £Number of New Stations ...... 5 2.6 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 FIguRE 2-8: FISh CommuNItY StAtIoNS CoLoR CoDED BY CuRRENt RAtINg IN thE South FoRk NEW RIVER WAtERShED FIguRE 2-9: CuRRENt FISh CommuNItY SItE RAtINgS Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired FIguRE 2-10: ChANgE IN FISh CommuNItY SItE RAtINgS Improved Declined No Change New Station When comparing the changes in biological site ratings to the other watersheds in this basin, it appears this watershed had the largest overall decline. However, this watershed had almost twice as many monitoring stations that could be compared between the previous monitoring cycle and the current. 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 2-B. Fish Kills/Spill Events Hodges Creek [AU#: 10-1-4-4-1]: A fish kill was reported on July 17, 2010 on Hodges Creek of roughly 100 trout, crayfish and snails. This kill was the result of parking lot sealant being applied to the parking lot, located at 2458 NC Hwy. 105, right before a rain event. The rain event caused the sealant to runoff the parking lot before it was able to dry properly. aMBieNt data The ambient data are used to develop use support ratings every two years, 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 2-A and statewide on the Modeling & TMDL Unit’s website. 2.7 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Three AMS stations are located in the South Fork New River watershed (see Figure 2-1). During the current sampling cycle (January 2004 and December 2008), samples were collected for all parameters on a monthly basis, except metals which were sampled quarterly until 2007. 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. Long Term Ambient Monitoring The following discussion of major ambient monitoring parameters includes graphs showing the median and mean concentration values for the three AMS stations 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 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 Environmental Sciences Section (ESS) and can be found in the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report. pH AMS site K3250000 (located on the South Fork New River, just southeast of the Town of Jefferson) was the only AMS site in this watershed which recorded a pH standard exceedance. Two samples were over the 9.0 standard during this monitoring cycle, as indicated in Figure 2-11 by a yellow dot. Figure 2-12 shows the mean and median pH levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the South Fork New River watershed. The pH pattern seen during this 13 year period is a steady increase towards the upper 7 range. This trend is seen in all three 10-digit watersheds in the New River Basin and is discussed further in the Executive Summary. FIguRE 2-11: PERCENtAgE oF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE Ph StANDARDS (2003-2008) FIguRE 2-12: SummARIzED Ph VALuES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN huC 0505000102 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 pH Median Mean * NC pH Standard: Between 6 and 9 su 2.8 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Turbidity All three AMS sites (which are located on the South Fork New River) exceeded the state’s turbidity standard in three to seven percent of samples, as seen in Figure 2-13 indicated by a yellow dot. Possible sources of elevated turbidity levels are discussed in the 12-digit subbwatershed section. Figure 2-14 shows the mean and median of turbidity levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the South Fork New River watershed. The yearly averages are well below the state standard of 50 NTUs. The highest two violations occurred in 2009 at sites K3250000 and K4500000, measuring at 380 NTU and 260 NTU, respectively. 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 off impervious surfaces are all potential sources. Turbidity violations demonstrate the importance of protecting and conserving stream buffers and natural areas. FIguRE 2-13: PERCENtAgE oF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE tuRBIDItY StANDARD (2003-2008) FIguRE 2-14: SummARIzED tuRBIDItY VALuES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN huC 0505000102 0 5 10 15 20 25 Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Median Mean * NC Turbidity Standard: 50 NUTDissolved Oxygen As seen in Figure 2-15, none of the three sites recorded DO standard exceedance during this monitoring cycle. Figure 2-16 shows the mean and median of DO levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the South Fork New River watershed. These averages are well within the normal DO range. FIguRE 2-15: PERCENtAgE oF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg thE Do StANDARD (2003-2008) FIguRE 2-16: SummARIzED Do VALuES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN huC 0505000102 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 DO ( m g / l ) Median Mean * NC DO Standard: Not < 5 mg/l daily avg. or not < 4 mg/l instantaneous 2.9 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Temperature The NC standard for temperature is not to exceed 29°C (84.2°F) in the mountain/upper piedmont regions. The discharge of heated liquids to trout waters (Tr) should not increase the natural water temperature by more than 0.5°C (0.9°F), and in no case, exceed 20°C (68°F). A map of designated Trout Waters in the New River basin can be found in the Maps Chapter. No stream segments in this watershed are Impaired or Impacted due to high temperatures (Figure 2-17). Figure 2-18 shows the mean and median of temperature levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the South Fork New River watershed. The change in the water temperature trend for this watershed can be linked to the change in stream flow levels. During low flow or drought periods, water can sit in small pools and become heated by the sun. FIguRE 2-17: PERCENtAgE oF SAmPLES ExCEEDINg tEmPERAtuRE StANDARD (2003-2008) FIguRE 2-18: SummARIzED tEmPERAtuRE VALuES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN huC 0505000102 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 the 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. Three AMS stations are located within this watershed which are all along the South Fork New River. As seen in Figure 2-19, two of the sites had 0 to 7% of samples taken during this cycle result in levels over 400 colonies/100 ml and the southern most site had 7 to 10%. Possible sources of elevated levels of FCB are discussed in the subwatershed sections. Figure 2-20 shows the geometric mean of FCB levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the South Fork New River watershed. The geometric mean is a type of mean or average, which indicates the central tendency or typical value of a set of numbers. The highest yearly geometric mean for FCB was recorded in 2003. The figure also includes the yearly average stream flow, as seen in Figure 2-4, to show how flow can be linked to FCB levels. FIguRE 2-19: PERCENtAgE oF SAmPLES WIth ELEVAtED FCB LEVELS (2003-2008) 2.10 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 FIguRE 2-20: SummARIzED FECAL CoLIFoRm BACtERIA VALuES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN huC 0505000102 WIth oVERLAYINg FLoW 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 FC B ( c o l o n i e s / 1 0 0 m l ) Geometricmean Av e r a g e Y e a r l y F l o w (c f s ) 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. reCoMMeNdatioNS & aCtioN plaNS at the waterShed SCale dwQ priority SuMMary Table 2-1 is a list of waters in the South Fork New River & Fox Creek Watersheds 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. 2.11 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 tABLE 2-1: PRIoRItIzAtIoN oF WAtERS IN thE South FoRk NEW RIVER & Fox CREEk WAtERShEDS (hIghESt to LoWESt PRIoRItY) StREAm NAmE Au#CLASS.PotENtIAL StRESSoR(S) PotENtIAL SouRCE(S)StAtuS ACtIoNS NEEDED South Fork New R. (SFNR) 10-1-(1), 10-1-(3.5)a & 10-1-(3.5)b WS-IV;CA;+ C;+ C;+ Habitat Degradation, Nutrients, pH Construction, WWTP Impaired SS, SEC, NMC, P (Hellbender Salamander) Boone Cr. (Kraut Cr.) 10-1-4-4 C;Tr;+Habitat Degradation, Temperature, Turbidity, DO, Copper ASU Steam Station, Urban Impacts, Construction, Piped Streams Impacted DS, RBR, SC, E SFNR 10-1-(33.5)B;ORW Habitat Degradation, Turbidity, pH, Nutrients, Copper Agriculture, Abandoned Mine Supporting RBR, Ag, NMC Naked Cr.10-1-32 C;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Turbidity, Toxins Construction, Golf Course, Urban Impacts Impaired SC, RBR, E, WRP, DS, SEC Middle Fork SFNR 10-1-2-(1), 10-1-2-(6), 10-1-2-(14) & 10-1-2-(15) WS-IV;+ WS-IV;Tr;+ WS-IV;+ WS-IV;CA;+ Urban Impacts, Blowing Rock WTP Impacted M East Fork SFNR 10-1-3-(1), 10-1-3-(7) & 10-1-3-(8) WS-IV;Tr;+ WS-IV;+ WS-IV;CA;+ Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Urban Impacts, Blowing Rock WTP Impaired RBR, M Obids Cr.10-1-27-(1) 10-1-27-(2) C;Tr;+ WS-IV;Tr;+ Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Agriculture (Livestock access) Supporting Ag, RBR, E Pine Swamp Cr.10-1-24 C;+Turbidity Stormwater Volume & Velocity Supporting RBR, Ag, E Cranberry Cr. (Mulberry Cr.) 10-1-37 B;Tr;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Nutrients Straight Channels, Agriculture Supporting R, Ag, RBR, E Prathers Cr.10-1-38 B;Tr;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Nutrients Agriculture Impacted RBR, Ag, NMC Norris Fork 10-1-10-2 C;Tr;+Turbidity Construction Supporting SEC BMPs SFNR 10-1-(20.5) & 10-1-(26)a WS-V;HQW WS-IV;HQW Supporting RBR, E Roan Cr.10-1-31-(1) 10-1-31-(1.5) 10-1-31-(2) C;Tr;+ WS-IV;Tr;+ WS-IV;CA;Tr;+ Sedimentation Agriculture Supporting Ag, E, RBR Winkler Cr.10-1-4-(1), 10-1-4-(2), 10-1-4-(3.5)a & 10-1-4-(3.5)b WS-II;HQW,Tr WS- II;HQW;Tr;CA C;Tr;+C;Tr;+ Urban Impacts, Pipped Streams Supporting DS, M Grassy Cr.10-3 C;Tr;+Nutrients, pH Agriculture, Straight Channels Impacted Ag, RBR 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). 2.12 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 StREAm NAmE Au#CLASS.PotENtIAL StRESSoR(S) PotENtIAL SouRCE(S)StAtuS ACtIoNS NEEDED Nathans Cr.10-1-36 B;Tr;+Habitat Degradation Impacted M SFNR 10-1-(3.5)c & 10-1-(14.5) C;+ C;+ Habitat Degradation, Turbidity, pH Poor Riparian Buffers Impacted M SFNR 10-1-(26)b & 10-1-(30)WS-IV;HQWWS-IV;HQW;CA pH, Turbidity, Nutrients Supporting SS Little Peak Cr.10-1-35-4 B;Tr;+Toxins Abandoned Mine Impaired R - Currently Underway Ore Knob Br.10-1-35-3 B;Tr;+Toxins Abandoned Mine Impaired R - Currently Underway Peak Cr.10-1-35-(1),10-1-35-(2)a &10-1-35-(2) b C;Tr;+B;Tr;+B;Tr;+ Toxins Abandoned Mine Impaired R - Currently Underway Pine Orchard Cr.10-1-15-1 C;Tr;+Turbidity Supporting RBR South Beaver Cr.10-1-25-2 C;Tr;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Supporting RBR Piney Fork 10-1-37-3 B;Tr;+Improving M 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). 2.13 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 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 2-1, 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 2-2). 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 2-2 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 2-2) 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 2-2: 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% 2.14 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 South Fork New river (SFNr) The full length South Fork New River runs from the Town of Boone 125 miles northeast to the New River confluence at the New River State Park. The river’s watershed is split into ten smaller subwatersheds (12-digit HUs) that are discussed in the following sections. This section will review the South Forks water quality status by AU segments. AU#’s: 10-1-(1), 10-1-(3.5)a & 10-1-(3.5)b The SFNR begins at the confluence of the Middle and East Fork South Fork New Rivers in the Town of Boone. This five and a half mile stretch within the Headwaters SFNR subwatershed (050500010201) receives runoff from a wide variety of land uses, including sports fields, commercial properties, pastures and a quarry along the stream banks with residential and forested land further up the banks. The Town of Boone’s WWTP also discharges to this portion of the SFNR. The two segments of the river running from Winkler Creek to US-421 [AU#: 10-1- (3.5)a & b] were added to the 2008 Impaired Waters list for ecological/biological integrity. Segment 10-1-(3.5)b was originally placed on the Impaired Waters List in 1998 for ecological/biological integrity and removed from the 2000 List. Water Quality Status The majority of the SFNR located within this subwatershed, 5.1 miles of 5.5 miles, initially appeared on the Impaired Waters list in 2008. Three DWQ sampling stations, located at the US-421 bridge, monitor the benthic and fish communities as well as physical/chemical parameters (AMS). Fish community samples taken this cycle indicated an improvement in species diversity as well as the quantity of the community from the previous cycle. However, a benthic sample collected in November of 2003, resulted in a declined rating of Fair from Good-Fair in August of 2003. The 2008 benthic rating echoed the November 2003 rating of Fair. Data from surrounding tributaries indicate the immediate drainage area is having more of an impact on the river than surrounding tributaries. Silt covered 40% of the benthos in this reach limiting habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. The excess silt is likely a result of stormwater runoff carrying loose sediment from a large land disturbing activity at the confluence of Hardin Creek and the SFNR. Physical/chemical sample results also show the stream is experiencing periods of high turbidity during storm events. Nutrient levels, particularly ammonia, have been reduced as a result of upgrades to the Town of Boone’s WWTP; however, reductions in total nitrogen and total phosphorus are still needed to support the river’s designated uses. pH levels at this site have gradually increased from 6.6 to around 7.6 between 1997 and 2009. In September 2010, a survey was conducted to identify locations throughout the state of the Hellbender salamander. A population was found in the SFNR near Boone. More information about the Hellbender Salamander can be found on the NC National Heritage Program website. This section of the SFNR will remain on the Impaired Waters List in 2012 and will be re-sampled in 2013. Recommendations It is recommended that both county and municipal planning departments work cooperatively to ensure construction projects are completed in an environmentally responsible manner. Local governments are also urged to partner with local environmental groups and DWQ to determine the need for a Watershed Restoration Plan. A stressor study is recommended to pinpoint the source of nutrients and other stressors that are impacting the benthic community. DWQ supports the need for funding a Watershed Restoration Plan for this drainage area that includes an implementation plan and post implementation monitoring. The presence of the Hellbender salamander increases the priority of restoration and protection of this drainage area. uSE SuPPoRt: iMpaired (5.5 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (KB16)Fair (2008) Fish Com (KF12)Good (2008) AMS (K2100000) No Exceedances 2.15 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 AU#’s: 10-1-(3.5)c & 10-1-(14.5) These two segments of the SFNR are approximately 61 miles from the edge of Boone to just upstream of Couches Creek and flow through three subwatersheds (Meat Camp Creek-SFNR: 050500010202, Elk Creek-SFNR: 050500010203 and Old Fields Creek-SFNR: 050500010204). Land cover for the drainage area is a mixture of agriculture lining the stream banks, small scattered urban and forested areas. Water Quality Status These segments were last sampled in 1990 when the benthic community received a Good-Fair rating. There are no known water quality issues in the segments. Recommendations DWQ will monitor KB90 during the next sampling cycle, if resources are available, to determine if there as been a significant change in water quality of this drainage area. AU#’s: 10-1-(20.5) & 10-1-(26)a These two segments of the SFNR are approximately 25 miles from just upstream of Couches Creek to Obids Creek and flow through three subwatersheds (Old Fields Creek-SFNR: 050500010204, Pine Swamp-SFNR: 050500010205 and Beaver Creek-SFNR: 050500010206). Land cover for the drainage area is a mixture of agriculture and forest. Water Quality Status The upstream segment [AU#: 10-1-(20.5)] has been monitored for benthic health three times since 1998 and holds a secondary use classification of HQW. The first two samples rated Excellent; however, the most recent sample taken in 2008 declined to a Good rating. This decline indicates more pollution tolerant taxa inhabiting the stream. Limited instream habitat and poor riparian buffers are responsible for the low habitat score. Specific conductivity and pH levels were both higher than past samples (105µS/cm and 9.2, respectively). Habitat conditions and an increasing pollution tolerance level combined with elevated turbidity, conductivity and pH levels indicate signs of recent impacts to the aquatic life in this segment. If impacts continue, the benthic rating for this segment is expected to decline during the next cycle. Recommendations Riparian buffer restoration is suggested along sections of the river that are lacking buffers of the correct width or all together. Educational efforts are also suggested for this area to inform property owners of the importance of maintaining proper width riparian buffers. AU#’s: 10-1-(26)b & 10-1-(30) These two segments of the SFNR [AU#: 10-1-(26)b & (30)] are approximately seven miles from just downstream of the Obids Creek to Naked Creek and flow through two subwatersheds (Beaver Creek-SFNR: 050500010206 and Naked Creek-SFNR: 050500010207). Land cover for the drainage area is a mixture of agriculture, forest and residential. Segment 10-1-(26)b was added to the 2006 Impaired Waters List for low pH violations but removed from the 2008 list. Water Quality Status A benthic site located at NC-16/18 has been sampled five times between 1990 and 2008. Each of these samples has resulted in an Excellent rating. The most recent sample showed a large and diverse benthic community; however, this community is slightly more pollution tolerant than of those found in the 2003 sample. This is an indication that impacts to instream water quality are present. uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (60.5 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB90)Good-Fair (1990) uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (24.6 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB2)Good (2008) uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (7.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB3)Excellent (2008) AMS (K3250000) No Exceedances 2.16 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 An AMS station is located just downstream of the benthic station, at NC-16 and NC-88. Between 2005 and 2009, there were no parameters with exceedances greater than 10% which would cause the stream to be added back to the Impaired Waters list. However, parameters of interest at this station include turbidity, specific conductivity, nutrients and pH which were all elevated as compared to the previous cycle. Fecal coliform bacteria levels were, on average, lower than the previous cycle. Several low pH readings, below the state water quality standard of 6.0, in the late 1990s and early 2000s placed this segment on the 2006 Impaired Waters List. It was removed from the 2008 list due to a reduction in the percent of samples with low pH violations. The last low pH violation was recorded in 2001 and the first high pH violation (greater than 9.0) was recorded in 2002. As seen in Figure 2-21, yearly averages of pH have been steadily increasing. The specific cause of the increasing pH levels is unknown at this time. Recommendations A stressor study should be conducted to determine the source of the increased pH. In western portion of the State, a downward trend is being seen in pH levels. This site does not appear to be affected by the unknown cause of low pH in the western portion; therefore, a separate study should be prioritized. AU#: 10-1-(33.5) This segment of the SFNR is 22.5 miles long, from Dog Creek to the confluence with the New River. The land cover in this drainage area is dominated by agriculture and forest. No permitted dischargers are located along the segment; however, it does receive flow from Peak, Little Peak Creeks and Ore Knob Branch, which are all Impaired waters. This segment holds a National Wild & Scenic River classification as well as a State use classification of ORW. Water Quality Status This segment includes an AMS station and a benthic macroinvertebrate station. Both stations are located along US-221, near Scottville. The benthic station has been monitored since 1983 and received an Excellent rating since 1990 as it did again in 2008. Specific conductivity and pH levels have both increased since the 2003 sample, indicating the presence of a water quality pollutant. Much of the streambanks along the segment lack any form of riparian buffer and are often used for agriculture activities. Physical and chemical parameters measured at the AMS station (K4500000) were all within North Carolina’s water quality standards. However, the data did show elevated levels of turbidity and copper and slightly higher nutrient levels as compared to the previous sampling cycle. A copper ore mine on Ore Knob Branch is the likely source of elevated copper. See the Peak Creek-South Fork New River subwatershed discussion for more details about the closed mine. Recommendations DWQ will work with SWCD to prioritize this segment of the river for the most appropriate agricultural BMPs to reduce the amount of nutrients and sediment that runs off farmlands. Educational efforts are also recommended to inform landowners of the importance of minimizing time soil is exposed between crop rotation and maintaining adequate riparian buffers. FIguRE 2-21: YEARLY Ph AVERAgES FoR k3250000 BEtWEEN 1998 AND 2009 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 pH K325 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 pH pH Average (yr) uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (22.5 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB10)Excellent (2008) AMS (K4500000)No Exceedances 2.17 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Local Initiatives In 2008, the National Committee for the New River (NCNR) combined efforts with the New River State Park to work on a streambank and riparian buffer restoration project. The streambank along a reach of the South Fork river in the New River State Park had severely eroding streambanks and lacked accessible floodplain and vegetated riparian buffers. The primary goal of the project was to reduce erosion; establish functional riparian zones; stabilize streambanks; restore connection of the stream to the flood plain; provide shading of the streams, and improve aquatic habitat. With funding from CWMTF, the NCNR stabilized 1350 linear feet of riverbank by sloping the banks, constructing in-stream structures to protect the bank, and planting a riparian buffer. The New River State Park contributed funds to plant trees on the project site, extending the average riparian buffer zone to over 200 feet. FIguRE 2-22: StREAm & BuFFER REStoRAtIoN EFFoRtS ALoNg South FoRk (LEFt: mARCh 2010; RIght: mAY 2010) *Pictures Provided by NCNR’s Lynn Caldwell South Fork New river headwaterS (huC: 050500010201) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(1), (3.5)a & (3.5)b], Middle Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-2-(1), (6), (14) & (15)], East Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-3-(1), (7) & (8)] & Winkler Creek [AU#:10-1-4-(1) & (3.5)] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, urban and agriculture. There are five minor and one major NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. The majority of streams in the subwatershed hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. The Towns of Blowing Rock and Boone are located in the southern and northern portion of the subwatershed, respectively. The subwatershed also includes two Impaired waterbodies (South Fork New River [AU: 10-1-(3.5)b] and East Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-3-(1)]). Middle Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-2-(1), (6), (14) & (15)] The Middle Fork South Fork New River runs about 11 miles from its source in the Town of Blowing Rock to the SFNR confluence in the Town of Boone. The river mostly flows north along US 221/321. Between the Towns of Blowing Rock and Boone, the river receives run off from light development along the streambanks, the Boone Golf Course and discharge from four minor NPDES facilities. Water Quality Status The first two segments of the river [AU#: 10-1-2-(1) & (6)], or the first nine miles, were last sampled in 2003. The 2003 benthic sample (KB67) was taken as part of a special study to determine impacts of a sodium hydroxide spill and received a Good-Fair rating. uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (11.1 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB1)Good-Fair (2008) Fish Com (KF8)Not Rated (2008) 2.18 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 The lower portion of the river [AU#: 10-1-2-(14) & (15)] was sampled in 2008 just upstream of the SFNR confluence. This benthic site (KB1) has been sampled five times since 1993, when it received an Excellent rating. Since that time, ratings have fluctuated between Good and Good-Fair. The 2008 Good-Fair rating and analysis indicates the river has been degrading gradually over time. The largest number of pollution tolerant species were collected during this cycle. The site also had elevated specific conductivity levels and poor habitat ratings. A fish community site is located at the same location as the benthic site and was first monitored in 1998 resulting in an Excellent rating. The fish site was not monitored in 2003 due to a sodium hydroxide spill. The 2008 sample showed a decline in number of pollution intolerant species, as well as a decline in bioclassification. The site was given a Not Rated due to the combined effects of the spill, described below, and the urban nature of this stream. In 2003, the Blowing Rock Water Treatment Plant spilled approximately 3,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide about eight miles upstream of the sampling site, causing an estimated 14,000 to 15,000 fish kill in the Middle Fork and upper part of the SFNR. DWQ conducted a special study to determine the effect of the spill on the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Samples from three weeks after the spill indicated no significant impact to the benthic community on the Middle Fork. Other samples taken during the study on the East Fork and the SFNR; however, did show impacts. Those are discussed further in those respective stream discussions below. Due to this spill, no fish sample was taken during the last cycle. Recommendations DWQ will re-sample site KF8 to determine the current water quality conditions. Sampling during the upcoming cycle will also assist in evaluating if the urban land use is having an impact on the fish community. The Boone Dam should be considered for a Dam Removal Project. American Rivers works closely with local agencies to determine whether it is environmentally beneficially to remove a particular dam or if the act of removing the dam would cause unnecessary damage to the aquatic life and it habitat. Additional information about American Rivers and what they do can be found online. East Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-3-(1), (7) & (8)] The East Fork South Fork New River is approximately three miles from source to the confluence with the SFNR. Headwaters drain pasture and other agricultural lands before transitioning to urban residential areas just before the confluence. The last mile of the river flows through the Boone Golf Course. One segment [AU#: 10-1-3-(1)] was added to the 2008 Impaired Waters list. The upstream and downstream segments are Supporting. Water Quality Status Two segments [AU#: 10-1-3-(1) & (8)] of the river were listed for the first time on the 2008 Impaired Waters list for biological integrity; however, the most downstream segment [AU#: 10-1-3-(8)] was removed from the 2010 Impaired Waters list. The upstream two mile segment [AU#: 10-1-3-(1)] was monitored for the first time at KB103 in 2003 as part of a special study to determine impacts of a sodium hydroxide spill from the Blowing Rock WTP in November 2003. The 2003 sample rated the benthic community as Fair as a result of the WTP spill. This site has not been re-sampled; however, the biological community has likely recovered from the spill impacts. The downstream half mile of the river [AU#: 10-1-3-(8)] has historically had an Excellent or Good benthic community at site KB12 but was rated Poor in 2003 due to the release of sodium hydroxide. The benthic community has since recovered from those impacts and received a Good rating in 2008, which removed the downstream segment from the 2010 Impaired Waters list. uSE SuPPoRt: iMpaired (5.8 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (KB12) (KB103) Good (2008) Fair (2003) 2.19 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the East Fork South Fork New River basinwide benthic site KB12. Special study site KB103 will be re-sampled to determine if the water quality has improved to support the rivers use sufficiently, depending on resource availability. It is also recommended that local agencies work with the Boone Golf Course to plant a proper riparian buffer along the stretch of the river that flows through the property. Local Initiatives Just across the river from the golf course, the National Committee for the New River (NCNR) began efforts to restore 1,442 linear feet of an unnamed tributary of the East Fork New River located on the Deerfield United Methodist Church property. This reach was incised and one section was migrating toward Deerfield Road. There was an old, degraded, and dangerous culvert under the church parking lot and another culvert through a grassy area which had dangerous sink-holes. The upper reach of the channel was daylighted and restored to a natural dimension, pattern, and profile. A new channel was created just downstream of a garden and a new culvert placed through the parking lot, well away from the road. Natural channel structures such as crossvanes, J-hooks, log deflection jams, and rootwads were placed throughout the high stress areas of the reach to control scour/erosion, create habitat and establish a stable riffle-pool sequence. A 50-foot riparian buffer was planted along the project reach. FIguRE 2-23: StREAm REStoRAtIoN EFFoRtS ALoNg EASt FoRk (LEFt: BEFoRE; RIght: AFtER) *Pictures Provided by NCNR’s Lynn Caldwell Winkler Creek [AU#:10-1-4-(1), (2), (3.5)a & (3.5)b] Winkler Creek is about six and a half miles long from source to the confluence with the SFNR. Headwaters of the creek drain mostly forest with single family homes and pasture lands along the streambanks. The last two miles of the stream, before it merging with the South Fork, flows through the Town of Boone. A thin riparian buffer is present along the banks of this portion; however, the area has a significant amount of impervious surface and is channeled underground periodically. The creek is currently supporting its designated uses according to the 2010 Integrated Report. Water Quality Status Winkler Creek has been monitored by DWQ since 1993 at a benthic station (KB17), located directly behind Watauga High School on the town limits of Boone. Historically, this station has had a stable, pollution intolerant benthic community. The sample taken in 2008 was rated Excellent as well. uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (6.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB17)Excellent (2008) 2.20 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the basinwide benthic station KB17 or relocate the site to upstream of the South Fork confluence. Data from this station could provide information on changes in water quality as the land use shifts from agriculture to urban. DWQ supports local efforts which involve property owners and other stakeholders in the planning process of evaluating and determining the best strategy for daylighting the full length of the stream. Boone Creek (Kraut Creek) [AU#: 10-1-4-4] Boone Creek is just over two and a half miles running from the northwest potion of the Town of Boone to Winkler Creek. The full length of the creek runs through a dense urban area with significant impervious surfaces. Portions of the creek have been piped underground. These watershed conditions can cause, among other water quality issues, flashy conditions within the stream during and shortly after storm events. DWQ does not currently collect data on this stream; therefore, the stream is not given a use support rating. Water Quality Status (Special Study) In 2006 and 2007, a study was conducted by Appalachian State University (Baseline Monitoring Case Study of a High-Gradient, Urbanized Stream - Boone Creek, Boone, NC) to provide a baseline for water quality data along Boone Creek. A two page summary of this study can be found online. Data for this study was collected between May 2006 and May 2007. Parameters sampled during this time were temperature, electrical conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH and pressure. One of the main focuses of this study was evaluating thermal behavior of the stream. Between May and August of 2006, temperatures in the stream ranged from 40°F to 72°F, which is over the North Carolina standard for Trout Waters. During the full length of the study, temperature averaged a 10-12°F difference within a 24 hour period in a one mile segment of the stream. The greater temperature differences occurred mostly during and shortly after storm events, when parking lots and other impervious surfaces are heated by the sun and then transferred that heat to stormwater runoff. This drainage area has a large percentage of impervious surfaces which can also cause the stream to become flashy. The study also discussed the stream’s chemistry and impacts from sedimentation. High levels (600-800 NTU) of turbidity were seen in the stream following rain events for one to six hours and would remain around 50 NTU for several days. Land clearing for construction projects in and around the Appalachian State University are sources of these high levels. pH levels upstream were found to be around 7 (neutral) and declined to more acidic levels further downstream. During winter months, the decline may have been due to salt on the roads. Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels stayed between 0 and 5 mg/l during the summer months in 2006. The DO standard in North Carolina for instantaneous readings is 4 mg/l. Copper samples were also noted as above the State’s action level. Recommendations Recommendations in the study discussed above suggested a major stream remediation. However, additional data is needed in combination to what was collected to plan a successful long term remediation. Other less expensive measures suggested by the study include wider riparian buffers and wetland areas located along the creek and installation of low impact development stormwater BMPs (e.g., green roofs, pervious pavements, bio-retention and collecting rain water). Daylighting the stream to increase habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates is also suggested by the study (Thaxton, 2007). DWQ supports the recommendation for planning and implementation of an in-depth stream restoration/ remediation project which includes stream daylighting. This type of long term project which is planned in detail is more likely to have measurable and lasting results than installing BMPs individually. Stormwater BMPs and wider buffer zones are economically feasible options to start with until project funding is secure, but should also be included in a larger restoration plan. uSE SuPPoRt: -- (2.7 mI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.-- 2.21 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Local Initiatives Actions to restore the streambanks and riparian zones along Boone Creek have already begun. The National Committee for the New River (NCNR) applied for a grant to implement the Boone Creek/“Kraut Creek” Enhancement project, designed to improve 185 linear feet of the creek beginning just behind 970 Rivers Street in Boone. This site is in the downtown area of Boone where encroaching development and the resulting stormwater runoff had caused severe streambank erosion. Part of an asphalt parking lot and a wooden fence (as seen in left picture in Figure 2-24) were removed on the right side of the creek. The banks were sloped to provide access to the floodplain. On the left side of the creek, a rock buttress and rock vanes were constructed to protect adjacent property. A riparian buffer was established to protect both sides of the creek, as seen in the picture to the right. FIguRE 2-24: RIPARIAN BuFFER REStoRAtIoN EFFoRtS ALoNg BooNE CREEk (LEFt: mARCh 2007; RIght: oCtoBER 2008) *Pictures Provided by NCNR’s Lynn Caldwell This project was initiated by the Kraut Creek Committee of Boone and NCNR. Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) provided most of the funding for the project. The Boone Chamber of Commerce provided a cash match, and Appalachian State University provided both cash and in-kind donations. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(1), (3.5)a & (3.5)b] This segment of the River 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. Meat CaMp Creek-South Fork New river (050500010202) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(3.5)c], Howard Creek [AU#: 10-1-9], Meat Camp Creek [AU#: 10-1-10] & Norris Fork [AU#: 10-1-10-2] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban area in the southern portion. There is one minor NPDES discharger permit in this subwatershed. The majority of streams in the subwatershed hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. Howard Creek [AU#: 10-1-9] Howard Creek is ten miles from source to the South Fork New River [AU#: 10- 1-(3.5)c] and contains mostly agriculture, forest and spotted areas of residential land use. uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (10 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB18)Excellent (2008) Fish Com (KF6)Not Rated (2008) 2.22 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Water Quality Status A benthic and fish community monitoring site are located on either side of NC-194. The benthic site has maintained the Excellent rating it has received since 1988, with exception to the 2003 rating of Good. Results from the fish sample shows the stream is healthy and supports a rich community of fish through good quality water and habitat. The fish community was Not Rated because DWQ does not currently have criteria for small mountain trout streams. Norris Fork [AU#: 10-1-10-2] Norris Fork is approximately four miles long from source to Meat Camp Creek. The stream begins in pasture lands then flows over a mile through forest before reaching more pasture and residential land. Water Quality Status The benthic community was first monitored on Norris Fork in 2003 when it received an Excellent rating. The 2008 sample dropped a rating to Good. Even though the number of macroinvertebrates were similar to the previous sample, the species collected in 2008 were more pollution tolerant. High silt levels due to land clearing activities for residential properties are a possible source of this decline. Residential development is expected to continue in this area. Recommendations Norris Fork is a designated Trout Water. The Town of Boone is delegated responsibility from the state to implement the Sediment and Erosion Control Program which inspects land clearing activities on a regular basis to ensure the sedimentation BMPs are being properly maintained. Meat Camp Creek [AU#: 10-1-10] Meat Camp Creek flows from the source at the northern most point of the subwatershed ten miles southeast to the South Fork New River. As in most of this subwatershed, a mixture of pastures and residential properties line this creek and its drainage area. Water Quality Status This stream has historically received a Good or Excellent benthic rating since monitoring began in 1990. Results from 2008 showed little to no change. The fish community was Not Rated because DWQ does not currently have criteria for small mountain trout streams. However, biologists noted a healthy fish community with decent habitat. Cobb Creek [AU#: 10-1-10-3] Cobb Creek is approximately three miles from source to Meat Camp Creek [AU#: 10-1-10]. This drainage area has a mixture of land cover of forest, agriculture and residential property further downstream. This stream holds the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. Water Quality Status Water quality for Cobb Creek is unknown at this time; however, a DWQ Random Ambient Monitoring System (RAMS) station was located about two miles upstream of its confluence with Meat Camp Creek. This was a temporary station where data was collected for two years (2009-2010). A summary of that data will be discussed here when it is available. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(3.5)c] This segment of the River 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. uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (4.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB21)Good (2008) uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (10.4 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB20)Excellent (2008) Fish Com (KF24)Not Rated (2008) uSE SuPPoRt: -- (2.7 mI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.-- RAMS (K2500000) Data Not Yet Available 2.23 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 elk Creek-South Fork New river (050500010203) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(3.5)c & (14.5)], Pine Orchard Creek [AU#: 10-1-15-1] & Elk Creek [AU#: 10-1-15] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban area in the southern portion. There is one minor NPDES discharger permit in this subwatershed. No waters in this subwatershed are on the Impaired Waters List. Pine Orchard Creek [AU#: 10-1-15-1] Pine Orchard Creek is three and a half miles long from source to its confluence with Elk Creek [AU#: 10-1-15]. The downstream half runs parallel to NC-194. The drainage area is mostly forested with some agriculture and residential properties on the north bank. Water Quality Status This creek has been monitored since 2003 when it received an Excellent benthic rating. Over the past five years the creek has seen little to no change in water quality. However, there was an increase in silt covering the stream floor. This indicates sediment is entering the creek during storm events. Recommendations Riparian buffer restorations is suggested for any reaches of the creek that is lacking proper vegetation. Unnamed Tributary to South Fork New R. [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)ut4] Water Quality Status This unnamed tributary was sampled as part of a special study to evaluate possible impacts on water quality by Rockwater Farms. Two benthic samples were collected at an upstream and downstream location from the farm. The two sites were about 300 meters apart in distance. The upstream site (KB130) had habitat score of 32 out of 100 and was described by biologists as a ditch. The downstream site (KB140) had double the habitat score (66) of the upstream site and a much higher quality benthic community. Both sites were given a Not Rated because the drainage area was not large enough to meet rating criteria; otherwise, the tributary would have been Impaired. Taxa found at the downstream site indicate the issue is being caused by poor habitat verses the instream water quality. For more information about the results of this study, see B-20070309. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(3.5)c] This segment of the River 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. old FieldS Creek-South Fork New river (050500010204) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)], Mill Creek [AU#: 10-1-18], & Old Field Creek [AU#: 10-1-22] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban areas. There are no NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. No waters in this subwatershed are on the Impaired Waters List. uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (3.5 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB22) Not Impaired (2008) uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (1.0 mI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB130) (KB104) Not Rated (2007) Not Rated (2007) 2.24 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Unnamed Tributary to Mill Creek [AU#: 10-1-18ut4] This Unnamed Tributary to Mill Creek is a little over one mile from source to Mill Creek [AU#: 10-1-18]. The majority of the stream is surrounded by forest with agriculture lining the lower portion on the northern side. Water Quality Status This stream was monitored in 2007 as part of the special study conducted on the unnamed tributary to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)ut4] discussed above. The station located on this unnamed tributary was used as a reference site for the special study (B-20070309). This site had the highest habitat score (80 out of 100) of all three sites sampled. The community collected was extremely intolerant to pollution and reflects the comparatively undisturbed nature of this drainage area. For more information about the results of this study, see B-20070309. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)] One segment [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)] of the SFNR 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. piNe SwaMp-South Fork New river (050500010205) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5)], Gap Creek [AU#: 10-1-23], & Pine Swamp Creek [AU#: 10-1-24] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban areas. There is one minor NPDES discharger permit in this subwatershed. No waters in this subwatershed are on the Impaired Waters List. Pine Swamp Creek [AU#: 10-1-24] Pine Swamp Creek runs five and a half miles from source to the South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5)]. The majority of the stream is surrounded by cow pastures and Christmas tree farms. Water Quality Status This creek was monitored by DWQ in 2003 and 2008 and received a Good benthic rating for each. A large amount of silt was visible in the stream and made up 30% of the substrate. The stream also has poor riparian buffers and severe bank erosion. The silty substrate may be originating from the eroded banks or stormwater pulling sediment from the drainage area. Many farms are ditched for faster draining; however, this can cause a larger volume of sediment to enter the stream at a high velocity. This results in a stream becoming flashy which accelerates the erosion of streambanks. Recommendations A restoration effort is recommended for this stretch to reestablish the streams natural meandering which will reduce the velocity. Proper riparian buffers are highly encouraged to reduce the volume of runoff that reaches the stream. DWQ also recommends an local educational effort to inform property owners of the importance of allowing streams to keep their natural flow path. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5)] This segment of the River 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. uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (1.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB129) Not Impaired (2007) uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (5.5 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB108)Good (2008) 2.25 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Beaver Creek-South Fork New river (050500010206) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5), (26)a & (26)b], South Beaver Creek [AU#: 10-1-25-2], Beaver Creek [AU#: 10-1-25], & Obids Creek [AU#: 10-1-27] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban areas including the southern portion of the Town of West Jefferson. There are two minor NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. The majority of streams in this subwatershed, with exception to the South Fork New River, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. No waters in this subwatershed are on the Impaired Waters List. South Beaver Creek [AU#: 10-1-25-2] South Beaver Creek runs about seven miles from source to its confluence with Beaver Creek and includes Lake Ashe about one mile upstream of Beaver Creek. The majority of this drainage area is forested with scattered rural communities. Water Quality Status This creeks benthic community was sampled in 2003 and 2008 and received a Good rating both years. The community appears to be stable with diverse and pollution sensitive taxa. The site had a relatively high habitat score of 75 out of 100; however, was lacking a riparian buffer on the right bank. Obids Creek [AU#: 10-1-27] Obids Creek runs over six miles from source to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1-(26) a]. The majority of this drainage area is agriculture and forest with scattered rural communities. Agriculture here is dominated by Christmas tree farms and pastures. Water Quality Status This creek was sampled for both benthic and fish communities in 2008 which both resulted in a Good rating. Both samples were taken at the same location near the mouth of the creek. This was the first fish sample take on the creek. The diversity and amount of pollution intolerant species were slightly lower than expected for a site that is an optimal nursery area due to its proximity to the South Fork. The benthic sample was slightly lower than the previous sample; however, it remains a Good rating. The instream habitat was in good condition but lacks steady riparian zones and cattle have access to the stream. Riparian buffer zones with shading trees can keep the water temperature down and filter pollutant or excess nutrients from storm runoff before reaching the stream. Recommendations Currently, cattle have direct access to the creek which can degrade habitat impacting the aquatic life. DWQ will work with SWCD to prioritize the need for livestock fencing along this creek. It is also recommended that local agencies educate land owners in this drainage area about the importance of maintaining riparian zones which include trees along this stream. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5), (26)a & (26)b] This segment of the River 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. uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (6.8 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB5)Good (2008) uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (6.3 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB6)Good (2008) Fish Com (KF13)Good (2008) 2.26 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Naked Creek-South Fork New river (050500010207) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(26)b, (30), (31.5) & (33.5)], Roan Creek [AU#: 10-1-31], Naked Creek [AU#: 10-1-32], & Dog Creek [AU#: 10-1-33] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and urban areas including almost the entire Town of Jefferson. There are three minor NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. The majority of streams in this subwatershed, with exception to the SFNR and Naked Creek, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. The lower portion of Naked Creek is the only water in this subwatershed that is currently on the Impaired Waters List (2010 list). Roan Creek [AU#: 10-1-31] Roan Creek is over 13 miles long from source to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1-(30)] and holds a secondary use classification of Trout Waters. The majority of this drainage area is agriculture and forest with scattered rural communities. Portions of the stream run along NC-88. Water Quality Status This creek was sampled for both benthic and fish communities in 2008 which both resulted in a Good rating. Both samples were taken at the same location near the mouth of the creek. This was the first fish sample take on the creek and included a fairly diverse and abundant community. However, the benthic rating declined from the Excellent it received in 2003. The decline in abundance and pollution sensitivity of the community could be contributed to the amounts of silt filling in benthic habitat which was not seen in the 2003 sample. Recommendations Even though the creek was given Good bioclassification ratings, the decline in benthic community indicates the drainage area is being impacted. There is a significant amount of Fraser Fir Christmas tree farms in this drainage area which can contribute to excessive sediment reaching the stream if not harvested correctly. DWQ will work with local agencies to provide public education related to the importance of good riparian zones and other agricultural BMPs focused on the reduction of sediment reaching the stream and impacts to aquatic life. Additional information about tree farming and best management practices are discussed in the Other Natural Resource Programs Chapter. Online educational materials are also found within that chapter. Naked Creek [AU#: 10-1-32] Naked Creek is just over six miles from source, north of the Town of Jefferson, to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1-(31.5)]. The first mile of the stream flows through a tree farm with little to no riparian buffers. After flowing through the Town of Jefferson it flows through farm lands and the Jefferson Landing golf course and residential area. Extensive segments of the creek are channelized and diverted underground. The lower segment of Naked Creek [AU#: 10-1-32b], which is two and a half miles, is on the 2010 Impaired Waters List for degraded ecological/ biological integrity within the fish community. Water Quality Status Naked Creek was originally placed on the first Impaired Waters List in 1998 and stayed on the list until 2006 when it was removed. The creek’s benthic community was first monitored in 1986 when it received a Good- Fair (KB8) upstream of the Town of Jefferson’s WWTP and a Poor rating (KB9) downstream of the facility. The upstream site has alternated between Good-Fair and Good ratings since that time. Degradation at this site has historically been linked to urban runoff and sedimentation. The downstream site had received a Poor or Fair rating until 2003 when it rated Good-Fair. This higher rating was likely due to a combination of major uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (13.4 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB7)Good (2008) Fish Com (KF20)Good (2008) uSE SuPPoRt: iMpaired (6.1 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (KB8) (KB139) Good (2008) Good-Fair (2008) Fish Com (KF14)Fair (2008) 2.27 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 upgrades completed at the Jefferson WWTP and heavy rains. A USGS flow gage station on the South Fork just upstream of the Naked Creek confluence recorded the highest yearly average flow (cfs) in 2003 (between 1997 and 2009). This could have had a significant impact on dilution of the WWTPs effluent and other toxins from urban stormwater runoff. It was removed from the 2006 list due to the Good-Fair benthic rating at KB9 in 2003. Town of Jefferson WWTP The Town of Jefferson’s WWTP has been a major contributing factor or source of the impairment for Naked Creek since first listed in 1998. The plant failed three toxicity tests in 1994 which was attributed to landfill leachate being processed through the plant. Other methods of leachate disposal have since been found and is no longer processed by the facility. Due to numerous other violations and recommendations by DWQ, the facility obtained funding to make approximately $1.9 million worth of upgrades to the facility. These upgrades were completed in 2004. Latest inspections confirm the effluent discharged by the facility is no longer having an impact on the creek. Therefore, the facility will be no longer be considered a source of Naked Creek’s impairment. Current Monitoring Naked Creek was monitored at the same upstream benthic station (KB8) in 2008; however, the downstream site (KB9) was moved in 2008 to just before the confluence with South Fork and received a new station number of KB139. The upstream site increased ratings from Good-Fair to Good in 2008 using a less intensive sampling method than the 2003 sample. The differences in ratings may be due to the type of samples taken. Despite the higher rating, aquatic habitat for this site was poor. Long sections of the creek upstream of this site completely lack riparian buffers including almost the entire downstream segment. Other upstream sections of the creek have sporadic riparian buffers of varying quality. Silt was also noted lining the substrate. Station KB139 was moved to its current location a mile downstream because the development of a gated community blocked access to KB9. Site KB139 received a moderate habitat score; however, conductivity levels are significantly higher and water clarity was slightly turbid. The benthic surface was covered in silt and water was being withdrawn from the creek for lawn and golf course irrigation. The gated community, Jefferson Landing, includes a large golf course which was built along either side of Naked Creek spanning the last mile and a half before the South Fork confluence. During the 2008 sample, houses were being constructed along the one side of the stream. A fish community sample was taken at the same location as KB139. This was the second sample taken at station KF14 and it received the same rating of Fair as the previous sample taken in 1998. This sample was collected about three months prior to the benthic sample at site KB139. This site received the lowest total habitat score of any other fish station in the New River Basin in 2008. This was due to turbid water, poor bank stability and lack of riparian buffers. The percent of pollution tolerant fish collected was elevated for a mountain stream. Fish populations in this stream are being stressed from instream water quality issues as well as poor habitat. Recommendations Naked Creek is the highest priority for stream restoration and protection in the New River basin. With exception of the 2006 and 2008 lists, Naked Creek has been on the Impaired Waters list since 1998. It is recommended that local agencies and watershed groups, with assistance from DWQ develop, a Watershed Restoration Plan that will target restoring the stream to more natural flow conditions, enhancing sediment and erosion control measures on construction sites, implementing additional controls focused on reducing volume and velocity of stormwater and establishing wider riparian zones. Riparian buffers with tree canopies would greatly assist with reducing the water temperature of the stream as well as filter pollutants before the stream reaches the SFNR. Educational efforts should be aimed towards property owners within the Naked Creek drainage area to reduce the amount of fertilizers and pesticides used as well as the need for riparian zones along the stream. DWQ supports the need to fund a Watershed Restoration Plan that includes stormwater management, post restoration monitoring and local educational efforts. 2.28 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(26)b, (30), (31.5) & (33.5)] This segment of the River 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. CraNBerry Creek (050500010208) Includes: Cranberry Creek (Mulberry Creek) [AU#: 10-1-37], Meadow Fork [AU#: 10-1-37-2], Piney Fork [AU#: 10-1-37-3], Piney Branch [AU#: 10-1-37-5], & Beaver Branch [AU#: 10-1-37-6] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture. There are no NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. Majority of the streams hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. There are no waters in this subwatershed currently on the Impaired Waters List. Piney Fork [AU#: 10-1-37-3] Piney Fork is just over five miles from source to Cranberry Creek [AU#: 10-1- 37] around Laurel Springs. Land cover in this drainage area is dominated by Christmas tree farms with patches of forest. Water Quality Status The stream was sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates in 1998 within the headwaters. The site received a Good rating at that time. Local Initiatives The Alleghany SWCD installed several agricultural BMPs in 2005 and 2006 on a property near the confluence with Cranberry Creek which included almost 3,000 feet of livestock exclusion, feed and waste storage, stream protection, stream crossings and critical area planting. These efforts will assist with reported channelization and sedimentation the SWCD noted during the previous planning cycle. Recommendations Depending on available resources, DWQ will monitor Piney Fork (KB69) to provide a use support rating which properly reflects any water quality improvements resulting from the implementation of these agricultural BMPs. Cranberry Creek (Mulberry Creek) [AU#: 10-1-37] Cranberry Creek is almost 19 miles long from source to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1- (33.5)]. This stream is the main catchment for this subwatershed which has land cover with equal parts agriculture and forest. Christmas tree farms dominate the majority of agriculture in this drainage area. Water Quality Status Cranberry Creek was sampled (KB15) about two miles upstream of its confluence with the South Fork. The majority of this subwatershed drains to this creek, upstream of the benthic sampling site (KB15) which provides a wholistic view of the water quality conditions in the subwatershed. This site has been monitored since 1990 and received an Excellent benthic rating in 2008. Aquatic life and habitat conditions have remain stable at this higher rating since 1998. About a mile and a half downstream of the benthic site is a fish community station. In 1998, the creek was given an Excellent rating for its fish community. In 2008, that rating dropped to Good. The habitat was given a score of 53 out of 100 due to unstable banks, poor riparian areas, shallow pools, straight channel and the on- going stream widening. Biologists noted the presence of an abundant cyprinid population, which are attracted to waters with algae on hard surfaces. This could be an indication of high nutrient levels; however, this area is a popular fishing location and may have been stocked with cyprinids. Cyprinids can be a favorite amongst fishermen due to the size and strength of these fish. uSE SuPPoRt: -- (5.2 mI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.-- Benthos (KB69)Good (1998) uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (18.9 mI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB15)Excellent (2008) Fish Com (KF2)Good (2008) 2.29 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Recommendations Riparian buffer restoration is recommended to assist in restabilizing stream banks and reducing excess nutrients reaching the stream. Educational efforts are needed to inform local land owners of ways to reduce habitat degradation to better support the fish community and ensure recreational fishing can continue. The stream would also benefit from restoring the stream to its natural meandering channel with deeper pools which attack fish. peak Creek-South Fork New river (050500010209) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)], Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-(1) & (2)], Ore Knob Branch [AU#: 10-1-35-3], Little Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-4], & Nathans Creek [AU#: 10-1-36] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and mining. There are no NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. Majority of the streams, with exception to the SFNR, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. Waters on the 2010 Impaired Waters list within this subwatershed are Peak Creek, Little Peak Creek and Ore Knob Branch. Nathans Creek [AU#: 10-1-36] Nathans Creek is four miles long from source to the west side of the South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)]. This drainage area has a mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban. Water Quality Status Nathans Creek’s benthic community was monitored in 1998 at KB77. At that time, the site received a rating of Good-Fair. Even though the macroinvertebrates present were pollution-sensitive, indicating higher water quality, the lower rating was given due to the low quantity collected. Recommendations DWQ will do a one-time sample at this site to ensure the water quality has not degraded further, depending on the availability of resources. Little Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-4] Little Peak Creek is almost three miles from source to Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1- 35-(2)b]. The drainage area is a mix of some residence, forest and agriculture, dominated by tree farming. The creek also receives runoff from the Ore Knob Mine which is discussed below in the Ore Knob Branch section. Water Quality Status Little Peak Creek has been on the Impaired Waters List since 1998 and remains on the 2010 list. This impairment is a result of impacts to aquatic life from runoff from the Ore Knob Mine. The habitat in this creek is relatively good, indicating the issues are based on the quality of water. Due to the small drainage area of this creek, DWQ would not normally assign a rating to the benthic site (KB14) located near the confluence with Peak Creek. However, the toxic situation at this site ranks it among the worst benthic sites in the state, justifying the Poor rating. Recommendations Information about the Ore Knob Mine and recommendations are discussed within the Ore Knob Mine Chapter. Ore Knob Branch [AU#: 10-1-35-3] Ore Knob Branch is just under one mile from source to Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1- 35-(2)b]. The land cover is similar to the rest of the subwatershed, with exception to the presence of the Ore Knob Mine. uSE SuPPoRt: -- (4.1 mI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.-- Benthos (KB77)Good-Fair (1998) uSE SuPPoRt: iMpaired (2.8 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (KB14)Poor (2008) uSE SuPPoRt: iMpaired (0.9 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 2.30 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Water Quality Status Ore Knob Branch has been on the Impaired Waters List since 1998 and remains on the list in 2010 due to the Poor benthic rating at KB13 on Peak Creek. This creek is the main catchment for runoff from the abandoned Ore Knob Mine. The mining site was not properly closed, which has resulted in highly acidic and metal-laden surface water running off the property and into Ore Knob Branch and Peak Creek, subsequently causing their impairment. This issue is discussed in greater detail within the Ore Knob Mine Chapter. Initiatives Restoration on Ore Knob began in the 1990s and still continues today. The site was classified as an EPA Superfund site in September 2009. Since that time, EPA has led the restoration efforts in coordination with state and local agencies. These efforts are discussed in greater detail within the Ore Knob Mine Chapter. Recommendations The state will continue to work with all local and federal agencies involved to assist in restoration efforts of the abandoned mine. Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-(1) & (2)a & b] Peak Creek is a total of 10.5 miles long from source to the SFNR [AU#: 10- 1-(33.5)] and split into three segments. The land cover in this drainage area is mix of forest and agriculture. The creek also receives runoff from the Ore Knob Mine, which is discussed above in the Ore Knob Branch section. The most downstream segment [AU#: 10-1-35-(2)b] of Peak Creek has been on the Impaired Water List since 1998 and remains on the list in 2010. Water Quality Status The middle segment ([AU#: 10-1-35-(2)a]: from the water supply dam at Appalachian Sulphides, Inc., to Ore Knob Branch) was monitored in 2008 and was rated Excellent for its benthic community (KB11). This site received a Good rating in 2003. The 2008 sample had an increase in pollution intolerant species, including the collection of an extremely rare caddisfly which has only been collected one other time in North Carolina by DWQ since 1983. An undisturbed riparian zone, diverse in-stream benthic surfaces and a mostly forested watershed resulted in one of the highest habitat scores within the basin (93 out of 100) during this cycle. There is no influence of the Ore Knob Mine on this segment of the creek. The downstream segment of Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-(2)b] is almost three miles from the Ore Knob Branch to the South Fork. The benthic sample result was similar to past results at this station and was rated Poor in 2008. Despite the high habitat score (82 out of 100), the community is highly stressed and borders extirpation. This site (KB13) is approximately one mile downstream of the KB11, which had a conductivity level of 38 µS/ cm and pH of 6.3, whereas the KB13 site had levels of 170 µS/cm and 3.1, respectively. An orange precipitate covered all instream surfaces and inhabitants at the KB13 site. This dramatic drop in water quality from what is seen upstream is due to the toxic flow coming from Ore Knob Branch which, receives runoff from the Ore Knob Mine. These severely acidic and toxic conditions will continue until the abandoned mine is stabilized. Recommendations Information about the Ore Knob Mine and recommendations are discussed within the Ore Knob Mine Chapter. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)] This segment of the River 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. uSE SuPPoRt: iMpaired (10.5 mI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (KB11) (KB13)Excellent (2008)Poor (2008) 2.31 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 prather Creek-South Fork New river (050500010210) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)], Prathers Creek [AU#: 10-1-38] & Crab Fork [AU#: 10-1-38-1] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture. There are no NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. Majority of the streams, with exception to the South Fork New River, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. There are no waters in this subwatershed on the 2010 Impaired Waters list. Prathers Creek [AU#: 10-1-38] Prathers Creek is approximately 11 miles from source to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1- (33.5)]. This drainage area has a mixed land use of livestock pasture agriculture and forest. Water Quality Status Prathers Creek’s fish community was monitored for the first time during this cycle. The fish community received a rating of Good-Fair due to the pollution tolerant species collected. The high percentage of omnivores and herbivores collected indicates elevated nutrients, likely results from the combination of agricultural practices and an open tree canopy. Biologists also noted a complete lack of riparian buffer zones. A benthic site nearby was monitored in 1990 and received a Good-Fair rating. Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor this location and work with the SWCD to prioritize assistance with the installation of agricultural BMP measures throughout this subwatershed as well as riparian buffer restoration. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)] This segment of the River 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. GraSSy Creek-New river (050500010302) Includes: New River [AU#: 10a], Grassy Creek [AU#: 10-3] & Piney Creek [AU#: 10-4] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture. There are no NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. Majority of the streams, with exception to the New River, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. There are no waters in this subwatershed on the 2010 Impaired Waters list. Grassy Creek [AU#: 10-3] Grassy Creek is approximately four miles long from the NC/VA state line to the New River [AU#: 10a]. This drainage area has a mixed land use of agriculture dominated by the growth of Christmas tress and forest. Water Quality Status Both benthic and fish communities were sampled here for the first time during this cycle. The fish community site (KF16 - 50 feet from the confluence with the New River) was given the highest habitat score (95 out of 100) of any fish site within the basin sampled this cycle. However, the species collected were pollution tolerant and indicated an elevated nutrient source. Possible sources of excess nutrients are agricultural practices upstream and inadequate riparian buffer zones. Biologists also noted increased photosynthetic activity by the upstream periphyton was causing an elevated pH level compared to other sites in the basin. uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (11.1 mI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Fish Com (KF15)Good-Fair (2008) uSE SuPPoRt: SupportiNG (4.1 mI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB126)Good (2008) Fish Com (KF16)Good-Fair (2008) 2.32 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 A benthic sample (KB126) was also collected as part of a special study (B-20081007) to determine effects of new development upstream. The site was rated Good and given a habitat score of 81 out of 100. However, the site had a relatively high specific conductance (101 µS/cm) for this river basin. Recommendations DWQ will work with SWCD to prioritize implementation of agricultural BMPs focused towards reducing nutrient and sediment runoff, as well as riparian buffer restoration. New River [AU#: 10a] The New River begins in this subwatershed where the SFNR and the North Fork New River converge and continue north four and a half miles to the NC/VA state line. This segment holds the secondary use classification of ORW. Land use in this drainage area is mostly forest, with some agriculture, which dominates the headwaters of this subwatershed. This segment of the New River is not monitored by DWQ at this time. However, the river is sampled once it crosses the state line back into NC. For more information on the water quality status of that segment, see the Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds Chapter. 2.33 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 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 (919) 743-8416 or by e-mail at Jay.Sauber@ncdenr.gov 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. 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 2007. (B-20070309) Benthic Macroinvertebrate Special Study, UT South Fork New River (New River Subbasin 01) Watauga and Ashe Counties, February 9th, 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. Thaxton, C.S., W.P. Anderson, C.M. Babyak. 2007 - Non-peer reviewed. Baseline monitoring, analysis, and modeling of the Boone Creek watershed. Final Report for the University Research Council Competi- tive Grants program, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC. Note: URL addresses for hyperlinks found in this plan are listed in the Acronyms & Definitions Chapter. 2.34 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-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 2-a uSE SuPPoRt RAtINgS FoR ALL moNItoRED WAtERS IN thE South FoRk NEW RIVER & Fox CREEk WAtERShEDS NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-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 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-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  South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed Howard Creek10-1-9-(6)From the Appalachian State University Raw Water Supply Intake Dam to South Fork New River 3.6 FW Miles C;Tr,HQW  1  3a Little Peak Creek10-1-35-4 From source to Peak Creek 2.8 FW Miles B;Tr:+   4s Meat Camp Creek10-1-10 From source to South Fork New River 10.4 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  3a Middle Fork South Fork New River 10-1-2-(15)From 0.4 mile downstr of US Hwy 221 & 321 to South Fk New River 0.5 FW Miles WS-IV;CA:+  1  3a Middle Fork South Fork New River 10-1-2-(6)From Brown Branch to Boone Dam 3.5 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+  1 Naked Creek10-1-32b From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to South Fork New River 2.5 FW Miles C:+  1   5 Norris Fork10-1-10-2 From source to Meat Camp Creek 4.3 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Obids Creek10-1-27-(2)From a point 0.9 mile downstream of NC Hwy 163 to South Fork New River 2.8 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+  1  1 Ore Knob Branch10-1-35-3 From source to Peak Creek 0.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+   4s Peak Creek10-1-35-(2)a From Water Supply Dam at Appalachian Sulphides, Inc to Ore Knob Branch 2.1 FW Miles B;Tr:+  1 10/20/2010 Page 200 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-A.4 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  South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed Peak Creek10-1-35-(2)b From Ore Knob Branch to South Fork New River 2.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+   4s Pine Orchard Creek10-1-15-1 From source to Elk Creek 3.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Pine Swamp Creek (Pine Swamp) 10-1-24 From source to South Fork New River 5.5 FW Miles C:+  1 Prathers Creek10-1-38 From source to South Fork New River 11.1 FW Miles B;Tr:+  1 Roan Creek10-1-31-(2)From 0.5 mile upstream of mouth to South Fork New River 0.4 FW Miles WS- IV;Tr,CA:+  1  1 South Beaver Creek(Lake Ashe) 10-1-25-2a From source to Lake Ashe 5.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 South Fork New River10-1-(20.5)From a point 0.4 mile upstream of Couches Creek to a point 2.8 mile upstream of Obids Creek 21.8 FW Miles WS-V;HQW  1 South Fork New River10-1-(26)b From Obids Creek to a point 0.6 miles upstream of Roan Creek 6.6 FW Miles WS-IV;HQW  1  1  1  1 South Fork New River10-1-(3.5)a From Winkler Creek to 0.1 miles downstream of Hunting Lane 0.3 FW Miles C:+   5  1  1  1 10/20/2010 Page 201 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-A.5 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  South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed South Fork New River10-1-(3.5)b From 0.1 mile downstream Hunting Lane to US Hwy.221/421 5.1 FW Miles C:+   5  1  1  1 South Fork New River10-1-(33.5)From Dog Creek to New River 22.5 FW Miles B;ORW  1  1  1 UT MILL CR10-1-18ut4 Source to MILL CR 1.3 FW Miles  1 UT S FK NEW R10-1-(14.5)ut4 Source to S FK NEW R 1.0 FW Miles 3a Winkler Creek10-1-4-(3.5)b From Winkler Creek Road (SR #1549) to South Fork New River 1.7 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Fox Creek-New River 0505000103New River Basin Watershed Grassy Creek10-3 From North Carolina-Virginia State 4.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  1 New River (North Carolina Portion) 10b From first point of crossing state line to last point of crossing state line 6.4 FW Miles C;ORW 3a  1 3a Little River-New River 0505000104New River Basin Watershed Bledsoe Creek10-9-7 From source to Little River 5.9 FW Miles C;Tr  1 Brush Creek10-9-10 From source to Little River 27.8 FW Miles C;Tr  1  1 10/20/2010 Page 202 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-A.6 NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.1 appeNdix 2-B BIoLogICAL (BENthIC & FISh) SAmPLE SItE DAtA ShEEtS NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.2 NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.3 StAtIoN ID*WAtERBoDY ASSESSmENt uNIt #DESCRIPtIoN CouNtY SItE LoCAtIoN SAmPLE RESuLtS Benthic Sample Sites KB130*Ut. S. Fk. New R. 10-1-(14.5)ut4 Source to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1353 07 - Not Rated KB140*Ut. S. Fk. New R.10-1-(14.5)ut4 Source to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1353 07 - Not Rated KB2 S. Fk. New R.10-1-(20.5)From a point 0.4 mile upstream of Couches Creek to a point 2.8 mile upstream of Obids Creek Ashe SR 1169 08 - Good 03 - Excellent KB3 S. Fk. New R.10-1-(26)b From Obids Creek to a point 0.6 miles upstream of Roan Creek Ashe NC 16-18 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB16 S. Fk. New R.10-1-(3.5)b From 0.1 mile downstream Hunting Lane to US Hwy.221/421 Watauga US 421 08 - Fair 03 - Fair KB10 S. Fk. New R.10-1-(33.5)From Dog Creek to New River Ashe US 221 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB20 Meat Camp Cr.10-1-10 From source to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1333 08 - Excellent 03 - Good KB21 Norris Fk.10-1-10-2 From source to Meat Camp Creek Watauga SR 1337 08 - Good 03 - Excellent KB22 Pine Orchard Cr. 10-1-15-1 From source to Elk Creek Watauga SR 1369 08 - Not Impaired 03 - Excellent KB1 M. Fk. S. Fk. New R. 10-1-2-(15)From 0.4 mile downstr of US Hwy 221 & 321 to South Fk New River Watauga SR 1522 08 - Good-Fair 03 - Good-Fair KB108 Pine Swamp Cr.10-9-5 From source to S. Fork New River Alleghany SR 1128 08 - Good 03 - Good KB5 S. Beaver Cr.10-1-25-2a From source to Lake Ashe Ashe SR 1147 08 - Good 03 - Good KB6 Obids Cr.10-1-27-(2)From a point 0.9 mile downstream of NC Hwy 163 to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1192 08 - Good 03 - Good KB12 E. Fk. S. Fk. New R.10-1-3-(8)From .8 mile downstream of Watauga Co SR 1524 to S Fk New River Watauga SR 1522 08 - Good '03 - Good KB7 Roan Cr.10-1-31-(2)From 0.5 mile upstream of mouth to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1588 08 - Good 03 - Excellent KB8 Naked Cr.10-1-32b From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to South Fork New River Ashe NC 16-88 08 - Good 03 - Good-Fair KB139*Naked Cr.10-1-32b From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1589 08 - Good-Fair KB11 Peak Cr.10-1-35-(2)a From Water Supply Dam at Appalachian Sulphides, Inc to Ore Knob Branch Ashe SR 1599 08 - Excellent 03 - Good KB13 Peak Cr.10-1-35-(2)b From Ore Knob Branch to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1599 08 - Poor '03 - Poor KB14 L. Peak Cr.10-1-35-4 From source to Peak Creek Ashe SR 1595 08 - Poor 03 - Poor KB15 Cranberry Cr.10-1-37 From source to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1603 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB17 Winkler Cr.10-1-4-(3.5)b From Winkler Creek Road (SR #1549) to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1549 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB18 Howard Cr.10-1-9-(6)From the Appalachian State University Raw Water Supply Intake Dam to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1328 08 - Excellent 03 - Good KB126*Grassy Cr.10-3 From North Carolina-Virginia State Ashe SR 1548 08 - Good KB34 New R.10b From first point of crossing state line to last point of crossing state line Alleghany SR 1345 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent * New station location; therefore, no data from the previous cycle. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.4 StAtIoN ID*WAtERBoDY ASSESSmENt uNIt #DESCRIPtIoN CouNtY SItE LoCAtIoN SAmPLE RESuLtS Fish Community Sample Sites KF6 Howard Cr.10-1-9-(6)From the Appalachian State University Raw Water Supply Intake Dam to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1306 08 - Not Rated 98 - Not Rated KF8 M. Fk. S. Fk. New R. 10-1-2-(15)From 0.4 mile downstr of US Hwy 221 & 321 to South Fk New River Watauga SR 1522 08 - Not Rated 98 - Excellent KF24 Meat Camp Cr.10-1-10 From source to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1333 08 - Not Rated 98 - Not Rated KF14 Naked Cr.10-1-32b From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to South Fork New River Ashe NC 16/88 08 - Fair 98 - Fair KF13*Obids Cr.10-1-27-(2)From a point 0.9 mile downstream of NC Hwy 163 to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1192 08 - Good KF15*Prathers Cr.10-1-38 From source to South Fork New River Alleghany SR 1302 08 - Good-Fair KF20*Roan Cr.10-1-31-(2)From 0.5 mile upstream of mouth to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1588 08 - Good KF12 S. Fk. New R.10-1-(3.5)b From 0.1 mile downstream Hunting Lane to US Hwy.221/421 Watauga US 421 08 - Good 98 - Good * New station location; therefore, no data from the previous cycle. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.5 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification S FK NEW R US 421 KB16 08/19/08 Fair County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.220833 -81.640000 10-1-(3.5)b Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C:+35 3088 15 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 100 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Town of Boone, Jimmy Smith WWTP NC0020621 4.82 Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)23.7 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.0 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)276 pH (s.u.)7.6 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)10 Bottom Substrate (15)6 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)14 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)2 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)1 Total Habitat Score (100)58 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10551 75 19 5.80 4.88 Fair 11/04/03 9302 ---11 ---4.25 Fair 08/20/03 9257 67 24 5.46 4.81 Good-Fair 08/17/98 7734 71 22 5.68 4.14 Good-Fair 07/12/93 6261 69 18 6.17 3.80 Fair Taxonomic Analysis The 2008 sample is dominated by taxa that are pollution-tolerant. Abundant mayflies found here in 2008 included: Pseudocloeon propinquum, Plauditus dubius group, Heterocloeon anoka, Isonychia, and Baetis flavistriga . Other abundant taxa here that are considered generalists and are tolerant were the caddisfly Cheumatopsyche and the dragonfly Calopteryx. Data Analysis The South Fork New River at US 421/221 rated Fair in 2008, the same rating as in 2003. There have been eight samples collected here from 1984 through 2008. Of the seven summer samples (all Full Scale samples) this site rated Fair four times and Good-Fair thrice. This site is just downstream of the Boone WWTP. The 2004 Basinwide Assessment Report noted a gradual decrease in the Biotic Index here (indicating a slightly more pollution- sensitive benthic community) in relation to reductions in NH3 and TKN from effluent from the Boone WWTP beginning in 1998. Unfortunately this trend did not continue in 2008 and the Biotic Index is now back to the level it was in the mid 1990's which indicates a more pollution-tolerant benthic community. This watershed is also heavily agricultural. A large silt load covers 40% of the benthos of this reach limiting habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. There is very little substrate over 10 inches in length in this reach. Overall habitat quality here is low and has been since at least 2003 (scores of 58, 59 and 60). NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.6 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) Bioclassification Latitude 36.220736 Watershed -- this large site is located in the northeast corner of Boone and drains the entire southern-most tip of the New River basin in Watauga County, including the catchments of Winkler Creek, Middle Fork South Fork New River, and East Fork South Fork New River. Habitats -- shallow runs, with a few large riffles, and a few shallow side pools; the canopy was open due to the river's width, but the banks were generally healthy; substrates were highly embedded in this reach of the river; conductivity was elevated because of Boone's WWTP. 2008 -- an extremely diverse and abundant (n=2058) community of fish was collected, including eight intolerant taxa, three of which were not previously collected; Western Blacknose Dace (n=524) comprised 25% of the sample, and Central Stoneroller represented 24% (n=484). 1998-2008 -- although many more fish were collected in 2008, little difference exists between the trophic structures and NCIBI values between samples, suggesting that little has changed in this watershed over a 10 year period (in spite of upstream fish kill in 2003); overall, the fish community continues to thrive here, and suggests good water quality. Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody S FK NEW R County WATAUGA 05/22/08 Longitude -81.639974 KF12 Southern Crystalline Ridges & Mountains Level IV EcoregionAU Number 10-1-(3.5)b Good Site Photograph 010 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Kanawha Minnow, Greenside Darter, Kanawha Darter, Appalachia Darter.Losses -- Bluegill. 05/22/08 06/08/98 Bioclassification 70 56 52 Urban 15 Forested/Wetland Drainage Area (mi2) 34.2 Reference Site NPDES Number NC0020621 Stream Width (m) 13 Average Depth (m) 4.8 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Town of Boone WWTP (0.9 miles upstream) 3100 4 98-51 10 Sample ID 2008-49 5 5 5 5 11.7 8.5 126 6.0 Clear 5 16 5 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 3 Western Blacknose Dace. Most Abundant Species 63 gravel, sand, boulder, silt.Substrate Exotic Species Species Total 22 20 Rock Bass, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout. Good Good NCIBI FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C, + US 421 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Elevation (ft) Subbasin 1 NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.7 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification S FK NEW R SR 1169 KB2 08/18/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.299167 -81.468056 10-1-(20.5)Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-V; HQW 143 2830 25 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)25 0 75 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Town of Boone, Jimmy Smith WWTP NC0020621 4.82 Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)23.4 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)105 pH (s.u.)9.2 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)11 Bottom Substrate (15)8 Pool Variety (10)0 Riffle Habitat (16)7 Left Bank Stability (7)2 Right Bank Stability (7)5 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)1 Right Riparian Score (5)1 Total Habitat Score (100)42 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/18/08 10547 99 38 4.84 3.78 Good 08/21/03 9263 98 45 4.19 3.33 Excellent 08/18/98 7737 101 48 4.61 3.64 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Small changes in rare and in some cases common taxa were the main differences between the 2008 collection and past collections. Only one taxonomic group showed any drastic changes: the dragonfly family Gomphidae. In both 1998 and 2003 four taxa were found in the samples but in 2008, this group was absent. One unusual chironomid taxa was found in 2008: Polypedilum sp. P. The infrequently collected caddisfly Oecetis avara was first collected here in 2008. There are only 37 BAU records of this species. Overall EPT and total diversity remains high here. Data Analysis This South Fork New River site rated Good in 2008, a decrease from Excellent in both 1998 and 2003. An increase in the Biotic Index indicates that a more pollution-tolerant community resides in this reach than did in previous years. The number of EPT taxa was also lower in 2008 compared with 1998 and 2003. This reach earned a low habitat scorce due to limited in-stream habitat including substrate sizes that consisted mostly of sand, silt and gravel. The water quality at SR 1169 is an improvement from the next site upstream of here (at US 421, approximately 20 miles upstream). That site rated Fair in 2008. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.8 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification S FK NEW R NC 16/18 KB3 06/19/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.393056 -81.407222 10-1-(26)b New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-IV;HQW 205 2660 40 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)60 30 10 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Town of Boone, Jimmy Smith WWTP NC0020621 4.82 Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)23.1 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.1 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)66 pH (s.u.)8.5 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)12 Left Bank Stability (7)5 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)1 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)69 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 06/19/08 10474 106 54 4.26 3.48 Excellent 08/22/03 9271 104 58 3.67 3.12 Excellent 08/18/98 7742 95 48 4.01 3.44 Excellent 07/14/93 6270 104 51 3.41 2.75 Excellent 07/11/90 5375 97 50 3.79 3.11 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis A large number of taxa were collected here in 2008. The number of EPT taxa collected was 54, only 4 fewer than in 2003, but the total number of taxa collected was slightly higher in 2008 than 2003 (106 versus 104). A diverse aquatic macroinvertebrate community resides in this reach of the South Fork New River. Abundant taxa in past years were generally both collected again in 2008 and were also abundant. Some noteable taxa were first collected at the site in 2008, including: the mayflies Drunella lata, Eurylophella aestiva and Anthopotamus (all common in the sample); the stoneflies Acroneuria mela and Agnetina annulipes (both rare in the sample); and the caddisfly Apatania (common in the sample). Data Analysis This South Fork New River site rated Excellent again in 2008 as it has following each prior sampling event since 1987. The 2008 sample was collected one to two months earlier in the year than past samples, but still within the summer basinwide sampling window. This earlier sampling may have accounted for a few taxa not seen in previous samples (e.g. Drunella lata, Eurylophella aestiva ). Though the total number of aquatic invertebrate taxa collected in 2008 was greater than in all previous years, the Biotic Index was also higher suggesting a slightly more pollution-sensitive community than in past years. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.9 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification S FK NEW R US 221 BELOW CRANBERRY CREEK KB10 08/22/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.473889 -81.336944 10-1-(33.5)New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) B;ORW 300 2545 25 0.4 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)50 25 25 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Town of Boone, Jimmy Smith WWTP NC0020621 4.82 Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)22.6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.2 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)82 pH (s.u.)8.1 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)13 Bottom Substrate (15)11 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)10 Left Bank Stability (7)3 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)0 Left Riparian Score (5)1 Right Riparian Score (5)4 Total Habitat Score (100)63 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel and sand Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/22/08 10563 102 49 4.41 3.26 Excellent 08/23/03 9272 112 47 4.62 3.43 Excellent 08/20/98 7749 112 55 4.24 3.57 Excellent 07/15/93 6273 103 46 4.06 3.09 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis A large number of taxa continue to inhabit this downstream section of the South Fork New River. Many pollution-sensitive taxa are abundant here, including the mayflies: Heterocloeon curiosum, Acerpenna macdunnoughi, Serratella serratoides, Stenacron pallidum, and Leucrocuta. The pollution- sensitive stonefly Acroneuria arenosa and the caddisflies Brachycentrus numerosus and Helicopsyche were also abundant here in in 2008. Most taxa collected in 2008 were also collected in previous years. Data Analysis This site has consistently rated Excellent since 1990. A total of thirteen samples have been collected from this location since 1983. The number of Total Taxa and EPT Taxa have remained high and the Biotic Index has been consistent in showing a pollution-sensitive aquatic community residing here. The site upstream of here (NC 16-88, approximately 18 miles upstream) was also Excellent. The US 221 site is the farthest downstream basinwide site on the South Fork New River. The South Fork and North Fork New River converge approximately 15 miles downstream of this site and then flow northward to Virginia a further five miles downstream. There are no permitted discharges between the US 221 site and the North Carolina- Virginia border, suggesting that an Excellent water quality rating could continue downstream to Virginia. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.10 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification M FK S FK NEW R SR 1522 KB1 08/19/08 Good-Fair County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.201389 -81.650000 10-1-2-(15)Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-IV;CA:+12 3100 5 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 0 100 (golf course/greenway trail) Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)18.3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.3 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)111 pH (s.u.)6.9 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)6 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)2 Right Bank Stability (7)3 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)0 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)56 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10550 ---27 ---4.19 Good-Fair 11/04/03 9307 ---29*---2.99 Good 08/20/03 9259 ---24 ---3.26 Good-Fair 08/17/98 7732 ---31 ---2.99 Good 07/12/93 6260 ---37 ---2.97 Excellent *value corrected for seasonality Taxonomic Analysis In general, the EPT taxa found in the Middle Fork of the South Fork New River in 2008 were typical of previous collections. However, the most recent collection contained fewer EPT taxa than most of the past sampling efforts. This site supports an increasingly pollution-tolerant benthic community. Abundant taxa found in 2008 were cosmopolitan species (e.g. Isonychia, Cheumatopsyche, Plauditus dubius group) with few pollution-sensitve species. Data Analysis This site rated Good-Fair in 2008, the same rating it received in summer 2003. The four summer basinwide collections have seen this site go from Excellent and Good in 1993 and 1998 respectively, to Good-Fair in 2003 and 2008. The Biotic Index indicates that the benthic community is becoming more tolerant of aquatic pollution with sensitve species no longer residing in this reach. This site is located just downstream of Boone Golf Club, a large expanse of open area with only a narrow grass riparian zone and few trees. Silt and sand comprised 30% of the benthic area, limiting interstitial benthic habitats and increasing embeddedness. Additionally, there is a small reservior 1.6 miles upsteam of this site and three minor dischargers (>1.5 miles upstream) that may be affecting the benthic community here. In October 2003, one of these dischargers, Blowing Rock Water Treatment Plant (WTP), spilled approximately 3,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide into the Middle Fork South Fork New River (BAU memorandum B-20031113). There does not appear to be any long term effect of this event on the macroinvertebrate community at SR 1522. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-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) FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification WS-IV, CA, + SR 1522 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Not Rated Excellent NCIBI Drainage Area (mi2) 12 Clear 5 20 8 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Mottled Sculpin. Most Abundant Species 75 cobble, gravel, boulder, silt, sand.Substrate Exotic Species Species Total 14 16 Green Sunfish, Bluegill, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout. 12.3 9.3 92 6.4 6 98-53 16 Sample ID 2008-50 3 5 8 2 2 38 58 Reference Site NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 5 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 50 Elevation (ft) Urban 20 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Green Sunfish, Rosyside Dace, Bluehead Chub, Creek Chub.Losses -- Rock Bass, New River Shiner, Kanawha Minnow, Longnose Dace, Greenside Darter, Kanawha Darter. 05/22/08 06/09/98 Bioclassification Site Photograph 20 (golf course)10 0.5 Agriculture Other (describe) No None 3100 Date Station ID Longitude -81.649851 KF8 Southern Crystalline Ridges & Mountains Level IV EcoregionAU Number 10-1-2-(15)1 Latitude 36.20128 Subbasin 05/22/08 Watershed - a large trib to the South Fork New River; drains the southern-most tip of the basin. Habitats - rifflles, runs, swift chutes, and a few snag pools; high substrate embeddedness; bordered by a golf course (left) and a fenced cattle operation (right) with narrow riparian widths; the four NPDES facilities (combined discharge of 1.0 MGD, 1.9 to 7.0 miles above) may have elevated the instream waste concentration during droughts. 2008 - a diverse and abundant community of fish (n=803) was collected, including two intolerant taxa (Tounguetied Minnow, and Rainbow Trout); however six of ten NCIBI metrics fell during this assessment. 1998-2003 -- the decline in bioclassification, and particularly the loss of four sparsely populated intolerant species (Rock Bass, New River Shiner, Kanawha Minnow, and Kanawha Darter - 18 individuals combined) may be related to a 2003 spill of sodium hydroxide (3,000 gal.), that occurred in Blowing Rock. These losses may be explained by the combined effects of this spill, and the urban nature of this stream. In light of these extremes, this site was Not Rated; it has likely seen impressive recovery toward its previous bioclass and may continue to improve. Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody M FK S FK NEW R County WATAUGA Forested/Wetland Not Rated Bioclassification NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.12 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification E FK S FK NEW R SR 1522 KB12 08/19/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.202222 -81.648889 10-1-3-(8)Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-IV;CA:+7.2 3100 5 0.1 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 25 0 75 (golf course) Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)18.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.9 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)61 pH (s.u.)6.1 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)3 Instream Habitat (20)11 Bottom Substrate (15)6 Pool Variety (10)4 Riffle Habitat (16)12 Left Bank Stability (7)2 Right Bank Stability (7)2 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)0 Total Habitat Score (100)44 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10549 ---31 ---3.54 Good 11/04/03 9306 ---3 ---5.21 Poor 08/20/03 9258 ---31 ---3.06 Good 08/17/98 7731 ---32 ---3.29 Good 07/12/93 6259 ---37 ---3.34 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis The EPT taxa found in the East Fork of the South Fork New River in 2008 were similar to past basinwide collections. Some taxa were collected in lower abundances (e.g. Isonychia) and some have yet to reestablish (e.g. Maccaffertium pudicum and Ceratopsyche sparna) following an acute, unknown event that occurred in 2003 after the basinwide sampling event for that year. In terms of EPT richness the benthic community has recovered to summer 2003 levels. This site still supports a pollution-intolerant benthic community. Data Analysis This site rated Good in 2008, the same classification it received in summer 1998 and 2003. The loss of benthic fauna in late 2003 following an acute, unknown event does not appear to have been permanent. This site was sampled in November 2003 as a reference site after a spill in the Middle Fork South Fork New River (BAU memorandum B-20031113). This East Fork site has no dischargers upstream nor any larger reserviors which may have been the source of the problems seen in late 2003. Despite the ample evidence of being located just downstream of Boone Golf Club (e.g. grass clippings and golf balls in stream) the benthic fauna at this site appears less affected by the golf course in 2008 than the Middle Fork South Fork New River. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.13 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification WINKLER CR SR 1549 KB17 08/19/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.198333 -81.673611 10-1-4-(3.5)a Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+5.5 3145 6 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)50 50 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)16.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)46 pH (s.u.)6.0 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)10 Bottom Substrate (15)3 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)4 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)76 Substrate mix of mostly bedrock and boulder with some cobble and gravel Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10548 ---36 ---2.93 Excellent 08/21/03 9262 ---39 ---2.36 Excellent 08/17/98 7733 ---34 ---2.89 Good 07/12/93 6258 ---37 ---2.02 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis EPT taxa collected in 2008 were very similar to past samples here. Abundant taxa included the mayflies Baetis pluto, Epeorus vitreus, Maccaffertium modestum, M. pudicum and Paraleptophlebia. Six stonefly taxa were found at Winkler Creek with Leuctra and Tallaperla being dominant. Caddisflies were well represented with 12 taxa present, but only Ceratopsyche sparna, Cheumatopsyche and Dolophilodes were abundant. The less commonly collected caddisfly, Mystacides nr. alafimbriata, was found to be common here in 2008. Data Analysis The benthic site on Winkler Creek is near the headwaters of South Fork New River, and is located within and near the town limits of Boone. Much of the catchment upstream of the site is forested; only a very minor portion is urban. Winkler Creek rated Excellent in 2008, the same as in 2003 and 1993. The number of EPT taxa collected here has remained stable since the first sampling effort in 1993. The low Biotic Index indicates a pollution-intolerant benthic community residing in this section of Winkler Creek. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.14 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) Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion Amphibolite Mountains Date Station ID 1 Latitude 36.241748 Waterbody HOWARD CR AU Number 10-1-9-(6) County WATAUGA Not Rated05/21/08 Longitude -81.66127 KF6 Site Photograph 0 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No None 3198 Forested/Wetland Residential/School 15 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Green Sunfish, Bluegill, Tonguetied Minnow, Bluehead Chub, Longnose Dace, Appalachia Darter. Losses -- Creek Chub. 05/21/08 06/08/98 0 15.1 Reference Site NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 7 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 85 Elevation (ft) Bioclassification Not Rated Not Rated NCIBI -- -- Species Total 17 12 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 6 98-52 16 Sample ID 2008-48 5 20 12 7 9.3 45 6.5 Clear 91 abundant flat rocks, cobble, gravel, boulder.Substrate 7 10 4 4 Drainage Area (mi2) 7.9 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr,HQW SR 1306 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Subbasin Watershed -- a tributary to the North Fork New River located one watershed south of the Meat Camp Creek catchment in northeast Watauga County; drains the primarily forested area just north of Boone.Habitats -- high quality instream habitats consisting of excellent riffles, bedrock chutes, and pools; great canopy coverage offering abundant shade to the stream; very stable banks with a diverse mix of undisturbed vegetation in the riparian zones.2008 -- a highly diverse mix of cold, cool, and warm water species was collected from this mountain stream, including four intolerant taxa (Rock Bass, Tonguetied Minnow, Appalachia Darter, and Rainbow Trout); Central Stonerollers represented 25% of the catch, and the six new species collected were represented by low abundances (maximum of 8 individuals).1998-2008 -- a total of 18 fish species have been collected from this location, including two species of sucker, four species of sunfish (three of which are warm water exotics, suggesting alteration of the original population), six species of minnow, two darter species, and two trout species; overall, this stream appears healthy, and is supporting a rich community of fish through good quality water and habitats. Central Stoneroller. Exotic Species Rock Bass, Redbreast Sunfish, Green Sunfish, Bluegill, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout. Most Abundant Species Species Change Since Last Cycle NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.15 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification HOWARD CR SR 1328 KB18 08/19/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.244444 -81.650000 10-1-9-(6)Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr;HQW 10 3128 6 0.1 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)50 0 50 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)19.6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.3 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)100 pH (s.u.)7.0 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)14 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)7 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)4 Total Habitat Score (100)89 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10552 ---44 ---2.19 Excellent 08/20/03 9254 ---35 ---2.35 Good 08/17/98 7735 ---40 ---2.64 Excellent 07/13/93 6262 102 52 3.85 2.87 Excellent 07/26/88 4633 ---38 ---3.22 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Howard Creek conatains a pollution-intolerant macroinvertebrate community dominated by taxa that one would expect to find in a minimally disturbed small mountain watershed (e.g. Litobrancha recurvata, Neoephemera purpurea). Shredders, such as the stoneflies Tallaperla and Pteronarcys proteus, were abundant in 2008. Data Analysis Howard Creek rated Excellent in 2008, an increase from Good in 2003. As noted in the 2003 report, the Good rating was one EPT taxon away from an Excellent rating. Data from 1988 to 2008 show consistently high water quality with a diverse and pollution intolerant macroinvertebrate community. Residential and commercial development appears to be increasing in this watershed but the sampled reach did not appear to be affected by this as of August 2008. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.16 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) This site was moved about 2.7 miles upstream from the SR 1333 crossing (above Rittle Fork and Cobb Creek) to serve as a regional reference site. Watershed - a tributary to the South Fork New River that drains part of rural northeast Watauga County. Habitats - the 100% riffle habitats are high quality, but there are no functional pools in this 600 foot reach, and the lower 2/3 is completely without a canopy; however, bank stabilities are still good, and the substrates show relatively low levels of embeddedness, which suggests minor amounts of upstream sedimention. 2008 - a fairly diverse mix of cold and cool water species was collected, including three intolerant taxa (Rock Bass, Kanawha Darter, and Rainbow Trout) and almost four times the abundance was observed at this new location (n=1060 vs. 271); Mottled Sculpin (cold water benthic insectivore) represented 84% of the sample.1998-2008 - although separated by a few miles and Not Rated, the fish taxa collected at these two locations reflect similar trophic structures (in spite of the high number of Mottled Sculpin at SR 1335); overall, the fish community suggests good water quality characteristics in this catchment. 05/21/08 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody MEAT CAMP CR AU Number 10-1-10 County Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion Amphibolite MountainsWATAUGA Subbasin 1 Latitude 36.271611 -81.658809 KF24 Reference SiteStream Width (m) Average Depth (m) 7 Not Rated Forested/Wetland 5 (road)15 0.2 Agriculture Other (describe) Yes Urban 0 Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Bluehead Chub, Rainbow Trout.Losses -- White Sucker, Northern Hogsucker, Rosyside Dace. 05/21/08 06/09/98 NPDES Number ------ Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 80 Elevation (ft) Rock Bass, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout. Bioclassification Not Rated Not Rated NCIBI -- -- None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 0 98-54 16 Sample ID 2008-47 12 6 5 5 13.2 Species Total 10 11 9.8 42 6.5 Clear 5 18 5 3 Mottled Sculpin. Most Abundant Species 75 cobble, gravel, boulder.Substrate Exotic Species 3300 Site Photograph Volume (MGD) Drainage Area (mi2) 10.7 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr SR 1335 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Longitude NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.17 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification MEAT CAMP CR SR 1333 KB20 08/20/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.264444 -81.621944 10-1-10 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+20 3080 10 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)15.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.7 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)57 pH (s.u.)7.0 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)15 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)97 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10554 ---39 ---2.80 Excellent 08/20/03 9255 ---35 ---2.81 Good 08/17/98 7736 ---39 ---2.69 Excellent 07/13/93 6263 ---31 ---2.52 Good 03/05/90 5205 ---37 ---2.60 Good Taxonomic Analysis In 2008 Meat Camp Creek contained 39 EPT taxa, equaling the largest number of taxa collected from this stream. Many of the species collected in 2003 and previous samples were found in 2008. Most of these taxa are sensitive to aquatic pollution. Several taxa appeared for the first time here in 2008. These included the caddisflies Neophylax consimilis (abundant in the sample), Goera fuscula (common), Ceratopsyche morosa, and Neureclipsis (both rare in the sample). The pollution-sensitive mayfly Stenacron pallidum (common) and Tricorythodes (rare) also appeared at this site for the first time in 2008. Data Analysis Meat Camp Creek rated Excellent in 2008. The Good rating received in 2003 was only one EPT short of an Excellent bioclassification. The number of EPT collected here during the five collections since 1990 suggest a stable, pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrate community at the site. Riparian habitat along this reach shows little disturbance and a variety of in-stream microhabitats exist for macroinvertebrate colonization despite a large percentage of bedrock. Water temperatures in Meat Camp Creek were the lowest recorded for all sites in this part of the HUC in 2008. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.18 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification NORRIS FK SR 1337 KB21 08/19/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.280000 -81.676667 10-1-10-2 Amphibolite Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+3.3 3320 3 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 50 50 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)17.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.4 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)36 pH (s.u.)6.9 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)3 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)15 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)4 Right Bank Stability (7)4 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)3 Total Habitat Score (100)78 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10553 ---35 ---2.11 Good 08/20/03 9256 ---36 ---1.56 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Taxa collected in 2003 that were not found in 2008 included the caddisflies Fattigia pele, Parapsyche cardis, Brachycentrus spinae and Apatania. New caddisflies for this site in 2008 included Ceratopsyche bronta, Pycnopsyche gentilis and a second (unidentified) species of Pycnopcyshe, Polycentropus and Lype diversa. The stoneflies Suwallia and Isoperla nr holochlora were present in 2003 though absent in 2008, while Paragnetina immarginata was absent in 2003 and present in 2008. These taxa differences resulted in a slightly higher EPT Biotic Index in 2008 compared with 2003. However, overall this site contains a pollution-intolerant macroinvertebrate community. Data Analysis Norris Fork at SR 1337 received a classification of Good in 2008, though the addition of a single EPT taxon would have pushed the classification up to Excellent. The difference in the number of EPT taxa between 2003 and 2008 is very small, but the difference in EPT Biotic Index values is relatively large. Many of the rare but highly intolerant taxa collected in 2003 were absent in 2008. Some recent development has occurred upstream of the site. Higher silt levels were seen in 2008 corresponding to ongoing land clearing activities here. A large number of lots were for sale at the time of sampling suggesting that development would continue in the watershed. Despite this, the EPT Biotic Index in Norris Fork was the second lowest in this part the HUC (formerly subbasin 1). NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.19 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification PINE ORCHARD CR SR 1369 KB22 08/20/08 Not Impaired County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.313333 -81.617222 10-1-15-1 Amphibolite Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+2.6 3080 4 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)50 50 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)16.1 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.5 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)46 pH (s.u.)6.5 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)14 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)5 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)4 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)83 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, and gravel with a large amount of silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10555 ---36 ---2.09 Not Impaired 08/21/03 9260 ---33 ---1.64 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Small differences exist with the taxa collected at the site between 2003 and 2008, but overall the benthic community here remains diverse and pollution-sensitive.Neophylax consimils, a pollution-intolerant case-making caddisfly, was abundant in 2003 and absent in 2008. However, two other taxa,N. mitchelli and N. oligius, were common in 2008. Abundant taxa collected in 2008 included these pollution-sensitive taxa: the mayfly, Drunella conestee; the stonefly Malirekus hastatus ; and the caddisfly Dolophilodes. Data Analysis Pine Orchard Creek had the lowest EPT Biotic Index of any stream in this part of the HUC (formerly subbasin 1) indicating a very pollution-intolerant benthic community here. The classification for the site in 2003 was derived using High Quality Small Mountain Stream (HQSMS) criteria, which are used for stream sites with undisturbed drainage areas under 3.5 square miles. Recent aerial photos and streamside observations show the presence of disturbance from residences, agriculture, and state roads and highways in the watershed, therefore HQSMS criteria can not be applied to the site for 2008. Additionally, since no criteria have been completed for stream sites with drainage areas under 3.0 square miles with disturbance present, this site is given a classification of Not Impaired for 2008 (it would have been classified as Good with large-stream criteria). One notable difference in habitat at the site was an increase in silt from 2003 to 2008 (40% in 2008 versus 0% in 2003 by visual estimation). NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.20 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification PINE SWAMP CR OFF SR 1179 AT MOUTH KB108 08/18/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.312500 -81.464444 10-1-24 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C:+11 2820 8 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 100 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)21.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.1 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)30 pH (s.u.)6.4 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)11 Bottom Substrate (15)10 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)10 Left Bank Stability (7)2 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)3 Total Habitat Score (100)66 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/18/08 10546 ---34 ---3.82 Good 08/19/03 9253 ---30 ---3.14 Good Taxonomic Analysis Macroinvertebrates collected in Pine Swamp Creek differed slightly between 2003 and 2008, with four more EPT taxa collected in the latter year. Taxa abundant in the sample were similar between 2003 and 2008, but rare and common taxa varied. New taxa that appeared in 2008 included the caddisflies Ceratopsyche bronta, C. morosa and the mayfly Ephoron leukon. The stonefly Isoperla, common in 2003, was not collected in 2008. The macroinvertebrate community residing in Pine Swamp Creek in 2008 appears to be slightly more pollution-tolerant than in 2003. Data Analysis Pine Swamp Creek at SR 1179 rated Good in 2008 despite the lack of a healthy riparian zone upstream. Active cow pastures and tree farms constitute a sizeable portion of the visible watershed upstream of the sampling reach. A large amount of silt was visible in this stream (30% of the substrate by visual estimation). Though more EPT taxa were found in 2008 than 2003, the Biotic Index for these macroinvertebrates was higher, suggesting a response to either chemical or physical stressors at the site. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.21 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification S BEAVER CR SR 1147 KB5 08/18/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.354167 -81.468056 10-1-25-2a New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+3.0 3020 3 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)------------ Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)16.3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.5 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)48 pH (s.u.)6.8 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)14 Left Bank Stability (7)7 Right Bank Stability (7)2 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)0 Total Habitat Score (100)75 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/18/08 10411 ---35 ---2.83 Good 08/21/03 9264 ---31 ---2.68 Good Taxonomic Analysis The taxa collected in 2008 from South Beaver Creek were very similar to those collected in 2003. The list of abundant taxa in both years were nearly identical. Addional taxa seen in 2008 were mostly rare in abundance with a few exceptions, such as the mayflies Stenacron pallidum, Maccertium modestum and Leucrocuta (all common in the sample). Generally, the macroinvertebrate community residing in this reach is pollution-sensitive and diverse. Data Analysis South Beaver Creek rated Good in 2008, the same rating as in 2003. One additional EPT taxon would have resulted in an Excellent bioclassification. Based on only two samples, the macroinvertebrate community at this site appears stable, diverse and pollution-sensitive. Drought conditions in 2008 resulted in most of the root mats being exposed. Typically, this type of habitat is heavily colonized by aquatic macroinvertebrates. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.22 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification OBIDS CR SR 1192 KB6 08/08/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.345278 -81.404444 10-1-27-(2)New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-IV;Tr:+8.7 2700 5 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)50 0 50 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)18.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)38 pH (s.u.)6.3 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)17 Bottom Substrate (15)11 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)2 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)1 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)71 Substrate mostly cobble with some boulder and gravel Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/08/08 10410 ---31 ---3.28 Good 08/19/03 9252 ---32 ---3.16 Good Taxonomic Analysis The EPT taxa collected from Obids Creek in 2008 are very similar to those from the 2003 collection. An exception to this was the baetid mayfly Baetis tricaudatus , which was abundant in 2003 and absent in 2008. Despite this, all six other taxa from the mayfly family Baetidae were found here in 2008. Other "missing" taxa in 2008 were the heptageniid mayflies Maccaffertium pudicum and M. ithaca , which were common and abundant respectively. One rare taxon, Mystacides nr alafimbriata, was found in 2008. Only 17 records of this species exist in the BAU database going back to 1985. Four of these records, however, are in the New River drainage. Overall, 31 EPT taxa were found in 2008, one fewer than the number in the 2003 collection. Data Analysis Obids Creek rated Good in 2008, the same rating as in 2003. The taxa collected in both years are generally intolerant to aquatic pollution. A slight increase in the EPT Biotic Index reflects the few taxonomic differences and abundances between 2003 and 2008. The open canopy here has resulted in a higher water temperature than other nearby sampled streams of similar size. Additionally, cattle appear to have direct access to the stream which could be limiting in-stream habitat quality. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.23 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) 05/09/08 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody OBIDS CR AU Number 10-1-27-(2) County ASHE Subbasin 1 Latitude 36.345566 Good Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau Longitude -81.4042353 KF13 Site Photograph Reference Site --- Stream Width (m)Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Forested/Wetland 025 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No6 75 2710 This is the first fish community sample collected at this site.Watershed -- drains southeastern Ashe County; no municipalities within the watershed; tributary to South Fork New River, site is ~ 600 ft. upstream from the creek's confluence with the river.Habitat -- high gradient riffles and plunge pools; Rhododendron- and Eastern Hemlock-lined banks; grasses and pastures in the riparian zones; unstable left bank; livestock with access to the stream. 2008 -- diversity of cyprinids and intolerant species were slightly lower than expected; proximity to the river enables the site to serve as a nursery area for Age 1 Rock Bass (n=124 collected) and Smallmouth Bass (n=26 collected); and two endemic species (Kanawha Darter and Appalachia Darter) were collected. Urban 0 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 05/09/08 NPDES Number None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 9 16 15.5 Species Total 17 9.3 37 6.4 Clear 5 19 13 2 2008-37 Most Abundant Species 7 7 1 5 84 Cobble, boulder, gravel, and siltSubstrate Exotic Species Warpaint Shiner, Brown Trout, Rock Bass, Redbreast Sunfish, and Smallmouth Bass Bioclassification Good NCIBI 50 Mottled Sculpin and Central Stoneroller Sample ID Drainage Area (mi2) 8.3 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification WS-IV; Tr:+ SR 1192 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Elevation (ft) NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.24 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification ROAN CR SR 1588 KB7 08/20/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.408056 -81.401944 10-1-31-(2)New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-IV; Tr; CA:+7.0 2660 7 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 100 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)21.9 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.5 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)41 pH (s.u.)6.9 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)3 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)8 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)5 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)76 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10558 ---32 ---3.18 Good 08/18/03 9245 ---44 ---3.03 Excellent 08/18/98 7741 ---39 ---2.61 Excellent 07/14/93 6271 ---39 ---3.02 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Most taxonomic differences between 2003 and 2008 pertained to rare taxa. Exceptions to this were: the stone-cased caddisfly Glossosoma, which was abundant in 2003 but absent in 2008; the stoneflies Isoperla and Malirekus hastatus and the caddisfly Rhyacophila fuscula, which were all common in 2003 though absent in 2008. The caddisfly Triaenodes ignitus appeared here in 2008 (and was common in the sample) but had not been found in previous collections. Data Analysis Roan Creek declined from Excellent in the first three samples collected here from 1993 through 2003, to Good in 2008. Four additional EPT taxa would be required for the site to attain a classification of Excellent in 2008. The EPT Biotic Index suggests a slightly more pollution-tolerant macroinvertebrate community than in past years. Overall however, the species residing in this reach contribute to a pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrate community. Noticeable amounts of silt in 2008, (30% by visual estimation compared to 0% in 2003) may have reduced the number of EPT taxa residing here by filling benthic interstitial habitat. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.25 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 South Fork New River that drains the southeastern central edge of Ashe County, located southeast of Jefferson.Habitats -- good riffles and runs, with one good pool that was holding trout; moderately embedded substrates, but cattle are fenced out of the stream, allowing generally healthy banks; narrow vegetated riparian widths on both sides of the stream and a canopy that provides equal amounts of sun and shade.2008 -- a very abundant (n=1273), fairly diverse, and trophically balanced community of mostly cool and cold water fish species was collected, including four intolerant taxa (Rock Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Kanawha Darter, and Appalachia Darter); Mottled Sculpin represented 53% of the sample; in light of the agricultural land use in the watershed and lasting drought conditions, this stream appears fairly healthy as indicated by its instream habitats, water parameters, and its abundance of fish. 05/19/08 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody ROAN CR AU Number 10-1-31-(2) County ASHE Subbasin 1 Latitude 36.407949 Good Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau Longitude -81.401772 KF20 Site Photograph Volume (MGD) Reference SiteStream Width (m) Average Depth (m)Elevation (ft) None 0.3 Agriculture Other (describe) No5 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 30 Forested/Wetland 055 Rural Residential 15 NCIBI 48 Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 05/19/08 NPDES Number ------ 8 16 Sample ID 8 5 5 7 2 2 12.5 Species Total 14 10.4 38 6.1 Clear 5 19 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Mottled Sculpin Most Abundant Species 77 gravel, cobble, sand, boulder.Substrate Exotic Species 2008-41 Rock Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Brown Trout. Bioclassification Good 2694 Drainage Area (mi2) 6.7 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification WS-IV, Tr, CA+ SR 1588 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.26 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification NAKED CR NC 16/88 KB8 08/20/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.408889 -81.433333 10-1-32b New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C:+7.1 2750 5 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 100 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)24.4 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.3 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)122 pH (s.u.)8.4 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)8 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)5 Right Bank Stability (7)3 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)63 Substrate a mix of boulder, cobble, gravel sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10557 ---34 ---4.37 Good 08/19/03 9250 70 30 4.92 4.11 Good-Fair 08/18/98 7739 71 32 5.16 4.18 Good-Fair 07/14/93 6269 84 36 4.65 3.77 Good Taxonomic Analysis Naked Creek at NC 16-88 contains a typical benthic fauna for this part of the New River Basin. Abundant taxa collected in 2008 (and in most previous years) included the mayflies Acentrella, Baetis flavistriga, Maccaffertium ithaca, and M. modestum. Abundant caddisflies were Ceratopsyche sparna, Cheumatopsyche, Hydropsyche betteni and Leucotrichia pictipes . A few more EPT taxa were collected in 2008 than in recent samples. New taxa to this location in 2008 were the caddisflies Neureclipsis, Oligostomis, Hydatophylax argus and the stonefly Pteronarcys proteus. Data Analysis The few additional EPT taxa found in 2008 elevated this sample from Good-Fair to Good. Though this stream reach is entirely within an agricultural area (corn production), the headwaters of some small tributaries to this stream originate in Mount Jefferson State Park. A forested riparian buffer along this section of stream could aid in maintaining the Good bioclassification or possibly improving it. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.27 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)20.8 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)140 pH (s.u.)6.9 Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)16 Bottom Substrate (15)8 Pool Variety (10)8 Riffle Habitat (16)15 Left Bank Stability (7)5 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)73 Taxonomic Analysis A greater number of taxa were collected here in 2008 compared with the former basinwide site in 2003. Coleoptera (beetles) and Gastropoda (snails) were the most notable groups that reflected greater diversity in 2008, with increases of five and four taxa respectively. Overall, most taxa collected in 2003 at the former basinwide site were also found in 2008 at the new site. Compared with the upstream basinwide site on Naked Creek (at NC 16-88, which received a classification of Good), there were nine fewer EPT taxa. All abundant taxa collected upstream were found here. However, five taxa that were common in the upstream sample were absent at this site off SR 1589: the caddisflies Neophylax consimilis, N. oligus, and Glossosoma; and the mayflies Epeorus vitreus and Maccaffertium pudicum . The beetle Cymbiodyta (Hydrophilidae) was collected here in 2008; this is the first BAU record of the taxon in the New River drainage. This uncommon beetle has only been collected in 25 BAU samples since 1985. Data Analysis This site replaces the former basinwide site at SR 1585, which is about one stream-mile upstream. The former site is within a recently established gated community. Naked Creek off SR 1589 rated Good-Fair in 2008, the same rating received at the former basinwide site at SR 1585 in 2003. The upstream basinwide site on Naked Creek at NC 16-88 rated Good in 2008. A golf course and the outfalls from two minor dischargers (Town of Jefferson WTP, permit NC0083470; Town of Jefferson WWTP, permit NC0021709) are situated between the upstream and downstream basinwide sites, and appear to have an effect on water quality at the downstream site. According to the 2004 Basinwide Assessment Report, upgrades to the WWTP were ongoing at the time of sampling. The specific conductance measured 140 μmhos/cm in 2008, higher than in 2004 at SR 1585 (102 μmhos/cm). Also, habitat issues remain a problem here with large amounts of silt covering benthic surface and ongoing water withdrawals for lawn and golf course irrigation. At the time of the 2008 sampling event new homes were being constructed on the left side of the stream. 5.44 4.43 Good-Fair08/21/08 10559 79 23 mix of boulder, cobble, gravel sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Substrate none ------ Site Photograph 50 (golf course) Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 50 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Stream Depth (m) C:+13 2650 7 0.2 Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m) Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.412902 -81.406828 10-1-32b New River Plateau County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Date Bioclassification NAKED CR OFF SR 1589 140 METERS UPSTREAM OF MOUTH KB139 08/21/08 Good-Fair BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.28 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) Waterbody NAKED CR AU Number 10-1-32b County ASHE Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau1 Species Change Since Last Cycle 05/09/08 Site Photograph Reference Site NPDES Number NC0021709 Stream Width (m)Average Depth (m) Date Station ID -81.4070488 KF14 Longitude 0.6 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 40 Elevation (ft)Drainage Area (mi2) 12.4 Fair Forested/Wetland 030 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No82670 1998 site was ~2.2 miles upstream at NC 16/88.Watershed -- drains south-central Ashe County, including the Town of Jefferson; golf course residential community is within the immediate watershed; WWTP discharge is ~ 2 miles upstream; tributary to the South Fork New River; site is ~ 700 ft. upstream from the creek's confluencewith the river.Habitat -- lowest total habitat scores of any fish site in the basin in 2008; runs, riffles, slick periphyton; eroded vertical banks; open canopy within the golf course.2008 -- diversities of darters, cyprinids, and intolerant species were lower than expected; the percentage of tolerant fish (primarily White Sucker and Redbreast Sunfish) was elevated for a mountain stream; high percentage of Omnivores+Herbivores; proximity to the river enables the site to serve as a nursery area for Age 1 Rock Bass (n=250) and a source of temporary migrants (Spotfin Shiner, Warpaint Shiner, Spottail Shiner, Kanawha Rosyface Shiner, and Greenside Darter); and the most nonindigenous species and the second greatest conductivity at any fish site in the basin in 2008.1998 & 2008 -- 23 species known from the stream, including 2 endemic and 9 nonindigenous species. Suburban 30 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Spotfin Shiner, Warpaint Shiner, Spottal Shiner, Kanawha Rosyface Shiner, Brown Bullhead, Brown Trout, Redbreast Sunfish, Pumpkinseed Sunfish, Smallmouth Bass, Largemouth Bass, and Greenside Darter. Losses -- Blacknose Dace, Creek Chub, and Bluegill. 05/09/08 06/09/98 Warpaint Shiner, Brown Bullhead, Brown Trout, Rock Bass, Redbreast Sunfish, Pumpkinseed Sunfish, Smallmouth Bass, and Largemouth Bass Bioclassification Fair Fair NCIBI 36 34 3 Town of Jefferson WWTP Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 4 7 15.6 5 15 6 3 8.1 104 6.2 Turbid Most Abundant Species 50 Cobble, boulder, gravel, and siltSubstrate Exotic Species 1298-55 Sample ID 2008-36 Species Total 5 1 1 Central Stoneroller 20 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;+ off SR 1589 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Subbasin Latitude 36.413027 NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.29 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification PEAK CR OFF SR 1599 350 METERS UPSTREAM OF ORE KNOB BR KB11 06/19/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.420833 -81.319444 10-1-35-(2)a New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) B;Tr:+9.0 2700 6 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)75 25 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)18.0 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.3 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)38 pH (s.u.)6.3 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)20 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)93 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel and sand Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 06/19/08 10473 ---44 ---2.32 Excellent 08/18/03 9248 ---31 ---2.53 Good 08/19/98 7746 ---35 ---2.77 Good 04/08/96 7032 74 37*4.01*2.47 Excellent 07/15/93 6275 ---35 ---2.61 Good * values corrected for seasonality Taxonomic Analysis A diverse and pollution-sensitive aquatic community resides in this section of Peak Creek (above the confluence of Peak Creek and Ore Knob Branch). In 2008, the number of EPT taxa was higher than in recent collections here (an April 1991 Full Scale sample yielded 50 EPT). Generally, the aquatic macroinvertebrate community was similar to past samples with abundant, pollution-sensitive taxa such as: the mayflies Drunella cornutella, Paraleptophlebia,Stenacron pallidum, and Heptagenia; and the caddisflies Glossosoma, Ceratopsyche slossonae, Dolophilodes, and Neophylax oligius. In 2008 an extremely rare caddisfly, Hydropsyche carolina, was found in Peak Creek. Only one other record exists for this taxon in the North Carolina BAU database going back to 1983. Data Analysis This section of Peak Creek rated Excellent in 2008. The second highest EPT totals and the lowest EPT Biotic Index summarize the 2008 sample here and highlight the high water quality conditions in this stream. An undisturbed riparian zone, diverse in-stream benthic surfaces and a mostly forested watershed have resulted in favorable conditions for macroinvertebrate colonization in this stream (as indicated by the high habitat score received). The location name for this site was formerly "SR 1599." NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.30 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification PEAK CR SR 1599 DOWNSTREAM OF ORE KNOB BRANCH KB13 08/21/08 Poor County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.425000 -81.325000 10-1-35-(2)b New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) B;Tr:+11 2680 8 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)75 25 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)19.3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.7 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)170 pH (s.u.)3.1 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)16 Bottom Substrate (15)3 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)82 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/21/08 10561 ---3 ---2.62 Poor 08/18/03 9247 ---6 ---1.91 Poor 01/13/99 7798 ---5*---1.60 Poor 08/19/98 7747 ---23 ---3.10 Good-Fair 04/08/96 7026 30 14*4.18*2.10 Fair * values corrected for seasonality Taxonomic Analysis In 2008 only three EPT taxa were collected: Pycnopsyche gentilis (one specimen), a second unidentified species of Pycnopsyche (three specimens), and Hydropsyche venularis (one specimen). Precipitate from acid mine drainage covered the caddisflies and/or their cases. It is quite apparent that the benthic community is very highly stressed at the site. Data Analysis This reach of Peak Creek, below the confluence of Ore Knob Branch, received the same classification of Poor in 2008 as in 2003. It appears that in both wet and dry years the highly stressed macroinvertebrate community here borders on extirpation. As seen in the photo, an orange precipitate covered all instream surfaces. The 2004 Basinwide Assessment Report stated that proposed mitigation efforts were planned (in 2004). Unfortunately that work was not initiated, though site stabilization efrorts continue at the mine site itself. Approximately one mile upstream of this site is station KB 11, which earned a classification of Excellent in 2008. Despite the diverse aquatic community residing just upstream, this reach continues to suffer from the acid mine drainage received from Ore Knob Branch. The location name for this site was formerly "BIG PEAK CR RD." NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.31 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification L PEAK CR SR 1595 KB14 08/21/08 Poor County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.427778 -81.344444 10-1-35-4 New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) B;Tr:+2.3 2615 3 0.1 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)17.8 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.7 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)76 pH (s.u.)5.9 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)3 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)5 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)86 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/21/08 10560 ---7 ---2.12 Poor 08/19/03 9249 ---6 ---1.95 Poor 08/19/98 7744 ---7 ---2.02 Poor 04/08/96 7030 16 6*3.58*1.77 Poor 04/16/91 5551 ---5 ---2.01 Poor *values corrected for seasonality Taxonomic Analysis Only seven EPT taxa were found in Little Peak Creek in 2008. Abundant taxa collected here were similar to previous samples (Leuctra, Tallaperla, and Diplectrona modesta). Three larger-bodied case caddisflies were present (all common in the sample): Hydatophylax,Pycnopsyche gentilis, and a second unidentifed species of Pycnopsyche. Acid mine drainage from Ore Knob continues to suppress macroinvertebrate diversity and densities here. Data Analysis Little Peak Creek rated Poor in 2008, the same rating that it has always received. Acid mine drainage creates a toxic situation for aquatic macroinvertebrates here. By current BAU protocols this site would not be assigned a classification due to the small drainage area. However, due to the depauperate benthic community, in the judgment of BAU biologists the site is among the worst in the state and the classification is justified. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.32 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification CRANBERRY CR SR 1603 KB15 08/21/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.456389 -81.315000 10-1-37 New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) B;Tr:+35 2585 13 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)22.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.9 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)41 pH (s.u.)6.9 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)13 Bottom Substrate (15)11 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)15 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)3 Right Riparian Score (5)3 Total Habitat Score (100)75 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/21/08 10562 93 45 3.96 3.07 Excellent 08/18/03 9246 106 52 4.08 3.07 Excellent 08/19/98 7748 79 42 3.78 3.11 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Cranberry Creek contained a large number of aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa in 2008. The species composition was similar to the 1998 and 2003 collections. Abundant taxa at this site in 2008 included: Dolophilodes,Neophylax oligius,Paraleptophlebia, and Neoephemera purpurea. Data Analysis Cranberry Creek rated Excellent in 2008. Total taxa and EPT taxa numbers were similar among all three samples collected here. The Biotic Index indicates a pollution-sensitive community residing in this lower section of Cranberry Creek. This watershed contains a large number of tree farms with some mixed agriculture and residences. NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.33 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;+ SR 1600 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Longitude 1 Latitude Most Abundant Species 53 Cobble, gravel, sand, and bouldersSubstrate Exotic Species Warpaint Shiner, Redlip Shiner, Tennessee Shiner, Saffron Shiner, Rock Bass, and Smallmouth Bass Bioclassification Good Excellent NCIBI 98-59 Sample ID 2008-33 Species Total 22 2 9.1 39 5.7 Clear 14 15.4 4 16 8 14 56 60 Watershed -- drains eastern Ashe County; no municipalities within the watershed; tributary to South Fork New River, site is ~ 1 mile upstream of the creek's confluence with the river.Habitat -- straight channel, stream widening is occurring; 100% open canopy; very narrow riparian zones; unstable banks with high erosion potential; and shallow pools; a popular fishing site.2008 -- more total species, species of cyprinids (15), and intolerant species (9) were collected at this site than at any other site, except for at the South Fork New River (also 22 species).1998 & 2008 -- twice as many fish collected in 2008 than in 1998; a very diverse fish community is present, 26 species known from the site, including 16 species of cyprinids, 4 species of darters, 6 endemic species (Tonguetied Minnow, New River Shiner, Kanawha Rosyface Shiner, Kanawha Minnow, Kanawha Darter, and Appalachia Darter), and 7 nonindigenous species; and species present in 1998, but absent in 2008 were represented by 1-5 fish/species. Rural Residential 55 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Drainage Area (mi2) 36.8 025 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No Waterbody CRANBERRY CR 20 Elevation (ft) Subbasin Forested/Wetland County ASHE 36.46944444 2560 Species Change Since Last Cycle 05/08/08 06/30/98 3 Gains -- Tonguetied Minnow, Warpaint Shiner, Tennessee Shiner, Saffron Shiner, Kanawha Rosyface Shiner, and Creek Chub.Losses -- Western Blacknose Dace, White Sucker, Brown Trout, and Greenside Darter. 0 1 1 Mottled Sculpin and Bluehead Chub 20 Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau AU Number 10-1-37 05/08/08 Date Station ID -81.32694444 KF2 Good 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.34 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) Drainage Area (mi2) 13.7 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification B;Tr off SR 1302 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Elevation (ft) Cobble and boulderSubstrate Exotic Species Warpaint Shiner, Redlip Shiner, Tennessee Shiner, Saffron Shiner, Brown Trout, Rock Bass, and Smallmouth Bass Bioclassification Good-Fair NCIBI 46 Central Stoneroller Sample ID 2008-32 Most Abundant Species 4 4 2 2 75 Species Total 19 8.7 42 7.2 Clear 5 18 14 4 None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 6 16 17.2 This is the first fish community sample collected at this site.Watershed -- drains western Alleghany County; no municipalities within the watershed; much of watershed is with livestock pasture, no riparian zones, and an open canopy; tributary to South Fork New River, site is ~ 750 ft. upstream from the creek's confluence with the river.Habitat -- high gradient stream, primarily riffles, runs, and some plunge pools; fairly open canopy; narrow riparian zones.2008 -- Central Stoneroller accounted for 57% of all the fish collected; high percentage of Omnivores+Herbivores, indicative of nonpoint source nutrients and an open canopy; and two endemic species (Kanawha Rosyface Shiner and Kanawha Darter) were present. Rural Residential 10 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 05/07/08 NPDES Number Forested/Wetland 040 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No7 50 2520 Longitude -81.3205856 KF15 Site Photograph Reference Site --- Stream Width (m)Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Good-Fair Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau Subbasin 1 Latitude 36.4967511 05/07/08 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody PRATHERS CR AU Number 10-1-38 County ALLEGHANY NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.35 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) Drainage Area (mi2) 10.6 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr:+ SR 1549 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Elevation (ft) Cobble, boulder, and silts on the rocksSubstrate Exotic Species Redlip Shiner, Saffron Shiner, Brown Trout, Rock Bass, Green Sunfish, and Smallmouth Bass Bioclassification Good-Fair NCIBI 40 Bluehead Chub and Central Stoneroller Sample ID 2008-35 Most Abundant Species 7 9 5 5 95 Species Total 18 8.5 84 7.7 Very slightly turbid (easily silted) 5 19 14 7 None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 8 16 18.0 This is the first fish community sample collected at this site.Watershed -- drains southern Grayson County, VA and northeast corner of Ashe County; no municipalities within the watershed; tributary to the New River, site is ~ 50 ft. from the creek's confluence with the river.Habitat -- greatest habitat score of any fish community site in the basin in 2008, although much of the watershed is without canopy cover in pasture with cattle; high gradient boulder plunge pools; site is atypical.2008 -- 82% of all the fish collected were Bluehead Chub, Central Stoneroller, and Mountain Redbelly Dace; very high percentage of Omnivores+Herbivores were collected, indicative of nonpoint sources of nutrients and open canopy upstream of the reach; proximity to the river enables the site to serve as a nursery area for Age 1 Rock Bass and Smallmouth Bass; one endemic species (Appalachia Darter) was collected; and the greatest pH of any fish community site in the basin in 2008 due to photosynthetic activity by the upstream periphyton. Urban 0 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 05/08/08 NPDES Number Forested/Wetland 10 (South Fork New River)0 0.3 Agriculture Other (describe) No8 90 2480 Longitude -81.355517 KF16 Site Photograph Reference Site --- Stream Width (m)Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Good-Fair Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau Subbasin 1 Latitude 36.5522927 05/08/08 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody GRASSY CR AU Number 10-3 County ASHE NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-B.36 NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-C.1 appeNdix 2-C AmBIENt moNItoRINg SYStEmS StAtIoN DAtA ShEEtS StAtIoN ID WAtERBoDY Au#LoCAtIoN ImPAIRED (BY PARAmEtER) ImPACtED (BY PARAmEtER) K2100000 South Fork New R.10-1-(3.5)US 221/421 at Perkinsville Fecal Coliform (10.9%)--- K3250000 South Fork New R.10-1-(26)NC 16/88 near Jefferson ---Fecal Coliform (7.1%) K4500000 South Fork New R.10-1-(33.5)US 221 near Scottville Copper (11.1%) Iron (22.2%) Zinc (11.1%) --- NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-C.2 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:K2100000 Location:S FORK NEW RIV AT US 221 AND 421 AT PERKINSVILLE Stream class:C + NC stream index:10-1-(3.5) Hydrologic Unit Code:05050001 Latitude:36.22088 Longitude:-81.63978 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 7.6 8.2 8.5 9.8 11.8 13 13.757000 <5 7.6 8.2 8.5 9.8 11.8 13 13.757000 pH (SU)<6 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 7.9 8.457000 >9 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 7.9 8.457000 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 86 101 118 156 179 219 310570 Water Temperature (°C)>29 1.8 3.5 6.9 14 19.1 20.8 25.757000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 3 5.5 6.2 24.8 681810 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1 1.5 2.3 4.5 9.9 15057243.5 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.085738 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.24 0.98 1.3 1.7 2.15 3 3.9570 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.38 0.895715 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.26 0.48570 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 50 50 60 83 114 206 210102 Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5100100 Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 1.8 2 2 2 2100100 Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 21 25 25 25 25100100 Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 2 3 310070 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 190 191 230 265 325 487 50010000 Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 10100100 Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28080 Nickel, total (Ni)>88 10 10 10 10 10 10 10100100 Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 11 16 21 2110040 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 55 89.1 6 10.9 01/27/2005Time period:12/16/2009to 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-C.3 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:K3250000 Location:S FORK NEW RIV AT NC 16 AND 88 NR JEFFERSON Stream class:WS-IV HQW NC stream index:10-1-(26) Hydrologic Unit Code:05050001 Latitude:36.39473 Longitude:-81.40750 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 7.6 8.3 8.5 9.8 11.5 13.1 14.658000 <5 7.6 8.3 8.5 9.8 11.5 13.1 14.658000 pH (SU)<6 6.7 7.1 7.4 7.7 8.1 8.6 9.458000 >9 6.7 7.1 7.4 7.7 8.1 8.6 9.458203.4 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 45 61 68 73 80 100 656580 Water Temperature (°C)>29 2.3 4.7 8.2 15.4 21.9 24.4 27.158000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 3.9 6.2 6.6 68.4 576189 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1.2 1.7 2.8 5.2 22 38058325.2 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.125840 NO2 + NO3 as N >10 0.15 0.38 0.51 0.6 0.77 0.85 158000 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.26 0.37 2.55625 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 3.85811 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 110 110 120 150 200 310 31090 Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 59090 Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 2 2 2 2 29090 Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 25 25 25 25 259090 Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 2 2 29080 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 200 200 220 280 380 480 4809000 Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 109090 Manganese, total (Mn)>200 14 14 16 18 22 29 298000 Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28080 Nickel, total (Ni)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 109090 Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 10 10 109080 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 56 21.8 4 7.1 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-C.4 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:K4500000 Location:S FORK NEW RIV AT US 221 NR SCOTTVILLE Stream class:B ORW NC stream index:10-1-(33.5) Hydrologic Unit Code:05050001 Latitude:36.47378 Longitude:-81.33649 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 5.6 7.9 8.5 9.5 11.4 13.4 14.658000 <5 5.6 7.9 8.5 9.5 11.4 13.4 14.658000 pH (SU)<6 6.6 7 7.4 7.7 8 8.4 958000 >9 6.6 7 7.4 7.7 8 8.4 958000 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 35 56 68 72 78 83 148570 Water Temperature (°C)>29 1.1 4 8 15.4 22.6 25.6 2758000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 14 48 3541910 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1.2 1.7 3.1 6.6 27.4 26058436.9 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.15742 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.08 0.33 0.45 0.62 0.74 0.86 0.95570 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.26 0.4 35626 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.85710 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 64 64 92 200 1765 17000 1700090 Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 59090 Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 2 2 2 2 29090 Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 25 25 25 25 259090 Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 3 24 2491611.1 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 280 280 335 470 1925 20000 2000092022.2 Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 15 159080 Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28080 Nickel, total (Ni)>88 10 10 10 10 10 12 129080 Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 13 71 7191511.1 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf: 56 16.5 3 5.4 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.1 appeNdix 2-d 12-DIgIt SuBWAtERShED mAPS NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.2 NEW R IV E R B AS I N : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.3 E E E E EE E E E E E E #0#0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 XY #* #* #* #* #* #* #* "à)"à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡ [¡¢¡ ¢¡ S F N R SFNR Boone Blowing Rock SouthForkNewRiver(SFNR) Winkler C r e e k US-321 U S- 22 1 KB1 KB2 KB20 KB21 KB18 KB16 KB12 KB17 KB20 KB140 KB130 GapCreek South F ork New River NorrisFork Meat CampCreek Grass y C r e e k HowardCre e k CobbCreek PineR u n DoeFork Bo one Cre e k LaxonCree k FlanneryFork LittleCreek CranberryCreek HodgesCreek Littl e G a p Creek Triv e t t B r a n c h UTMILLC R Pin e B r a n c h CouchesCreekWolfpenCreek D ay s Creek RockyBranch GoshenBra n c h East ForkSouthForkNewRiver J o nesBranch BrownBranch Flatto p B r a nch P ayne B r a n c h NorrisB r a n c h M o re t z B ra n c h KF8KF12 KF24 K2100000 0 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 0.35 Miles Headwaters South Fork New River Subwatershed (050500010201) 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.4 E EE E E E E E E ¡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) [¡ [¡ [¡ [¡¢¡ ¢¡ ASHE WATAUGA N o r t h ForkNe w R iv er West Jefferson SouthForkNewRiver(SFNR) SFNR Boone KF6 MeatCampCreek SFNR NC-194KB1 KB22 KB21 KB18 KB16 KB12 KB17 KB20 KB26 KB141 KB140 KB130 KB129 B e a v erCreek Gap Creek OldFieldCreek South F ork New River NorrisFork LongHopeCreek ElkCreek Hoskin F or k MeatCampCreek ThreeTopCreekGrass y C r e e k W i nk l e r Cree k HowardCre e k CobbCreek PineR u n DoeFork BooneCreek LaxonCreek FlanneryFork LittleCreek CranberryCreek HodgesCreek B e n B ol e n C r eekMillCreek(GrassyCreek) CallCreek(WestProngOldFieldCreek) Little G a p C r e e k Triv e tt B r a n c h S o u t h Bra n ch S o u thBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) RushB r a n c h PineOrchardCreek DoeBranch UTMILL C R PineBranch CouchesCreek MineBranch W o lf p e n C r e e k DaysCreek GoshenBra n c h EastForkSouthForkNewRiver WallaceBran c h J o nesBranch Maine B r anch WilsonBranch P ayne Br a n c h M or e t z Br a nc h BigBranch KF8 KF12 KF24 K2100000 K2500000 0 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 0.35 Miles Meat Camp Creek-South Fork New River Subwatershed (050500010202) 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.5 E E EE E E E E E E ¡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) [¡ [¡ [¡ [¡¢¡ ¢¡ ASHE WATAUGA NorthForkN e w River L i ttleBuffaloCreekNC-194 West Jefferson SouthForkNewRiver(SFN R) SFN R Boone KF6 Meat C a m p C r e e k SFNR NC-194 S o u t h F o r k N e w R iv e r U S - 2 2 1 N C-194 W A T A U G AASHE KB1 KB2KB5 KB22 KB21 KB18 KB16 KB12 KB17 KB32 KB20 KB26 KB138 KB108 KB119 KB141 KB140 KB130 KB129 BeaverCreek Buffal o Cree k Gap Creek Old Field C reek Norr i sF ork LongHopeCreek NakedCreek ElkCreek Hoskin Fork Bru s h Fo r k MeatCampCreek ThreeTopCreek Grass y Creek W inkl e r Cree k HowardCre e k CobbCreek PineR u n DoeFork Boone Cree k LaxonCree k FlanneryFork LittleCreek ColeBranch C r an b e r r y C reek HodgesCreek LittleNakedCreek B e n Bolen C r eek Mill Cre ek (G ra ssyCreek ) CallCreek(WestPro n g Old Field Cre e k) Little G a p C r e e k Triv e tt B r a n c h S o u t h Br a nch S o uthBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) RushB r a n c h Pi n e O rc h ard Creek DoeB ra n ch UTMILLC R Pin e B r a n ch Couches C reek Min e B ranch WolfpenCreek Day s Creek GoshenBra n c h EastForkSouthForkNewRiver WallaceBran c h J o nesBranch Maine B r anch WilsonBranch Flatto p B r a nch PineMountainBranch PayneBr a n c h EastForkPineSwampCreek Moretz Branch SouthBeaverCreek(Lake Ashe) BigBranch KF8 KF12 KF10 KF24 K2100000 K2500000 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 0.4 Miles Elk Creek-SFNR Subwatershed (050500010203) 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.6 E E ¡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) [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ASHE WATAUGA N o r t h ForkN e w River L i ttleBuffaloCreek NC-194 West Jefferson SouthForkNewRiver(SFN R) SFNR Boone KF6 MeatCampCreek SFNR NC-194 SouthForkNewRiver U S - 2 2 1 N C-194 SFNR NC-194 US-221 KB7 KB8 KB1 KB2 KB3 KB5 KB6 KB30 KB31 KB22 KB21 KB18 KB16 KB12 KB17 KB32 KB20 KB23 KB26 KB30 KB86 KB138 KB139 KB108 KB134 KB120 KB119 KB141 KB140 KB130 KB129 B e a v erCreek Buffal o Cree k Gap Creek OldFieldCreek RoanCreek NorrisFork ObidsCreek LongHopeCreek NakedCreek ElkCreek DogCreek HoskinFork EzraFork BrushFork MeatCampCreek BearCreek ThreeTopCreekGrass y C r e e k W inkle r Cree k HowardCre e k CobbCreek PineR u n DoeFork BooneCreek RoundaboutCreek LaxonCreek FlanneryFork Rock(Stone)Creek LittleCreek C ole Branch CranberryCreek HodgesCreek LittlePh o e ni x Creek ClaybankCreek CabbageCreek Silas B r anch LittleNak e d Creek B e n Bolen C r eekMillCreek(GrassyCreek) CallCreekLittle G a p C r e e k PotterBranch TrivettBranch SouthBra nch S o u thBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) RushB r a n c h PineOrchardCreek DoeBranch UTMILLC R PineBranch CouchesCreek MineBranch W olf p e n C r e e k EastForkSouthForkNewRiver WallaceBranchJonesBranchMaineBranch WilsonBranch Creas e y Br a n c h PineMountainBranch PayneBr a n c h East ForkPineSwampCreek MoretzBranch SouthBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) BigBranch KF8 KF23 KF12 KF20 KF13 KF14 KF10 KF24 KF22 KF 21 KF 22 K2100000 K2500000 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 0.4 Miles Old Fields Creek-SFNR Subwatershed (050500010204) 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.7 ¡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) [¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ASHE WATAUGA NorthForkN e w River Lit tleBuffaloCreek NC-194 West Jefferson SouthForkNewRiver(SFNR) SFNR Boone KF6 Meat C a m p C r e e k SFNR NC-194 S o u t h F o r k N e w Riv e r U S - 2 2 1 N C-1 9 4 SFNR NC-194 U S -2 2 1 Pine S w a mp Cre e k ASHE WATAUGA US-221 S F N R KB7 KB8 KB1 KB2 KB3 KB5 KB6 KB13KB14 KB22 KB21 KB18 KB16 KB12 KB17 KB32 KB20 KB11 KB138 KB139 KB108 KB119 KB141 KB140 KB130 KB129 B e a v erCreek Buffalo Creek Gap Creek Ol d Field Cree k RoanCreek NorrisF ork O bidsCre e k LongHopeCreek NakedCreek ElkCreek MeatCampCreek BearCreek ThreeTopCreek Grassy C r e e k W ink ler Cree k HowardCre e k CobbCreek PineR u n B oone Cree k LaxonCree k FlanneryFork LittleCreek C ole Branch C r an ber r y C reek HodgesCreek Little Nak e d Creek B e n Bole n C r eek Mill Cre ek (G rassyCreek ) Call Creek Little G a p C r e e k PotterBranch S o u th Br a nch S o u thBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) RushB r a n c h P in e O rc h ard Creek LittlePeakCreek UTMILLC R Pin e B r a n c h Couches C reek Min e Branch W o lf p e n C reek Day s Creek GoshenBra n c h EastForkSouthForkNewRiver Maine B r anch Flatto p B r a nch Cre as e y B r a n c h P ayne B r a n c h SouthBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) BigBranch KF8 KF23 KF12 KF20 KF13 KF14 KF10 KF24 K2100000 K2500000 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 0.4 Miles Pine Swamp Creek-SFNR Subwatershed (050500010205) 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.8 E E ¡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) [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ ¢¡ NorthFor k N ew Ri v er Lit tleBuffaloCreek NC-88 NC-194 NC-194 West Jefferson SouthForkNewRiverUS-221 NC-194 SFNR NC-194 US-221 PineSwampCreek ASHE WATAUGA US-221 S F N R West Jefferson US-221 N C - 1 6 3 NC-16 SFNR KB7 KB8 KB2 KB3 KB5 KB6 KB30 KB10 KB15 KB13 KB14 KB31 KB22 KB32 KB10 KB23 KB11 KB30 KB86KB138 KB139 KB108 KB134 KB117 KB125 KB118 KB140 KB130 KB129 PeakC re e k B e a v erCreek BuffaloCreek Gap Creek M ea d o w F ork OldFieldCreek RoanCreek PineyFork ObidsCreek NakedCreek ElkCreek DogCreek EzraFork BearCreek ThreeTopCreekGrassyCreek NathansCreek Piney B ranc h PineRunLaxonCreek C ole Branch CranberryCreek CranberryCreek ( M ulberryCreek) CopelandCreek LittlePho e n ix Creek ClaybankCreek MapleBranch Laurel F o r k SilasB r anch Little Nak e d Creek BenBolenCreekMillCreek(GrassyCreek) CallCreekLittl e G a p C re e k PotterBranch S o u thBeaver Creek LongShoalsCreek LittleP e a k C r e e k B e a verBranch UTMILLC R PineBranch CouchesCreek W o lfp e n C re ek U T L P h oenix Cr ReevesBranch Cre a s e y B r a n c h FosterSpringsBranch SugarTreeBranch(SugarBranch) WolfBranch LongBranch BigBranch KF2 KF23 KF20KF13 KF14 KF22 KF 21 KF22 K4500000 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 0.4 Miles Beaver Creek-SFNR Subwatershed (050500010206) 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.9 E E E E EE E E E E ¡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) [¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ Lansing NorthFork N e w River L i ttleB u ff a l o C reek NC-88 NC-194 N C-1 9 4 Jefferson NC-16 NC-194 U S -2 2 1 West Jefferson US-221 N C - 1 6 3 N C -1 6 SFNR K3250000 SFNR NC-16 N C -16 NC-88 KB7 KB8 KB3 KB5 KB6 KB10 KB15 KB13 KB14 KB31 KB32 KB27 KB10 KB11 KB33 KB139 KB108 KB134 KB117 KB135 KB125 KB123 KB118 KB129 PeakC r e e k B e a v erCreek Buffal o Cree k NorthForkNewRiver O l d F ield Creek R oanCreek SilasCreek O bidsCre e k Naked Creek D o g Cre e k StaggCreek Ezr a F o rk PineyCreek B ear Creek NathansCr ee k PineyBranch C ole Branch Lo n g Br a n c h CranberryCreek(MulberryCreek) LittlePh o e ni x Creek ClaybankCreek Silas B r anch Little Nak e d Creek M ill C ree k (G ras sy Cree k ) Call Cre ek PotterBr a n c h MillpondBranch S o u th BeaverCreek LongShoalsCreek Little P e a k C r e e k LittlePineyCreek B e averBranch UTMILL C R Couches C r e ek SouthForkLittleHorseCreek U T L P h o en ix Cr FosterSpri n g s B ra n c h SugarTreeBranch(Sugar B r a n c h ) WolfBranch Long B r a n c h KF2 KF1 KF20 KF15 KF13 KF14 KF 21 K7500000 K4500000 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 0.3 Miles Naked Creek-SFNR Subwatershed (050500010207) 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.10 E ¡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) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ NC-16 NC-16PineSwampCreek US-221 N C - 1 6 3 NC-16SFNR K3250000 SFNR NC-16NC-16 NC-88 CranberryCreek(MulberryCr.) N C-1 8 NC-18 NC-113 N C - 8 8 O r e K nobCr PeakCreek SFNR ALLEGHANY ASHE KB7KB8KB3KB6 KB10 KB15 KB13 KB14 KB25 KB10 KB34 KB37 KB36 KB38 KB11 KB97 KB40 KB46 KB37 KB36 KB82 KB139 KB117 KB135 KB101 KB127 KB125 KB123 KB101 LittleRiver PeakCreek NorthForkNewRiver Pr ath e r s Creek M e a d o w Fork GladeCre e k RoanCreek SilasCreek P i n e y F o r k ObidsCreek NakedCreek DogCreek PotatoCreek HeltonCreek BledsoeCreek C r a b F o r k VileCreek BearCreek Nathans Cree k Littl e Riv er(S p a rt a L a k e) Piney B ra n c h WolfBranch Pine S w a mp C ree k LittleHeltonCreekLittlePhoenixCreek CheekBranch MapleBranch Silas Branch LittleNakedCreek PotterBranch MillpondBranch EvansBranch LongShoalsCreek Little P e a k C re e k B e averBranch ReevesBranch No Head Branch NewRiver(North Carolina Portion) FosterSpringsBranch OldFieldCreek WolfBranch LongBranch Pi n ey Creek D o g Creek Elk Cre e k KF7 KF5 KF2 KF20 KF15 KF19 KF13 KF14 KF16 K7900000 K7500000 K4500000 0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 0.375 Miles Cranberry Creek-SFNR Subwatershed (050500010208) 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.11 EE E E E ¡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) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ Lansing NC-194 NorthFork N ew Riv e r L it tle B u ff alo Creek NC-194 N C -1 9 4 Jefferson NC-16 NC-16 SFNR U S -2 2 1 Pine S w a mpCre e k S F N R West Jefferson US-221 N C - 1 6 3 N C -1 6 SFNR K3250000 SFNRNC-16 N C -16 NC-88 Cranb err y C r eek (MulberryCr.) N C - 18 NC-18 NC-113 N C - 8 8 OreKnobCr P e a k C r e e k SFNR KB7 KB8 KB2 KB3 KB5 KB6 KB10 KB15 KB13 KB14 KB31 KB32 KB27 KB25 KB10 KB34 KB11 KB33 KB136 KB139 KB108 KB134 KB117 KB135 KB127 KB125 KB123 KB118 Peak Cre e k B e a v erCreek NorthForkNewRiver P r a th e r s Cr e e k M ea d o w F ork R oanCreek SilasCreek P in e y F o r k O bidsCre e k Naked Creek DogCreek Ezr a F ork PotatoCreek HeltonCreek C r a b F o r k PineyCreek B ear Creek Nathans C r e ek LittleRiver(SpartaLake) Piney Bra nc h JerdBranch LittleHeltonCreek C ole BranchLittlePho e ni x Creek ClaybankCreek CheekBranch MapleBra n c h Silas B ranch Little Nak e d CreekPotterBranch MillpondBranch S o u thBeaverCreek EvansBranch LongShoalsCreek Little P e a k C re e k LittlePineyCre e k B e averBranch Couches C reek U T L P h o enix Cr R e e v e s Branc h NewRiver(NorthCarolinaPortion) Foste r S p ri n g s B ra n c h O l d FieldCreek WolfBranch Lon g B r a n c h Pi n ey Creek Elk Cre e k KF5 KF2 KF1 KF20 KF15 KF13 KF14 KF16 KF 21 K7900000 K7500000 K4500000 0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 0.375 Miles Peak Creek-SFNR Subwatershed (050500010209) 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.12 E ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ #0 #0#0#0#0 "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ NC-16 NC-16 US-221 K3250000SFNR NC-16 CranberryCreek(Mulberry Cr.) N C - 1 8 NC -113 OreKnob Cr PeakCreek SFNR ALLEGHANY ASHE SouthForkNewRiver KB7 KB10 KB15 KB13 KB14 KB25 KB35 KB34 KB37 KB36 KB11 KB97 KB46 KB37 KB36 KB139 KB135 KB101 KB127 KB126 KB123 KB101 PeakCreek NorthForkNewRiver Pr a t h ersCreek M e a d o w Fork RoanCreek P i n e y F o r k DogCreek PotatoCreek HeltonCreek BledsoeCreek C r a b F o r k Nathans C r e e k Lit t l e Riv er(S p a rt a L a k e) Piney B r a n c h Pine S w a mp C r e e k CheekBranch MapleBranch Silas B ranch LittleNakedCreekPotterBranch MillpondBranch EvansBranch LongShoalsCreek Little P e a k C re e k B e averBranch ReevesBranch No Head B ranch NewRiver(North Carolina Portion) FosterSpringsBranch OldFieldCreek WolfBranch New R iv e r ( NorthCarolina Portion ) LongBranch Pi n ey Creek GrassyCreek D o g Creek Elk Cre e k KF7 KF5 KF3 KF2 KF20 KF15 KF19 KF14 KF16 K7900000 K7500000 K4500000 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 0.3 Miles Prather Creek-SFNR Subwatershed (050500010210) 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.13 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) [¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ Lansing NC-194 NC-194 NC-16 H e lt o n Cre e k N C-194 NC-16 US-221 NC-16 Cranberry C r e ek (Mulberry Cr.) NC-18 NC-113 SFNR ALLEGHANY ASHE S o u t h F o r k N e w Riv er KB10 KB15 KB31 KB27 KB25 KB33 KB137 KB136 KB134 KB117 KB135 KB127 KB126 KB125 KB123 KB118 NorthForkNewRiver Pr a t h ers C r e e k Silas Creek DogCreek Ezra F ork Potato C r ee k H elt o n Cree k C r a b F o rk P i n e y C r e e k Nathans C r e e k Piney B r a n c h J e r d Branch Little H e lt o n C re e k LittlePh o e n i x C reek ClaybankCreek Maple B r a n c h LostBranch Silas B ranch MillpondBranch EvansBranch LongShoalsCreek L ittl e Pi n e y Cre e k B e averBranch U T L P h o e nix Cr F oste r S p rin g s B ra n c h Ol d Field Cre e k N ewRiver Lon g B r a n c h Pin ey Creek G r a s s y Creek L o ng B r a nc h ElkCreek KF5 KF3 KF2 KF1 KF15 KF16 KF 21 K7500000 K4500000 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 0.3 Miles Grassy Creek-New River Subwatershed (050500010302) 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 : S ou t h F oRk N EW R IV E R & F ox C RE E k W AtER S hED S ( hu C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) APP E N D I C E S 2-D.14