HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 3 with AppNC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
General Watershed description
These two ten-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds, with an area
of about 145 square miles, are the equivalent to DWQ’s old subbasin
05-07-03 and contain the Little River and its tributaries (See DWQ’s Old
Subbasins to New HUC Conversion map in the Maps Chapter). These
watersheds have been combined in the same chapter due to the small
size of the Chestnut Creek watershed (0505000106).
Almost the entire watershed lies within Alleghany County. The Little
River/Chestnut Creek watersheds flow northeast and drain the Town of
Sparta. High, hilly plateaus can be found in these watersheds from North
Carolina into the Virginia Blue Ridge Mountains.
These watersheds have the least amount of forested area (50%) as
compared to other watersheds in the basin. Instead, more land is
devoted to agricultural activities (40%) including pasture, orchards,
cultivated cropland, livestock, dairy farms, and Christmas tree production.
Developed areas (7.5%) are limited to the Town of Sparta.
Roughly 2,400 acres of conservation land are found in these watersheds
and include easements held by local watershed groups and State
agencies, Bullhead Mountain State Park, and the Blue Ridge Rural Land
Trust.
The population of these watersheds are centered mostly around the Town
of Sparta. Sparta declined in population between 1990 and 2000 by 7%
and was estimated to decline another one percent by 2010, according to
the 2000 census.
3.1
Watershed at a Glance
counties:
Alleghany & Surry
Municipalities:
Sparta
ecoreGions:
New River Plateau & Southern
Crystaline Ridges and Mountains
perMitted Facilities:
NPDES WWTP: ........................3 Major ...........................................1
Minor ...........................................2
Non-Discharge Facilities: ..........1
Stormwater: ..............................2
General .......................................2
Individual .....................................0
Animal Operations: ...................9
population:
2010: .................Coming Soon
2006 land cover:
Developed .........................7.72%
Forest .............................51.83%
Agriculture .......................40.24%
Wetlands ...........................0.21%
2001 Impervious Surface ..0.64%
CHAPTER 3
little river &
chestnut creek
Watersheds
HUC 0505000104 & 0505000106
Includes: Elk Creek, Bledsoe Creek, Pine Swamp Creek,
Glade Creek, Brush Creek & Crab Creek
3.2
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
FIguRE 3-1: LIttLE RIVER WAtERShED (0505000104 & 0505000106)
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
"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)
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
#*
#*#*
KB82
KB98
BrushCr.
WILKES
ALLEGHANY
LittleRiver
BrushCr.
Gla
d
e
Cre
e
k
ElkCreek
C
rabCreek
DogCreek
VileCreekWolfBr.
WaterfallsCreek
Little
GladeCr.
CheekBr.
Little
P
i
n
e
C
reek
EvansBr.
ElkCreek
RockCr.B
le
d
s
o
e
Cr.
L
i
t
t
l
e
R
.
LittleR.
PineSwamp
C
r
.
M
occasinCr.
NewR.
BrushCreek
LaurelBr.BigPin
e
C
r
e
e
k
Sparta
K9750000
K9600000
K7900000
KB98
KB97
KB36
KB34
KB73
KB38
KB37
KB42
KB35
KB49
KB47
KB41
KB46
KB40
KB133
KB132
KB128
KB100
KB104
KB101
KF7
KF4
KF3
KF19
KF18
KF17
¬«18
£¤21
¬«89
¬«93
£¤221
¬«18
£¤21
0
2
4
6
8
1
Miles
Animal
Operation
Permit
¡³Legend
Random
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)
3.3
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
Watershed Water Quality overvieW
The Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds combined are the smallest in the New River basin. It has the
highest percent of agricultural land cover of any watershed in the basin and also contains all nine animal
operation permits within the basin. While waters in these watersheds are slightly more impacted by human
activities, they are of relatively good quality.
Crab Creek [AU#: 10-9-12] is the only Impaired water in these watersheds and was added to the Impaired
Waters list in 2010. This is the first Impaired water in these watersheds since Laurel Branch [AU#: 10-9-10-2]
appeared on the 1998 list but was removed from the 2000 list. Crab Creek’s impairment and other information
is discussed in the Crab Creek-Little River 12-digit section below.
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 DWQs Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). These
bioclassifications include Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Not
Impaired, Not Rated, Fair and Poor. For specific methodology
defining how these rating are given see Benthic Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) or the Fish Community SOP.
Once a rating is given, it is then translated into a Use Support
Category (see Figure 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 3-3 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 3-2: 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 3-3: 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%
3.4
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
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 3-4). During a three
week period in September 2004, the
tropical storm remnants of Hurricanes
Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne lead to
wide-spread flooding throughout the
central and northern mountains in
the Catawba, French Broad, New,
and Watauga River basins. Rainfall
estimates for the combined three
storms totaled more than 20-30 inches
in certain watersheds. Runoff from
the storms produced flash-floods
throughout the region with peak flows
in excess of 10,000 cfs (approximately
500 times median flows) in upper
tributary streams; peaks flows in
some tributary rivers exceeded 50,000 cfs. In the New River basin, the peak flow during Hurricane Frances
(September 7th - 9th) was 14,700 cfs, which has an approximate recurrence interval of 10 to 25 years. During
Hurricane Ivan (September 17th - 18th) the peak flow was 7,550 cfs, which has an approximate recurrence
interval of 2 to 5 years. More detail about flows in the New River Basin can be found in the 2009 Basinwide
Assessment Report: New River Basin produced by DWQ-Environmental Science Section.
BioloGical data
Biological samples were collected during the spring and summer months of 2004 and 2008 by the DWQ-
Environmental Sciences Section as part of the five-year basinwide sampling cycle, in addition to special
studies. Overall, 27 biological sampling sites were monitored within the Little River Watershed. The ratings
for each of the sampling stations can be seen in Appendix 3-B.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in
Figure 3-5 and color coded based on the current rating. As seen on the
map, all samples taken in this watershed received a Supporting rating.
Each of these sites are discussed in more detail in the subwatershed
discussions below.
Figure 3-6 shows 100% of the 25 sampling events received a Supporting
rating and 0% received an Impaired rating. Figure 3-7 is a comparison
of benthic site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if
there are any overall shifts in ratings. Five percent of ratings declined, 19% improved in rating and 24% had
no change in rating. This indicates that the watershed is mostly stable with some improvements.
FIguRE 3-4: 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 .....21
£Total Samples Taken ...........25
£Stations Monitored Twice ..... 4
£Number of New Stations .....11
3.5
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
FIguRE 3-5: BENthIC StAtIoNS CoLoR CoDED BY CuRRENt
RAtINg IN thE LIttLE RIVER WAtERShED
FIguRE 3-6: CuRRENt BENthIC SItE RAtINgS
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Poor
Not Rated
Not Impaired
FIguRE 3-7: 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 3-8 and color coded based on the current rating. Three of the sites
were new monitoring sites located in rural watersheds with no NPDES
dischargers. These sites were selected to determine their potential for
becoming fish community regional reference sites.
As shown in Figure 3-9, 83% of the six sampling events received a
Supporting rating and 17% received an Impaired rating. Figure 3-10 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 17% improved and 33% had no change in rating indicating a stable and somewhat improving fish
community.
Fish coM. saMplinG suMMary
£Total Stations Monitored .......6
£Total Samples Taken .............6
£Number of New Stations .......3
3.6
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
FIguRE 3-8: FISh CommuNItY StAtIoNS CoLoR CoDED BY CuRRENt
RAtINg IN thE LIttLE RIVER WAtERShED
FIguRE 3-9: CuRRENt FISh CommuNItY SItE RAtINgS
Excellent
Good
Good-Fair
Fair
Poor
Not Rated
Not Impaired
FIguRE 3-10: ChANgE IN FISh CommuNItY SItE RAtINgS
Improved
Declined
No Change
New Station
For more information about biological data in these watersheds, see the 2009 New River Basinwide
Assessment Report. Detailed data sheets for each sampling site can be found in Appendix 3-B.
Fish Kills/Spill Events
No fish kills were reported in these watersheds during this planning cycle.
3.7
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
aMBient data
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 3-A and statewide on the Modeling &
TMDL Unit’s website.
Two Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) stations are located in the Little River watershed; one on the New
River and the other on the Little River (see Figure 3-1 for station locations). During the current sampling cycle
(January 2004 - 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 ambient monitoring parameters includes graphs showing the median and mean
concentration values for the two AMS stations in this watershed by specific parameter over a 13 year period
(1997-2009). Each major parameter is discussed in this Section 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
The water quality standard for pH in surface freshwater is 6.0 to 9.0 su. Both AMS stations in these watersheds
were each monitored 58 times and each exceeded the high pH standard of 9 once. As seen in Figure 3-11,
this is less than 10% of samples taken and neither stream will be listed as Impaired for pH. Figure 3-12 shows
the mean and median pH levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the Little 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 3-11: PERCENtAgE oF SAmPLES
ExCEEDINg thE Ph StANDARDS (2003-
2008)
FIguRE 3-12: SummARIzED Ph VALuES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At
AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN huC 0505000104
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
pH
Median Mean
* NC pH Standard: Between 6 and 9 su
3.8
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
Turbidity
Both AMS sites in this watershed had at least two records that exceeded the state standard. Site K7900000
on the New River had 7% of samples exceed the standard during this monitoring cycle, as seen in Figure
3-13. Possible sources of the elevated turbidity levels are discussed in the 12-digit subbwatershed sections
below. Figure 3-14 shows the mean and median of turbidity levels for all samples taken over the course of 13
years in the Little River watershed. The yearly averages are well below the state standard of 50 NTUs with
the exception of the 2007 mean. The highest violation occurred in 2007 at site K7900000, measuring at 450
NTUs.
While some erosion is a natural phenomenon, human land use practices accelerate the process to unhealthy
levels. Construction sites, mining operations, agricultural operations, logging operations and excessive
stormwater flow from impervious surfaces are all potential sources. Turbidity violations demonstrate the
importance of protecting and conserving stream buffers and natural areas.
FIguRE 3-13: PERCENtAgE oF SAmPLES
ExCEEDINg thE tuRBIDItY StANDARD
(2003-2008)
FIguRE 3-14: SummARIzED tuRBIDItY VALuES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED
At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN huC 0505000104
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
(
N
T
U
)
Median Mean
* NC Turbidity Standard: 50 NUTDissolved Oxygen
As seen in Figure 3-15, neither site had a DO standard exceedance recorded during this monitoring cycle.
Figure 3-16 shows the mean and median of DO levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the
Little River watershed. DO at these stations have been stable for the past 13 years and have seen little to no
change.
FIguRE 3-15: PERCENtAgE oF SAmPLES
ExCEEDINg thE Do StANDARD (2003-
2008)
FIguRE 3-16: SummARIzED Do VALuES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At
AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN huC 0505000104
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
DO
(
m
g
/
l
)
Median Mean
* NC DO Standard: Not < 5 mg/l daily avg. or not < 4 mg/l instantaneous
3.9
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
Temperature
Figure 3-18 shows the mean and median of temperature levels for all samples taken over the course of 13
years in the Little River watershed. The water temperature trend for these stations are closely linked to the
flow. During low flow or drought periods, the water can sit in small pools and become heated. However, no
stream segments in this watershed are Impaired or Impacted due to high temperatures (Figure 3-17).
FIguRE 3-17: PERCENtAgE oF SAmPLES
ExCEEDINg WAtER tEmPERAtuRE
StANDARD (2003-2008)
FIguRE 3-18: SummARIzED tEmPERAtuRE VALuES FoR ALL DAtA
CoLLECtED At AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN huC 0505000104
0
5
10
15
20
25
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.
Two AMS stations are located within these watersheds which are
located on the New and Little Rivers. As seen in Figure 3-19, the
Little River site had 7 to 10% of samples taken during this cycle result
in levels over 400 colonies/100 ml and the New River site had greater
than 10%. Possible sources of elevated levels of FCB are discussed
in the subwatershed sections. Figure 3-20 shows the geometric mean of FCB levels for all samples taken over
the course of 13 years in the Little 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 and doesn’t indicate outliers or spikes. The
highest yearly geometric mean in these watersheds for FCB was recorded in 2003 and is the highest yearly
geometric mean of all other watersheds. The figure also includes the yearly average stream flow, as seen in
Figure 3-4, to show how flow can be closely linked to FCB levels. These elevated FCB levels could be caused
by livestock with access to streams, failing septic systems, or leaking municipal collection systems.
FIguRE 3-19: PERCENtAgE oF SAmPLES
WIth ELEVAtED FCB LEVELS (2003-
2008)
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
3.10
FIguRE 3-20: SummARIzED FECAL CoLIFoRm BACtERIA VALuES FoR ALL DAtA CoLLECtED At
AmBIENt SAmPLINg StAtIoNS IN huC 0505000102 WIth oVERLAYINg FLoW
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Y
e
a
r
l
y
F
l
o
w
(c
f
s
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
FC
B
(
c
o
l
o
n
i
e
s
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Geometricmean
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
cf
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
cf
s
* NC FCB Standard (5-in-30 data only): Geomean not > 200/100 ml or 400/100 ml in 20% of samples.
For more information regarding any of the parameters listed above, see Section 3.3 of the Supplemental
Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning. For additional information about ambient monitoring data
collected in this river basin, see the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report.
3.11
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
recoMMendations & action plans at the Watershed scale
dWQ notaBle Waters & priority suMMary
Table 3-1 is a list of waters in the Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds that DWQ has prioritized for
restoration/protection. The order of priority is not based solely on the severity of the steam’s impairment or
impacts but rather by the need for particular actions to be taken. A stream that is currently supporting its
designated uses may be prioritized higher within this table than a stream that is currently impaired. This is
based on a more wholistic evaluation of the drainage area which includes monitoring results, current and
needed restoration/protection efforts, land use and other activities that could potentially impact water quality
in the area. Some supporting streams may have a more urgent need for protections than an impaired stream
with restoration needs already being implemented.
The third and fourth columns of this table list potential stressors and sources that may be impacting a stream
based on in-field observations, monitoring data, historical evidence, permit or other violations, and other staff
and public input. In many cases, additional study is needed to determine exact source(s) of the impact (s).
The last column includes a list of recommended actions.
tABLE 3-1: PRIoRItIzAtIoN oF WAtERS IN thE LIttLE RIVER & ChEStNut CREEk WAtERShEDS (hIghESt to LoWESt
PRIoRItY)
StREAm NAmE Au#CLASS.PotENtIAL
StRESSoR(S)PotENtIAL SouRCE(S)StAtuS ACtIoNS NEEDED
Crab Cr.10-9-12 C;Tr Habitat Degradation,
Nutrients, Flow
Agriculture, Golf Course,
Construction, Beaver
Dams, Volume & Velocity
Impaired R, SEC, Ag, NMC,
RBR
Bledsoe Cr.10-9-7 C;Tr Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers),
Toxins, FCB, Nutrients,
Turbidity
Urban Impacts Impacted R, SC, SEC BMPs, RBR
Elk Cr.10-6-(1) &
10-6-(2)
C;Tr;+
C;+
Nutrients Agriculture Supporting Ag, E, NMC, SS
Laurel Br.10-9-10-2 C;Tr Habitat Degradation
(Riparian Buffers)
Golf Course Communities Supporting RBR, E, SC
Pine Swamp Cr.10-9-5 C;Tr Habitat Degradation
(Riparian Buffers)
Supporting RBR, Ag
New R.10b C;ORW Turbidity, Copper, Zinc Impacted RBR
Waterfalls Cr.10-9-4 C;Tr Habitat Degradation Agriculture Supporting RBR
Moccasin Cr.10-9-11 C Nutrients, Low DO Agriculture Supporting Ag, NMC
Little R.10-9-(1)a C;Tr Habitat Degradation,
pH
Supporting RBR
Brush Cr.10-9-10 C;Tr Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers),
Nutrients
Agriculture Supporting RBR, Ag
UT to Crab Cr.10-9-12ut8 C;Tr Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers)Straight Channels Supporting R - Currently Underway
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).
3.12
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
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 3-1, 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 3-2). 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 3-2 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 3-2) 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 3-2: 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%
little river
Little River [AU#: 10-9-(1)a, (1)b, (6), & (11.5)]
Little River is approximately 35 miles from source to the NC/VA state line and is the main receiving water for
this 10-digit watershed. The source of Little River is found along the southwest boundary of the Little River
12-digit subwatershed (HU 050500010404) and flows 11.6 miles to the next subwatershed (Glade Creek -
Little River: HU 050500010406), then through the Crab Creek - Little River subwatershed (HU 050500010407)
before crossing the state line. Land use is mixed between agriculture and forestry. There are numerous large
Christmas tree farms and pasture land which drain to the Little River. The Town of Sparta is also located along
the banks of the Little River.
Local Watershed Planning Efforts
The Little River watershed was the subject of a recent local watershed planning effort of the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP). The coordinated, multi agency, effort began in 2004 and ended in 2007 with
the completion of the Little River - Bledsoe Creek Watershed Management Plan. Between 2004 and
2006, several biological and chemical/physical samples were taken as well as sediment and nutrient studies
3.13
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
completed. The data from these samples and studies were compiled and summarized in the management
plan. Restoration projects are also prioritized on a watershed and subwatershed scale. For more documents
and information on the advisory group and results of this effort visit EEP’s New River Basin Local Watershed
Plan page.
AU#: 10-9-(1)a
This 11.6 mile segment flows from source to Pine Swamp Creek and falls
completely within the Little River 12-digit subwatershed (HU 050500010404).
The entire length of this segment, and most streams running to it, carry a
secondary use classification of Trout Waters.
Water Quality Status
The benthic site was sampled twice during this planning cycle and both times
resulted in an Excellent rating. The site has been sampled each cycle since 1993, when it received its highest
rating. Samples from 1998 and 2003 dropped down to a Good rating and showed evidence of instream water
quality issues, as well as some habitat issues. The 2008 sample collected more pollution intolerant taxa that
had not been collected since 1998. This indicates water quality is improving; however, not to 1993 levels yet.
The 2008 fish community sample increased a rating from Good-Fair in 1998 to Good. In general, the habitat
was in good condition but had a narrow riparian buffer along the right bank. Biologists noted that the percent
of pollution tolerant species found was greater than expected for a mountain stream and that the site had the
lowest pH (5.5) of any other fish community site in the basin.
Recommendation
Riparian buffer restoration is suggested for this segment. Buffers of adequate width can filter pollutants out of
stormwater and help restore pH levels to more natural levels.
AU#: 10-9-(6)
This 17.5 mile segment flows from the Sparta Lake dam to NC-18 and is mostly
within the Glade Creek - Little River subwatershed (HU 050500010406). About
one mile of the segment is within the Crab Creek - Little River subwatershed (HU
050500010407). The upstream end of this segment flows along the southeast
edge of the Town of Sparta.
Water Quality Status
Two benthic monitoring stations are located along this segment of the Little
River. The most upstream site is KB38 which has been sampled four times
since 1993. Each sample since that time, including the 2008 sample, rated
Excellent. The second benthic site (KB100) has been sampled five times since
1990, all of which were also rated Excellent. The extended history of Excellent ratings at both sites indicates
a very stable benthic community.
An AMS station is located between these two benthic sites. Results from this station reflect the good water
quality findings in the benthic samples. A second temporary AMS station, known as Random Ambient
Monitoring System station, (RAMS K9750000) is located a few miles downstream. This site was sampled for
two years (2009-2010) as part of a statewide random AMS sampling effort. Results from RAMS K9750000 will
be added to this plan once they are available.
uSE SuPPoRt: supportinG (11.6 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB37)Excellent (2008)
Fish Com
(KF7)Good (2008)
uSE SuPPoRt: supportinG (17.5 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos (KB38)
(KB100)
Excellent (2008)
Excellent (2008)
AMS
(K9600000)
RAMS
(K9750000)
No Exceedances
Data Not Yet
Available
3.14
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
elk creek (050500010401)
Includes: New River [AU#: 10b] & Elk Creek [AU#: 10-6-(1) &
(2)]
This subwatershed has mixed land use of mostly agriculture with small
patches of forest and residential areas. There are no NPDES dischargers
in this subwatershed.
Elk Creek [AU#: 10-6-(1) & (2)]
Elk Creek is a little over 11 miles from source to the New River [AU#: 10b].
Agriculture along this stream and its tributaries is mostly pastures and row
crops. The upstream segment of Elk Creek [AU#: 10-6-(1)] from source to US-
221 holds a secondary use classification of Trout Waters.
Water Quality Status
Elk Creek was monitored for benthic and fish communities in 2008 at two
locations. The most upstream site was a fish site (KF3) at State Route 1341 which was sampled one other
time in 1998. Both samples taken at this location throughout the years were rated Good and received the
same NCIBI value. Even though the NCIBI numbers were identical, there were differences in the types and
numbers of fish found. Those differences are an indication of elevated nutrients levels from nonpoint sources
which prevent survival of more pollution intolerant species.
Further downstream, about a half mile from the New River [AU#: 10b], a benthic sample was collected and
rated Good in 2008. This site (KB35) has been monitored once every five years since 1993. Rating values
given to this site are also similar to past years, but also had shifts similar to the fish sample. There were
several taxa collected at this site for the first time which are more pollution tolerant than those collected in past
samples, indicating an impact to the benthic community.
Both fish and benthic communities are showing signs of being impacted by elevated nutrient levels. Since
the 1995 New River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, nutrients have been noted in this stream based on the
presence of periphyton and biological sampling results.
Recommendation
DWQ will work with SWCD to prioritize the need for agricultural nutrient management controls within this
drainage area. Educational efforts should focus on the importance of riparian buffers, keeping livestock out
of the streams and how to reduce nutrient runoff after applying fertilizers. A stressor study may be needed
to determine specific sources of elevated nutrients. A grant application to improve water quality can be more
competitive when paired with a stressor study.
Brush creek - neW river (050500010403)
Includes: New River [AU#: 10b], Rock Creek [AU#: 10-7] &
Dog Creek [AU#: 10-8]
This subwatershed has mixed land use of agriculture, residential and
scattered forest. There are no NPDES point source dischargers within this
subwatershed, but there are five cattle animal operation permitted facilities.
New River [AU#: 10b]
This segment of the New River begins at the NC/VA state line where the river
enters back into NC. The river winds back and forth across the state line several
times before flowing northeast into Virginia. The drainage area contains a mix
land use of agriculture, residential and scattered patches of forest.
uSE SuPPoRt: supportinG
(11.1 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB35)Good (2008)
Fish Com (KF3)Good (2008)
uSE SuPPoRt: supportinG (6.4 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB34)Excellent (2008)
AMS
(K7900000)
Copper (23.1%)
Zinc (15.4%)
3.15
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
Water Quality Status
There is one benthic monitoring site (KB34) on this segment of the New River. This site has been monitored
since 1983 and has received either an Excellent or Good classification each time. The 2008 sample had
similar results with an Excellent rating. Habitat at this site was lacking proper riparian buffers, with agricultural
activities lining the north bank. Biologists noted the sample included several new taxa collected for this site
which vary in pollution tolerance levels. One of these new taxa has only been collected by DWQ nine previous
times within the state.
Just downstream of the benthic station is an AMS station (K7900000). Samples taken monthly at this site
between 2005 and 2009 resulted in elevated levels of turbidity, copper and zinc. Turbidity did not exceeded
the State water quality standards. Copper and zinc did exceed the state standard; however, these levels
are believed to be natural. Therefore, this segment will not be placed on the Impaired Waters list for these
parameters. During this time period, fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) levels declined by half of what was measured
between 1998 and 2003.
Recommendation
Riparian buffer restoration is suggested for this segment of the New River to reduce impacts from stormwater
runoff.
little river (050500010404)
Includes: Little River [AU#: 10-9-(1)a], Waterfall Creek
[AU#: 10-9-4] & Pine Swamp Creek [AU#: 10-9-5]
This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest in the headwaters, some
residential and agriculture scattered in the headwaters but mostly along
streambanks. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed.
Majority of streams in the subwatershed hold the secondary use classification
of Trout Waters.
Local Watershed Planning Efforts
The Little River watershed was the subject of a recent local watershed planning effort of EEP. The coordinated,
multi agency, effort began in 2004 and ended in 2007 with the completion of the Little River - Bledsoe Creek
Watershed Management Plan. Between 2004 and 2006 several biological and chemical/physical samples
were taken, as well as sediment and nutrient studies were completed. The data from these samples and
studies are compiled and summarized in the management plan. Restoration projects are also prioritized on a
watershed and subwatershed scale. For more documents and information on the advisory group and results
of this effort visit EEP’s New River Basin Local Watershed Plan page.
Waterfalls Creek [AU#: 10-9-4]
Waterfalls Creek is approximately four miles from source to the Little River
[AU#: 10-9-(1)a]. Just downstream of the source is a privately owned dam
which creates Willis Lake. The drainage area is mostly forested with agriculture
concentrated along streams.
Water Quality Status
In 2006, a benthic sample was taken on Waterfalls Creek at Airbellows Gap Road off of Waterfall Road
(KB97). The stream was monitored as part of a special study being conducted on the Little River and had
not been monitored by DWQ previously. The special study and results are discussed below (B-20060815). It
was chosen as a reference site and was rated Excellent. The benthic community was abundant and diverse;
however, the habitat score was low because of it being in a fallow field.
Between the source of the stream and the sampling location, the stream flows through forest. The transition to
farmland begins just upstream of the sampling site and continues through farmland to its confluence with the
Little River. Therefore, aquatic life present at this site reflect more of the water quality within the forested area.
uSE SuPPoRt: supportinG (4.3 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB97)Excellent (2006)
3.16
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
Recommendation
Waterfalls Creek would benefit from the installation of a riparian buffer zone along the stretch that is within a
fallow field. This will allow stormwater runoff to be filtered before reaching the stream.
Pine Swamp Creek [AU#: 10-9-5]
Pine Swamp Creek is approximately five miles long from source to the Little River
[AU#: 10-9-(1)a]. The major land use within this drainage area is agriculture with
small scattered patches of forest.
Water Quality Status
During the last basinwide cycle Pine Swamp Creek’s benthic community was
monitored at site KB36 and received a Good-Fair rating in 2003. This rating was
likely a reflection of impacts from a two year drought (2001-2002).
In 2006, DWQ conducted a special study (B-20060815) which included two benthic samples on this stream.
One sample was collected at the basinwide site (KB36) and the second was taken upstream at Pine Swamp
Road (KB82). Both sites received an Excellent rating during this study; however, the upstream site had
a slightly lower overall score. KB82 is surrounded by farmland with no riparian buffers. The higher score
downstream is likely due to the larger riparian buffer zone which assists with removing pollutants and excess
nutrients from the water.
In 2008, a benthic site (KB36) and a fish community site (KF19) were sampled. The benthic sample dropped
a rating to Good but was borderline an Excellent rating. The fish community sample was the first fish sample
collected on this stream by DWQ and resulted in a Good rating. The percent of pollution tolerant fish was
slightly higher than expected for a mountain stream, indicating some water quality impact.
Recommendations
Even though it has been rated Excellent and Good, this stream is showing signs of impacted water quality.
Sections of the stream have been channelized and others completely lack riparian buffer zones. Livestock
also have easy access to the stream, which can result in degraded streambanks and high levels of fecal
coliform bacteria in the water. DWQ will work SWCD to prioritize the implementation of fencing livestock out
of the stream and stream restoration BMPs.
Little River [AU#: 10-9-(1)a]
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.
Brush creek (050500010405)
Includes: Brush Creek [AU#: 10-9-10], Laurel Branch
[AU#: 10-9-10-2], Little Glade Creek [AU#: 10-9-10-3] & Little
Pine Creek [AU#: 10-9-10-5]
Land use here is mostly agriculture with scattered residential areas
throughout the subwatershed, and forested headwaters. There are two
Minor NPDES dischargers and one large cattle animal operation permit
in this subwatershed. Majority of streams in this subwatershed hold the
secondary use classification of Trout Waters.
Local Initiatives
The EEP partnered with local agencies to begin implementing a Local Watershed Management Plan for the
Little River/Brush Creek watershed areas. Work focused for this area includes identifying stream and wetland
restoration and preservation sites, development of specific stormwater management recommendations for the
Town of Sparta and the identification and modeling of stormwater BMP project sites. More information on this
effort can be found in the Other Natural Resource Program Chapter or on the EEP New River website.
uSE SuPPoRt: supportinG (5 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB36)
(KB82)
Good (2008)
Excellent (2006)
Fish Com
(KF19)Good (2008)
3.17
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
Laurel Branch [AU#: 10-9-10-2]
Laurel Branch is approximately five miles long from source to the confluence
with Brush Creek [AU#: 10-9-10]. This drainage area has a mixed land use of
residential, forest and a small amount of agriculture. Three large golf courses
with corresponding residential properties are found in the headwaters of Laurel
Branch and includes Lake Louise, a man made lake. Olde Beau Golf & Country
Club and High Meadows Golf & Country Club hold a minor NPDES permit.
Water Quality Status
Laurel Branch has been monitored by DWQ since 1988 at SR-1105. The stream has experienced significant
change, mostly in the headwaters, since that time. Between 1988 and 1992 the benthic site rated either a
Fair or Poor which resulted in the stream’s impairment. A sample collected in 1998 showed there had been
significant recovery with a Good rating. The 2008 sampled indicated little to no change in the benthic quality
since the 2003 sample which also resulted in a Good rating. In 2008, habitat conditions were good; however,
the recorded pH levels were low.
The gradual seven-year recovery and improvement in water quality condition can be contributed to DWQ
enforced restoration activities. The construction of the Olde Beau Golf Club was responsible for large amounts
of sediment filling the stream and smothering benthic habitat. Restoration efforts included removing sediment
from the stream, stabilizing streambanks and adding more natural stream substrate.
There are three large golf course communities clustered in the headwaters of Laurel Branch, which have little
to no riparian buffer protection along streams on those properties. These small tributary streams to Laurel
Branch receive stormwater runoff from the communities, which likely carries excess nutrients from maintaining
golf course turf grasses and other pollutants from residential properties into Laurel Branch.
Downstream of the golf course communities, the steam flows through about a mile and a half of forest before
reaching the benthic site. This allows plants and other biological material to filter some pollutants and nutrients
from the water column before reaching the benthic monitoring site and Brush Creek.
Recommendation
DWQ recommends adequate riparian buffers be installed and protected along the length of Laurel Branch and
its tributaries which flow through the golf course communities. Educational efforts should also be taken by the
communities to inform residents of the benefits riparian buffers have to the water in their backyard.
Brush Creek [AU#: 10-9-10]
Brush Creek is approximately 28 miles from source to the Little River [AU# 10-
9-(6)]. The drainage area has a mixture of land uses which include residential,
agriculture and forested area.
Water Quality Status
Four biological samples were taken during this sampling cycle. Three out of
those four are benthic monitoring samples. One of the benthic samples (KB47)
was collected in 2006 as part of a special study (B-20060815) and received an
Excellent rating with good overall habitat. The site furthest upstream (KB42)
has been sampled five times since 1992 when it received a Fair rating. Since that first sample, the site has
rated Good and has shown little to no change in water quality. The 2008 rating was Not Impaired due to the
drainage area being less than 3.0 mi2. The site furthest downstream (KB41) has been rated four times since
1993 and was rated Good in 2008. Biologists suspect the rating would have been higher if the sample was
taken during the summer months versus in October. All sites had moderate habitats.
uSE SuPPoRt: supportinG (5.2 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB42)
Not Impaired
(2008)
uSE SuPPoRt: supportinG (27.8 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos (KB47)
(KB41)
(KB42)
Excellent (2006)
Good (2007)
Not Imp. (2008)
Fish Com
(KF17)Good (2008)
3.18
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
The fish community sample was taken just upstream of Big Pine Creek. This is the first fish sample to be
taken by DWQ on Brush Creek. The results from this sample indicated some impact on the fish community
by nonpoint source nutrients. The percent of pollution tolerant fish was also a little higher than expected for a
mountain stream. These nonpoint source impacts are likely associated with the large amount of agriculture in
this drainage area. Biologists also noted a lack of riparian buffers along this section.
Recommendation
DWQ will work with SWCD to prioritize agricultural BMPs which are needed to target nutrient runoff reductions
and establishing riparian zones.
Glade creek - little river (050500010406)
Includes: Little River [AU#: 10-9-(1)b & (6)], Bledsoe Creek
[AU#: 10-9-7] & Glade Creek [AU#: 10-9-9]
This subwatershed has mixed land use including small patches of forest,
urban and agriculture. There are two minor NPDES dischargers and one
large cattle animal operation permit in this subwatershed. Majority of the
streams, excluding the Little River, hold the secondary use classification of
Trout Waters. The Town of Sparta is located in the western portion of the
subwatershed.
Local Watershed Planning Efforts
The Little River watershed was the subject of a recent local watershed planning effort of the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP). The coordinated, multi agency, effort began in 2004 and ended in 2007 with
the completion of the Little River - Bledsoe Creek Watershed Management Plan. Between 2004 and 2006
several biological and chemical/physical samples were taken as well as sediment and nutrient studies were
completed. The data from these samples and studies are compiled and summarized in the management plan.
Restoration projects are also prioritized on a watershed and subwatershed scale. For more documents and
information on the advisory group and results of this effort visit the EEP New River Basin Local Watershed
Plan page.
Bledsoe Creek [AU#: 10-9-7]
Bledsoe Creek is approximately six miles from source to the Little River
[AU#: 10-9-(6)] and holds a secondary use classification of Trout Waters.
The upstream half of the stream is mostly agriculture with one large cattle
operation and the downstream half flows through the Town of Sparta.
Water Quality Status
Bledsoe Creek was the main focus of an EEP Watershed Management Plan. This plan covers the entire Little
River watershed and is discussed in more detail in the Little River section. In the process of developing this
management plan, three benthic samples were taken along Bledsoe Creek. The most upstream site (KB46)
was given a rating of Not Impaired due to the small drainage size. However, biologist noted if the drainage
area was slightly larger, it would have received an Excellent rating. This site also received the highest habitat
score of the three sites.
The second site (KB101) is about an eighth of a mile upstream of the Little River confluence. This site rated
Good-Fair during the EEP study in 2006 and was noted as the most degraded of the three sites. Results from
this sample indicated impacts from toxins which were not seen in the upstream sample. Biologist also noted
a strong sewage smell in the creek. The most downstream sample had similar results but to a lesser degree.
Both lower sites had insufficient habitat for a healthy benthic population.
Two chemical/physical sites were also sampled in Bledsoe Creek during the study. Those results showed
elevated fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) levels, some of which were over 400 colonies per 100 ml indicating
potential sewer leaks and sources of animal waste. During storm events, the Bledsoe Creek sites had some
uSE SuPPoRt: supportinG (5.9 mI)
2008 IR Cat.2
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB46)
(KB101)
(KB40)
Not Impaired (2006)
Excellent (2008)
Good-Fair (2006)
3.19
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
of the highest nutrient and sediment levels of any other site during the study period. More detailed results
are discussed in the Assessment of Bledsoe Creek Subwatersheds document prepared by WK Dickson &
Company, Inc. for EEP.
The middle benthic site (KB101) discussed above is also a basinwide site which was sampled again in 2008.
At that time the rating improved to Excellent from the Good-Fair it received in 2006. The difference between
the two samples lies in the increased number of taxa collected and their sensitivity to pollution. More pollution
intolerant taxa were collected in the 2008 sample which indicates an improvement in water quality. Even
though the benthic population has improved the habitat is less than optimal with poor riparian zones and silty
cover of aufwuchs over the cobble and boulders within the stream.
Local Initiatives
Through the Community Conservation Assistance Program the Alleghany Soil & Water Conservation District
is helping to treat stormwater runoff on 1,826,850 sq/ft of impervious surface in the Bledsoe Creek priority
watershed with BMPs like critical area stabilization and a stormwater wetland project through partnering with
the Town of Sparta to complete. These practices will assist in reducing nitrogen and phosphorus from the
stream. The Alleghany district is also assisting in installation of pet waste receptacles in the Sparta Town Park
to further protect Bledsoe Creek/Little River/New River.
Recommendation
DWQ supports funding the efforts set forth in the Little River - Bledsoe Creek Watershed Restoration Plan.
Stakeholders involved in the development of the plan should continue reevaluating the types and priority of
BMPs as monitoring data and BMP result data become available.
Little River [AU#: 10-9-(1)b & (6)]
Two segments [AU#: 10-9-(1)b & (6)] of the Little River flow through this subwatershed. Water quality status
and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section.
craB creek - little river (050500010407)
Includes: Little River [AU#: 10-9-(6) & (11.5)], Moccasin
Creek [AU#: 10-9-11], Crab Creek [AU#: 10-9-12] & Unnamed
Tributary to Crab Creek [AU#: 10-9-12ut8]
This subwatershed has a land use of small patches of forest and urban areas
mixed with a large amount of agriculture. There are no NPDES dischargers
but one large cattle animal operation permit is in this subwatershed. Crab
Creek is the only stream listed on the 2010 Impaired Waters list within this
subwatershed.
Local Initiatives
The Ecosystems Enhancement Program partnered with local agencies to begin implementing a Local
Watershed Management Plan for the Little River/Crab Creek watershed areas. Work focused for this area
includes identifying stream and wetland restoration and preservation sites, development of specific stormwater
management recommendations for the Town of Sparta and the identification and modeling of stormwater BMP
project sites. More information on this effort can be found in the Other Natural Resource Program Chapter
or on the EEP New River website.
Moccasin Creek [AU#: 10-9-11]
Moccasin Creek is approximately four and a half miles long from source to Little
River [AU#: 10-9-(6)]. Land cover in this drainage area is mostly agriculture with
a few patches of forest.
uSE SuPPoRt: supportinG (4.4 mI)
2008 IR Cat.--
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB73)Good (2006)
3.20
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
Water Quality Status
This creek was sampled for the first time by DWQ in 2006. The sample was taken as part of the EEP Little
River - Bledsoe Creek Watershed Management Plan study. This plan covers the entire Little River watershed
and is discussed in more detail in the Little River section. The benthic sampling was completed and analyzed
by DWQ and documented in the B-20060815 special study report. The site was rated Good; however, it had
the most pollution tolerant taxa of any other site in the study with exception of site KB101 on Bledsoe Creek.
This site was the only one within the study to show benthic signs of nutrient enrichment and low DO indicators.
Cattle have direct and easy access to the stream just up from the sampling location and could be the source
of nutrients. The entire drainage area is largely agriculture.
Recommendation
DWQ will work with SWCD and Bledsoe Creek watershed stakeholders to prioritize agricultural BMPs such
as fencing out livestock and nutrient reductions BMPs. Funding for implementing of efforts spelled out in the
Little River - Bledsoe Creek Watershed Management Plan are supported by DWQ.
Unnamed Tributary to Crab Creek [AU#: 10-9-12ut8 & 12ut8ut4]
This unnamed tributary (UT1) is approximately four and a half miles from
source to Crab Creek [AU#: 10-9-12]. This section also covers a second UT
(UT2) [AU#: 10-9-12ut8ut4] which flows to UT1. The drainage area has a
mixed land use of agriculture, forest and some urban areas.
Water Quality Status
These two unnamed tributaries were monitored as part of a special study (B-
20080129) conducted by DWQ in 2007. The study was requested by EEP to
determine the current water quality status before beginning construction on a restoration project. The benthic
sampling showed better water quality and habitat at the most upstream site in UT2. Further downstream on
UT1, the water quality becomes impacted by channelization and total lack of riparian buffers. This was most
apparent at the KB132 site, which received the lowest habitat score. The Not Impaired ratings given to the
upstream sample sites (KB128-UT2 & KB133-UT1) were due to the small sized drainage areas. The lower
site on UT1 (KB132) is located in a much larger drainage area and even though it received the lowest habitat
score, it received the highest bioclassification. This is mainly due to the fact that in smaller drainage areas it is
expected to have a much smaller benthic population than the larger drainage areas. Therefore the differences
at these sites are because of size.
Local Initiatives
The 2008 EEP project (as seen in the Figure 3-21 below) was to reestablish meanders within the stream
channel. This will slow flows during storm events and reduce flooding downstream as well as create a more
natural habitat.
uSE SuPPoRt: supportinG (4.5 mI)
2008 IR Cat.--
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos
(KB128) (KB133) (KB132)
Not Impaired (2007)
Not Impaired (2007)Good (2007)
3.21
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
FIguRE 3-21: EEP StREAm REStoRAtIoN. (LEFt: BEFoRE; RIght: mID CoNStRuCtIoN)
Crab Creek [AU#: 10-9-12]
Crab Creek is approximately eight miles long from source to the Little River
[AU#: 10-9-(11.5)] and holds a secondary classification of Trout Waters. The
land cover in this drainage area is a mixture of agriculture including one cattle
animal operations permit, forest and some residential. The stream includes an
impoundment built in 1973 which created a small lake (Mountain Lake). Crab
Creek is Impaired due to a Fair fish community rating in 2008.
Water Quality Status
Crab Creek was sampled for the first time by DWQ in 2003 as part of a special study to support the local
watershed planning efforts of the Wetland Restoration Program. At that time, site KB49 received a Good
rating; however, biologist noted streambanks were eight meters high and reinforced with old tires and other
farm debris. Large amounts of periphyton growth was also noted.
The same site was sampled again in 2007 as part of the special study (B-20080129) on the Crab Creek
drainage areas as mentioned above. This site was the most downstream site of that study and received the
lowest rating of Good-Fair. Beaver dams were noted above and below the site which caused a significant flow
reduction. When comparing the data to the previous 2003 sample, a decline in water quality is apparent by the
decline in number and pollution intolerance levels of the benthic community now present. The channelization,
lack of riparian buffers and overall poor habitat conditions caused this decline as predicted in the 2005 New
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
A fish community sample (KF18), located at NC18, was taken in 2008 for the first time on Crab Creek. This
site had the most collected fish of any other site within the basin; however, there was limited diversity and
mostly omnivores and herbivores indicative of nonpoint source nutrient loading. A large cattle farm and a
row crop/pasture farm are located on either side of the stream at this sampling location. These, in addition to
multiple upstream farms, a golf course and a lack of riparian buffers, could all be contributing to this low fish
community rating and resulting Impairment. Satellite imagery also shows two large land disturbing activities
which occurred in 2009 which could cause future sedimentation issues.
Recommendations
Riparian buffers are a significant element in reducing the impacts from nonpoint source runoff. Educational
efforts should be made in this watershed to inform golf course attendants, farmers and other residence of
the importance of maintaining a proper riparian buffer. Educational material for golf course owners and
uSE SuPPoRt: iMpaired (7.8 mI)
2008 IR Cat.--
2010 IR Cat.2
Benthos (KB49)Good-Fair (2007)
Fish Com
(KF18)Fair (2008)
3.22
NC
D
W
Q
N
E
W
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
maintenance crews to maintain the course in a way that protects water quality can be found on the Basinwide
Planning Unit website. Approved sedimentation and erosion control measures should be in place during land
disturbing activities.
Little River [AU#: 10-9-(6) & (11.5)]
Two segments [AU#: 10-9-(6) & (11.5)] of the Little River flow through this subwatershed. Water quality status
and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section.
chestnut creek (050500010603)
Includes: West Fork Chestnut Creek [AU#: 10-10-1]
This subwatershed has a land cover mixture of mostly agriculture and forest.
There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed. The majority of
this subwatershed falls in Virginia with the two most southern tips in North
Carolina. No streams are monitored by DWQ at this time.
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. August 2006. (B-20060815) EEP Benthic Macroinvertebrate Special Study, Little
River Watershed, New River Subbasin 03 Alleghany County, April 2006. Raleigh, NC.
____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. January 2008. (B-20080129) EEP Benthic Macroinvertebrate pre-restoration Study,
Little River Watershed, New River Subbasin 03, Alleghany County, October 2007. Raleigh, NC.
Pate, Travis. 2009. Watershed Assessment in North Carolina: Building a Watershed Database with Popula-
tion, Land Cover, and Impervious Cover Information. Master Theses, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
Note: URL addresses for hyperlinks found in this plan are listed in the Acronyms & Definitions Chapter.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-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 3-a
uSE SuPPoRt RAtINgS FoR ALL
moNItoRED WAtERS IN thE
LIttLE RIVER &
ChEStNut CREEk WAtERShEDS
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-A.2
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-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
Little River-New River 0505000104New River Basin Watershed
Crab Creek10-9-12 From source to Little River 7.8 FW Miles C;Tr
1
5
Elk Creek (North
Carolina Portion)
10-6-(2)From U.S. Hwy. 221 to New River 7.4 FW Miles C:+
1
1
Glade Creek10-9-9 From source to Little River 8.3 FW Miles C;Tr
1
1
Laurel Branch (Laurel
Creek)
10-9-10-2 From source to Brush Creek 5.2 FW Miles C;Tr
1
Little River10-9-(6)From dam at Sparta Lake to NC 18 (Blevins
Crossroads)
17.5 FW Miles C
1
1
1
Little River (North
Carolina Portion)
10-9-(11.5)From NC 18 (Blevins Crossroads) to New
River (state line)
3.6 FW Miles C;HQW
1
Little River (Sparta
Lake)
10-9-(1)a From source to Sparta Lake at Pine Swamp
Creek
11.6 FW Miles C;Tr
1
1
Moccasin Creek10-9-11 From source to Little River 4.4 FW Miles C
1
Pine Swamp Creek10-9-5 From source to Little River 5.2 FW Miles C;Tr
1
1
UT CRAB CR10-9-12ut8ut4 Source to CRAB CR 0.7 FW Miles
1
10/20/2010 Page 203 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units ClassificationAll 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish speciesNC 2010 Integrated Report South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin WatershedSouth 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 Miles3a 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 WatershedGrassy 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
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
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-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
Little River-New River 0505000104New River Basin Watershed
UT UT CRAB CR10-9-12ut8 Source to UT CRAB CR 4.5 FW Miles
1
Waterfalls Creek10-9-4 From source to Little River 4.3 FW Miles C;Tr
1
Wolf Branch10-9-9-1 From source to Glade Creek 2.8 FW Miles C;Tr
1
10/20/2010 Page 204 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units ClassificationAll 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish speciesNC 2010 Integrated Report Little River-New River 0505000104New River Basin WatershedCrab Creek10-9-12 From source to Little River 7.8 FW Miles C;Tr 1 5 Elk Creek (North Carolina Portion)10-6-(2)From U.S. Hwy. 221 to New River 7.4 FW Miles C:+ 1 1 Glade Creek10-9-9 From source to Little River 8.3 FW Miles C;Tr 1 1 Laurel Branch (Laurel Creek)10-9-10-2 From source to Brush Creek 5.2 FW Miles C;Tr 1 Little River10-9-(6)From dam at Sparta Lake to NC 18 (Blevins Crossroads)17.5 FW Miles C 1 1 1 Little River (North Carolina Portion)10-9-(11.5)From NC 18 (Blevins Crossroads) to New River (state line)3.6 FW Miles C;HQW
1
Little River (Sparta
Lake)
10-9-(1)a From source to Sparta Lake at Pine Swamp
Creek
11.6 FW Miles C;Tr
1
1
Moccasin Creek10-9-11 From source to Little River 4.4 FW Miles C
1
Pine Swamp Creek10-9-5 From source to Little River 5.2 FW Miles C;Tr
1
1
UT CRAB CR10-9-12ut8ut4 Source to CRAB CR 0.7 FW Miles
1
10/20/2010 Page 203 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
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
Little River-New River 0505000104New River Basin Watershed
UT UT CRAB CR10-9-12ut8 Source to UT CRAB CR 4.5 FW Miles
1
Waterfalls Creek10-9-4 From source to Little River 4.3 FW Miles C;Tr
1
Wolf Branch10-9-9-1 From source to Glade Creek 2.8 FW Miles C;Tr
1
10/20/2010 Page 204 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-A.5
appendix 3-B
BIoLogICAL (BENthIC & FISh)
SAmPLE SItE DAtA ShEEtS
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-A.6
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.1
StAtIoN
ID**WAtERBoDY ASSESSmENt
uNIt #DESCRIPtIoN CouNtY SItE LoCAtIoN SAmPLE RESuLtS
KB35 Elk Cr.10-6-(2)From U.S. Hwy. 221 to New
River
Alleghany SR 1344 08 - Good
03 - Good
KB37 Little R.10-9-(1)a From source to Sparta Lake at
Pine Swamp Creek
Alleghany SR 1128 08 - Excellent
03 - Good
KB38 Little R.10-9-(6)From dam at Sparta Lake to
NC 18 (Blevins Crossroads)
Alleghany SR 1424 08 - Excellent
03 - Excellent
KB100 Little R.10-9-(6)From dam at Sparta Lake to
NC 18 (Blevins Crossroads)
Alleghany NC 18 08 - Excellent
03 - Excellent
KB41 Brush Cr.10-9-10 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1422 07 - Good
03 - Excellent
KB47*Brush Cr.10-9-10 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1444 06 - Excellent
KB42 Laurel Br.10-9-10-2 From source to Brush Creek Alleghany SR 1105 08 - Not Impaired
03 - Good
KB73*Moccasin Cr.10-9-11 From source to Little River Alleghany NC 18 06 - Good
KB49 Crab Cr.10-9-12 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1450 07 - Good-Fair
03 - Good
KB132*Ut. Ut. Crab Cr.10-9-12ut8 Source to Ut. Crab Creek Alleghany NC 18 07 - Not Impaired
KB133*Ut. Ut. Crab Cr.10-9-12ut8 Source to Ut. Crab Creek Alleghany Ab. Ut. Crab Cr.07 - Not Impaired
KB128*Ut. Crab Cr.10-9-12ut8ut4 Source to Crab Cr.Alleghany 400 meters S. of
state line
07 - Not Impaired
KB97*Waterfalls Cr.10-9-4 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1132 06 - Excellent
KB36 Pine Swamp Cr.10-9-5 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1128 08 - Good
03 - Good-Fair
KB82*Pine Swamp Cr.10-9-5 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1126 06 - Excellent
KB101 Bledsoe Cr.10-9-7 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1172 08 - Excellent
03 - Good
KB40*Bledsoe Cr.10-9-7 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1171 06 - Good-Fair
KB46*Bledsoe Cr.10-9-7 From source to Little River Alleghany US 21 06 - Not Impaired
KB104 Glade Cr.10-9-9 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1422 08 - Excellent 03 - Good
KB98*Wolf Br.10-9-9-1 From source to Glade Cr.Alleghany SR 1117 06 - Not Impaired
Fish Community Sample Sites
KF17*Brush Cr.10-9-10 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1433 08 - Good
KF18*Crab Cr.10-9-12 From source to Little River Alleghany NC 18 08 - Fair
KF3 Elk Cr.10-6-(2)From U.S. Hwy. 221 to New
River
Alleghany SR 1341 08 - Good
98 - Good
KF4 Glade Cr.10-9-9 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1422 08 - Good 98 - Good
KF7 Little R.10-9-(1)a From source to Sparta Lake at
Pine Swamp Creek
Alleghany SR 1128 08 - Good
98 - Good-Fair
KF19*Pine Swamp Cr.10-9-5 From source to Little River Alleghany SR 1128 08 - Good
* New station location; therefore, no data from the previous cycle.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.2
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.3
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
NEW R SR 1345 KB34 08/19/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ALLEGHANY 3 05050001 36.552222 -81.183333 10b New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C; ORW 823 2335 125 0.4
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)40 10 50 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
Town of Boone, Jimmy Smith WWTP NC0020621 4.82
United Chemi-Con, Inc.NC0000019 1.018
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)26.1
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)---
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)75
pH (s.u.)8.0
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)3
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)0
Left Riparian Score (5)3
Right Riparian Score (5)0
Total Habitat Score (100)61 Substrate mix of gravel, sand; some boulder, cobble, bedrock
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/19/08 10535 105 50 4.58 3.42 Excellent
08/21/03 9236 86 51 3.61 3.13 Excellent
08/19/98 7721 73 37 4.40 3.53 Good
07/26/93 6278 102 47 4.70 3.61 Excellent
07/11/90 5376 99 49 4.88 3.52 Good
Taxonomic Analysis
Despite having 11 prior sampling events, there were still several EPT taxa reported for the first time at the site in 2008, including: Acroneuria evoluta,
Apatania, Protoptila, Mystacides, Oecetis avara, and Triaenodes perna/helo. Also collected for the first time at the site was the midge Cricotopus
nostocicola ; there are only nine other records for the species in the BAU database.
Data Analysis
The site is 4.6 northwest of Sparta. The site receives water from the North Fork and South Fork New River catchments along with smaller catchments
in Virginia.
The site has undergone yearly summer benthic sampling from 1983 through 1990, then once each five years beginning in 1993. The site has received
ratings of either Good or Excellent following each sampling event. EPT Richness range from 37 to 51; NCBI values from 3.61 to 5.53. EPT richness in
2008 is near the highest value for the site; NCBI value is near the middle of the range. Overall the benthic community at the site has generally been
stable since 1983.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.4
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 1341
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001
Longitude
3
Latitude
Most Abundant Species
84 Cobble, boulder, bedrock, and silts and sands in the poolsSubstrate
Exotic Species Whitetail Shiner, Saffron Shiner, Rock Bass,
Redbreast Sunfish, and Smallmouth Bass
Bioclassification
Good
Good
NCIBI
98-60
Sample ID
2008-31
Species Total
20
3
9.6
50
5.8
Slightly-moderately
turbid
16
11.9
5
20
12
10
48
48
Watershed -- drains northwestern Alleghany County; no municipalities within the watershed; tributary to the New River.Habitat -- unstable banks along
both shorelines; fairly open canopy; riffles, bedrock shelves, veins, and pools; better habitat downstream than upstream from the bridge; beaver dam
upstream from the bridge.2008 -- Central Stoneroller accounted for 41% of all the fish collected in 2008; high percentage of Omnivores+Herbivores,
indicative of nonpoint sources of nutrients.1998 & 2008 -- almost twice as many fish collected in 2008 than in 1998, the number of Central Stoneroller
doubled; 21 species known from the site, including 11 species of cyprinids, 4 endemic species (Kanawha Rosyface Shiner, Kanawha Minnow, Kanawha
Darter, and Appalachia Darter), and 5 nonindigenous species; and Mottled Sculpin was represented by only 1 fish in 1998 and was absent in 2008.
Rural Residential
5
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
Drainage Area (mi2)
17.4
015
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
No
Waterbody
ELK CR
80
Elevation (ft)
Subbasin
Forested/Wetland
County
ALLEGHANY 36.5575
2470
Species Change Since Last Cycle
05/07/08
06/30/98
3
Gains -- Kanawha Minnow, Redbreast Sunfish, Greenside Darter, and Appalachia Darter.Losses -- Mottled
Sculpin.
5
5
5
Central Stoneroller
17
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
New River Plateau
AU Number
10-6-(2)
05/07/08
Date Station ID
-81.2169444
KF3 Good
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
10
Site Photograph
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)Average Depth (m)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.5
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
ELK CR SR 1344 KB35 08/19/08 Good
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ALLEGHANY 3 05050001 36.569722 -81.206944 10-6-(2)New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C:+21 2360 8 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)90 0 0 10 (road)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)21.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)---
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)58
pH (s.u.)6.4
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)11
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)10
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)5
Total Habitat Score (100)84 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble; some gravel, sand, silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/19/08 10536 ---30 ---3.14 Good
08/18/03 9219 ---34 ---3.52 Good
08/20/98 7723 ---34 ---3.36 Good
07/26/93 6286 ---36 ---3.48 Excellent
Taxonomic Analysis
The site has been sampled on four occassions. The 30 EPT taxa collected in 2008 is the lowest number for the site.
Several taxa were recorded for the first time in 2008, including: Caenis (rare in the sample); Stenacron interpunctatum (common); and Apatania
(rare). Neither Glossosoma nor Ceratopsyche morosa were collected in 2008; both taxa were reported from the first three sampling events at the site.
Data Analysis
The site is 0.4 stream-miles above the confluence with New River and within 0.2 miles of the Virginia border.
The drop in the number of EPT taxa collected between 2003 and 2008 may be indicative of impacts to the benthic community, though that is offset by
the decrease in the EPT BI value. As in 2003, periphyton was noted on the boulders and cobbles, which indicates some nutrient enrichment at the site.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.6
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
LITTLE R SR 1128 KB37 08/19/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ALLEGHANY 3 05050001 36.467778 -81.133333 10-9-(1)a New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr 14 2875 9 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)60 0 0 40 (road, firing range)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)17.3
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)---
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)40
pH (s.u.)6.0
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)14
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)5
Riffle Habitat (16)7
Left Bank Stability (7)6
Right Bank Stability (7)6
Light Penetration (10)9
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)70 Substrate mostly sand, gravel, silt; some bedrock, boulder, cobble
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/19/08 10534 102 42 3.74 3.27 Excellent
04/05/06 9828 103 42*4.05*2.32 Excellent
08/18/03 9218 75 36 4.03 3.53 Good
08/20/98 7724 72 37 3.94 3.18 Good
07/26/93 6303 84 45 3.32 2.53 Excellent
* values corrected for seasonality
Taxonomic Analysis
The number of EPT taxa collected in 2008 is siginificantly higher than in 1998 and 2003, though still lower than in 1993. There are a few notable
differences in the EPT taxa present between 1993 and the following years. Two ephemerellids, Drunella conesteeand Serratella serratoides, were
both abundant in the 1993 sample but have not been recorded from any sampling event since. Also, Drunella cornutella was abundant in 1993, rare in
1998, and absent in each following sampling event. Serratella deficiens was also abundant in 1993 and absent from each summer sampling event
since, though it was common in the spring sample collected in 2006.
Data Analysis
The site is 2.7 miles SSW of Sparta, and is the site most upstream of the three basinwide sites on Little River.
The increase in EPT Richness and lower NCBI values in 2008 compared to the prior summer sampling events in 1998 and 2003 suggests better
recent water quality. Those changes have improved the classification of the site from Good 1998 and 2003 to Excellent in 2008. However, both EPT
Richness and NCBI values have not returned to the standards set in 1993.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.7
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)
Good
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
6
Site Photograph
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)Average Depth (m)
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
New River Plateau
AU Number
10-9-(1)a
05/06/08
Date Station ID
-81.13277778
KF7
Species Change Since Last Cycle
05/06/08
07/01/98
6
Gains -- Highback Chub, Mountain Redbelly Dace, and Longnose Dace.Losses -- Tonguetied Minnow and
Rainbow Trout.
8
5
3
Redlip Shiner and Rosyside Dace
15
Waterbody
LITTLE R
90
Elevation (ft)
Subbasin
Forested/Wetland
County
ALLEGHANY 36.46777778
2870
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
Drainage Area (mi2)
14.1
100
0.3
Agriculture Other (describe)
Yes10
50
44
Watershed -- drains southern Alleghany County; no municipalities within the watershed.Habitat -- snags and undercuts; silts along the margins and atop
the rocks; cobble riffles and runs; wide riparian zone on the left, but narrow along the right bank; site is a popular fishing spot.2008 -- diversity of Rock
Bass+Smallmouth Bass+Trout and Intolerant species were slightly lower than expected; percentage of tolerant fish (White Sucker, Creek Chub, and
Redbreast Sunfish) was slightly greater than expected for a mountain stream; lowest pH of any fish community site in the basin in 2008.1998 & 2008 -- 18
species known from the site, including 3 endemic species (Tonguetied Minnow, Kanawha Darter, and Appalachia Darter) and 6 nonindigenous species; ~ 6
times more fish collected in 2008 than in 1998 (1,444 vs. 224) ; Mountain Redbelly Dace constituted 9% of the fauna in 2008, but absent in 1998; and
species present in 1998, but absent in 2008 were represented by 1 or 3 fish each.
Urban
0
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
9.9
5
19
10
7
10.3
35
5.5
Clear
16
98-61
Sample ID
2008-28
Species Total
16
Most Abundant Species
85 Cobble and siltSubstrate
Exotic Species Highback Chub, Redlip Shiner, Brown Trout,
Redbreast Sunfish, and Tessellated Darter
Bioclassification
Good
Good-Fair
NCIBI
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1128
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001
Longitude
3
Latitude
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.8
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
LITTLE R SR 1424 KB38 08/18/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ALLEGHANY 3 05050001 36.517222 -81.083611 10-9-(6)New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C 36 2600 16 0.3
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)20 0 80 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)20.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.7
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)61
pH (s.u.)7.0
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)4
Left Riparian Score (5)2
Right Riparian Score (5)1
Total Habitat Score (100)76 Substrate mix of cobble, boulder, gravel, sand; some silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/18/08 10530 111 47 3.90 3.00 Excellent
08/21/03 9232 104 49 4.11 3.23 Excellent
08/20/98 7726 80 41 3.94 2.95 Excellent
07/26/93 6277 98 48 3.98 2.92 Excellent
Taxonomic Analysis
Several taxa were recorded for the first time from the site in 2008, including: Rhithrogena, Anthopotamus distinctus, Paragnetina ichusa/media,
Apatania, Ceratopsyche walkeri, and Hydropsyche scalaris.
Data Analysis
The site is 2.2 miles ENE of Sparta, which is entirely included in the catchment above the site.
NCBI values have been very similar between the four most recent sampling events at the site, as have EPT Richness values with the exception of 1998. The site has rated as Excellent following each sampling event since 1993 at the site, though a spring sampling event in 1989 resulted in
classification of Fair. Improvements to the Sparta WWTP (permit NC0026913; discharge 0.6 million gallons per day) occurred in 1990 and apparently
improved water quality at the site.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.9
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
LITTLE R NC 18 KB100 08/18/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ALLEGHANY 3 05050001 36.543056 -81.021389 10-9-(6)New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C 99 2410 30 0.4
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)23.4
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.9
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)46
pH (s.u.)7.2
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)12
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)12
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)0
Left Riparian Score (5)5
Right Riparian Score (5)0
Total Habitat Score (100)67 Substrate mostly bedrock and boulder; some sand, cobble, gravel, silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/18/08 10531 129 59 3.96 2.80 Excellent
08/20/03 9233 89 47 3.96 3.40 Excellent
08/20/98 7727 84 46 3.53 2.72 Excellent
07/27/93 6288 89 49 3.73 2.84 Excellent
07/11/90 5377 93 44 4.36 3.15 Excellent
Taxonomic Analysis
The 59 EPT taxa from 2008 was the most ever recorded for the site, which has been sampled a total of nine times; the previous high for a summer
sample was 49, last attained in 1993. The site has received a classification of Excellent following each sampling event except for August 1986, when it
received a rating of Good. Several EPT taxa are reported for the first time in 2008: Heterocloeon anoka, Heterocloeon curiosum, Maccaffertium
exiguum, Anthopotamus distinctus, Micrasema bennetti, Hydropsyche venularis, Hydroptila, an unamed species of Nectopsyche, and Neophylax
fuscus.
Data Analysis
The site is 2.6 stream-miles upstream of the Virginia border and six miles ENE of the town of Sparta, which is entirely included in the catchment above the site. This is the furthest downstream of the three basinwide sites on Little River. Cattle were present in a pasture on the west side and had
unhindered access to the river at the reach sampled.
EPT Richness for the seven summer sampling events at the site prior to 2008 has been rather stable, with a range of 44 to 49 taxa collected, making
the 59 EPT taxa recorded for 2008 anomalous. NCBI values have ranged from 3.53 (in 1998) to 4.50 (in 1986 and 1988), putting the 2008 value of
3.96 near the middle of the range.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.10
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)
05/06/08
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
PINE SWAMP CR
AU Number
10-9-5
County
ALLEGHANY
Subbasin
3
Latitude
36.4759215
Good
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
New River Plateau
Longitude
-81.1166911
KF19
Site Photograph
Reference Site
---
Stream Width (m)Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
Forested/Wetland
020
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
No7
50
2760
This is the first fish community sample collected at this site.Watershed -- drains southern Alleghany County; no municipalities within the watershed;
tributary to the Little River, site is ~ 60 ft. upstream from the creek's confluence with the river.Habitat -- runs, riffles, plunge pools, undercuts, and
overhangs; riparian zone of multifloral rose then pasture along the left banks.2008 -- percentage of tolerant fish (Creek Chub, White Sucker and Redbreast
Sunfish) was slightly greater than expected for a mountain stream; one endemic species (Kanawha Darter) was present; and the lowest conductivity of any
fish site, along with Brush Creek, in the basin in 2008.
Rural Residential
30
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
N/A
05/06/08
NPDES Number
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
8
16
12.4
Species Total
16
10.0
29
6.1
Clear
5
20
13
6
2008-29
Most Abundant Species
6
8
4
5
91 Cobble, boulder, and angular bedrockSubstrate
Exotic Species
Highback Chub, Redlip Shiner, Brown Trout,
Rock Bass, Redbreast Sunfish, and Tessellated
Darter
Bioclassification
Good
NCIBI
52
Mountain Redbelly Dace and Rosyside
Dace
Sample ID
Drainage Area (mi2)
5.3
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1128
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001
Elevation (ft)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.11
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
PINE SWAMP CR SR 1128 KB36 08/19/08 Good
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ALLEGHANY 3 05050001 36.475556 -81.116667 10-9-5 New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr 5.3 2805 5 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)50 20 30 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)---
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)38
pH (s.u.)5.6
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)18
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Left Bank Stability (7)6
Right Bank Stability (7)6
Light Penetration (10)9
Left Riparian Score (5)3
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)83 Substrate mix of cobble, boulder, bedrock; some gravel, sand
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/19/08 10533 ---34 ---2.72 Good
04/04/06 9827 ---41*---2.69 Excellent
08/18/03 9217 ---26 ---3.63 Good-Fair
08/20/98 7725 ---34 ---3.52 Good
07/27/93 6290 ---33 ---3.45 Good
* value corrected for seasonality
Taxonomic Analysis
A few taxa were collected for the first time in 2008: Baetisca, which was rare in the sample; Chimarra and Dolophilodes, two philopotamid genera,
which were common and abundant respectively.
Data Analysis
The site is about two miles south of Sparta and just upstream of the confluence with Little River.
The number of EPT taxa collected in 2008 returned to the previous high of 34 (in 1998) for a summer sampling event at the site. The EPT BI in 2008
was significantly lower than for any prior summer sampling event. There is currently very little evidence for water-quality impacts to the stream at the
site.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.12
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
BLEDSOE CR SR 1172 KB101 08/18/08 Excellent
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ALLEGHANY 3 05050001 36.497222 -81.118611 10-9-7 New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr 5.6 2795 4 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)10 90 0 0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)20.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.6
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)72
pH (s.u.)5.8
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)17
Bottom Substrate (15)13
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)7
Left Bank Stability (7)7
Right Bank Stability (7)7
Light Penetration (10)2
Left Riparian Score (5)0
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)68 Substrate mix of gravel, cobble, sand; some boulder, silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/18/08 10532 ---42 ---3.75 Excellent
04/05/06 9831 ---25*---3.32 Good-Fair
08/20/03 9231 ---30 ---3.39 Good
08/19/98 7722 ---21 ---4.67 Good-Fair
07/26/93 6287 ---33 ---3.31 Good
* value corrected for seasonality
Taxonomic Analysis
The 42 EPT taxa collected in 2008 greatly surpasses the previous high of 33 collected in 1993. Several taxa were reported for the first time from the
site in 2008 (all rare in the sample), including: Plauditus cestus, Baetisca berneri, Leucrocuta, Tricorythodes, Ceratopsyche morosa, and Rhyacophila
carolina . There were also a few taxa present in 2008 that had not been recorded from the site since the sampling event in 1993: Serratella
serratoides, which was abundant in 1993 and common in 2008; Heptagenia marginalis, abundant in 1993 and rare in 2008; Tallaperla, rare in 1993
and common in 2008.
Data Analysis
The site is in the town of Sparta and 0.8 stream-miles above the confluence with Little River.
Despite the location within the town of Sparta, the suboptimum habitat, and a silty cover of aufwuchs over the cobbles and boulders, the site attained
a classification of Excellent in 2008. Less surprising is the relatively high EPT BI score for a mountain sample not associated with a discharger.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.13
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Good
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
6
Site Photograph
Reference Site
NPDES Number
---
Stream Width (m)Average Depth (m)
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
New River Plateau
AU Number
10-9-9
05/06/08
Date Station ID
-81.03638889
KF4
Species Change Since Last Cycle
05/06/08
07/01/98
4
Gains -- Tonguetied Minnow, Highback Chub, Black Crappie, and Appalachia Darter.Losses -- Bigmouth
Chub and Kanawha Rosyface Shiner.
5
5
4
Redlip Shiner and Mountain Redbelly
Dace
19
Waterbody
GLADE CR
50
Elevation (ft)
Subbasin
Forested/Wetland
County
ALLEGHANY 36.49972222
2520
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
Drainage Area (mi2)
13.6
050
0.5
Agriculture Other (describe)
Yes7
52
50
Watershed -- drains east central Alleghany County; no municipalities within the watershed; tributary to the Little River, site is ~ 0.3 miles above the creek's
confluence with the river.Habitat -- runs, bedrock riffles, fairly open canopy; sands and silts in the pools; bottom substrate showed evidence of excessive
sedimentation from upstream landuse practices.2008 -- Redlip Shiner and Mountain Redbelly Dace, both common along the silty banks, accounted for
almost 60% of the fish collected; percentage of Omnivores+Herbivores was slightly elevated and indicative of nonpoint source nutrient inputs; Rock Bass
and Smallmouth Bass were absent.1998 & 2008 -- ~6 times more fish collected in 2008 than in 1998 (1,862 vs. 297), Redlip Shiner increased almost 16
fold and Mountain Redbelly Dace increased 20 fold; 23 species known from the site, including 14 species of cyprinids, 6 endemic species (Tonguetied
Minnow, Bigmouth Chub, 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 2 or 4 fish each.
Urban
0
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
16.2
5
15
5
4
9.2
32
5.9
Slightly turbid
15
98-62
Sample ID
2008-30
Species Total
20
Most Abundant Species
68 Sand, silt, and bedrockSubstrate
Exotic Species
Highback Chub, Redlip Shiner, Tennessee
Shiner, Brown Trout, Black Crappie, and
Tessellated Darter
Bioclassification
Good
Good
NCIBI
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1422
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001
Longitude
3
Latitude
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-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)
Drainage Area (mi2)
18.1
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
SR 1433
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001
Elevation (ft)
Cobble, gravel, and soft silts along the banksSubstrate
Exotic Species Highback Chub, Redlip Shiner, Rainbow Trout,
Brown Trout, and Tessellated Darter
Bioclassification
Good
NCIBI
52
Mountain Redbelly Dace
Sample ID
2008-27
Most Abundant Species
5
2
2
2
75
Species Total
19
9.0
29
6.2
Clear
5
19
13
5
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
6
16
17.7
This is the first fish community sample collected at this site.Watershed -- drains the southeastern corner of Alleghany County; no municipalities within its
watershed; tributary to the Little River.Habitat -- runs, riffles, and swiftly flowing chutes; side snag pools; minimal canopy and riparian zones along both
banks.2008 -- Mountain Redbelly Dace and Bluehead Chub accounted for 39% of all the fish collected; moderate percentage of Omnivores+Herbivores,
indicative of nonpoint source nutrients and an open canopy; percentage of tolerant fish (White Sucker and Creek Chub) was slightly greater than expected
for a mountain stream; three endemic species (Kanawha Minnow, Kanawha Darter, and Appalachia Darter) were present; and the lowest conductivity of
any fish site, along with Pine Swamp Creek, in the basin in 2008.
Urban
0
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
N/A
05/05/08
NPDES Number
Forested/Wetland
070
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
No10
30
2570
Longitude
-81.0049272
KF17
Site Photograph
Reference Site
---
Stream Width (m)Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
Good
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
New River Plateau
Subbasin
3
Latitude
36.4858811
05/05/08
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
BRUSH CR
AU Number
10-9-10
County
ALLEGHANY
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.15
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)11.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.4
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)38
pH (s.u.)6.2
Channel Modification (5)5
Instream Habitat (20)20
Bottom Substrate (15)8
Pool Variety (10)6
Riffle Habitat (16)14
Left Bank Stability (7)3
Right Bank Stability (7)3
Light Penetration (10)7
Left Riparian Score (5)1
Right Riparian Score (5)2
Total Habitat Score (100)69
* values corrected for seasonality
Sampling for this site was last done in October of 2007; all other sampling events occurred in July or August. There were four EPT taxa present (rare
in the sample) in October that were not present in the summer samples; of those only one taxon (Isoperla lata) shows a seasonal distribution in North
Carolina mountain stream sites (it has not been recorded from summer mountain samples). EPT Richness was decremented by one to compensate
for the seasonality of the species.
There are five EPT taxa that have been identified from each of the three summer samples and not present in the October sample. Of those, four taxa
show a moderate to strong seasonal distribution for mountain stream sites with peak occurrence in the summer and much reduced occurrence in the
fall:Serratella serratiodes (common in 2003); Epeorus vitreus (abundant in 2003); Micrasema wataga (common in 2003); and Neophylax oligius
(abundant in 2003). The four taxa have low tolerance values, ranging from 1.2 to 2.6.
Data Analysis
The site is about six miles east of Sparta, 2.9 miles NW of the closest point on the Blue Ridge Parkway, and 5.2 stream-miles above the confluence
with Little River.
Seasonal effects are evident when comparing taxa from the October sample from 2007 with samples from summer in prior years. Reduced EPT
richness and a higher NCBI value in 2007 compared to 2003 may be due to seasonal effects and not a decline in water quality between the two years.
Taxonomic Analysis
4.04 3.56 Good
4.73 3.38 Good07/27/93 6289 96 40
08/20/98 7728 62 36
4.87*3.46 Good
08/20/03 9230 83 42 3.94 3.34 Excellent
10/02/07 10345 88 36*
mix of cobble, sand; some boulder, gravel, silt, bedrock
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Substrate
none ------
Site Photograph
0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
Visible Landuse (%)30 10 60
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr 32 2500 8 0.1
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)
Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ALLEGHANY 3 05050001 36.516111 -81.012500 10-9-10 New River Plateau
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude
Date Bioclassification
BRUSH CR SR 1422 KB41 10/02/07 Good
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.16
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
LAUREL BR SR 1105 KB42 08/18/08 Not Impaired
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
ALLEGHANY 3 05050001 36.420833 -81.008333 10-9-10-2 New River Plateau
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2)Elevation (ft)Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m)
C;Tr 2.7 2705 4 0.2
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse (%)40 0 40 20 (road)
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
none ------
Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph
Temperature (°C)16.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.6
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)42
pH (s.u.)5.6
Water Clarity clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)4
Instream Habitat (20)19
Bottom Substrate (15)12
Pool Variety (10)8
Riffle Habitat (16)16
Left Bank Stability (7)6
Right Bank Stability (7)6
Light Penetration (10)9
Left Riparian Score (5)3
Right Riparian Score (5)4
Total Habitat Score (100)87 Substrate mix of cobble, boulder, gravel, sand; some silt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
08/18/08 10529 ---26 ---3.51 Not Impaired
04/04/06 9824 100 36*4.58*2.73 Good
08/18/03 9216 66 33 4.12 3.53 Good
08/21/98 7729 49 28 3.72 2.91 Good
09/03/92 6008 ---14 ---4.21 Fair
* values corrected for seasonality
Taxonomic Analysis
No unambiguously new taxa were collected in 2008 at the site. The EPT collection method was used in 2008 rather than the Full-Scale method used
for the three prior sampling events, complicating comparison of 2008 taxonomic results with those prior events.
Data Analysis
The site is about 8.6 miles southeast of Sparta in southeast Alleghany County, and 0.3 stream-miles from the confluence with Brush Creek.
Current BAU criteria do not allow for classification of stream sites with drainage areas under 3.0 square miles except in unusual circumstances (such
as for Little Peak Creek at SR 1595/Ashe County).
Due to the small size of the stream it was decided for the latest sampling effort to use EPT rather than Full-Scale collection methods (as was used for
the prior three sampling events at the site); part of the reason for the decrease in EPT Richness between 2008 and the prior summer sampling event
in 2003 is certainly due to the differenct collection methods used. The EPT BI is better for comparison of conditions when those two sampling methods
are used; there is no evidence of change in water quality between 2003 and 2008 using that metric.
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.17
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (µS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Drainage Area (mi2)
11.2
FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Stream Classification
C;Tr
NC 18
Location
8 digit HUC
05050001
Elevation (ft)
Slick bedrock, boulders, silts on the substrateSubstrate
Exotic Species Redlip Shiner, Saffron Shiner, Rainbow Trout,
and Tessellated Darter
Bioclassification
Fair
NCIBI
38
Mountain Redbelly Dace and Central
Stoneroller
Sample ID
2008-26
Most Abundant Species
4
2
1
4
77
Species Total
14
9.7
50
6.7
Clear
5
19
12
4
None
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
10
16
16.1
This is the first fish community sample collected at this site.Watershed -- drains the northeastern corner of Alleghany County; no municipalities within the
watershed; site is ~ 1.5 miles upstream of the creek's confluence with the Little River.Habitat -- runs and riffles; side undercuts, bedrock pools; minimal
riparian zone along the right shoreline and minimal canopy.2008 -- more fish were collected at this site (n = 2,368) than at any other site in the basin in
2008; Central Stoneroller, Mountain Redbelly Dace, and Bluehead Chub constituted 65% of all the fish collected; high percentage of
Omnivores+Herbivores, indicative of nonpoint source nutrients and an open canopy; diversity metrics lower than expected -- total, cyprinid, Rock
Bass+Smallmouth Bass+Trout, and Intolerant diversities; and two endemic species (Kanawha Darter and Appalachia Darter) were present.
Rural Residential
10
Volume (MGD)
Data Analysis
Visible Landuse (%)
Sample Date
N/A
05/05/08
NPDES Number
Forested/Wetland
030
0.4
Agriculture Other (describe)
No8
60
2450
Longitude
-81.0023167
KF18
Site Photograph
Reference Site
---
Stream Width (m)Average Depth (m)
---
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
Fair
Bioclassification
Level IV Ecoregion
New River Plateau
Subbasin
3
Latitude
36.5495584
05/05/08
Date Station ID
Species Change Since Last Cycle
Waterbody
CRAB CR
AU Number
10-9-12
County
ALLEGHANY
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-B.18
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-C.1
appendix 3-c
AmBIENt moNItoRINg SYStEmS
StAtIoN DAtA ShEEtS
StAtIoN
ID WAtERBoDY Au#LoCAtIoN ImPAIRED
(BY PARAmEtER)
ImPACtED
(BY PARAmEtER)
K7900000 New R.10 SR 1345 at Amelia Copper (22.2%)
Iron (44.4%) Zinc (22.2%)
Fecal Coliform (7.1%)
K9600000 Little R.10-9-(6)SR 1426 near Edwards
Crossroads
Copper (11.1%)
Iron (11.1%) Zinc (11.1%) Fecal Coliform (10.7%)
---
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-C.2
Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Station #:K7900000
Location:NEW RIV AT SR 1345 AT AMELIA
Stream class:C ORW
NC stream index:10
Hydrologic Unit Code:05050001
Latitude:36.55190 Longitude:-81.18172
Agency:NCAMBNT
PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
# ND EL # %%Conf
Field
D.O. (mg/L)<4 5.2 7.8 8.4 9.5 11.4 13.7 15.457000
<5 5.2 7.8 8.4 9.5 11.4 13.7 15.457000
pH (SU)<6 6.7 7.1 7.4 7.7 8.1 8.4 9.158000
>9 6.7 7.1 7.4 7.7 8.1 8.4 9.158101.7
Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 42 55 61 66 73 77 94570
Water Temperature (°C)>29 0.7 3.8 7.8 15.7 22.9 26.4 27.758000
Other
TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 18 171 280199
Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1.4 1.9 4.1 11.8 31.1 45058416.9
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.15745
NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.05 0.24 0.36 0.55 0.73 0.8 0.87571
TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28 0.53 2.85724
Total Phosphorus N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.1 0.96578
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 60 60 83 320 7975 16000 1600090
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 17 17 25 25 25 25 259080
Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 9 15 1592622.2
Iron, total (Fe)>1000 220 220 240 520 10550 20000 2000094044.4
Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 13 139080
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 13 139070
Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 41 73 7392522.2
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
# results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf:
56 24.9 4 7.1
02/01/2005Time period:12/08/2009to
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
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-C.3
Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report
Station #:K9600000
Location:LITTLE RIV AT SR 1426 NR EDWARDS CROSSROADS
Stream class:C
NC stream index:10-9-(6)
Hydrologic Unit Code:05050001
Latitude:36.52465 Longitude:-81.06939
Agency:NCAMBNT
PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
# ND EL # %%Conf
Field
D.O. (mg/L)<4 5.9 7.9 8.5 9.9 11.7 13.3 15.158000
<5 5.9 7.9 8.5 9.9 11.7 13.3 15.158000
pH (SU)<6 6.4 7.2 7.4 7.8 8 8.4 9.458000
>9 6.4 7.2 7.4 7.8 8 8.4 9.458101.7
Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 35 42 47 50 54 61 86570
Water Temperature (°C)>29 0.6 4.4 8.4 14.5 20.2 23.7 26.458000
Other
TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 3.1 6.2 6.2 72.7 178188
Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1 1.5 2.3 4 15.2 11058263.4
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.0211
NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.6510
TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.211
Total Phosphorus N/A 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.0310
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 51 51 66 120 240 18000 1800090
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 17 1791811.1
Iron, total (Fe)>1000 89 89 190 200 340 19000 1900091011.1
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 25 259080
Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 10 80 8091811.1
Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL)
# results:Geomean:# > 400:% > 400:%Conf:
56 85.1 6 10.7
02/01/2005Time period:12/08/2009to
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
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-C.4
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-D.1
appendix 3-d
12-DIgIt
SuBWAtERShED mAPS
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-D.2
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-D.3
E¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
U
S
-
2
2
1
Cranberry C r e ek (Mulberry
Cr.)
N
C-1
8
NC
-
93
OreKnob
Cr
SFNR
ALLEGHANY
S o u t h F o r k N e w Riv er
KB10
KB15
KB13
KB14
KB35
KB34
KB37
KB36KB38
KB11
KB97
KB40
KB46
KB37
KB36 KB82KB98KB101
KB127
KB126
KB101LittleRiver
Pea k Cr e e k
NorthForkNewRiver
Pr
a
t
h
ers C r e e k
GladeCreek
P
i
n
e
y
F
o
r
k
Potato C r e e k
Bledso e C r e e k
C
r
a
b
F
o
r
k
Vil e C r eek
Nathans
C
re
e
k
Lit
t
l
e
Riv
er(S
p
a
rt
a
L
a
k
e)
Piney
B
r
a
n
c
h
WolfBranch
Pine
S
w
a
mp
Creek
CheekBranch
Maple B r a n c h
Silas
B
ranch
EvansBranch
B
e
averBranch
R e e v e s Bran c h
No
Head
B
ranch
N e w R iv er(North
Carolina
Portion)
N
ewRiver
Long B r a n c h
Pin
ey
Creek
G r a s s y Creek
D
o
g
Creek
ElkCreek
KF7
KF3
KF2KF15
KF19
KF16
K7900000
K9600000
K4500000
0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
0.3
Miles
Elk
Creek
Subwatershed
(050500010401)
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
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-D.4
E
E ¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
#0 #0#0#0#0
XY
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
U
S
-
2
2
1
CranberryCreek(MulberryCr.)
N
C
-
1
8
NC-93
RockyCreek
KB35
KB34
KB37
KB36
KB38
KB49
KB41
KB97
KB40
KB46
KB37
KB36
KB82
KB98
KB47
KB73
KB101
KB100
KB104
KB132
KB101
LittleRiver
PrathersCreek
Bru
shCreek
Glade
Cre
e
k
PotatoCreek
BledsoeCreek
CrabFork
VileCreek
L
i
t
tl
e
Riv
er(S
p
a
rt
a
L
a
k
e)
CrabCreek
MoccasinCree
k
PineyBranch
WolfBranch
Pine
S
w
a
mp
Cr
e
e
k
LittleGlade
C
re
e
k
BigPine
Creek
(
C
rab
Cree
k
)
UTUTCRABC
R
CheekBranch
MapleBranch
Littl
e
P
i
n
e
C
r
e
e
k
Rock
Branch
Evans
Branch
ReevesBranch
No
Head
Branch
NewRiver
D
o
g
Creek
El k Creek
KF7
KF4
KF3
KF19
KF18
KF17
K7900000
K9600000
K9750000
0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
0.3
Miles
Brush
Creek
Subwatershed
(050500010403)
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
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-D.5
E
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
XY
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)[¡
[¡
¢¡
US-221
Cranberry C r e e k (Mulberry Cr.)
NC-18
NC-18
NC-93
P e a k C r e e k
RockyCreek
GladeCreekLittleRiver
Sparta
L
ittle
River
W a t e r f a l l s C reek
KB34
KB37
KB38
KB97
KB40
KB46
KB36
KB82
KB98KB104
KB101
L i t tleRiver
P
r
a
t
h
e
rs C r e e k
M
e
a
d
o
w
F
ork
Glade
Cre
e
k
P
in
e
y
F
o
r
k
PotatoCreek
Bleds o e C r e e k
C
r
a
b
F
o
r
k
VileCreek
Lit
t
l
e
R
i
v
e
r
MoccasinCreek
Piney
B
r
a
n
c
h
WolfBranch
Pine
S
w
a
mp
C
r
e
e
k
LittleGladeCreek
CheekBranch
M aple B r a n c h
RockBranch
Evans
Branch
R e e v e s Bran c h
WolfBranch
Pin
ey
Creek
ElkCreek
KF7
KF4
KF19
K7900000
K9600000K9750000
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0.25
Miles
Pine
Swamp
Creek
-
Little
River
Subwatershed
(050500010404)
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
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-D.6
E
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³¡³¡³
#*
#*
#*
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡US-221
NC-18
NC-93 RockyCreek
Gla
d
e
C
reek
Litt l e Riv e r
Sparta
B
r
u
shCreek
LaurelBranch
KB35KB34
KB37
KB38
KB49
KB41
KB97
KB40
KB46
KB36
KB82
KB98
KB42
KB47
KB73
KB100
KB104
KB128
KB133
KB132
KB101
LittleRiver
BrushCreek
MeadowFork
GladeCre
e
k
BledsoeCreek
VileCreek
LittleRiver
CrabCreek
MoccasinCreek
WolfBranch
Pine
S
w
a
mp
Cree
k
LittleGlad
e
C
re
e
k
B
i
g
Pin
e
Creek
UTUTCRABC
R
CheekBranch
Littl
e
Pin
e
C
r
e
e
k
Rock
Branch
EvansBranch NewRiver
D
o
g
Creek
KF7
KF4
KF3
KF19
KF18
KF17
K7900000
K9600000
K9750000
0
0.75
1.5
2.25
3
0.375
Miles
Brush
Creek
Subwatershed
(050500010405)
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
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-D.7
E
E¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#*
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡
¢¡
US-221
N
C
-
1
8
NC-93
R oc k y C r ee k
Glad
e
C
r
e
ek
LittleRiver
Sparta
KB35
KB34
KB37
KB36
KB38
KB42KB49
KB41
KB97
KB40
KB46 KB37
KB36
KB82
KB98
KB42
KB47
KB73
KB100
KB104
KB128 KB133 KB132
KB101
L i t tleRiver
Pr
a
t
h
ers C r e e k
Bru
sh Creek
M
e
a
d
o
w
F
ork
Glade
Cre
e
k
P
in
e
y
F
o
r
k
P otato C r e e k
Bleds o e C r e e k
C
r
a
b
F
o
r
k
V il e C r eek
L
i
t
tl
e
Riv
er(S
p
a
r
t
a
L
a
k
e)
CrabCreek
M occasinCree
k
Piney
B
ra
n
c
h
WolfBranch
Pine
S
w
a
mp
Cr
e
e
k
LittleGlade
C
re
e
k
BigPineCreek(CrabCreek)U T UTCRABCR
CheekBranch
M aple B r a n c h
LittlePineCreek
Rock
Branch
Evans
Branch
R e e v e s Branc h
H ay n e s B r a n c h
No
Head
Branch
NewR iver
D
o
g
Creek
ElkCreek
KF7
KF4
KF3
KF19
KF18 KF17
K7900000
K9600000
K9750000
0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
0.3
Miles
Glade
Creek
Subwatershed
(050500010406)
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
January
2011®
Legend
Hydrology
Major
Roads
Municipalities
Conservation_Land
County
Boundary
12-Digit
HUCs
2010
Use
Support
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
¢¡
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
#0
NPDES
Non-Discharge
(Minor)
NEW
R
IV
E
R
B
AS
I
N
:
L
Itt
LE
R
IV
E
R
&
C
hES
tNut
C
RE
E
k W
AtER
S
hED
S
(
hu
C
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
&
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
6
)
APP
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
3-D.8
E
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³¡³¡³#*
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)"à)
"à)
"à)
"à)
[¡
[¡
[¡
¢¡
¢¡US-221
N
C
-
1
8
Glad
e
C
r
e
e
k Little R ive r
Sparta
LittleRiver
KB37
KB38
KB49
KB41
KB40 KB46KB36KB82
KB98
KB47
KB73
KB100
KB104
KB128
KB133
KB132
KB101
LittleRiver
BrushCreek
Glade
Cre
e
k
BledsoeCreek VileCreek
CrabCreek
MoccasinCree
k
WolfBranch
PineSwampCreek
LittleGlad
e
C
re
e
k
B
i
g
Pin
e
C
reek
UTCrab
C
r
e
e
k
Littl
e
Pin
e
C
r
e
e
k
Rock
Branch
DogCreekKF7
KF4
KF19
KF18KF17
K9600000
K9750000
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0.25
Miles
Crab
Creek-Little
River
Subwatershed
(050500010407)
NC
Division
of
Water
Quality
Basinwide
Planning
Unit
January
2011 ®
Legend
Hydrology
Major
Roads
Municipalities
Conservation_Land
County
Boundary
12-Digit
HUCs
2010
Use
Support
Supporting
No
or
Inconclusive
Data
Impaired
¢¡
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
#0
NPDES
Non-Discharge
(Minor)