The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNew 2011 smallNew RiveR BasiNwide wateR Quality PlaN March 2011 Division of Water Quality Basinwide Planning UnitNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ii taBle of CoNteNts Executive Summary River Basin Description ...........................................................................................ES.1 Water Quality Data Overview ...................................................................................ES.4 Stream Flow ........................................................................................................................ES.4 Biological Data ....................................................................................................................ES.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling .............................................................................................ES.5 Fish Community Sampling ............................................................................................................ES.6 Ambient Data ......................................................................................................................ES.7 Turbidity ........................................................................................................................................ES.7 pH .................................................................................................................................................ES.7 Fecal Coliform Bacteria (FCB) ......................................................................................................ES.8 Population & Land Cover .........................................................................................ES.9 Population ...........................................................................................................................ES.9 Land Cover .........................................................................................................................ES.9 Watershed Water Quality Summaries ....................................................................ES.10 North Fork New River Watershed (0505000101) ..............................................................ES.10 Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC): ....................................................................................................ES.10 South Fork New River/Fox Creek Watersheds (0505000102 & 03).............................ES.11 Little River/Chestnut Creek Watersheds (0505000104 & 06) .....................................ES.11 Basinwide Water Quality Issues & Other Information ..........................................ES.11 Rising pH Levels Throughout the Basin ............................................................................ES.11 Formation of the New River Coalition ................................................................................ES.12 Christmas Tree Farming ....................................................................................................ES.12 Primary & Supplemental Freshwater Classifications .........................................................ES.13 Approval of North Fork New River Watershed Reclassification: .................................................ES.14 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (Septic Systems) ...............................................ES.14 DWQ Basinwide Recommendations & Priorities ..................................................ES.14 Basinwide Recommendations ...........................................................................................ES.14 Update of 7Q10 Flows in NPDES Permits ...................................................................................ES.14 Conduct Study to Determine the Source of Increasing pH Levels ...............................................ES.14 Elimination of Straight Pipes & Failing Septic Systems ...............................................................ES.14 Basinwide Riparian & Trout Water Buffer Educational Efforts .....................................................ES.15 iii Basinwide Stream Priorities ..............................................................................................ES.15 CHAPTER 1 - North Fork New River Watershed HUC 0505000101 Includes: Three Top Creek, Big Laurel Creek, Buffalo & Little Buffalo Creeks, Little & Big Horse Creeks & Helton Creek General Watershed Description ..................................................................................1.1 Watershed Water Quality Overview ............................................................................1.3 Water Quality Data Summary for this Watershed ......................................................1.3 Understanding the Data .........................................................................................................1.3 Biological & Ambient Rating Converted to Use Support Category ....................................................1.3 Stream Flow ...........................................................................................................................1.4 Biological Data .......................................................................................................................1.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling ................................................................................................1.4 Fish Community Sampling ...............................................................................................................1.5 Fish Kills/Spill Events .......................................................................................................................1.6 Ambient Data .........................................................................................................................1.7 Long Term Ambient Monitoring .........................................................................................................1.7 pH ....................................................................................................................................................1.7 Turbidity ...........................................................................................................................................1.8 Dissolved Oxygen ............................................................................................................................1.8 Temperature .....................................................................................................................................1.9 Fecal Coliform Bacteria ....................................................................................................................1.9 Additional Studies ................................................................................................................1.10 North Fork New River Sampling to Support Potential Reclassification ...........................................1.10 Recommendations & Action Plans at the Watershed Scale ...................................1.13 DWQ Priority Summary ........................................................................................................1.13 Status & Recommendations for Monitored Waters .................................................1.14 North Fork New River (NFNR) .............................................................................................1.14 North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(1)] ............................................................................................1.14 Understanding this Section ..................................................................................................1.14 Use Support & Monitoring Box: .....................................................................................................1.14 North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] ..........................................................................................1.15 Three Top Creek (050500010101) .......................................................................................1.16 Three Top Creek [AU#: 10-2-13] ....................................................................................................1.16 Big Laurel Creek (050500010102) .......................................................................................1.16 Big Laurel Creek [AU#: 10-2-14] ....................................................................................................1.17 iv Headwaters North Fork New River (050500010103) ............................................................1.17 North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(1) & (12)] ..................................................................................1.17 Hoskin Fork [AU#: 10-2-7] ..............................................................................................................1.17 Little Horse Creek (050500010104) .....................................................................................1.18 Middle Fork Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8-1] ........................................................................1.18 Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8] ...............................................................................................1.18 Big Horse Creek (050500010105) ........................................................................................1.19 Big Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-(7), (4.5) & (1.5)] ..........................................................................1.19 Upper North Fork New River (050500010106) .....................................................................1.19 Rich Hill Creek [AU#: 10-2-15] .......................................................................................................1.19 Little Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20-1]..............................................................................................1.20 Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20] .........................................................................................................1.21 North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] ..........................................................................................1.21 Middle North Fork New River (050500010107) ....................................................................1.21 Long Shoals Creek [AU#: 10-2-25] .................................................................................................1.21 Little Phoenix Creek [AU#: 10-2-23] ...............................................................................................1.22 Helton Creek (050500010108) .............................................................................................1.24 Includes: Helton Creek [AU#: 10-2-27] ...........................................................................................1.24 Helton Creek [AU#: 10-2-27] ..........................................................................................................1.24 Lower North Fork New River (050500010109) .....................................................................1.25 North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] ..........................................................................................1.25 References .................................................................................................................1.26 CHAPTER 2 - South Fork New River & Fox Creek Watersheds HUCs 0505000102 & 0505000103 Includes: Meat Camp Creek, Elk Creek, Pine Swamp Creek, Beaver Creek, Naked Creek, Peak Creek, Cranberry Creek, Prather Creek, Grassy Creek & Bridle Creek General Watershed Description ..................................................................................2.1 Watershed Water Quality Overview ............................................................................2.3 Water Quality Data Summary for these Watersheds .................................................2.3 Understanding the Data .........................................................................................................2.3 Biological & Ambient Rating Converted to Use Support Category ....................................................2.3 Stream Flow ...........................................................................................................................2.4 Biological Data .......................................................................................................................2.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling ................................................................................................2.4 Fish Community Sampling ...............................................................................................................2.5 Fish Kills/Spill Events .......................................................................................................................2.6 Ambient Data .........................................................................................................................2.6 v Long Term Ambient Monitoring .........................................................................................................2.7 pH ....................................................................................................................................................2.7 Turbidity ...........................................................................................................................................2.8 Dissolved Oxygen ............................................................................................................................2.8 Temperature .....................................................................................................................................2.9 Fecal Coliform Bacteria ....................................................................................................................2.9 Recommendations & Action Plans at the Watershed Scale ...................................2.10 DWQ Priority Summary ........................................................................................................2.10 Status & Recommendations for Monitored Waters .................................................2.13 Understanding this Section ..................................................................................................2.13 Use Support & Monitoring Box: .....................................................................................................2.13 South Fork New River (SFNR) .............................................................................................2.14 AU#’s: 10-1-(1), 10-1-(3.5)a & 10-1-(3.5)b .....................................................................................2.14 AU#’s: 10-1-(3.5)c & 10-1-(14.5) ....................................................................................................2.15 AU#’s: 10-1-(20.5) & 10-1-(26)a .....................................................................................................2.15 AU#’s: 10-1-(26)b & 10-1-(30) ........................................................................................................2.15 AU#: 10-1-(33.5) ............................................................................................................................2.16 South Fork New River Headwaters (HUC: 050500010201) .................................................2.17 Middle Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-2-(1), (6), (14) & (15)] ............................................2.17 East Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-3-(1), (7) & (8)] .........................................................2.18 Winkler Creek [AU#:10-1-4-(1), (2), (3.5)a & (3.5)b] .......................................................................2.19 Boone Creek (Kraut Creek) [AU#: 10-1-4-4] ...................................................................................2.20 South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(1), (3.5)a & (3.5)b] ...................................................................2.21 Meat Camp Creek-South Fork New River (050500010202) .................................................2.21 Howard Creek [AU#: 10-1-9] ..........................................................................................................2.21 Norris Fork [AU#: 10-1-10-2] ..........................................................................................................2.22 Meat Camp Creek [AU#: 10-1-10] ..................................................................................................2.22 Cobb Creek [AU#: 10-1-10-3] .........................................................................................................2.22 South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(3.5)c] .......................................................................................2.22 Elk Creek-South Fork New River (050500010203) ..............................................................2.23 Pine Orchard Creek [AU#: 10-1-15-1] ............................................................................................2.23 Unnamed Tributary to South Fork New R. [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)ut4] ...................................................2.23 South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(3.5)c] .......................................................................................2.23 Old Fields Creek-South Fork New River (050500010204) ...................................................2.23 Unnamed Tributary to Mill Creek [AU#: 10-1-18ut4] .......................................................................2.24 South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)] .......................................................................................2.24 Pine Swamp-South Fork New River (050500010205) ..........................................................2.24 Pine Swamp Creek [AU#: 10-1-24] ................................................................................................2.24 South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5)] .......................................................................................2.24 vi Beaver Creek-South Fork New River (050500010206) ........................................................2.25 South Beaver Creek [AU#: 10-1-25-2] ............................................................................................2.25 Obids Creek [AU#: 10-1-27] ...........................................................................................................2.25 South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5), (26)a & (26)b] ................................................................2.25 Naked Creek-South Fork New River (050500010207) .........................................................2.26 Roan Creek [AU#: 10-1-31] ............................................................................................................2.26 Naked Creek [AU#: 10-1-32] ..........................................................................................................2.26 South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(26)b, (30), (31.5) & (33.5)] ......................................................2.28 Cranberry Creek (050500010208) .......................................................................................2.28 Piney Fork [AU#: 10-1-37-3] ...........................................................................................................2.28 Cranberry Creek (Mulberry Creek) [AU#: 10-1-37] .........................................................................2.28 Peak Creek-South Fork New River (050500010209) ...........................................................2.29 Nathans Creek [AU#: 10-1-36] .......................................................................................................2.29 Little Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-4].................................................................................................2.29 Ore Knob Branch [AU#: 10-1-35-3] ................................................................................................2.29 Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-(1) & (2)a & b] ......................................................................................2.30 South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)] .......................................................................................2.30 Prather Creek-South Fork New River (050500010210) ........................................................2.31 Prathers Creek [AU#: 10-1-38] .......................................................................................................2.31 South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)] .......................................................................................2.31 Grassy Creek-New River (050500010302) ..........................................................................2.31 Grassy Creek [AU#: 10-3] ..............................................................................................................2.31 New River [AU#: 10a] .....................................................................................................................2.32 References .................................................................................................................2.33 CHAPTER 3 - Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds HUC 0505000104 & 0505000106 Includes: Elk Creek, Bledsoe Creek, Pine Swamp Creek, Glade Creek, Brush Creek & Crab Creek General Watershed Description ..................................................................................3.1 Watershed Water Quality Overview ............................................................................3.3 Water Quality Data Summary for these Watersheds .................................................3.3 Understanding the Data .........................................................................................................3.3 Biological & Ambient Rating Converted to Use Support Category ....................................................3.3 Stream Flow ...........................................................................................................................3.4 Biological Data .......................................................................................................................3.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling ................................................................................................3.4 Fish Community Sampling ...............................................................................................................3.5 Fish Kills/Spill Events .......................................................................................................................3.6 vii Ambient Data .........................................................................................................................3.7 Long Term Ambient Monitoring .........................................................................................................3.7 pH ....................................................................................................................................................3.7 Turbidity ...........................................................................................................................................3.8 Dissolved Oxygen ............................................................................................................................3.8 Temperature .....................................................................................................................................3.9 Fecal Coliform Bacteria ....................................................................................................................3.9 Recommendations & Action Plans at the Watershed Scale ...................................3.11 DWQ Notable Waters & Priority Summary ...........................................................................3.11 Status & Recommendations for Monitored Waters .................................................3.12 Little River ............................................................................................................................3.12 Little River [AU#: 10-9-(1)a, (1)b, (6), & (11.5)] ..............................................................................3.12 Understanding this Section ..................................................................................................3.12 Use Support & Monitoring Box: .....................................................................................................3.12 AU#: 10-9-(1)a ...............................................................................................................................3.13 AU#: 10-9-(6) .................................................................................................................................3.13 Elk Creek (050500010401) ..................................................................................................3.14 Elk Creek [AU#: 10-6-(1) & (2)] ......................................................................................................3.14 Brush Creek - New River (050500010403) ..........................................................................3.14 New River [AU#: 10b] .....................................................................................................................3.14 Little River (050500010404) .................................................................................................3.15 Waterfalls Creek [AU#: 10-9-4].......................................................................................................3.15 Pine Swamp Creek [AU#: 10-9-5] ..................................................................................................3.16 Little River [AU#: 10-9-(1)a]............................................................................................................3.16 Brush Creek (050500010405) ..............................................................................................3.16 Laurel Branch [AU#: 10-9-10-2] .....................................................................................................3.17 Brush Creek [AU#: 10-9-10] ...........................................................................................................3.17 Glade Creek - Little River (050500010406) ..........................................................................3.18 Bledsoe Creek [AU#: 10-9-7] .........................................................................................................3.18 Little River [AU#: 10-9-(1)b & (6)] ...................................................................................................3.19 Crab Creek - Little River (050500010407) ...........................................................................3.19 Moccasin Creek [AU#: 10-9-11] ......................................................................................................3.19 Unnamed Tributary to Crab Creek [AU#: 10-9-12ut8 & 12ut8ut4] ..................................................3.20 Crab Creek [AU#: 10-9-12] .............................................................................................................3.21 Little River [AU#: 10-9-(6) & (11.5)] ................................................................................................3.22 Chestnut Creek (050500010603) .........................................................................................3.22 References .................................................................................................................3.22 viii Chapter 4 - Ore Knob Mine Water Quality Issues & Restoration Efforts Ore Knob Mine .............................................................................................................4.1 Mine History ...........................................................................................................................4.1 Description of Contaminated Area & Impacts .........................................................................4.3 Restoration Activity History (1990’s to 2005) ..........................................................................4.3 Recent Activity (2005 to 2010) ...............................................................................................4.3 319 Watershed Management Plan ...................................................................................................4.3 DWQ & Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Activity ............................................................4.6 References ...................................................................................................................4.7 CHAPTER 5 - Water Quantity Understanding Stream Flow .......................................................................................5.1 Managing Flow from Impoundments ..........................................................................5.1 Minimum Release Requirements ...........................................................................................5.1 Water Supply, Demand, Availability & Planning ........................................................5.2 Water Withdrawals .................................................................................................................5.2 Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) ...........................................................................................5.3 The Town of Sparta ..........................................................................................................................5.3 The Town of Boone ..........................................................................................................................5.3 Source Water Assessment & Protection (SWAP) of Public Water Supplies in the New River Basin ..........................................................5.4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................5.4 Delineation of Source Water Assessment Areas ....................................................................5.4 Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program ...............................................................................................5.4 Water Supply Watershed Protection (WSWP) Program ...................................................................5.4 Susceptibility Determination – NC’s Overall Approach ...........................................................5.5 Overall Susceptibility Rating .............................................................................................................5.5 Inherent Vulnerability Rating ............................................................................................................5.5 Contaminant Rating .........................................................................................................................5.5 Inventory of Potential Contaminant Sources (PCSs) .......................................................................5.5 Source Water Protection ........................................................................................................5.5 Public Water Supply Susceptibility Determinations in the New River Basin ...........................5.6 References ...................................................................................................................5.6 ix CHAPTER 6 - Local Initiatives & Voluntary Incentive Programs Local Initiatives ............................................................................................................6.1 The Importance of Local Initiatives ........................................................................................6.1 National Committee for the New River ...................................................................................6.2 Land Protection ...............................................................................................................................6.2 Restoration ......................................................................................................................................6.2 Advocacy .........................................................................................................................................6.2 New River Builder Program ..............................................................................................................6.2 Alleghany County/NRCS ........................................................................................................6.3 Alleghany County Envirothon .................................................................................................6.3 Federal, State & Local Incentive Programs ...............................................................6.3 Construction Grants & Loans (CG&L) ....................................................................................6.3 Section 319 - Grant Program .................................................................................................6.4 Soil & Water Conservation .....................................................................................................6.5 Agricultural Cost Share Program (ACSP) .........................................................................................6.5 Community Conservation Assistance Program ................................................................................6.6 Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) ...................................................................6.8 CHAPTER 7 - Other Natural Resource Programs Natural Resource Programs .......................................................................................7.1 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) ..................................................................7.1 River Basin Restoration Priorities ..........................................................................................7.1 Local Watershed Planning .....................................................................................................7.2 EEP Projects in the New River Basin .....................................................................................7.2 Forestry ........................................................................................................................7.3 Forestland Ownership*...........................................................................................................7.3 Forest Water Quality Regulations ..........................................................................................7.3 Other Water Quality Regulations ............................................................................................7.4 Water Quality Foresters .........................................................................................................7.4 Forestry Best Management Practices ....................................................................................7.4 Protecting Stream Crossings with Bridgemats .......................................................................7.4 Christmas Tree Production .....................................................................................................7.5 x Forest Regeneration & Planning ............................................................................................7.5 Education & Outreach ............................................................................................................7.5 Contacts .................................................................................................................................7.5 References ...................................................................................................................7.6 CHAPTER 8 - 2010 Use Support & Methodology CHAPTER 9 - Maps CHAPTER 10 - Acronyms, Definitions, & Hyperlinks Definitions ..................................................................................................................10.1 Acronyms ...................................................................................................................10.7 Hyperlink Index ........................................................................................................10.11 xi taBle of taBles exeCutive summaRy Table ES-1: HUC Quick Reference ........................................................................................................ES.10 Table ES-2: Summary of Waterbody Classifications in the New River Basin ..........................................ES.13 Table ES-3: Prioritization of Waters in the New River Basin (Highest to Lowest Priority) .......................ES.16 ChaPteR 1 Table 1-1: Prioritization of Waters in the North Fork New River Watershed (Highest to Lowest Priority) ...1.13 Table 1-2: Example of a Use Support and Monitoring Box ........................................................................1.14 ChaPteR 2 Table 2-1: Prioritization of Waters in the South Fork New River & Fox Creek Watersheds (Highest to Lowest Priority) ................................................................................................................................................2.11 Table 2-2: Example of a Use Support and Monitoring Box ........................................................................2.13 ChaPteR 3 Table 3-1: Prioritization of Waters in the Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds (Highest to Lowest Priority) ................................................................................................................................................3.11 Table 3-2: Example of a Use Support and Monitoring Box ........................................................................3.12 ChaPteR 4 Table 4-1: Monitoring Locations for Five of Nine Sites Sampled During 319 Project ...................................4.3 ChaPteR 5 Table 5-1: Minimum Release from Impoundments in the New River Basin .................................................5.2 Table 5-2: Current Surface Water Withdrawals by Local Water Supply Systems* .......................................5.3 Table 5-3: SWAP Results for Surface Water Sources in the New River Basin ............................................5.6 ChaPteR 6 Table 6-1: 319 Grant Contracts in the New River Basin Between 2003 & 2008 ..........................................6.4 Table 6-2: Clean Water Management Trust Fund Projects Between 2003 - 2009 .......................................6.8 ChaPteR 7 Table 7-1: New River Basin TLWS & LWP Summary ..................................................................................7.2 Table 7-2: EEP Projects in Some Stage of Completion in the New River Basin (8-Digit HU 05050001) ......7.3 Table 7-3: North Carolina DFR Contacts for the New River Basin...............................................................7.5 PeRmit taBles Table 14-1: NPDES Point Source Discharger Permits in the New River Basin .......................................4-A.2 Table 14-2: NPDES Non-Discharger Permits in the New River Basin .....................................................4-A.3 Table 14-3: Communities in the New River Basin Subject to Stormwater and/or Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Requirements. ..............................................................................................................4-A.4 Table 14-4: Stormwater Permits in the New River Basin .........................................................................4-A.4 Table 14-5: Permitted Animal Operations in the New River Basin as of July 2010 ..................................4-A.6 xii taBle of figuRes exeCutive summaRy Figure ES-1: The Entire New River - Kanawh River Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 050500) .....................ES.2 Figure ES-2: North Carolina Portion of the New River Basin ...................................................................ES.3 Figure ES-3: Yearly Average Flow Rates of the USGS Gage Station in the New River Basin, 1997-2008 ES.4 Figure ES-4: Use Support Category Chart for Biological Ratings ............................................................ES.4 Figure ES-5: Benthic Stations Color Coded by Current Rating in the New River Basin ...........................ES.5 Figure ES-6: Percents of Current Benthic Ratings in the New River Basin ..............................................ES.5 Figure ES-7: Percent Change in Benthic Ratings in the New River Basin ...............................................ES.5 Figure ES-8: Fish Community Stations Color Coded by Current Rating in the New River Basin ..............ES.6 Figure ES-9: Percents of Current Fish Community Ratings in the New River Basin ................................ES.6 Figure ES-10: Percent Change in Fish Community Ratings in the New River Basin ................................ES.6 Figure ES-11: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the Turbidity Standard (2004-2008) ...........................ES.7 Figure ES-12: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the pH Standard (2004-2008) ....................................ES.7 Figure ES-14: Yearly Geometric Mean of All FCB Samples in the New River Basin ................................ES.8 Figure ES-13: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the FCB Screening Criteria (2004-2008) ....................ES.8 Figure ES-15: 2000 Population Per Square Mile by 10-Digit HUCs .........................................................ES.9 Figure ES-16: 2010 Population Per Square Mile by 10-Digit HUCs .........................................................ES.9 Figure ES-17: 2001 Land Cover in the New River Basin ........................................................................ES.10 Figure ES-18: Land Cover Percentage in the New River Basin .............................................................ES.10 Figure ES-19: Yearly Mean & Median of All pH Samples in the New River Basin (1997-2009) ..............ES.12 ChaPteR 1 Figure 1-1: North Fork New River Watershed (0505000101) .....................................................................1.2 Figure 1-3: Example of a Use Support and Monitoring Box ........................................................................1.3 Figure 1-2: Use Support Categories for Biological Ratings .........................................................................1.3 Figure 1-4: Yearly Average Flow Rates (cfs) of the USGS Gage Station in the New River Basin Between 1997 & 2008 ..........................................................................................................................................1.4 Figure 1-6: Current Benthic Site Ratings .....................................................................................................1.5 Figure 1-5: Benthic Stations Color Coded by Current Rating in the North Fork New River Watershed .......1.5 Figure 1-7: Change in Benthic Site Ratings ................................................................................................1.5 Figure 1-9: Current Fish Community Site Ratings .......................................................................................1.6 Figure 1-8: Fish Community Stations Color Coded by Current Rating in the North Fork New River Watershed ..............................................................................................................................................................1.6 Figure 1-10: Change in Fish Community Site Ratings ................................................................................1.6 Figure 1-11: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the pH Standards (2003-2008) ........................................1.7 Figure 1-12: Summarized pH Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000101 ...........................................................................................................................................1.7 Figure 1-13: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the Turbidity Standard (2003-2008) .................................1.8 Figure 1-15: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the DO Standard (2003-2008) .........................................1.8 Figure 1-14: Summarized Turbidity Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000101 ...........................................................................................................................................1.8 xiii Figure 1-16: Summarized DO Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000101 ...........................................................................................................................................1.8 Figure 1-17: Percentage of Samples Exceeding Temperature Standard (2003-2008) ................................1.9 Figure 1-18: Summarized Temperature Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000101 ...........................................................................................................................................1.9 Figure 1-19: Percentage of Samples with Elevated FCB Levels (2003-2008) .............................................1.9 Figure 1-20: Summarized Fecal Coliform Bacteria Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000101 with Overlaying Flow .............................................................................1.10 Figure 1-21: North Fork New River Approved ORW & HQW Reclassification ...........................................1.12 Figure 1-22: Impacts from Improper Land Clearing Activity Upstream. Looking Upstream (Left), Looking Downstream (Right). ............................................................................................................................1.23 Figure 1-23: Post Streambank Stabilization Restoration Project. Looking Upstream (Left), Looking Downstream (Right). ............................................................................................................................1.23 ChaPteR 2 Figure 2-1: South Fork New River/Fox Creek Watersheds (0505000102 & 0505000103)...........................2.2 Figure 2-3: Example of a Use Support and Monitoring Box ........................................................................2.3 Figure 2-2: Use Support Categories for Biological Ratings .........................................................................2.3 Figure 2-4: Yearly Average Flow Rates (cfs) of the USGS Gage Station in the New River Basin Between 1997 & 2008 ..........................................................................................................................................2.4 Figure 2-6: Current Benthic Site Ratings .....................................................................................................2.5 Figure 2-5: Benthic Stations Color Coded by Current Rating in the South Fork New River Watershed .......2.5 Figure 2-7: Change in Benthic Site Ratings ................................................................................................2.5 Figure 2-9: Current Fish Community Site Ratings .......................................................................................2.6 Figure 2-8: Fish Community Stations Color Coded by Current Rating in the South Fork New River Watershed .............................................................................................................................................2.6 Figure 2-10: Change in Fish Community Site Ratings ................................................................................2.6 Figure 2-11: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the pH Standards (2003-2008) ........................................2.7 Figure 2-12: Summarized pH Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000102 ...........................................................................................................................................2.7 Figure 2-13: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the Turbidity Standard (2003-2008) .................................2.8 Figure 2-15: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the DO Standard (2003-2008) .........................................2.8 Figure 2-14: Summarized Turbidity Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000102 ...........................................................................................................................................2.8 Figure 2-16: Summarized DO Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000102 ...........................................................................................................................................2.8 Figure 2-17: Percentage of Samples Exceeding Temperature Standard (2003-2008) ................................2.9 Figure 2-18: Summarized Temperature Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000102 ...........................................................................................................................................2.9 Figure 2-19: Percentage of Samples with Elevated FCB Levels (2003-2008) .............................................2.9 Figure 2-20: Summarized Fecal Coliform Bacteria Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000102 with Overlaying Flow .............................................................................2.10 Figure 2-21: Yearly pH Averages for K3250000 Between 1998 and 2009 .................................................2.16 Figure 2-22: Stream & Buffer Restoration Efforts Along South Fork (Left: March 2010; Right: May 2010) 2.17 Figure 2-23: Stream Restoration Efforts Along East Fork (Left: Before; Right: After) ................................2.19 xiv Figure 2-24: Riparian Buffer Restoration Efforts Along Boone Creek (Left: March 2007; Right: October 2008) ............................................................................................................................................................2.21 ChaPteR 3 Figure 3-1: Little River Watershed (0505000104 & 0505000106) ...............................................................3.2 Figure 3-3: Example of a Use Support and Monitoring Box ........................................................................3.3 Figure 3-2: Use Support Categories for Biological Ratings .........................................................................3.3 Figure 3-4: Yearly Average Flow Rates (cfs) of the USGS Gage Station in the New River Basin Between 1997 & 2008 ..........................................................................................................................................3.4 Figure 3-6: Current Benthic Site Ratings .....................................................................................................3.5 Figure 3-5: Benthic Stations Color Coded by Current Rating in the Little River Watershed ........................3.5 Figure 3-7: Change in Benthic Site Ratings ................................................................................................3.5 Figure 3-9: Current Fish Community Site Ratings .......................................................................................3.6 Figure 3-8: Fish Community Stations Color Coded by Current Rating in the Little River Watershed ...........3.6 Figure 3-10: Change in Fish Community Site Ratings ................................................................................3.6 Figure 3-11: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the pH Standards (2003-2008) ........................................3.7 Figure 3-12: Summarized pH Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000104 ...........................................................................................................................................3.7 Figure 3-13: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the Turbidity Standard (2003-2008) .................................3.8 Figure 3-15: Percentage of Samples Exceeding the DO Standard (2003-2008) ........................................3.8 Figure 3-14: Summarized Turbidity Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000104 ...........................................................................................................................................3.8 Figure 3-16: Summarized DO Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000104 ...........................................................................................................................................3.8 Figure 3-17: Percentage of Samples Exceeding Water Temperature Standard (2003-2008) ......................3.9 Figure 3-18: Summarized Temperature Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000104 ...........................................................................................................................................3.9 Figure 3-19: Percentage of Samples with Elevated FCB Levels (2003-2008) .............................................3.9 Figure 3-20: Summarized Fecal Coliform Bacteria Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000102 with Overlaying Flow .............................................................................3.10 Figure 3-21: EEP Stream Restoration. (Left: Before; Right: Mid Construction) ........................................3.21 ChaPteR 4 Figure 4-1: Photos Taken of the Waste/Tailings Piles During a Site Visit in December 2006 by DWQ. (Top Left: Top of Impoundment Facing the Settling Pond; Top Right: Looking North East Across the Impoundment; Bottom: On Impoundment Looking Back Across Tailings Pile.) ....................................4.1 Figure 4-2: Tailings Impoundment and Ponds Features and Longitudinal Profile (Black & Veatch, 2008) ..4.2 Figure 4-3: Sample Locations for the 319 Watershed Restoration Plan Project Funded by the 319 Grant* 4.4 Figure 4-4: Averages for Five Monitoring Sites Sampled for the Ore Knob 319 Project .............................4.5 Figure 4-5: Photos of Tailings Pile and Downstream Taken During a Site Visit in July 2007 by DWQ. (Top Left: Top of Larger Dam Facing the Settling Basin; Top Right: Settling Basin Looking Back Towards Larger Dam; Bottom Left: Top of Larger Dam Looking Back Across Tailings Pile; Bottom Right: Ore Knob Branch Downstream of Settling Basin Culvert.) ....................................................................................4.7 ChaPteR 6 Figure 6-1: Results of the NCNR’s New River Builder Program (Left: 2005; Right: 2009) ...........................6.2 Figure 6-2: NC ACSP BMPs Implemented in the New River Basin Between 1-2003 & 10-2010 .................6.7 xv taBle of aPPeNdiCes Appendix 1: North Fork New River Watershed (0505000101) £1-A: Use Support Ratings for All Monitored Waters £1-B: Biological (Benthic & Fish) Sampling Site Data Sheets £1-C: Ambient Monitoring Systems Station Data Sheets £1-D: 12-Digit Subwatershed Maps Appendix 2: South Fork New River & Fox Creek Watersheds (0505000102 & 0505000103) £2-A: Use Support Ratings for All Monitored Waters £2-B: Biological (Benthic & Fish) Sampling Site Data Sheets £2-C: Ambient Monitoring Systems Station Data Sheets £2-D: 12-Digit Subwatershed Maps Appendix 3: Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds (0505000104 & 0505000106) £3-A: Use Support Ratings for All Monitored Waters £3-B: Biological (Benthic & Fish) Sampling Site Data Sheets £3-C: Ambient Monitoring Systems Station Data Sheets £3-D: 12-Digit Subwatershed Maps Appendix 4: Permit Tables £NPDES: Point Source Discharge Permits £NPDES: Non-Discharge Permits £Stormwater Permits £Animal Operation Permits xvi Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.1 RiveR BasiN desCRiPtioN Despite its name, the New River is part of the oldest river system in North America and flows through rugged terrain containing metamorphic rocks that are 1.1 billion years old. The basin is located within the Blue Ridge Province of the Appalachian Mountains in the northwest corner of the state in Watauga, Ashe and Alleghany counties (Figure ES-2). It is the state’s fourth smallest river basin, encompassing a 765 square-mile watershed drained by approximately 825 miles of streams. The New River originates at the confluence of the North Fork New River and South Fork New River in northeastern Ashe County, flowing northeast into Virginia before eventually flowing into the Kanawha River (Figure ES-1). The New River meanders across the North Carolina-Virginia state line four times before its confluence with the Little River, the only other major tributary originating in North Carolina, which also flows north into Virginia. Eventually, waters in this basin flow to the Gulf of Mexico via the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. The New River is in the Kanawh River basin, which has nine 8-digit (subbasin) Hydrologic Units (HUs). Of those, only the lower portion of the Upper New River subbasin is located in North Carolina (Figure ES- 1). For this reason, this basin plan is segmented by 10-digit Watersheds. There are five 10-digit HUs within the North Carolina portion of the basin (Figure ES-2). The South Fork New River and the Fox Creek watersheds are combined into one chapter, as are the Little River and the Chestnut Creek watersheds. This plan includes detailed water quality information for each watershed in New River Basin in Chapters 1 through 3. Other topics concerning water quality in the North Carolina portion of the basin are discussed in Chapters 4 through 7. Throughout this Executive Summary are little blue boxes containing success stories from the Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSRO) which occurred during this planning cycle (2005-2010). These success stories represent only a small portion of what the WSRO has accomplished in its efforts to restore and protect water quality in this basin. exeCutive summaRy for thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN PLaN BasiN at a glaNCe CouNties Alleghany, Ashe & Watauga muNiCiPalities Blowing Rock, Boone, Jefferson, Lansing, Sparta, & West Jefferson eCoRegioNs Amphibolite Mountains, New River Plateau, Southern Crystaline Ridges and Mountains, Southern Metasedimentary Mountains & Southern Sedimentary Ridges PeRmitted faCilities NPDES WWTP: ......................23 Major: ..........................................3 Minor: ........................................20 Non-Discharge Facilities: ........13 Stormwater: ............................10 General: ....................................10 Individual: ....................................0 Animal Operations: ...................9 PoPulatioN 2000: ............................61,713 2010: .................Coming Soon laNd CoveR Developed: ..........................6.8% Forest: ..............................66.4% Agriculture: ........................26.8% Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.2 fIgurE ES-1: thE ENtIrE NEW rIVEr - KaNaWh rIVEr BaSIN (hyDroLogIc uNIt coDE 050500) Elk C r e e k W a l k e r C r eek Big R eedI s la n d C r N ew River VIRGINIA NORTHCAROLINA WESTVIRGINIA ElkRi v er New Riv e r GreenbrierRiverGauleyRiver Blu estone River Ree d Creek M e ad o w Riv er Kan a w h a R i ver Big C o a l R i v e r P o c atalic o River Cripple C r e e k South F o r k N e w R i v er LittleRiver F o x C r e e k NorthF o r k N e w R i ver Ne w Ri ver Legend STATES 8-Digit Subbasins Coal Elk Gauley Greenbrier Lower Kanawha Lower New Middle New Upper Kanawha Upper New Major Hydrology Entire Kanawh River Basin NC Division of Water QualityBasinwide Planning Unit February 2011 0 10 20 30 405 Miles® IN NC VA OH KY SCGA TN WV AL NJ Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.3 fIgurE ES-2: North caroLINa PortIoN of thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Sp a r t a Bl o w i n g Ro c k Bo o n e La n s i n g AS H E WA T A U G A AL L E G H A N Y Nort h F o rk N e w R i v er So u t h ForkNewRiver Little R iv e r N e w River New R. 0 3 6 9 1 2 1. 5 Mil e s NC N e w R i v e r B a s i n NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 ) 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d s No r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r So u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r Fo x C r e e k Lit t l e R i v e r Ch e s t n u t C r e e k Le g e n d 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r y Wh a t i s t h i s n u m b e r & wh a t h a p p e n e d t o t h e su b b a s i n n u m b e r s ? Cl i c k h e r e t o f i n d o u t . Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.4 wateR Quality data oveRview Monitoring stream flow, aquatic biology and chemical/physical parameters are a large part of the basinwide planning process. More detailed information about DWQ monitoring and the effects each parameter has on water quality is discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning document. stReam flow During the past 10 years, the basin experienced prolonged droughts, in 1998-2002 and 2007- 2008, and exceptionally high flows resulting from the remnants of hurricanes (Figure ES-3). 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. fIgurE ES-3: yEarLy aVEragE fLoW ratES of thE uSgS gagE StatIoN IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN, 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 BiologiCal data Biological samples were collected during the spring and summer months of 2004 and 2008 by DWQ- Environmental Sciences Section as part of the five year cycle basinwide sampling efforts and for special studies. Overall, 93 biological sampling sites were monitored and rated within the New River Basin. Each site is given a rating/bioclassification which is then used to determine the streams aquatic life use support category (Figure ES-4). That category is listed on the Integrated Report. fIgurE ES-4: uSE SuPPort catEgory chart 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 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure ES-5 and color coded based on its current rating. As seen in the map, the majority of samples taken in the basin received an Excellent or Good rating. The few Fair or Poor ratings are found around urban areas. These sites and their corresponding ratings are discussed in further detail in the watershed chapters. fIgurE ES-5: BENthIc StatIoNS coLor coDED By currENt ratINg IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( Most Recent Benthos Site Ratings Fair Good Good-Fair 10-Digit Watersheds 12-Digit Subwatersheds 0505000101 0505000102 0505000103 0505000104 0505000106 Excellent Poor Not Impaired Not Rated !( !( !( Major Hydrology !( !( !( !( As seen in Figure ES-6, 78% of the 82 benthic sampling events received a Supporting rating (See Figure ES-4) and only 5% received an Impaired rating. These ratings are similar to the previous sampling cycle. Figure ES-7 is a comparison of benthic site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall basinwide shifts in ratings. Thirteen percent of the samples improved their rating from the previous cycle and 11% declined in rating. Majority of the stations (not including new stations) showed no change, indicating a somewhat stable community throughout the basin over the past ten years. fIgurE ES-6: PErcENtS of currENt BENthIc ratINgS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired fIgurE ES-7: PErcENt chaNgE IN BENthIc ratINgS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN Improved Declined No Change New Station BeNthiC samPliNg summaRy £Total Stations Monitored .....71 £Total Samples Taken ...........82 £Stations Monitored Twice ....10 £Number of New Stations .....32 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.6 Fish Community Sampling Each fish community station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure ES-8 and color coded based on its current rating. Ten 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. fIgurE ES-8: fISh coMMuNIty StatIoNS coLor coDED By currENt ratINg IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( 10-Digit Watersheds Most Recent Benthos Site Ratings 12-Digit Subwatersheds 0505000101 0505000102 0505000103 0505000104 0505000106 Major Hydrology Excellent Poor Not Impaired Not Rated Fair Good-Fair Good !( !( !( !( !( !( !( As shown in Figure ES-9, 64% of the 22 fish community sampling events received a Supporting rating (See Figure ES-4). Six of the samples were Not Rated; therefore, the segments are neither Impaired nor Supporting. Figure ES-10 is a comparison of fish community site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall basinwide shifts in ratings. The fish community in this basin has remained stable with nearly no change in ratings between the last sampling cycle and the current cycle. fIgurE ES-9: PErcENtS of currENt fISh coMMuNIty ratINgS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired fIgurE ES-10: PErcENt chaNgE IN fISh coMMuNIty ratINgS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN Improved Declined No Change New Station fish Com. samPliNg summaRy £Total Stations Monitored .....22 £Total Samples Taken ...........22 £Number of New Stations .....10 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.7 For more information about biological data in this basin, see the 2009 New River Basinwide Assessment Report. Detailed data sheets for each sampling site can be found in the corresponding Watershed Chapter Appendix. amBieNt data During the 2004-2008 sampling cycle, DWQ collected samples at six Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) stations with ten or more samples to be used for use support assessment. None of these stations were exceeding the state standards and are Supporting for all parameters sampled. However, there are a few parameters of concern within the New River Basin, including turbidity, pH, fecal coliform bacteria and copper, which are discussed below. Turbidity All six stations had at least a small percent of samples that exceeded the state standard of 50 NTUs. As seen in Figure ES-11, the North Fork New River station and the New River station both had between 7 and 10% of samples exceeding the standard. Overall, turbidity exceedances in the basin have not increased or declined in number of occurrences; however, the value of those exceedances did increase. This indicates either an increase in land disturbances, insufficient sediment and erosion control measures, or a combination of both. Construction sites, mining operations, agricultural operations, logging operations and excessive stormwater flow off impervious surfaces are all potential sources. Turbidity violations demonstrates the importance of protecting and conserving stream buffers and natural areas. fIgurE ES-12: turBIDIty MEaN & MEDIaN of StatIoNS WIthIN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Median Mean fIgurE ES-11: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES ExcEEDINg thE turBIDIty StaNDarD (2004-2008) 7 % - 10 % < 7 % 0 % > 10 % Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.8 pH Three of the six stations in the basin had between 1 and 7% of samples exceeding the high end of the state’s pH standard of 9 (Figure ES-13). Even though there were minimal exceedances during this cycle, the basinwide pH level is increasing. Figure ES-14 shows the average pH levels in 1998 around 6.7 and increasing to above 7.7 by 2008. Possible causes of this steady increase in pH levels are discussed later in this Chapter under Basinwide Water Quality Issues and Other Information. fIgurE ES-14: Ph MEaN & MEDIaN of StatIoNS WIthIN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.9 pH Median Mean Fecal Coliform Bacteria (FCB) 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. fIgurE ES-13: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES ExcEEDINg thE Ph StaNDarD (2004-2008) 7 % - 10 % < 7 % 0 % > 10 % fIgurE ES-15: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES ExcEEDINg thE fcB ScrEENINg crItErIa (2004-2008) 7 % - 10 % < 7 % 0 % > 10 % Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.9 DWQ uses a screening criteria of 400 colonies/100 ml to determine the need for a 5-in-30 study. Figure ES-15 shows the percentage of samples at each station that exceeded this screening criteria. Stations with over 20% of samples exceeding this criteria that are also recreational waters are placed on the priority list. None of the stations in the New River Basin exceeded the 20%. While the North Fork New River station had exactly 20%, it is not a recreational water and therefore will not be placed on the priority list. The geometric mean is used to calculate the average of FCB values. This average for the basin between 1997 and 2009 can be seen in Figure ES-16. The chart shows that even though there were fewer number of screening criteria exceedances, the overall geometric mean is slightly higher during this sampling cycle than the previous cycle. This could be due to a number of reasons including an increase in animal operations with stream access, sanitary sewer overflows, failing septic systems, or straight pipes as noted in the Water Quantity Chapter. However, the specific reasons for the increase during this cycle is unknown at this time. fIgurE ES-16: yEarLy gEoMEtrIc MEaN of aLL fcB SaMPLES IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 FC B ( c o l o n i e s / 1 0 0 m l ) Geometricmean Specific information about ambient monitoring methodology, seasonal variation and data sheets for ambient stations in this basin can be found in the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report. Each ambient parameter and its potential effects on water quality and aquatic life are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.10 PoPulatioN & laNd CoveR Urbanization poses one of the greatest threats to aquatic resources. Small towns and communities are usually not considered urban centers, but even small concentrations of urbanization can have significant impacts on local waterways. For example, a one-acre parking lot produces 16 times more runoff than a one-acre meadow (Schueler and Holland, 2000). A wide variety of studies over the past decade converge on a central point: when more than 10 percent of the acreage in a watershed is covered in roads, parking lots, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces, the rivers and streams within the watershed become seriously degraded. Studies show that if urbanized areas cover more than 25 percent of a watershed, the decline in the health of the ecosystem is irreversible (Beach, 2002; Galli, 1991). PoPulatioN The 2000 census evaluated the population of the North Carolina portion of the New River basin is 61,713. This is an increase of roughly 5,000 from the 1990 census. The figures shows how the population is distributed throughout the basin by 10-digit watersheds in 2000 and 2010. All three counties in the basin (Alleghany, Ashe and Watauga) are estimated to grow by 7 to 8 percent by 2010, based on the 2000 census. This section will be updated when the 2010 census data becomes available. fIgurE ES-17: 2000 PoPuLatIoN PEr SQuarE MILE By 10-DIgIt hucS fIgurE ES-18: 2010 PoPuLatIoN PEr SQuarE MILE By 10-DIgIt hucS Coming Soon Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC): DWQ has recently made a change from the State-designated subbasin lines (e.g., 05-07-02) to the nationally recognized HUC lines. This Plan is organized by HUCs to provide, not only a detailed look at a particular waterbody, but also how that waterbody fits into the larger watershed picture. Table ES-1 provides a brief description of the different HUCs. There are five 10-digit watersheds within the New River Basin (0505000101, 0505000102, 0505000103, 0505000104 & 0505000106). Watersheds 0505000102 and 0505000103 are grouped together into one chapter because of the small size of 0505000103. This is done for 0505000104 & 0505000106, as well. Each chapter is then broken down even further into 12-digit subwatersheds, providing a more local water quality analysis. A comparison map of the State designated subbasin lines used in the past verses the new nationally recognized HUC lines is included in the Maps Chapter. taBLE ES-1: huc QuIcK rEfErENcE huc DIgIt huc NaME aVEragE SIzE1 2-digit Region 177,560 4-digit Subregion 16,800 6-digit Basin 10,596 8-digit Subbasin 700 10-digit Watershed 227 12-digit Subwatershed 40 1 In approximate square miles Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.11 laNd CoveR A large portion of land cover in the basin is forested (Figure ES-19). The North Fork New River watershed has the largest percent of forested area, as well as the largest amount of land conservation acreage (16,000 ac.). Moving east across the basin, the forested areas begin to transition into agriculture. The Little River watershed has the highest percent of agriculture, which is largely Christmas tree production, and contains all nine animal operation permits. Majority of developed land in this basin is in the South Fork New River watershed (8%). Figure ES-20 shows the percentage of each land cover category and Figure ES-19 displays the location of those categories. fIgurE ES-19: 2001 LaND coVEr IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN Legend 2001 Land Cover 10-Digit HUC Forested Agriculture Wetlands Open Water Developed Barren Land Gasslands fIgurE ES-20: LaND coVEr PErcENtagE IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN Water 0% Developed 7%Barren 0% Forest 68% Grasslands 1% Agriculture24% Wetlands 0% wateRshed wateR Quality summaRies NoRth foRk New RiveR wateRshed (0505000101) The North Fork New River watershed has some of the best water quality in the basin and has had little change between the last planning cycle and the current cycle. The large areas of forest, minimal agriculture and minimal developed areas have produced a minimal human impact to water quality. In efforts to protect the pristine nature of this watershed, a watershed- wide study was conducted to determine if these waters could be reclassified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) (BF- 20090316). As a result, almost the entire watershed was reclassified as ORW. For a map of the affected area and a more detailed discussion see the Additional Studies section in the North Fork New River Watershed Chapter. Only one stream in this watershed is on the Impaired Waters list. The Little Buffalo Creek was originally listed in 2000. south foRk New RiveR/fox CReek wateRsheds (0505000102 & 03) The South Fork New River/Fox Creek watershed contains seven out of the nine Impaired stream segments within the New River basin. Four of those segments include Naked Creek, Ore Knob Branch, Peak and Little Peak Creeks suCCess stoRy #1 Five hundred feet of a UT to the North Fork, which is a class C+ water, was being impacted by sedimentation. The WSRO’s DWQ staff worked closely with their Land Quality Section counterparts to ensure proper measures were taken to bring the site back into compliance with sites permits. The sediment was removed from the stream and all 500 feet of the UT were properly restored. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.12 which have been on the Impaired Waters list for several years. The remaining three Impaired segments (two segments of the South Fork New River and the East Fork South Fork New River) were added to the 2008 Impaired Waters list. These two watersheds have the largest population of the five watersheds in the New River basin and contain more of an urban and agriculture land cover mix. Several waterbodies in the watershed currently have pristine water quality conditions and are in need of protection to maintain that level of quality as land cover changes from forest to urban or agriculture areas. little RiveR/ChestNut CReek wateRsheds (0505000104 & 06) The Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds combined are the smallest watersheds in the New River basin. The only municipality is the Town of Sparta. It has the highest percent of agricultural land cover of any watershed in the basin and contains all nine animal operation permits within the basin. Waters in these watersheds are slightly impacted by human activities, but 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 in Little River & Chestnut Creek Watershed Chapter. BasiNwide wateR Quality issues & otheR iNfoRmatioN RisiNg Ph levels thRoughout the BasiN Data collected between 1997 and 2009 at the six AMS stations within the basin all showed a similar increases in pH levels. pH levels in surface water are influenced by many different natural factors: drought; heavy rains; algae or other aquatic plant growth; and decomposition of organic material among others. These levels are also affected by human influences such as discharging acidic effluent; atmospheric deposition; and stormwater runoff containing excessive nutrients. Monthly data at each of the six site were averaged per year and graphed in Figure ES-14 where this increase can clearly be seen. The presence of periphyton was noted several times during this sampling cycle. This algae- like growth flourishes in water columns with elevated nutrient levels and ample sunlight. These conditions during periods of drought can greatly accelerate aquatic plant growth. The photosynthesis process uses CO2 within the water column, which can cause pH levels to increase. Some areas within the basin have recorded somewhat elevated nutrient levels and many of the basin’s streams are exposed to full sunlight. This may be one possible cause of the increasing pH levels. Other possible causes of the increasing levels in the basin could be atmospheric deposition, groundwater influences or precipitation influences. However, the exact reasons for this basinwide increase is unknown at this time. suCCess stoRy #2 It was brought to the attention of the WSRO DWQ staff that a 2,000 foot stretch of a UT to Three Top Creek, which is classified as Trout Waters, was being impacted by sedimentation. DWQ and Land Quality Section staff in the WSRO worked closely to ensure all erosion control measures were properly installed and adequate vegetation was in place. After those efforts were made, the 2,000 feet of stream began recovering. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.13 Proper riparian buffers are recommended throughout the basin to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, which can include nutrients from farm or lawn fertilizers, as well as impacts from acid rain. Trees planted within the riparian buffers are also beneficial for shading streams and reducing water temperatures. It is recommended to continue monitoring pH levels within the basin and investigate possible causes. foRmatioN of the New RiveR CoalitioN In June 2010, DWQ met with stakeholders in the basin to promote and discuss the Coalition Program. Since that time, several more meetings have occurred with a core group of environmental stewards emerging to discuss the possibilities and details of developing a monitoring coalition. This group is continuing to work with DWQ and taking the initiative to form a successful monitoring coalition that will be specific to the members interests and watershed specific issues. Additional information about DWQ’s Monitoring Coalition Program and current coalitions can be found on the Environmental Science Section web pages. ChRistmas tRee faRmiNg North Carolina leads the nation in Fraser fir production and is second in Christmas tree production behind the Pacific Northwest. An estimated 50 million trees were grown on 25,000 acres in 2006. The Christmas tree industry is estimated to produce $100 million in cash receipts and $12 million from value-added products such as wreaths, roping and greenery. Fraser fir is native to the highest elevation mountains in western NC, southwestern Virginia and eastern Tennessee. Ashe, Alleghany and Watauga counties are among the top five counties in the state, producing 88% of all Christmas trees within NC. The trees are grown at an elevation of at least 3,000 feet and on steep slopes. An average six to seven foot tall tree is harvested usually at 10 to 15 years of age. Majority of the trees are fertilized by hand once or twice a year, though some are fertilized by airplane. Mountain soils are typically low in phosphorus and calcium and often below the optimal pH range of 5.5 to 5.8. Therefore, farmers add nutrients, chemicals and other agents to adjust the soil to more favorable conditions. One of the largest impacts these farms can have on water quality happens shortly after harvesting the trees as the harvest exposes acres of disturbed soil on steep slopes. The first rain fall event often causes major sedimentation and degradation of streams if proper measures are not taken. An example of this can be seen in the Little Phoenix Creek section of the South Fork & Fox Creek Watershed Chapter. However, extensive efforts have been made by local Soil & Water Conservation Districts, NC State University, local watershed groups, and others to produce educational materials and provide funding and BMP installation assistance to reduce those impacts. In 2003, the NC Agricultural Cost Share Program (ACSP)adopted a new best management practice, Christmas Tree Conservation Cover BMP. The purpose of this practice is to plant ground cover between and under trees. This not only keeps soil in place during growth and harvesting of the trees but also help prevent tall and obnoxious weed growth. A large number of farms are now using this ground cover technic. suCCess stoRy #3 DWQs WSRO was informed of a small amount of sediment impacting 3,000 feet of two UTs to Helton Creek, which are classified as Trout Waters. The WSRO and the Division of Forest Resources (Lenoir Office) staffs worked with the landowner to implement proper forestry and water quality best management practices to stabilize the site. Once these practices were in place, the sensitive trout waters began recovering. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.14 It is recommended that farmers continue to work with the ACSP to apply ground cover as well as taking advantage of the soil testing that is provided free-of-charge by the state. Having the soil tested will help farmers determine the appropriate amount of nutrients and other agents to apply to the soil, reducing excess amounts from running off the land during a storm event and into streams. The agricultural community has developed several educational materials specific to environmentally safe Christmas tree farming practices that are available to the public online. PRimaRy & suPPlemeNtal fReshwateR ClassifiCatioNs All surface waters in the state are assigned at least one primary classification and may also be assigned one or more supplemental classifications. A list of classifications with a description of requirements can be found in Chapter 2 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning. Table ES-1 provides a summary of waterbody classifications for named streams in the New River basin as of March 2011. Maps locating High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters, and Water Supply Watersheds, as well as, streams classified as Trout Waters within the basin are in the Maps Chapter. For the most up-to-date classifications visit DWQ’s Classifications and Standards Unit webpage. taBLE ES-1: SuMMary of WatErBoDy cLaSSIfIcatIoNS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN PrIMary SuPPLEMENtaL c B WS-II WS-IV WS-V hQW orW tr ‘+’1 Named Stream Miles 175.6 102.9 29.8 64.1 21.8 122.8 315.7 626 360.2 1 - The ‘+’ symbol indicates the waters subject to the New River basin special management strategy. Approval of North Fork New River Watershed Reclassification: The reclassification was presented to the EMC in September 2010, and the rule went into effect December 1, 2010. The details of the reclassifications are discussed in the North Fork New River Watershed Chapter. The majority of the North Fork New River Watershed received the Outstanding Resource Waters supplemental classification. oN-site wastewateR tReatmeNt systems (sePtiC systems) A North Carolina Agricultural Research Service report completed in 2007 provided information on potential nitrogen contributions from on-site wastewater systems for each river basin. In 1990, the New River basin had a septic system density of 24 systems/mi2, less than the EPA threshold of 40 systems/mi2. These results based on 1990 census data of 36,905 people using septic systems yield a maximum nitrogen (N) loading of 369,049 lbs/yr and N loading rate of 491 lbs/mi2/yr. These numbers reflect the total N discharged to the soil from the septic system use and does not account for N removed because of soil processes and plant uptake (Pradhan et al. 2007). The full study can be viewed at Potential Nitrogen Contributions from On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems to North Carolina’s River Basins and Sub-basins. suCCess stoRy #4 The DWQ WSRO noticed 200 feet of a UT to Cranberry Creek was being impacted by sedimentation. After the appropriate steps were taken by the WSRO, the sediment was removed from the stream. The 200 feet of C+ classified waters began recovery once restoration efforts were completed. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.15 dwQ BasiNwide ReCommeNdatioNs & PRioRities BasiNwide ReCommeNdatioNs Update of 7Q10 Flows in NPDES Permits It is important that 7Q10 flow values be updated to include changing climatic conditions and water withdrawals that impact stream flow conditions. All NPDES permitted facilities use 7Q10s as critical flow in determining permit limits for toxicants. These critical flow values determine permit limits for all NPDES facilities and need to be reviewed as the permits come up for renewal. Currently, a 7Q10 is only evaluated in the initial application of the permit and upon expansion. Low flow conditions induced by drought impact the health of aquatic life, as demonstrated in this basin for roughly five years between 1997 and 2008 (see Figure ES-3). Droughts, as well as the demand on water resources, are very likely to increase; therefore, the reevaluation of stream flow will become more critical to water quality within the next decade or so. DWQ will work with DWR, USGS and other agencies to discuss the need and resource availability to update 7Q10 values. Conduct Study to Determine the Source of Increasing pH Levels Across the New River basin, pH levels have been gradually rising since about 2001. Possible reasons for this occurrence are discussed above. It is recommended that a multi-agency group, consisting of state and local level stakeholders, be formed to determine the most effective and efficient way to conduct this study. Elimination of Straight Pipes & Failing Septic Systems In the New River basin, wastewater from many households is not treated at a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Instead, it is treated on-site through the use of permitted septic systems. However, wastewater from some homes illegally discharges directly into streams through what is known as a “straight pipe”. In some cases, wastewater can also enter streams through failing septic systems. In highly susceptible areas, wastewater from failing septic systems or straight pipes can contaminate a drinking water supply or recreational waters with nutrients, disease pathogens and endocrine disturbing chemicals. From 2000 to 2003, the Appalachian District Health Department, in partnership with DENRs Wastewater Discharge Elimination (WaDE) Program and NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), inspected nearly 2,800 homes. Of those households, 625 had either a failing septic system or a straight pipe. Forty-five percent of those homes have been corrected. DWQ supports the need for additional funding assistance to complete the remaining 55% of failing septic systems and straight pipe corrections. Basinwide Riparian & Trout Water Buffer Educational Efforts One of the most effective ways of reducing pollutants in stormwater runoff in a non-urban setting is through riparian buffers. Many of these buffers are removed for aesthetics, farming needs, or recreational purposes. Educational efforts to promote the usefulness of riparian buffers have proven successful among some agricultural communities and should be extended to the general public and local businesses. suCCess stoRy #5 An 1,100 foot UT of Call Creek, which is Class Trout and ORW waters, received impacts from sedimentation after land clearing. The WSRO DWQ staff worked with the local Soil & Water Conservation District and others to determine the best way to stabilize the site. The turbidity in the Outstanding Resource and sediment sensitive waters cleared up immediately upon proper placement of vegetation and other stabilization measures. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.16 There are over 600 miles of designated Trout Waters in the New River basin. Educational efforts are recommended to inform the general public of the location of the Trout Waters in the basin, the importance of protecting those waters, and what actions are not allowed along these streams. A map of designated Trout Waters can be found in the Maps Chapter. The Clean Water Act 205(j) Grant is a possible funding source for local Council of Governments to explore for the production of these educational materials and for local stakeholders to discuss. BasiNwide stReam PRioRities Table ES-2 lists waters in the New River basin that DWQ has prioritized for restoration/protection needs of a particular streams water quality and aquatic habitat. The order of priority is not based solely on the severity of the steams impairment or impacts, but rather by the need for particular actions to be taken. A stream that is currently supporting its designated uses may be prioritized higher within this table than a stream that is currently Impaired. This is based on the level of active restoration/protection work being preformed in those drainage areas. Some Supporting streams may have a more urgent need for protection 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 recommended actions to be taken by DWQ and/or other environmental groups to ensure good water quality. Detailed information on each of these streams can be found in the corresponding watershed chapter. A stream’s watershed is identified Stream Name & HUC # column by the last four digits of its 10-Digit HUC number. £Chapter 1: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC: 0505000101); £Chapter 2: South Fork New River (HUC: 0505000102) & Fox Creek (HUC: 0505000103) Watersheds; and £Chapter 3: Little River (HUC: 0505000104) & Chestnut Creek (HUC: 0505000106) Watersheds. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.17 taBLE ES-2: PrIorItIzatIoN of WatErS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN (hIghESt to LoWESt PrIorIty) StrEaM NaME & (huc #)au#cLaSS.StrESSor SourcE StatuS actIoNS NEEDED South Fork New R. (SFNR) (0102) 10-1-(1), 10-1-(3.5)a & 10-1-(3.5)b WS-IV;CA;+ C;+C;+ Habitat Degradation, Nutrients, pH Construction, WWTP Impaired SS, SEC, NMC, P (Hellbender Salamander) Boone Cr. (Kraut Cr.) (0104) 10-1-4-4 C;Tr;+Habitat Degradation, Temperature, Turbidity, DO, Copper ASU Steam Station, Urban Impacts, Construction, Piped Streams Impacted DS, RBR, SC, E Little Buffalo Cr. (0101) 10-2-20-1 C;Tr:+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Zones), Elevated Nutrients WWTP, Urban Runoff, Piped Streams, Agriculture Impaired RBR, WRP, DS, E, Ag, NMC Crab Cr. (0104) 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. (0104)10-9-7 C;Tr Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers), Toxins, FCB, Nutrients, Turbidity Urban Impacts Impacted R, SC, SEC BMPs, RBR SFNR (0102)10-1-(33.5)B;ORW Habitat Degradation, Turbidity, pH, Nutrients, Copper Agriculture, Abandoned Mine Supporting RBR, Ag, NMC Naked Cr. (0102)10-1-32 C;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Turbidity, Toxins Construction, Golf Course, Urban Impacts Impaired SC, RBR, E, WRP, DS, SEC Middle Fork SFNR (0102) 10-1-2-(1), 10-1-2-(6), 10-1-2-(14) & 10-1-2-(15) WS-IV;+ WS-IV;Tr;+WS-IV;+ WS-IV;CA;+ Urban Impacts, Blowing Rock WTP Impacted M East Fork SFNR (0102) 10-1-3-(1), 10-1-3-(7) & 10-1-3-(8) WS-IV;Tr;+ WS-IV;+WS-IV;CA;+ Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Urban Impacts, Blowing Rock WTP Impaired RBR, M Obids Cr. (0102) 10-1-27-(1) 10-1-27-(2) C;Tr;+ WS-IV;Tr;+ Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Agriculture (Livestock access) Supporting Ag, RBR, E Pine Swamp Cr. (0102) 10-1-24 C;+Turbidity Stormwater Volume & Velocity Supporting RBR, Ag, E Cranberry Cr. (Mulberry Cr.) (0102) 10-1-37 B;Tr;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Nutrients Straight Channels, Agriculture Supporting R, Ag, RBR, E Prathers Cr. (0102) 10-1-38 B;Tr;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers)Nutrients Agriculture Impacted RBR, Ag, NMC 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). Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.18 StrEaM NaME & (huc #)au#cLaSS.StrESSor SourcE StatuS actIoNS NEEDED Norris Fork (0102) 10-1-10-2 C;Tr;+Turbidity Construction Supporting SEC BMPs Helton Cr. (0101) 10-2-27 C;ORW;Tr Sediment, Elevated Nutrients, Over Stocking Agriculture, Logging Impacted SS, Protection (Hellbender Sal.) SFNR (0102) 10-1-(20.5) & 10-1-(26)a WS-V;HQW WS-IV;HQW Supporting RBR, E Roan Cr (0102)10-1-31-(1)10-1-31-(1.5) 10-1-31-(2) C;Tr;+WS-IV;Tr;+ WS-IV;CA;Tr;+ Sedimentation Agriculture Supporting Ag, E, RBR Winkler Cr. (0102) 10-1-4-(1), 10-1-4-(2), 10-1-4-(3.5)a & 10-1-4-(3.5)b WS-II;HQW,Tr WS-II;HQW;Tr;CAC;Tr;+ C;Tr;+ Urban Impacts, Pipped Streams Supporting DS, M Elk Cr. (0104)10-6-(1) & 10-6-(2)C;Tr;+C;+Nutrients Agriculture Supporting Ag, E, NMC, SS Laurel Br. (0104) 10-9-10-2 C;Tr Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Golf Course Communities Supporting RBR, E, SC Grassy Cr. (0102) 10-3 C;Tr;+Nutrients, pH Agriculture, Straight Channels Impacted Ag, RBR Nathans Cr. (0102) 10-1-36 B;Tr;+Habitat Degradation Impacted M Pine Swamp Cr. (0104) 10-9-5 C;Tr Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Supporting RBR, Ag Three Top Cr. (0101) 10-2-13 C;ORW;Tr Turbidity Supporting SEC, RBR, Protection (Hellbender Sal.) Little Horse Cr. (0101) 10-2-21-8 C;ORW;Tr Habitat Degradation Upstream Erosion Supporting Ag, RBR SFNR (0102) 10-1-(3.5)c & 10-1-(14.5) C;+ C;+ Habitat Degradation, Turbidity, pH Poor Riparian Buffers Impacted M SFNR (0102) 10-1-(26)b & 10-1-(30) WS-IV;HQW WS-IV;HQW;CA pH, Turbidity, Nutrients Supporting SS Little Peak Cr. (0102) 10-1-35-4 B;Tr;+Toxins Abandoned Mine Impaired R - Currently Underway Ore Knob Br. (0102) 10-1-35-3 B;Tr;+Toxins Abandoned Mine Impaired R - Currently Underway Peak Cr. (0102) 10-1-35-(1), 10-1-35-(2)a & 10-1-35-(2) b C;Tr;+ B;Tr;+ B;Tr;+ Toxins Abandoned Mine Impaired R - Currently Underway New R. (0104) 10b C;ORW Turbidity, Copper, Zinc Impacted RBR Waterfalls Cr. (0104)10-9-4 C;Tr Habitat Degradation Agriculture Supporting RBR Class.: Classification (e.g., C, S, B, WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV, WS-V, Tr, HQW, ORW, SW, UWL) Stressor: Chemical parameters or physical conditions that at certain levels prevent waterbodies from meeting the standards for their designated use (e.g., low/high DO, nutrients, toxicity, habitat degradation, etc.). Source: The cause of the stressor. (Volume & Velocity: when a stream receives stormwater runoff at a much higher volume and velocity than it would naturally receive due to ditching, impervious surfaces, etc.) Status: Impaired, Impacted, Supporting, Improving Actions Needed: Restoration (R), Protection (P), Stormwater Controls (SC), Stressor Study (SS), Education (E), Local Ordinance (LO), Best Management Practices (BMPs), Sediment and Erosion Control BMPs (SEC), Species Protection Plan (SPP), Forestry BMPs (F), Agriculture BMPs (Ag), Nutrient Mgnt Controls (NMC), Riparian Buffer Restoration (RBR), Daylight Stream (DS), Monitoring (M), Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP). Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.19 StrEaM NaME & (huc #)au#cLaSS.StrESSor SourcE StatuS actIoNS NEEDED Moccasin Cr. (0104) 10-9-11 C Nutrients, Low DO Agriculture Supporting Ag, NMC Middle Fork Little Horse Cr. (0101) 10-2-21-8-1 C;ORW;Tr Habitat Degradation (Bank Erosion) Supporting RBR Long Shoals Cr. (0101) 10-2-25 C;ORW;Tr Supporting M Little R. (0104) 10-9-(1)a C;Tr Habitat Degradation, pH Supporting RBR Brush Cr. (0104) 10-9-10 C;Tr Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers), Nutrients Agriculture Supporting RBR, Ag Big Horse Cr. (0101) 10-2-21-(7), 10-2-21-(4.5) & 10-2-21-(1.5) C;ORW C;ORW;TrC;ORW;Tr Habitat Degradation (Riparian Zones) Supporting RBR North Fork New R. (NFNR) (0101) 10-2-(12)C;ORW Habitat Degradation, Turbidity Supporting Protection (Hellbender Sal.) Pine Orchard Cr. (0102) 10-1-15-1 C;Tr;+Turbidity Supporting RBR South Beaver Cr. (0102) 10-1-25-2 C;Tr;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Supporting RBR UT to Crab Cr. (0104)10-9-12ut8 C;Tr Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers)Straight Channels Supporting R - Currently Underway NFNR (0101) 10-2-(1)C;ORW;Tr Supporting P Big Laurel Cr. (0101) 10-2-14 C;ORW;Tr Supporting Protection (Hellbender Sal.) Piney Fork (0102) 10-1-37-3 B;Tr;+Improving M Hoskin Fork (0101)10-2-7 C;ORW;Tr Supporting None Class.: Classification (e.g., C, S, B, WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV, WS-V, Tr, HQW, ORW, SW, UWL) Stressor: Chemical parameters or physical conditions that at certain levels prevent waterbodies from meeting the standards for their designated use (e.g., low/high DO, nutrients, toxicity, habitat degradation, etc.). Source: The cause of the stressor. (Volume & Velocity: when a stream receives stormwater runoff at a much higher volume and velocity than it would naturally receive due to ditching, impervious surfaces, etc.) Status: Impaired, Impacted, Supporting, Improving Actions Needed: Restoration (R), Protection (P), Stormwater Controls (SC), Stressor Study (SS), Education (E), Local Ordinance (LO), Best Management Practices (BMPs), Sediment and Erosion Control BMPs (SEC), Species Protection Plan (SPP), Forestry BMPs (F), Agriculture BMPs (Ag), Nutrient Mgnt Controls (NMC), Riparian Buffer Restoration (RBR), Daylight Stream (DS), Monitoring (M), Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP). Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: E xEcu t IV E S uMM ar y 2 0 1 1 ES.20 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. Beach, D. 2002. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA. Galli, J. 1991. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Management Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Mary- land Department of Environment: Washington, D.C. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of Water Quality (DWQ). August 2004a. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Appli- cable 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. Supplemen- tal Guide to Basinwide Planning: A support document for basinwide water quality plans. Raleigh, NC. (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/about/supplementalguide) ____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Ecosystems Unit. April 2010. New River Basin Ambient Monitoring Systems Report (January 1, 2004 through Decem- ber 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. Basinwide Assessment Report: New River Basin. Raleigh, NC. (http://www.esb. enr.state.nc.us/documents/NewBasinwideFinal_09.pdf) ____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. March 2009. (BF-20090316) Results From Sampling of Sites in the North Fork New River Catchment to Support Potential HQW/ORW Reclassifications. Raleigh, NC. Schueler, T., and H.K. Holland. 2000. The Practice of Watershed Protection. Center for Water- shed Protection, Ellicott City, Maryland. Pate, Travis. 2009. Watershed Assessment in North Carolina: Building a Watershed Database with Population, Land Cover, and Impervious Cover Information. Master Theses, Univer- sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Pradhan, S. S., M. T. Hoover, R. E. Austin, and H. A. Devine. May 2007. Potential Nitrogen Contributions from On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems to North Carolina’s River Basins and Sub-basins. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service. Technical Bulletin 324. United States Department of Agriculture. National Information System for the Regional Inte- grated Pest Management. June 2008. Crop Profile for Christmas Trees in North Caro- lina (Mountains). Fletcher, NC. (http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/NC- christmastrees.pdf) Note: URL addresses for hyperlinks found in this plan are listed in the Acronyms & Definitions Chapter. 1.1 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : N o r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r W a t e r s h e d H U C 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 CHAPTER 1 NoRth foRk New RiveR wateRshed HUC 0505000101 Includes: Three Top Creek, Big Laurel Creek, Buffalo & Little Buffalo Creeks, Little & Big Horse Creeks & Helton Creek wateRshed at a glaNCe CouNties: Ashe & Watagua muNiCiPalities: Lansing & West Jefferson eCoRegioNs: Amphibolite Mountains, New River Plateau, Southern Crystaline Ridges and Mountains, & Southern Sedimentary Ridges PeRmitted faCilities: NPDES WWTP: ........................6 Major ...........................................0 Minor ...........................................6 Non-Discharge Facilities: ..........3 Stormwater: ..............................2 General .......................................2 Individual .....................................0 Animal Operations: ...................0 PoPulatioN: 2010: .................Coming Soon 2006 laNd CoveR: Developed .........................3.81% Forest ...............................81.1% Agriculture .......................14.98% Wetlands ...........................0.11% 2001 Impervious Surface ..0.24% geNeRal wateRshed desCRiPtioN This ten-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed, with an area of about 250 square miles, is the equivalent to DWQ’s old subbasin 05-07- 02 and contains the North Fork New River and its tributaries (See DWQ’s Old Subbasins to New HUC Conversion map in the Maps Chapter). The majority of the watershed lies within Ashe County, with the headwaters of the North Fork New River beginning in Watauga County and the headwaters of Big Horse Creek and Helton Creek beginning in Virginia. The North Fork New River flows in an east-northeast direction before it converges with the South Fork New River to form the New River. The land cover within this watershed is mostly forested (80%) with areas of agriculture (14%) and the least amount of developed land in the New River basin (3.7%). Rural residential properties and pasture lands are scattered throughout this watershed. Agricultural activities have historically consisted of pasture and cultivated croplands, but within the past 20 years has expanded to include Christmas tree farming. The majority of agricultural lands in this watershed are found along streambanks. Roughly 16,000 acres of conservation land are found in this watershed and include easements held by local watershed groups (Elk Knob State Park, Cherokee National Forest and Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust). This watershed’s population is centered mostly around the towns of Lansing and West Jefferson. Lansing’s population declined by 12% between 1990 and 2000, and was estimated to decline by another one percent by 2010 according to the 2000 census. West Jefferson’s population increased by 8% in 2000 and was estimated to increase by another 12% by 2010. 1.2 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 fIgu r E 1 - 1 : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) "à)"à) "à) "à)"à)"à) "à) "à)"à)"à) "à) "à) "à)"à)"à)"à) "à)"à) "à)"à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à)"à)"à) "à)"à) "à) [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ ¢¡ #* XY #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* KB 2 8 M i d dle ForkHC BigHorseCreek LongShoalsCr. BigLaurelCreek Buffalo C r e e k LittleHorseCreek N.ForkNewRiver Mill C r . LongHopeCreek Stagg C r . Hoski n F o r k Potato C r . RichHillCreek H elt onCreek Brus h F or k PineyCreek ThreeTopCreek L i t t leLaurelCreek RoundaboutCr. R i p s h i n Bran c h LittleBuffaloCr.L.Ph o e nix Cr.OldFiel dCr. Piney C r . RockCreek BigLaurelCreek R oaring Fork DixonCreek N.ForkNewR. N orth F o r k N e w River AS H E AL L E G H A N Y WA T A U G A Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n La n s i n g ¬«16 ¬«88 18 221 UV19 4 UV16 3 ¬«93 UV19 4 ¬«88 ¬«16 £¤22 1 £¤22 1 K7 5 0 0 0 0 0 KB 8 6 KB 2 7 KB 2 3 KB 6 3 KB 3 2 KB 2 6 KB 2 5 KB 3 1 KB 3 3 KB 3 0 KB 1 1 7 KB 1 3 8 KB 1 2 0 KB 1 2 7 KB 1 4 1 KB 1 3 5 KB 1 2 1 KB 1 2 3 KB 1 2 5 KB 1 3 6 KB 1 3 7 KB 1 3 4 KB 1 1 9 KB 1 2 2 KB 1 1 8 KB 2 9 KF 5 KF 1 KF 2 3 KF 1 0 KF 2 1 KF 2 2 0 2 4 6 8 1 Mi l e s Mo n i t o r i n g S i t e s Mi n o r W W D i s c h a r g e Hy d r o l o g y - U s e S u p p o r t Wa t e r s h e d B o u n d a r y Co u n t y B o u n d a r i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Pr i m a r y R o a d s #* Am b i e n t Fi s h C o m m u n i t y Su p p o r t i n g Im p a i r e d No D a t a Be n t h o s ¢¡[¡"à)Le g e n d Ma j o r W W D i s c h a r g e XY NP D E S P e r m i t s 1.3 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 wateRshed wateR Quality oveRview The North Fork New River watershed has some of the best water quality in the basin and water quality has changed little in the five years since the last planning cycle. The large areas of forest and minimal agriculture and urban areas create only a minimal human impact to water quality. In DWQ’s efforts to protect the pristine nature of this watershed, a watershed-wide study was conducted to determine if these waters could be reclassified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). As a result, almost the entire watershed was reclassified as ORW. For a map of the affected area and a more detailed discussion see the Additional Studies section below. Little Buffalo Creek, near West Jefferson, is the only Impaired water body in the watershed and was not included in the reclassification. wateR Quality data summaRy foR this wateRshed Monitoring stream flow, aquatic biology and chemical/physical parameters are a large part of the basinwide planning process. More detailed information about DWQ monitoring and the effects each parameter has on water quality is discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning document. uNdeRstaNdiNg the data Biological & Ambient Rating Converted to Use Support Category Biological (benthic and fish community) samples are given a bioclassification/rating based on the data collected at the site by DWQs Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). These bioclassifications include Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Not Impaired, Not Rated, Fair and Poor. For specific methodology defining how these rating are given see Benthic Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) or the Fish Community SOP. Once a rating is given, it is then translated into a Use Support Category (see Figure 1-2). Ambient monitoring data are analyzed based on the percent of samples exceeding the state standard for individual parameters for each site within a two-year period. If a standard is exceeded in greater than 10.0% of samples taken for a particular parameter, that stream segment is Impaired for that parameter. The fecal coliform bacteria parameter is the exception to the rule. See the Fecal Coliform Bacteria section in the Ambient Data portion below. For the purposes of this plan, any site with greater than 7.0% to 10.0% of samples not meeting a parameter’s standard will be considered Impacted. Each biological parameter (benthic and fish community) and each ambient parameter is assigned a Use Support Category based on its rating or percent exceedance. Definitions for each category can be found in Use Support Methodology Chapter. Each monitored stream segment is then given an overall category which reflects the highest individual parameter category. For example, using the data from Figure 1-3, the individual parameter categories would be as follows: Benthos - 5, Fish Community - 1, Turbidity - 5. Therefore, the overall category, which is reported on the Integrated Report, would be 5 (Impaired). An Integrated Report is developed by the state every two years and reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. fIgurE 1-2: uSE SuPPort catEgorIES for BIoLogIcaL ratINgS Biological Ratings Aquatic Life Use Support Excellent Supporting (Categories 1-2) Good Good-Fair Not Impaired Not Rated Not Rated (Category 3) Fair Impaired (Categories 4-5)Poor fIgurE 1-3: ExaMPLE of a uSE SuPPort aND MoNItorINg Box uSE SuPPort: imPaiRed (14 MI) 2008 IR Cat. 5 2010 IR Cat. 5 Benthos (CB1) Fair (2008) Fish Com (CF1) Good-Fair (2008) AMS (C1234500) Turbidity - 12% FCB - 48% 1.4 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 stReam flow The basin experienced prolonged droughts in 1998-2002 and 2007-2008 and exceptionally high flows resulting from the remnants of several hurricanes (Figure 1-4). During a three-week period in September 2004, the tropical storm remnants of Hurricanes Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne lead to wide-spread flooding throughout the central and northern mountains in the Catawba, French Broad, New, and Watauga River basins. Rainfall estimates for the combined three storms totaled more than 20-30 inches in certain watersheds. Runoff from the storms produced flash floods throughout the region, with peak flows in excess of 10,000 cfs (approximately 500 times median flows) in upper tributary streams; peaks flows in some tributary rivers exceeded 50,000 cfs. In the New River basin, the peak flow during Hurricane Frances (September 7th - 9th) was 14,700 cfs, which has an approximate recurrence interval of 10 to 25 years. During Hurricane Ivan (September 17th - 18th) the peak flow was 7,550 cfs, which has an approximate recurrence interval of 2 to 5 years. More detail about flows in the New River Basin can be found in the 2009 Basinwide Assessment Report: New River Basin produced by DWQ-Environmental Science Section. BiologiCal data Biological samples were collected during the spring and summer months of 2004 and 2008 by the DWQ- Environmental Sciences Section as part of the five-year basinwide sampling cycle, in addition to special studies. Overall, 30 biological sampling sites were monitored within the North Fork New River Watershed. The ratings for each station can be seen in Appendix 1-B. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure 1-5 and color coded based on its current rating. As seen on the map, the majority of samples taken in this watershed received an Excellent rating. This is reflected in the reclassification of almost the entire watershed to either High Quality Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters. The recent reclassification is discussed in more detail in the Special Studies in this Watershed Section below. As seen in Figure 1-6, 90% of the 30 sampling events received a Supporting rating and only 3% received an Impaired rating. These ratings are very similar to the previous sampling cycle. Figure 1-7 is a comparison of benthic site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall shifts in ratings. Eight percent of the samples improved their rating from the previous cycle and four percent declined in rating. Twenty-four percent of the benthic ratings had no change, indicating a semi-stable community. fIgurE 1-4: yEarLy aVEragE fLoW ratES (cfS) of thE uSgS gagE StatIoN IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN BEtWEEN 1997 & 2008 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 cf s USGS Flow Guage 03161000 -SF New River Indicates periods of drought in the New River Basin BeNthiC samPliNg summaRy £Total Stations Monitored .....25 £Total Samples Taken ...........30 £Stations Monitored Twice ..... 4 £Number of New Stations .....16 1.5 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 fIgurE 1-5: BENthIc StatIoNS coLor coDED By currENt ratINg IN thE North forK NEW rIVEr WatErShED fIgurE 1-6: currENt BENthIc SItE ratINgS 73% 10% 3%7%7% Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired fIgurE 1-7: chaNgE IN BENthIc SItE ratINgS 8%4% 24% 64% Improved Declined No Change New Station Fish Community Sampling Each fish community station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure 1-8 and color coded based on their current rating. Two of the sites were new monitoring sites located in rural watersheds with no NPDES dischargers. These sites were selected to determine their potential for becoming fish community regional reference sites. As shown in Figure 1-9, 60% of the five sampling events received a Supporting rating. Two of the samples were Not Rated; therefore, the segments are neither Impaired nor Supporting. Figure 1-10 is a comparison of fish community site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall watershed shifts in ratings. The community has remained stable with no change in ratings between the last sampling cycle and the current cycle. fish Com. samPliNg summaRy £Total Stations Monitored .......5 £Total Samples Taken .............5 £Number of New Stations .......2 1.6 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 fIgurE 1-8: fISh coMMuNIty StatIoNS coLor coDED By currENt ratINg IN thE North forK NEW rIVEr WatErShED fIgurE 1-9: currENt fISh coMMuNIty SItE ratINgS 60% 40% Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired fIgurE 1-10: chaNgE IN fISh coMMuNIty SItE ratINgS 50%50% Improved Declined No Change New Station For more information about biological data in this watershed, see the 2009 New River Basinwide Assessment Report. Detailed data sheets for each sampling site can be found in Appendix 1-B. Fish Kills/Spill Events No fish kills were reported in this watershed during this planning cycle. 1.7 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 amBieNt data Chemical and physical samples were taken by DWQ once a month at six sites throughout the New River basin. One Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) station is located in the North Fork New River watershed (see Figure 1-1 for the station location). For more information about the ambient monitoring, parameters, how data are used for use support assessment and other information, see Chapter 2 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning. The ambient data are used to develop use support ratings biannually, which are then reported to the EPA via the Integrated Report (IR). The IR is a collection of all monitored waterbodies in North Carolina and their water quality ratings. The most current IR is the 2010 version and is based on data collected between 2004 and 2008. If a waterbody receives an Impaired rating, it is then placed on the 303(d) Impaired Waters List. The New River Basin portion of the 2010 IR can be found in Appendix 1-A and statewide on the Modeling & TMDL Unit’s website. Additional information about data from this cycle and seasonal variation in this basin can be found in the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report. Long Term Ambient Monitoring The following discussion of ambient monitoring parameters includes graphs showing the median and mean concentration values for ambient station K7500000 in this watershed by specific parameter over a 13 year period (1997-2009). Each major parameter is discussed, even if no current impairment exists. The graphs are not intended to provide statistically significant trend information, but rather give an idea of how changes in land use or climate conditions can affect parameter readings over the long term. The difference between median and mean results indicate the presence of outliers in the data set. Box and whisker plots of individual ambient stations were completed by parameter for data between 2004 and 2008 by DWQ’s ESS and can be found in the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report. pH AMS site K7500000 had no pH standard exceedances during this monitoring cycle, as shown in Figure 1-11 by a small green dot. Figure 1-12 shows the mean and median pH levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the North Fork New River watershed. The pH pattern seen over these 13-years is a steady increase. This trend is seen in all three 10-digit watersheds in the New River Basin and is discussed further in the Executive Summary. fIgurE 1-11: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES ExcEEDINg thE Ph StaNDarDS (2003-2008) fIgurE 1-12: SuMMarIzED Ph VaLuES for aLL Data coLLEctED at aMBIENt SaMPLINg StatIoNS IN huc 0505000101 6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8 8.2 pH Median Mean * NC pH Standard: Between 6 and 9 su 1.8 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 Turbidity As seen in Figure 1-13, AMS site K7500000 exceeded the turbidity standard in 8.8% of the samples collected during this cycle. Possible sources of the elevated turbidity levels are discussed in the 12-digit subbwatershed section. Figure 1-14 shows the mean and median turbidity levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the North Fork New River watershed. The yearly averages are well below the state standard of 50 NTUs, with the exception of the 2007 mean. There were a few turbidity samples measuring between 100 and 300 NTUs in 2007 that were not seen in any other year. While some erosion is a natural phenomenon, human land use practices accelerate the process to unhealthy levels. Construction sites, mining operations, agricultural operations, logging operations and excessive stormwater flow from impervious surfaces are all potential sources. Turbidity violations demonstrate the importance of protecting and conserving stream buffers and natural areas. fIgurE 1-13: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES ExcEEDINg thE turBIDIty StaNDarD (2003-2008) fIgurE 1-14: SuMMarIzED turBIDIty VaLuES for aLL Data coLLEctED at aMBIENt SaMPLINg StatIoNS IN huc 0505000101 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Median Mean * NC Turbidity Standard: 50 NUTDissolved Oxygen As seen in Figure 1-15, AMS site K7500000 had no DO standard exceedances during this monitoring cycle. Figure 1-16 shows the mean and median of DO levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the North Fork New River watershed. DO at this station has been stable for the past 13 years and has seen little to no change. fIgurE 1-15: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES ExcEEDINg thE Do StaNDarD (2003-2008) fIgurE 1-16: SuMMarIzED Do VaLuES for aLL Data coLLEctED at aMBIENt SaMPLINg StatIoNS IN huc 0505000101 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 DO ( m g / l ) Median Mean * NC DO Standard: Not < 5 mg/l daily avg. or not < 4 mg/l instantaneous 1.9 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 Temperature No stream segments in this watershed are Impaired or Impacted due to high temperatures (Figure 1-17). Figure 1-18 shows the mean and median of temperature levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the North Fork New River watershed. The water temperature trend for this AMS station is closely linked to the stream flow levels. During low flow or drought periods, water can sit in small pools and become heated by the sun. This can especially be seen in Figure 1-18 between 2000 and 2002. fIgurE 1-17: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES ExcEEDINg tEMPEraturE StaNDarD (2003-2008) fIgurE 1-18: SuMMarIzED tEMPEraturE VaLuES for aLL Data coLLEctED at aMBIENt SaMPLINg StatIoNS IN huc 0505000101 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Te m p e r a t u r e ( ˚ C ) Median Mean * NC Temperature Standard for Mountain/Upper Piedmont Region: 29°C (84.2°F) Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal coliform bacteria occurs in water as a result of the overflow of domestic sewage and from other nonpoint sources of human and animal waste, including pets, wildlife and farm animals. The FCB standard for freshwater streams is not to exceed the geometric mean of 200 colonies/100 ml or 400 colonies/100 ml in 20% of the samples where five samples have been taken in a span of 30 days (5-in-30). Only results from a 5-in-30 study are to be used to indicate whether a stream is Impaired or Supporting. Waters with a use classification of B (primary recreational waters) receive priority for 5-in-30 studies. Other waters are studied as resources permit. As seen in Figure 1-19, 20% of samples taken at station K7500000 during this cycle, resulted in levels over 400 colonies/100 ml. However, the geometric mean (calculated average) was 82 colonies/100 ml, indicating only pulses of elevated levels. When the geometric mean breaches 200 colonies/100 ml at a station, it is likely a 5-in-30 study would result in an impairment. Possible sources of the short term elevated FCB levels at this station are discussed in the subwatershed section. Figure 1-20 shows the geometric mean of FCB levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the North Fork New River watershed. The geometric mean is a type of mean or average that indicates the central tendency or typical value of a data set. The highest yearly geometric mean for FCB was recorded in 2005 (125 colonies/100 ml). The figure also includes the yearly average stream flow, as seen in Figure 1-4, to show how flow can be closely linked to FCB levels. These slightly elevated FCB levels might have been caused by livestock with access to streams, failing septic systems or leaking municipal collection systems. For more specific information about AMS station K7500000 and its subwatershed see the subwatershed discussion below. fIgurE 1-19: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES WIth ELEVatED fcB LEVELS (2003- 2008) 1.10 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 fIgurE 1-20: SuMMarIzED fEcaL coLIforM BactErIa VaLuES for aLL Data coLLEctED at aMBIENt SaMPLINg StatIoNS IN huc 0505000101 WIth oVErLayINg fLoW Av e r a g e Y e a r l y F l o w (c f s ) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 FC B ( c o l o n i e s / 1 0 0 m l ) Geometricmean 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 cf s 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 cf s * NC FCB Standard (5-in-30 data only): Geomean not > 200/100 ml or 400/100 ml in 20% of samples. For more information regarding any of the parameters listed above, see Section 3.3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning. For additional information about ambient monitoring data collected in this river basin, see the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report. additioNal studies North Fork New River Sampling to Support Potential Reclassification Purpose of Study: A request for benthic sampling was received by the DWQ Biological Assessment Unit (BAU) from staff in the WSRO to support the potential reclassification of streams in the North Fork New River 10-Digit Watershed to either High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) (BF-20090316). Six stream sites were selected for benthic sampling in addition to those sites already scheduled for sampling in the watershed for 2008. Reclassification of streams would lead to better protection of the high water quality exhibited in much of the North Fork New River Watershed. The watershed is home to the Kanawha Minnow (Phenacobius teretulus) which is listed as Vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Kanawha Darter (Etheostoma kanawhae) listed as Near Threatened by the IUCN, as well as many other endemic fish species. Study Results: Twenty-five benthic samples were collected from 24 sites in the North Fork New River watershed in 2008. Eleven of the 25 samples were collected as part of routine basinwide sampling that occurs every five years in the New River basin; seven were collected at the request of staff from DWQ’s Planning Section, WSRO, or Soil and Water Conservation for various studies; and one was collected as part of an internal quality assurance procedure. The remaining six samples were collected specifically to help support potential reclassification of waters in the North Fork New River Watershed. Data from all 25 samples were considered in this special study. Geographic data, habitat conditions, and physical and chemical water data are provided in the special study document. All but one of the 12 benthic sampling events at large-stream sites requested for special studies and nine of the eleven basinwide sampling events in the North Fork New River Watershed in 2008 resulted in classifications of Excellent. The two small-stream sites collected were assigned either Not Impaired or Not Rated (no DWQ criteria currently exist for classifying small-stream sites with drainage areas under 3.0 square-miles). All five benthic collections on North Fork New River proper, from the uppermost site near the headwater to the site furthest downstream one-quarter miles from the mouth, were among those resulting in classifications of Excellent. 1.11 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 Recommendations for HQW status were based upon classification of Excellent following benthic sampling during 2008. ORW recommendations are based upon brook trout and hellbender records in addition to biological classification of Excellent. The recommendations were generated by the Environmental Science Section to the Planning Section within DWQ. The Planning Section examined other variables, held public hearings and based the final recommendation to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on all available information. Approval of Proposed Reclassification: In preparation of the reclassification, DWQ held a public meeting, reviewed public comments and worked closely with local governments and environmental groups. The National Committee for the New River (NCNR) was instrumental in helping DWQ spread the reclassification notice to the public and organizing the public hearings in the area. Local governments, NCNR and DWQ worked together to ensure the reclassification would sufficiently protected water quality and aquatic life while not placing an economical burden on local municipalities. The results of the public comments and meetings were all taken into consideration by the hearing officers and compiled into a collaborative conclusion to be finalized by the EMC. The reclassification was presented to the EMC in September 2010, and the rule went into effect December 1, 2010. The approved reclassifications can be seen in Figure 1-21. The majority of the North Fork New River Watershed received the ORW supplemental classification, which is shown in green on the map. Other portions of the watershed received the supplemental designation of HQW: Buffalo Creek; a portion of the North Fork New River from the confluence of Buffalo Creek to the confluence of Big Horse Creek; a portion of Big Horse Creek from the confluence of the North Fork New River to the confluence of Little Horse Creek; and Old Field Branch (Grass Branch). These HQW waters are shown in blue on the map. Claybank Creek and Little Buffalo Creek remain C Tr +, which is shown in yellow. Special Management Strategy (+) The “+” is a special management strategy that will comply with the HQW Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0224) to protect the excellent water quality downstream. Therefore, all waters designated as “+” in this watershed are regulated as if the waterbody was designated as HQW. ORW Designation The ORW supplemental designation does not allow any new NPDES discharges or expansion of existing discharges. It also requires more stringent stormwater management measures for development activities requiring sediment and erosion control plans (15A NCAC 02B.0225). HQW Designation The HQW supplemental designation does not permit single family discharges to surface waters, and any new or expanded dischargers must abide by more stringent waste treatment guidelines. More stringent stormwater management measures apply for waters that are draining to and within one mile of HQW waters (15A NCAC 02B.0224). 1.12 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 fIgurE 1-21: North forK NEW rIVEr aPProVED orW & hQW rEcLaSSIfIcatIoN Ne w R i v e r N o r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r Je f f e r s o n We s t J e f f e r s o n La n s i n g Big L a u r e l C r e e k Littl e H o r s e C r e e k North Fork N e w R i v e r Mill Cre e k Sila s C r e e k Long H o p e C r e e k Hoskin Fo r k Stagg C r e e k Rich H i l l C r e e k He l t o n C r e e k B r u s h F o r k Piney Cree k Three Top Creek Big H o r s e C r e e k Buffalo Cr e e k Littl e L a u r e l C r e e k Kilby Creek Rou n d a b o u t C r e e k R i p s h i n B r a n c h J e r d B r a n c h Big Bra n c h R o a r i n g B r a n c h Little Phoe n i x C r e e k Los t B r a n c h Cab b a g e C r e e k Millpon d B r a n c h Doe Bra n c h Swift Branch Little Pin e y C r e e k Wa l l a c e B r a n c h Pr o p o s e d O R W w a t e r s h e d Pr o p o s e d H Q W "+ " a r e a Ex i s t i n g C : + Ex i s t i n g C ; T r : + Ex i s t i n g C ; T r , H Q W Mu n i c i p a l B o u n d a r y Ex i s t i n g H Q W Ex i s t i n g O R W No r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r O R W / H Q W R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n As h e a n d W a t a u g a C o u n t i e s , N e w R i v e r B a s i n , N o r t h C a r o l i n a 0 1 2 3 4 0. 5 Mi l e s Ma p S o u r c e : N C D W Q , P u b l i s h e d 1 9 J u n 2 0 0 9 ; H y d r o g r a p h y S o u r c e : N C D W Q , P u b l i s h e d 3 0 N o v 2 0 0 7 Th i s m a p i s o n l y a s g o o d a s t h e d a t a a v a i l a b l e w h e n i t w a s p r i n t e d a n d i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o r e p l a c e a n y r u l e , r e g u l a t i o n o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s c h e d u l e . South F o r k N e w R i v e r 1.13 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 ReCommeNdatioNs & aCtioN PlaNs at the wateRshed sCale dwQ PRioRity summaRy Table 1-1 is a list of waters in the North Fork New River Watershed that DWQ has prioritized for restoration/ protection. The order of priority is not based solely on the severity of the steams impairment or impacts, but rather by the need for particular actions to be taken. A stream that is currently supporting its designated uses may be prioritized higher within this table than a stream that is currently impaired. This is based on a more wholistic evaluation of the drainage area which includes monitoring results, current and needed restoration/ protection efforts, land use and other activities that could potentially impact water quality in the area. Some supporting streams may have a more urgent need for protections than an Impaired stream with restoration needs already being implemented. The third and fourth columns of this table list potential stressors and sources that may be impacting a stream based on in-field observations, monitoring data, historical evidence, permit or other violations, and other staff and public input. In many cases, additional study is needed to determine exact source(s) of the impact(s). The last column includes a list of recommended actions. taBLE 1-1: PrIorItIzatIoN of WatErS IN thE North forK NEW rIVEr WatErShED (hIghESt to LoWESt PrIorIty) StrEaM NaME au#cLaSS.PotENtIaL StrESSor(S) PotENtIaL SourcE(S)StatuS actIoNS NEEDED Little Buffalo Cr.10-2-20-1 C;Tr:+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Zones), Elevated Nutrients WWTP, Urban Runoff, Piped Streams, Agriculture Impaired RBR, WRP, DS, E, Ag, NMC Helton Cr.10-2-27 C;ORW;Tr Sediment, Elevated Nutrients, Over Stocking Agriculture, Logging Impacted SS, Protection (Hellbender Sal.) Three Top Cr.10-2-13 C;ORW;Tr Turbidity Supporting SEC, RBR, Protection (Hellbender Sal.) Little Horse Cr.10-2-21-8 C;ORW;Tr Habitat Degradation Upstream Erosion Supporting Ag, RBR Middle Fork Little Horse Cr. 10-2-21-8-1 C;ORW;Tr Habitat Degradation (Bank Erosion) Supporting RBR Long Shoals Cr.10-2-25 C;ORW;Tr Supporting M Big Horse Cr.10-2-21-(7), 10-2-21-(4.5) & 10-2-21-(1.5) C;ORW C;ORW;Tr C;ORW;Tr Habitat Degradation (Riparian Zones) Supporting RBR North Fork New R. (NFNR) 10-2-(12)C;ORW Habitat Degradation, Turbidity Supporting Protection (Hellbender Sal.) NFNR 10-2-(1)C;ORW;Tr Supporting P Big Laurel Cr.10-2-14 C;ORW;Tr Supporting Protection (Hellbender Sal.) Hoskin Fork 10-2-7 C;ORW;Tr Supporting None Class.: Classification (e.g., C, S, B, WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV, WS-V, Tr, HQW, ORW, SW, UWL) Stressor: Chemical parameters or physical conditions that at certain levels prevent waterbodies from meeting the standards for their designated use (e.g., low/high DO, nutrients, toxicity, habitat degradation, etc.). Source: The cause of the stressor. (Volume & Velocity: when a stream receives stormwater runoff at a much higher volume and velocity than it would naturally receive due to ditching, impervious surfaces, etc.) Status: Impaired, Impacted, Supporting, Improving Actions Needed: Restoration (R), Protection (P), Stormwater Controls (SC), Stressor Study (SS), Education (E), Local Ordinance (LO), Best Management Practices (BMPs), Sediment and Erosion Control BMPs (SEC), Species Protection Plan (SPP), Forestry BMPs (F), Agriculture BMPs (Ag), Nutrient Mgnt Controls (NMC), Riparian Buffer Restoration (RBR), Daylight Stream (DS), Monitoring (M), Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP). 1.14 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 status & ReCommeNdatioNs foR moNitoRed wateRs uNdeRstaNdiNg this seCtioN In this Section, more detailed information about stream health, special studies, aquatic life stressors and sources and other additional information is provided by each 12-digit Hydrological Unit Code (HUC). Waterbodies discussed in this Chapter include all monitored streams, whether monitored by DWQ or local agencies with approved methods. Use Support information on all monitored streams within this watershed can be seen on the map in Figure 1-1, and a Use Support list of all monitored waters in this basin can be found in the Use Support Methodology Chapter. Use Support & Monitoring Box: Each waterbody discussed in the Status & Recommendations for Monitored Waters within this Watershed section has a corresponding Use Support and Monitoring Box (Table 1-2). The top row indicates the 2010 Use Support and the length of that stream or stream segment. The next two rows indicate the overall Integrated Report category which further defines the Use Support for both the 2008 and the 2010 reports. These first three rows are consistent for all boxes in this Plan. The rows following are based on what type of monitoring stations are found on that stream or stream segment and may include benthic, fish community and/or ambient monitoring data. If one of these three types of monitoring sites is not shown, then that stream is not sampled for that type of data. The first column indicates the type of sampling in bold (e.g., Benthos) with the site ID below in parenthesis (e.g., CB79). The latest monitoring result/rating of that site is listed in the next column followed by the year that sample was taken. If there is more than one benthic site, for example, on that stream, the second site ID and site rating will be listed below the first. The last row in the sample box in Table 1-2 is the AMS data. The data window for all AMS sites listed in the boxes in this Plan is between 2004-2008. Only parameters exceeding the given standard are listed in the second column with the percent of exceedance listed beside each parameter. Please note any fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) listing in the last row (as seen in Table 1-2) only indicates elevated levels and a study of five samples in 30 days (5-in-30) must be conducted before a stream becomes Impaired for FCB. taBLE 1-2: ExaMPLE of a uSE SuPPort aND MoNItorINg Box uSE SuPPort: imPaiRed (14 MI) 2008 IR Cat. 4a 2010 IR Cat. 4 Benthos (CB79) (CB80)Fair (2002)Fair (2002) Fish Com (CF33) Good-Fair (2002) AMS (C1750000) Turbidity - 12% FCB - 48% NoRth foRk New RiveR (NfNR) The North Fork New River flows through several 12-Digit subwatersheds. Each of the two segments are discussed below. North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(1)] The North Fork New River begins at the southern most tip of the Headwaters North Fork New River subwatershed (050500010103). The river flows 50 miles northeast, where it joins the South Fork New River to create the New River. This segment of the North Fork is approximately 14 miles long. Water Quality Status The most upstream site (KB141) was sampled in 2008 as part of the North Fork New River Sampling to Support Potential Reclassification special study. Details about that study can be found above. The river received an Excellent rating at this site; however, one bank was moderately eroded. A large portion of this drainage area is forested, with some agriculture along the stream banks. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (14 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB141) Excellent (2008) Fish Com (KF10) Good (2008) 1.15 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 A fish community sample (KF10) was taken in 2008 just downstream of the confluence with Brush Fork. The last sample taken at this station was in 1998. Results of both samples were very similar and included intolerant cool and cold water species indicating little to no change in water quality over the past ten years. Recommendations Protection efforts should be taken for this section of the North Fork New River to ensure the continuation of good water quality. North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] This segment of the North Fork New River stretches over 36 miles across three different subwatersheds (Upper North Fork New River: 050500010106; Middle North Fork New River: 050500010107; and Lower North Fork New River: 050500010109). Land use along this segment is a mixture of agriculture along the stream banks, forest and a few scattered urban residential and commercial areas. Water Quality Status A benthic site (KB23), located just downstream of Three Top Creek, was sampled in 2008. This basinwide site has been sampled four times since 1993 and has consistently received an Excellent rating. The latest sample showed no impacts to the river’s stable macroinvertebrate community and received a high habitat score. The second benthic monitoring station (KB27) is located at SR-1644 (McNeil Rd), just before the river crosses into the Middle North Fork New River subwatershed (050500010107). The site has been monitored and rated Excellent every cycle since 1993, including 2008. Even though the habitat score for this site was low (65 out of 100) due to low quality riparian buffers, there is a healthy and stable benthic community. Helicopsyche paralimnella was found for the first time at this site in the 2008 sample. This taxa has only been collected at five other sites within the entire state by DWQ. This and other taxa collected indicate an absence of stressors and healthy water quality for aquatic life along this segment. The third site (KB135) is located at the Millpond Branch confluence where it received an Excellent rating in 2008. Due to difficult access, this site replaces the site about two miles upstream at NC-16, which has had a long history of Excellent ratings. Even though habitat was not ideal for aquatic life (65 out of 100), the benthic community is healthy and stable. The only AMS station in this watershed is located at the same spot on the river as benthic site KB135. Between 2004 and 2008, there were no major parameter exceedances; however, turbidity levels were elevated. Each parameter is explained in greater detail in the Ambient Data section above along with long term trends. The fourth benthic site (KB127) is about a fourth of a mile upstream from where the North Fork and South Fork merge into the New River [AU#: 10a]. This site was specifically monitored as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study which is discussed in greater detail above. The benthic community and habitat were very similar to the KB135 site just upstream and resulted in an Excellent rating as well. In September 2010, a survey was conducted to identify locations throughout the state where the Hellbender salamander is present. A population was found in the North Fork New River. More information about the Hellbender Salamander can be found on the NC National Heritage Program website. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (36.5 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB23) (KB27) (KB135) (KB127) Excellent (2008)Excellent (2008) Excellent (2008) Excellent (2008) AMS (K7500000) No Exceedances 1.16 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 thRee toP CReek (050500010101) Includes: Three Top Creek [AU#: 10-2-13], Long Hope Creek [AU#: 10-2-13-3], & Ben Bolen Creek [AU#:10-2-13-2] This subwatershed is mostly forested land with areas of agricultural activities scattered across the 24 square miles. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed and the majority of streams hold the secondary classification of Trout Waters. All streams in this 12-digit subwatershed drain to Three Top Creek. Three Top Creek [AU#: 10-2-13] Three Top Creek is approximately 13 miles from source to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The majority of the drainage area is forested, with some areas of agriculture. Water Quality Status All streams in this 12-digit subwatershed drain to Three Top Creek. The stream was sampled for both benthic and fish communities during this cycle. Both sites are new basinwide sampling stations. The fish community sample contained a pollution intolerant population. The site was officially given a Not Rated due to absence of criteria for rating high gradient mountain trout waters. However, the combination of good habitat and a healthy stable fish population shows no indication of water quality issues. Two benthic samples were taken at the new monitoring station (KB138). The first sample was taken as part of the regular basinwide monitoring and received a Good rating. Biologists noted the sample may have been adversely affected by extreme low flow during a record drought at the time. The creek was part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study (discussed above); therefore, the site was resampled to determine the bioclassification during normal flow level. The results of the July 2009 sample far exceeded the minimum requirements for an Excellent rating. In September 2010, a survey was conducted to identify locations throughout the state of the Hellbender salamander. A small population was found in Three Top Creek. Surveyors talked to local land owners who explained the population of the salamanders used to be much larger over ten years ago. This could be an indication of water quality impacts in the drainage area. Surveyors noted the stream was moderately turbid and the substrate was covered in silt at the time of sampling. More information about the Hellbender Salamander can be found on the NC National Heritage Program website. Recommendations Due to the presence of the Hellbender salamander, it is recommended that extra precautions be taken in this drainage area to prevent sediment from reaching the stream. Riparian buffers along this stream should be of adequate width and contain trees and shrubs. Big lauRel CReek (050500010102) Includes: Big Laurel Creek [AU#: 10-2-14], Roaring Fork [AU#: 10-2-14-7], & Dixion Creek [AU#: 10-2-14-1] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture spread across the 29 square miles. Small Christmas tree farms are scattered across this area with larger tree farms in the northern headwaters. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed and the majority of streams hold the secondary classification of Trout Waters. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRt (13 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB138) Good (2008) Fish Com (KF23) Not Rated (2008) 1.17 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 Big Laurel Creek [AU#: 10-2-14] Big Laurel Creek is approximately 18 miles long from source to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The source of the creek is located near Ivy Hill Road and Three Top Road, and is the collecting stream for all waters in this subwatershed. Land use in this drainage area is a mixture of forest and agriculture, with the majority of the agricultural lands lining the streambanks. Water Quality Status The creek was sampled for both benthic and fish communities about a tenth of a mile upstream of its confluence with the North Fork. All waters in this subwatershed pass through this point which gives a wholistic view of water quality for the subwatershed. The first set of samples taken during this cycle occurred in 2008, resulting in an Excellent benthic rating and a Good fish community rating. Both ratings were mimicked during the 2009 samples. Benthic samples from 1998 to 2008 indicate water quality slightly improving over the years. The fish station was a new basinwide site in 2008, and was noted as having a highly-diverse and trophically-balanced population. Aquatic habitat was over all in good condition with sufficient riparian buffers, but lacked riffle habitat and pool variety. Two Hellbender salamanders were collected during the fish community sample; one of adult age and the other young-of-year. The presence of this particular salamander and their age difference suggests high quality water. Recommendations Due to the presence of the Hellbender salamander, it is recommended that extra precautions be taken in this drainage area to prevent sediment from reaching the stream. Riparian buffers along this stream should be protected. headwateRs NoRth foRk New RiveR (050500010103) Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(1) & (12)], Hoskin Fork [AU#: 10-2-7], Brush Fork [AU#: 10-2-8], Rock Creek [AU#: 10-2-9] & Roundabout Creek [AU#: 10-2-10] This subwatershed has mixed land cover of forest and agriculture spread across the 42 square miles. As seen in much of the New River Basin, agricultural lands are mostly located along the banks of major creeks. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed and the majority of streams hold the secondary classification of Trout Waters. North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(1) & (12)] Two segments of the North Fork New River flow through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. Hoskin Fork [AU#: 10-2-7] Hoskin Fork is roughly five miles from source to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(2)], mostly flowing parallel to NC-88. The land use is a mix of agriculture and forest. Water Quality Status The benthic station located below Wilson Branch has been monitored during each five-year cycle since 1993. Each sample taken since 1993 has received a higher score than the last, suggesting water quality is gradually improving. The 2008 sample resulted in an Excellent rating as it did in 2003. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (17.5 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB30) Excellent (2008) Fish Com (KF22) Good (2008) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (5 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB26) Excellent (2008) 1.18 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 little hoRse CReek (050500010104) Includes: Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8], & Middle Fork Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8-1] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture. As seen in much of the New River Basin, agricultural lands are mostly located along the banks of major creeks. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed and the majority of streams hold the secondary classification of Trout Waters. Middle Fork Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8-1] Middle Fork Little Horse Creek is approximately four and a half miles from source to Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8]. Land use in this drainage area is mostly forest, with some agriculture along the streambanks. Water Quality Status Middle Fork Little Horse Creek was monitored as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study. There are no historical data for the stream. The stream substrate was covered in sand and silt and banks had noticeable erosion. Vegetation in the riparian zones consisted of only grasses and had little to no tree canopy. Despite the habitat deficiencies, the site (KB121) was among the sites with the most diverse pollution intolerant benthic populations within the study. Because of the Excellent rating given, the stream was recommended for a reclassification to HQW. Results of that study and reclassification are discussed above. Recommendations Riparian buffer restoration is suggested for Middle Fork Little Horse Creek. Establishment of shrubs and trees within the riparian buffer zone will assist with stabilizing banks and reducing the amount of sediment that reaches the stream bed. Additional trees will also provide a shaded canopy, keeping the water temperature cooler to support local trout populations. Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8] Little Horse Creek is almost 11 miles from source to Big Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-(7)]. This stream is the main receiving stream for this subwatershed. Land use is a mixture of forest in the head waters and agriculture along the streambanks. Water Quality Status Little Horse Creek has been monitored since 1998 just upstream on the Middle Fork Little Horse Creek confluence. In 1998 and 2003 the creek received a Good benthic rating and displayed a stable population. The 2008 sample increased a rating to an Excellent due to a more diverse community. A stonefly (Isogenoides hansoni), which has only been collected at 44 sites statewide, was present in the 2008 sample and had not been previously seen in this stream. However, despite the current rating, habitat at the site was not ideal for a thriving benthic community. The lack of riparian zone, canopy cover and root mats are likely limiting fauna. Also, a layer of sand and silt indicates erosion issues upstream. This sample was used for the North Fork New River Reclassification Study. Little Horse Creek was recommended to be reclassified as ORW. Results of that study and reclassification are discussed above. Recommendations In order to maintain the water quality in Little Horse Creek, DWQ recommends local agencies work with farm owners to install agricultural best management practices to reduce sedimentation and erosion. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (4.5 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB121) Excellent (2008) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (10.9 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB63) Excellent (2008) 1.19 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 Big hoRse CReek (050500010105) Includes: Big Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-(7), (4.5) & (1.5)] This subwatershed has a mixed land use of forest in the headwaters and agriculture scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks. There is one minor NPDES discharger in this subwatershed. Majority of streams in the subwatershed hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. The Town of Lansing is located in the southern portion. Big Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-(7), (4.5) & (1.5)] Big Horse Creek is approximately 20 miles long from source to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. Shortly downstream of its source, the creek crosses the state line into Virginia for roughly two miles before flowing back into North Carolina. The creek is the major receiving stream of this subwatershed and provides a good representation of overall water quality for the area. Water Quality Status There is one benthic and one fish community basinwide sampling station on this creek, located just upstream of the North Fork confluence and downstream of the Town of Lansing. Both sites received relatively low habitat scores due to lack of pool variety and small riparian zones. The fish community received a Good rating and was noted as having a diverse and trophically-balanced community of cool and cold water fish species. The benthic sample resulted in an Excellent rating. This sample consisted of the most pollution tolerant taxa collected since sampling started at this site in 1993. However, many new taxa were collected and in greater abundance. An additional benthic sample was collected at SR-1365 as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study. The sample resulted in an Excellent rating. The first two segments within North Carolina [AU#: 10-2- 21-(1.5) & (4.5)] were recommended to be reclassified as ORW. Results of that study and reclassification are discussed above. Recommendations Riparian buffer restoration is recommended to increase tree canopy cover and to help filter pollutants in stormwater runoff. uPPeR NoRth foRk New RiveR (050500010106) Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)], Rich Hill Creek [AU#: 10-2-15], Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20] & Little Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20-1] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest in the headwaters, some residential and agriculture scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks. There is one major and four minor NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed. Majority of streams in the subwatershed, excluding the North Fork New River, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. Majority of the Town of West Jefferson is located in the southeastern portion of this subwatershed. Rich Hill Creek [AU#: 10-2-15] Rich Hill Creek is approximately five miles from source to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. Land use in this drainage area is a mix of forest and agriculture in the headwaters and along streambanks with scattered residential areas. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (19.4 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB122) (KB33) Excellent (2008) Excellent (2008) Fish Com (KF1) Good (2008) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (4.9 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB86) Excellent (2008) 1.20 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 Water Quality Status Rick Hill Creek was specifically monitored as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study near the confluence of the North Fork. This site (KB86) was monitored once before in 1993; both events resulted in an Excellent rating. The stream was recommended for a reclassification to HQW. Results of that study and reclassification are discussed above. Little Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20-1] Little Buffalo Creek is approximately four and a half miles from its source within the Mt. Jefferson State Park, through the town of West Jefferson, to Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20]. Land use within this drainage area is a mixture of forest, agriculture, urban and residential. Portions of the stream that flow through urban areas of West Jefferson are piped underground. Little Buffalo Creek has been on the Impaired Waters List since 1998 when it was listed for impacts from urban runoff and municipal pretreatment. In 2006, impervious surfaces and the West Jefferson WWTP were added to the list of potential sources of impairment. Water Quality Status A benthic station (KB32) located at Doggett Road crossing has been sampled four times between 1993 and 2008, receiving either a Fair or a Poor rating each time. The site received a Fair rating in 2008, showing a slight increase in abundance and diversity from the 2003 Poor sample. Biologists noted each of the four samples greatly varied in types of taxa collected. High levels of specific conductivity indicate the presence of waterborne pollutants. The stream received a fairly low habitat score and portions of the stream not piped underground have little to no riparian zones. An unnamed tributary which drains the majority of West Jefferson merges with Little Buffalo Creek near the West Jefferson WWTP. Large portions of this stream are also piped under commercial areas of West Jefferson. The majority of the town’s stormwater runoff flows into this unnamed tributary with little to no natural filtering, such as a riparian buffer. There are many possible sources for this impairment which have varied over the years. The West Jefferson WWTP was noted in the previous basin plan as having several discharge permit violations. Between 2003 and 2005, the Town had a few violation causing issues, including discovering a local industry knowingly discharging mercury and cadmium into the towns collection system. After confirming with samples, West Jefferson worked with the WSRO to conduct an unannounced inspection resulting in further confirmation of the illegal discharging. The Town issued civil penalties and pretreatment permit resolving the problem. West Jefferson also had operational issues where they failed to properly remove and land apply solids. The WSRO took enforcement actions and held meetings with the Town. The Town responded by hiring a contractor and a new operator. Discharge from the facility has been considered outstanding by the WSRO since that time. However the facility remains a possible source of Little Buffalo Creek’s Impairment during this cycle. The WWTP will be removed as a possible source, providing the facility stays in good standing during the upcoming monitoring cycle. Another possible source of impact is urban stormwater runoff. Much of West Jefferson’s stormwater runoff drains into portions of the unnamed tributary which has been piped underground. Bypassing natural riparian buffer zones, which can absorb waterborne pollutants, the contaminated runoff has little to no opportunity to be filtered before reaching Little Buffalo Creek. This concentration of stormwater runoff can be toxic to aquatic life. Downstream of West Jefferson, land use transitions to pasture land and Christmas tree farms. Agriculture is often a source of excess nutrients if proper BMPs are not utilized. Nutrients were added to the list of possible causes of impairment in 2000. uSE SuPPort: imPaiRed (4.4 MI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (KB32) Fair (2008) 1.21 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 Drought-like conditions in 2007 and 2008 likely increased the impacts of the pollutants listed above on aquatic life. Samples taken during the previous cycle were also impacted by a similar drought. The slight increase in bioclassification rating (Poor in 2003 to Fair in 2008) indicates somewhat of an improvement in water quality. This is likely due to upgrades made to the WWTP, which can be seen in the few violations the facility received as compared to the previous cycle. Recommendations DWQ recommends developing a local stakeholder group to determine the possibility of day-lighting the full length of the creek. DWQ supports the need for funding a project of this nature that would include a Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP), as well as follow up monitoring. The WRP should also include planning for implementation of proper riparian buffers, determining the best locations for additional stormwater control measures and efforts to educate affected property owners and the local community about the purpose of this work. Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20] Buffalo Creek is approximately ten miles long from source to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The drainage area consists of mostly forest with agriculture clustered along streambanks. Headwaters of Buffalo Creek and a few upstream tributaries are within the Bluff Mountain Preserve and Three Top Mountain Game Land. Water Quality Status In 2008, two benthic samples, including one above and below the Little Buffalo Creek confluence, were collected and rated as Excellent. The sample above Little Buffalo Creek (KB134) was collected as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study, with the purpose of assessing conditions in the catchment without the urban influence of West Jefferson. There was little difference between the two benthic sites. The downstream site (KB31) had a slightly higher specific conductivity and pH level, as well as a more pollution tolerant population. However, the site received a higher habitat score due to larger, more stable riparian buffers. A fish community sample (KF21) was also collected at the same location as the upstream benthic sample. This new basinwide site was given a Not Rated due to lack of criteria for high gradient mountain trout waters. This stretch of Buffalo Creek provides excellent habitat for a diverse and fairly trophic balance mix of cool and cold water fish. Fifty-nine percent of species collected were pollution intolerant, indicating the stream supports a reasonably healthy population and appears to have no obvious water quality issues. North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] A portion of this segment flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. middle NoRth foRk New RiveR (050500010107) Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)], Little Phoenix Creek [AU#: 10-2-23] & Long Shoals Creek [AU#: 10-2-25] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest in the headwaters, with some residential and agriculture scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks. There is one minor NPDES discharger in this subwatershed. Majority of streams in the subwatershed, excluding the North Fork New River, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. Long Shoals Creek [AU#: 10-2-25] Long Shoals Creek is approximately three miles long from source to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The drainage area consists of mostly forested area with agriculture clustered along streambanks. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (9.7 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB134) (KB31) Excellent (2008) Excellent (2008) Fish Com (KF21) Not Rated (2008) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (2.7 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB123) Not Impaired (2008) 1.22 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 Water Quality Status A one time benthic sample was taken in June 2008 to determine if the stream was being impacted by recent development. The site KB123 is located a mile upstream of the confluence with the North Fork New River and had overall good habitat; however, pools were infrequent and filling with silt and sand. The stream’s drainage area is less than 3.0 square miles. The site would have received a classification of Good if criteria for larger stream sites were used. Because, criteria for small streams are still in development, the site is currently classified as Not Impaired. Recommendations The benthic site is located just upstream from its confluence with Foster Springs Branch [AU#: 10-2-25-1] and therefore does not reflect influences from that drainage area. An additional site will be considered on Foster Springs Branch for benthic sampling to assess conditions prior to further development (DWQ, B-20081007). If resources are limited, DWQ will consider moving the current site below the confluence. Little Phoenix Creek [AU#: 10-2-23] Little Phoenix Creek is approximately five miles long from source to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The drainage area consists of mostly forested area with agriculture and residential areas clustered along streambanks. Water Quality Status A one time benthic sample was taken in June 2008 to determine if upstream land clearing activities in 2006 had any long-term impacts on the community downstream. The site was given an Excellent bioclassification and had no signs of impacts from sediment on the benthic community. However, the site was somewhat deficient of available macroinvertebrate habitat, pool frequency and riparian zone condition along one bank. (DWQ, B-20081007) DWQ Special Study (B-20070904): Approximately 85 acres of land in the headwaters of the unnamed tributary (UT) had been cleared for planting of Christmas trees and pasture in 2006. The resulting runoff from the steep slopes of the cleared land had caused extreme scouring of the UT, resulting in large rocks blocking a downstream culvert over a driveway. This caused flooding and sediment deposition on the property of the downstream landowner. DWQ took benthic samples at two locations to determine the water quality impacts of this land clearing activity. One sample location was just below the impacted area and the second site was located on a comparable site draining to the opposite side of Little Phoenix Creek. The impacted sampling site (KB117) was a little over a tenth of a mile upstream of the culvert, in a heavily wooded area. Massive rocks and other debris had been washed downstream and extreme scouring, roughly five meters in height, can be seen in photos taken by biologists in the special study document. The stream wetted width was about one meter where as the channel had been scoured out to four and five meters wide. The habitat still received a relatively good score (78 out of 100); however, the bottom substrate consisted of bedrock, boulders, rubble, no leaf packs and exposed tree roots. The control site (KB118) had similar slope and substrate as the impacted site. However, K118 had no scouring and a channel with similar width as the streams wetted width (one meter) and included leaf packs and other characteristics of a small mountain stream. Sample results from KB117 indicated the majority of the benthic community had been washed away. Only 24 total individual organisms were found at the site and none of the taxa were found in abundance. However, the control site, had 36 total taxa that were found to be in abundance. The majority of these diverse taxa were intolerant species, commonly found in small mountain streams. The study indicated a devastating impact to the benthic community due to the recent complete rearrangement of the stream bed and the extreme streambank erosion from unusually high flow levels. Recovery of the impacted UT will be slowed by the fact that the entire stream, including the headwaters, have been scoured. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (4.6 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB125) Excellent (2008) 1.23 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 This leaves recolonization of the stream primarily to aerial recolonization as adults emerge from Little Phoenix Creek and lay eggs in the UT, rather than downstream drift of individuals from headwater fauna because that fauna has been severely reduced both in diversity and abundance. Basinwide Planning staff visited the impacted property a month prior to the sampling event. The pictures below show the impacts on the downstream property during a light to moderate rain event which occurred at the time of the visit. fIgurE 1-22: IMPactS froM IMProPEr LaND cLEarINg actIVIty uPStrEaM. LooKINg uPStrEaM (LEft), LooKINg DoWNStrEaM (rIght). fIgurE 1-23: PoSt StrEaMBaNK StaBILIzatIoN rEStoratIoN ProjEct. LooKINg uPStrEaM (LEft), LooKINg DoWNStrEaM (rIght). UT Little Phoenix Creek Stream Restoration & Success Story: In 2007, the National Committee for the New River (NCNR) was awarded a Federal 319 Grant in the amount of $65,400 for restoring an unnamed tributary to Little Phoenix Creek (Figure 1-22). The purpose of this project was to repair 315 feet of a UT- Little Phoenix Creek which was severely damaged by excessive flooding as the result of upstream land clearing activities. The stream restoration was based on natural channel design concepts. Rock step-pool structures were installed in the impacted reach and streambanks reshaped to the proper profile. Once the work was completed, native riparian vegetation was planted along the streambanks to aid in bank stability and to lessen the impacts of thermal pollution on this small headwater stream. 1.24 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 An existing culvert was removed since it acted as a dam, interfering with proper sediment transport. A bridge that spans the entire flood plane was built that allowed the stream profile to be maintained through the reach. The goal of the project, to stabilize the lower reach of UT Little Phoenix Creek at the property, was met. DENR officials worked with the landowner at the top of the mountain to stabilize the 85 acres that had been cleared. NCNR worked with both upstream and downstream landowners to develop and implement a site plan. The result is a functional, stable stream that is also attractive. See the project’s Final Report for more detailed information about the purpose, restoration details and final results. heltoN CReek (050500010108) Includes: Helton Creek [AU#: 10-2-27] This subwatershed has mixed land use of agriculture, some residential and forest in the headwaters. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed. Majority of streams in the subwatershed hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. Helton Creek [AU#: 10-2-27] Helton Creek is approximately 19 miles from the NC/ VA state line to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10- 2-(12)]. This is the main receiving creek for this subwatershed. Land use is a mixture of mostly forest on the south side of the stream and agriculture and residential on the north side. Water Quality Status Helton Creek was monitored at four biological sites during 2008 and 2009. Five benthic samples were taken at three locations along the creek. Two of the three sites were sampled for purposes of a special study. The most downstream benthic site (KB25) is a basinwide site and has been sampled since 1998. Each sample since 1998 has resulted in an Excellent rating, indicating the stream has a stable benthic community. The rating at this site dropped to a Good when it was sampled a second time in 2008 and maintained that Good rating when sampled again in 2009. The fish community site, which is in the same location as KB25 and is a fish community reference site, was monitored in 2008 and received a Not Rated. This rating was given due to unexpected nature of the number and the type of species collected until further sampling could be completed. None of the trout species were native or wild and all appeared to be stocked. The 2009 sample showed similar results and was rated Good- Fair. The large number of stocked species is either an indication of nutrient inputs upstream from nonpoint sources, or the managed trout fishery is affecting the natural fish predators so that prey species are not being controlled. The specific cause of the drop in rating is not known at this time and the stream is considered to be impacted. In September 2010, a survey was conducted to identify locations throughout the state of the Hellbender salamander. A population was found in Helton Creek. More information about the Hellbender Salamander can be found on the NC National Heritage Program website. DWQ Special Study - Helton Creek (B-20081202): A request for benthic sampling was received from the WSRO for three sites on Helton Creek in Ashe County. Sediments from logging, farming, and other agricultural activities in the watershed have filled in the stream above a small low-head dam upstream of SR 1526/Ashe County (KB136), causing a shift in the stream channel. The banks of the new channel are unstable and are a source of additional sediments to the stream. Benthic sampling was requested to assess potential effects of the sediments on the benthic community. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (19 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB25) (KB136) (KB137) Good (2008) Excellent (2008)Excellent (2008) Fish Com (KF5) Not Rated (2008) Good-Fair (2009) 1.25 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 The locations of the three benthic sites sampled on 13 October 2008 can be seen in Figure 1-1 (KB137, KB136 & KB25). The quarter mile segment of Helton Creek where the stream channel had shifted is located just above the middle site (KB136) and is the source of increased sedimentation. One site was selected upstream of the altered channel, one directly downstream, and a third site near the confluence with North Fork New River. The two upstream sites rated Excellent and the downstream site rated Good. It was concluded that the benthic data did not indicate impacts to the benthic community downstream of the new channel. A more detailed summary of the biological data and resultant bioclassifications can be found in the Special Study document. Recommendations A stressor study is recommended to determine the source of the large amount of stocked fish. loweR NoRth foRk New RiveR (050500010109) Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] & Millpond Branch [AU#: 10-2-28] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest in the headwaters, some residential and agriculture scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed. North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] A portion of this segment flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. 1.26 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 RefeReNCes References marked with (*) indicates a DWQ special study report. These reports are not currently available online. Contact Jay Sauber by phone at (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. December 2008. (B-20081202) Results from benthic sampling of three sites on Helton Creek in Ashe County, HUC 05050001 (New River Basin) October 2008. Raleigh, NC. ____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. October 2008. (B-20081007) Results from benthic sampling of eight sites re- quested by DWQ Planning Section and Division of Soil and Water Conservation in HUCS 06010103 (Watauga River Basin) and 05050001 (New River Basin) during summer 2008. Raleigh, NC. ____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. March 2009. (BF-20090316) Results From Sampling of Sites in the North Fork New River Catchment to Support Potential HQW/ORW Reclassifications. Raleigh, NC. ____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. March 2009. (B-20070904) Benthos Sampling below Shatley Farm land clearing, Ashe County, New River Subbasin 02, August, 2007. Raleigh, NC. Pate, Travis. 2009. Watershed Assessment in North Carolina: Building a Watershed Database with Popula- tion, Land Cover, and Impervious Cover Information. Master Theses, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Note: URL addresses for hyperlinks found in this plan are listed in the Acronyms & Definitions Chapter. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 2.1 CHAPTER 2 south foRk New RiveR & fox CReek wateRsheds HUCs 0505000102 & 0505000103 Includes: Meat Camp Creek, Elk Creek, Pine Swamp Creek, Beaver Creek, Naked Creek, Peak Creek, Cranberry Creek, Prather Creek, Grassy Creek & Bridle Creek wateRshed at a glaNCe CouNties: Alleghany, Ashe & Watagua muNiCiPalities: Jefferson, Lansing & West Jefferson eCoRegioNs: Amphibolite Mountains, New River Plateau, Southern Crystaline Ridges and Mountains, Southern Metasedimentary Mountains, & Southern Sedimentary Ridges PeRmitted faCilities: NPDES WWTP: ......................14 Major ...........................................2 Minor .........................................12 Non-Discharge Facilities: ..........9 Stormwater: ..............................6 General .......................................6 Individual .....................................0 Animal Operations: ...................0 PoPulatioN: 2010: .................Coming Soon 2006 laNd CoveR: Developed .........................8.42% Forest .............................64.72% Agriculture .......................26.74% Wetlands ...........................0.11% 2001 Impervious Surface ..0.84% geNeRal wateRshed desCRiPtioN These two ten-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds, with an area of about 351 square miles, are the equivalent to DWQ’s old subbasin 05-07-01 and contain the South Fork New River, Fox Creek and its tributaries (See DWQ’s Old Subbasins to New HUC Conversion map in the Maps Chapter). These two watersheds are combined in the same chapter due to the small size of the Fox Creek watershed (0505000103). Majority of these watersheds lie within Watauga and Ashe Counties. When combined, the South Fork New River and Fox Creek are the largest watersheds in this basin. The river flows north northeast through fairly mountainous terrain before joining with the North Fork New River to form the New River in northern Ashe County. The land cover within these watersheds is mostly forested (64%) and has the largest amount of developed/urban area (8.2%) within the New River basin. These areas include the Towns of Blowing Rock, Boone, and Jefferson. Outside these urban areas, the land is dotted with rural residential communities, pastures and Christmas tree farms. Agricultural activities (25% of land cover) have historically consisted of cattle grazing, but within the last 15 years have expanded to include Christmas tree farming. Roughly 7,800 acres of conservation land are found in these watersheds, and including easements held by local watershed groups and State agencies: Elk Knob State Park, Mt. Jefferson State Natural Area, New River State Park and Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust among others. The population in these watersheds is centered mostly around the towns of Blowing Rock, Boone and Jefferson. The population of all three municipalities increased between 1990 and 2000 by a collective 22%. Boone is estimated to increase 10%, Blowing Rock by 5% and Jefferson by 1.4% by 2010 according to the 2000 census. 2.2 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 fIgurE 2-1: South forK NEW rIVEr/fox crEEK WatErShEDS (0505000102 & 0505000103) "à)"à) "à)"à)"à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à)"à) "à)"à)"à)"à) "à)"à)"à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à)"à) "à)"à)"à)"à) "à)"à) "à)"à) "à)"à) "à)"à) "à)"à) "à)"à) "à)"à)"à) "à)"à)"à) "à) "à)"à) "à)"à) [¡ [¡[¡[¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ #* #*#*#* #* XY #* XY #* #* South F o r k N ew River PineOrchardCr. MeatCampCr. KB 6 7 KB 1 7 KB 1 9 KF 6 KF 2 4 KF 1 3 KF 2 KF 1 5 AS H E WI L K E S WA T A U G A AL L E G H A N Y CA L D W E L L Peak C r e e k BeaverCreek M e ad o w Fork RoanCreek NakedCr. ObidsCr. Pin e y F o r k DogCr. Winkl er C r . HowardCr.Middle Fo r k EastFor k PineSwamp S.BeaverCr. CranberryCreek S.ForkNewR. N e wR. Bo o n e Sp a r t a Bl o w i n g Ro c k Je f f e r s o n Se v e n De v i l s We s t Je f f e r s o n La n s i n g K2 5 0 0 0 0 0 K4 5 0 0 0 0 0 KB 2 KB 5 KB 6 KB 1 0 KB 2 2 KB 1 3 KB 1 1 KB 2 1 KB 2 0 KB 1 4 KB 1 8 KB 1 5 KB 1 3 0 KB 1 2 9 KB 1 0 8 KB 1 4 0 KB 1 2 6 0 4 8 12 16 2 Mil e s "à)"à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à)"à)[¡ [¡ ¢¡#* XY #* Nake d Creek S o u t h ForkNR KB 3 KB 7 KB 9 KB 8 KB 1 3 9 KF 2 0 KF 1 4 K3 2 5 0 0 0 0 "à)"à)"à) "à) "à)"à)"à) "à)"à)"à) [¡ [¡ [¡¢¡ #*#* #* XY #* Eas t F o r k S F N R S F N R KB 1 KB 1 7 KB 1 6 KB 1 2 KB 1 0 3 KF 8 KF 1 2 K2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Le g e n d Ra n d o m A m b i e n t ¢¡NP D E S W W D i s c h a r g e Mo n i t o r i n g S i t e s Mi n o r Hy d r o l o g y - U s e S u p p o r t Wa t e r s h e d B o u n d a r y Co u n t y B o u n d a r i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Ma j o r #* Am b i e n t Fi s h C o m m u n i t y Su p p o r t i n g Im p a i r e d No D a t a Be n t h o s Pr i m a r y R o a d s XY¢¡[¡"à) 2.3 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 wateRshed wateR Quality oveRview The South Fork New River/Fox Creek watershed contains seven out of the eight Impaired stream segments within the New River basin. Four of those segments include Naked Creek, Ore Knob Branch, Peak and Little Peak Creeks, which have been on the Impaired Waters list for several years. The remaining three Impaired segments (two segments of the South Fork New River and the East Fork South Fork New River) were added to the 2008 Impaired Waters list. This watershed has the largest population of the three watersheds in the New River basin and contains more of an of urban and agriculture land use mix. Several waterbodies in the watershed have pristine water quality conditions and are in need of protection as land use changes from forest to urban or agriculture areas. wateR Quality data summaRy foR these wateRsheds Monitoring stream flow, aquatic biology and chemical/physical parameters is a large part of the basinwide planning process. More detailed information about DWQ monitoring and the effects each parameter has on water quality is discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning document. uNdeRstaNdiNg the data Biological & Ambient Rating Converted to Use Support Category Biological (benthic and fish community) samples are given a bioclassification/rating based on the data collected at the site by DWQ’s Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). These bioclassifications include Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Not Impaired, Not Rated, Fair and Poor. For specific methodology defining how these rating are given see Benthic Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) or the Fish Community SOP. Once a rating is given, it is then translated into a Use Support Category (see Figure 2-2). Ambient monitoring data are analyzed based on the percent of samples exceeding the State standard for individual parameters for each site within a two-year period. If a standard is exceeded in greater than 10.0% of samples taken for a particular parameter, that stream segment is Impaired for that parameter. The fecal coliform bacteria parameter is the exception to the rule. See the Fecal Coliform Bacteria section in the Ambient Data portion below. For the purposes of this plan, any site with greater than 7.0% to 10.0% of samples not meeting a parameter’s standard will be considered Impacted. Each biological parameter (benthic and fish community) and each ambient parameter is assigned a Use Support Category based on its rating or percent exceedance. Definitions for each category can be found in Use Support Methodology Chapter. Each monitored stream segment is then given an overall category which reflects the highest individual parameter category. For example, using the data from Figure 2-3 the individual parameter categories would be as follows: Benthos - 5, Fish Community - 1, Turbidity - 5. Therefore, the overall category, which is reported on the Integrated Report, would be 5 (Impaired). An Integrated Report is developed by the state every two years and reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. fIgurE 2-2: uSE SuPPort catEgorIES for BIoLogIcaL ratINgS Biological Ratings Aquatic Life Use Support Excellent Supporting (Categories 1-2) Good Good-Fair Not Impaired Not Rated Not Rated (Category 3) Fair Impaired (Categories 4-5)Poor fIgurE 2-3: ExaMPLE of a uSE SuPPort aND MoNItorINg Box uSE SuPPort: imPaiRed (14 MI) 2008 IR Cat. 5 2010 IR Cat. 5 Benthos (CB1) Fair (2008) Fish Com (CF1) Good-Fair (2008) AMS (C1234500) Turbidity - 12% FCB - 48% 2.4 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 stReam flow The basin experienced prolonged droughts in 1998-2002 and 2007- 2008, and exceptionally high flows resulting from the remnants of several hurricanes (Figure 2-4). During a three week period in September 2004, the tropical storm remnants of Hurricanes Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne lead to wide-spread flooding throughout the central and northern mountains in the Catawba, French Broad, New, and Watauga River basins. Runoff from the storms produced flash-floods throughout the region with peak flows in excess of 10,000 cfs (approximately 500 times median flows) in upper tributary streams; peaks flows in some tributary rivers exceeded 50,000 cfs. In the New River basin, the peak flow during Hurricane Frances (September 7th - 9th) was 14,700 cfs, which had an approximate recurrence interval of 10 to 25 years. During Hurricane Ivan (September 17th - 18th) the peak flow was 7,550 cfs, which had an approximate recurrence interval of 2 to 5 years. More detail about flows in the New River Basin can be found in the 2009 Basinwide Assessment Report: New River Basin produced by DWQ-Environmental Science Section. BiologiCal data Biological samples were collected during the spring and summer months of 2004 and 2008 by ESS as part of the five year basinwide sampling cycle, in addition to special studies. Overall, 36 biological sampling sites were monitored within the South Fork New River Watershed. The ratings for each of the sampling stations can be seen in Appendix 2-B. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure 2-5 and color-coded based on the current rating. As seen on the map, the majority of samples taken in this watershed were Supporting. This map also shows where the Impaired benthic sites are clustered in the basin. Each of these sites are discussed in more detail in the subwatershed discussions below. Figure 2-6 shows 81% of the 27 sampling events received a Supporting rating and 12% received an Impaired rating. Figure 2-7 is a comparison of benthic site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall shifts in ratings. Twenty-four percent of ratings declined and 12% improved in rating. Majority of ratings however, did not change which indicates no watershed scale shift in water quality. fIgurE 2-4: yEarLy aVEragE fLoW ratES (cfS) of thE uSgS gagE StatIoN IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN BEtWEEN 1997 & 2008 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 cf s USGS Flow Guage 03161000 - SF New River Indicates periods of drought in the New River Basin BeNthiC samPliNg summaRy £Total Stations Monitored .....25 £Total Samples Taken ...........27 £Stations Monitored Twice ..... 2 £Number of New Stations ...... 5 2.5 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 fIgurE 2-5: BENthIc StatIoNS coLor coDED By currENt ratINg IN thE South forK NEW rIVEr WatErShED fIgurE 2-6: currENt BENthIc SItE ratINgS Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired fIgurE 2-7: chaNgE IN BENthIc SItE ratINgS Improved Declined No Change New Station Fish Community Sampling Each fish community station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure 2-8 and color coded based on the current rating. Five of the sites were new monitoring sites located in rural watersheds with no NPDES dischargers. These sites were selected to determine potential for becoming fish community regional reference sites. As shown in Figure 2-9, 55% of the 11 sampling events were Supporting and nine percent received an Impaired rating. Thirty-six percent of the samples were Not Rated; therefore, the segments are neither Impaired nor Supporting. These four sites were Not Rated due to their location in a small mountain trout stream which does not currently have rating criteria. DWQ is developing this criteria and will apply it to these sites once completed. Figure 2-10 is a comparison of fish community site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall watershed shifts in ratings. It shows 10% declined and 40% had no change in rating, indicating a somewhat stable fish community. fish Com. samPliNg summaRy £Total Stations Monitored .....11 £Total Samples Taken ...........11 £Number of New Stations ...... 5 2.6 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 fIgurE 2-8: fISh coMMuNIty StatIoNS coLor coDED By currENt ratINg IN thE South forK NEW rIVEr WatErShED fIgurE 2-9: currENt fISh coMMuNIty SItE ratINgS Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not Rated Not Impaired fIgurE 2-10: chaNgE IN fISh coMMuNIty SItE ratINgS Improved Declined No Change New Station When comparing the changes in biological site ratings to the other watersheds in this basin, it appears this watershed had the largest overall decline. However, this watershed had almost twice as many monitoring stations that could be compared between the previous monitoring cycle and the current. For more information about biological data in this watershed, see the 2009 New River Basinwide Assessment Report. Detailed data sheets for each sampling site can be found in Appendix 2-B. Fish Kills/Spill Events Hodges Creek [AU#: 10-1-4-4-1]: A fish kill was reported on July 17, 2010 on Hodges Creek of roughly 100 trout, crayfish and snails. This kill was the result of parking lot sealant being applied to the parking lot, located at 2458 NC Hwy. 105, right before a rain event. The rain event caused the sealant to runoff the parking lot before it was able to dry properly. amBieNt data The ambient data are used to develop use support ratings every two years, which are then reported to the EPA via the Integrated Report (IR). The IR is a collection of all monitored waterbodies in North Carolina and their water quality ratings. The most current IR is the 2010 version and is based on data collected between 2004 and 2008. If a waterbody receives an Impaired rating, it is then placed on the 303(d) Impaired Waters List. The New River Basin portion of the 2010 IR can be found in Appendix 2-A and statewide on the Modeling & TMDL Unit’s website. 2.7 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Three AMS stations are located in the South Fork New River watershed (see Figure 2-1). During the current sampling cycle (January 2004 and December 2008), samples were collected for all parameters on a monthly basis, except metals which were sampled quarterly until 2007. For more information about the ambient monitoring, parameters, how data are used for use support assessment, and other information, see Chapter 2 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning. Long Term Ambient Monitoring The following discussion of major ambient monitoring parameters includes graphs showing the median and mean concentration values for the three AMS stations in this watershed by specific parameter over a 13 year period (1997-2009). Each major parameter is discussed, even if no current impairment exists. The graphs are not intended to provide statistically significant trend information, but rather an idea of how changes in land use or climate conditions can affect parameter readings over the long term. The difference between median and mean results indicate the presence of outliers in the data set. Box and whisker plots of individual ambient stations were completed by parameter for data between 2004 and 2008 by DWQ’s Environmental Sciences Section (ESS) and can be found in the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report. pH AMS site K3250000 (located on the South Fork New River, just southeast of the Town of Jefferson) was the only AMS site in this watershed which recorded a pH standard exceedance. Two samples were over the 9.0 standard during this monitoring cycle, as indicated in Figure 2-11 by a yellow dot. Figure 2-12 shows the mean and median pH levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the South Fork New River watershed. The pH pattern seen during this 13 year period is a steady increase towards the upper 7 range. This trend is seen in all three 10-digit watersheds in the New River Basin and is discussed further in the Executive Summary. fIgurE 2-11: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES ExcEEDINg thE Ph StaNDarDS (2003-2008) fIgurE 2-12: SuMMarIzED Ph VaLuES for aLL Data coLLEctED at aMBIENt SaMPLINg StatIoNS IN huc 0505000102 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 pH Median Mean * NC pH Standard: Between 6 and 9 su 2.8 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Turbidity All three AMS sites (which are located on the South Fork New River) exceeded the state’s turbidity standard in three to seven percent of samples, as seen in Figure 2-13 indicated by a yellow dot. Possible sources of elevated turbidity levels are discussed in the 12-digit subbwatershed section. Figure 2-14 shows the mean and median of turbidity levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the South Fork New River watershed. The yearly averages are well below the state standard of 50 NTUs. The highest two violations occurred in 2009 at sites K3250000 and K4500000, measuring at 380 NTU and 260 NTU, respectively. While some erosion is a natural phenomenon, human land use practices accelerate the process to unhealthy levels. Construction sites, mining operations, agricultural operations, logging operations and excessive stormwater flow off impervious surfaces are all potential sources. Turbidity violations demonstrate the importance of protecting and conserving stream buffers and natural areas. fIgurE 2-13: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES ExcEEDINg thE turBIDIty StaNDarD (2003-2008) fIgurE 2-14: SuMMarIzED turBIDIty VaLuES for aLL Data coLLEctED at aMBIENt SaMPLINg StatIoNS IN huc 0505000102 0 5 10 15 20 25 Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) Median Mean * NC Turbidity Standard: 50 NUTDissolved Oxygen As seen in Figure 2-15, none of the three sites recorded DO standard exceedance during this monitoring cycle. Figure 2-16 shows the mean and median of DO levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the South Fork New River watershed. These averages are well within the normal DO range. fIgurE 2-15: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES ExcEEDINg thE Do StaNDarD (2003-2008) fIgurE 2-16: SuMMarIzED Do VaLuES for aLL Data coLLEctED at aMBIENt SaMPLINg StatIoNS IN huc 0505000102 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 DO ( m g / l ) Median Mean * NC DO Standard: Not < 5 mg/l daily avg. or not < 4 mg/l instantaneous 2.9 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Temperature The NC standard for temperature is not to exceed 29°C (84.2°F) in the mountain/upper piedmont regions. The discharge of heated liquids to trout waters (Tr) should not increase the natural water temperature by more than 0.5°C (0.9°F), and in no case, exceed 20°C (68°F). A map of designated Trout Waters in the New River basin can be found in the Maps Chapter. No stream segments in this watershed are Impaired or Impacted due to high temperatures (Figure 2-17). Figure 2-18 shows the mean and median of temperature levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the South Fork New River watershed. The change in the water temperature trend for this watershed can be linked to the change in stream flow levels. During low flow or drought periods, water can sit in small pools and become heated by the sun. fIgurE 2-17: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES ExcEEDINg tEMPEraturE StaNDarD (2003-2008) fIgurE 2-18: SuMMarIzED tEMPEraturE VaLuES for aLL Data coLLEctED at aMBIENt SaMPLINg StatIoNS IN huc 0505000102 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Te m p e r a t u r e ( ˚ C ) Median Mean * NC Temperature Standard for Mountain/Upper Piedmont Region: 29°C (84.2°F) Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal coliform bacteria occurs in water as a result of the overflow of domestic sewage and from other nonpoint sources of human and animal waste, including pets, wildlife and farm animals. The FCB standard for freshwater streams is not to exceed the geometric mean of 200 colonies/100 ml or 400 colonies/100 ml in 20% of the samples where five samples have been taken in a span of 30 days (5-in-30). Only results from a 5-in-30 study are to be used to indicate whether the stream is Impaired or Supporting. Waters with a use classification of B (primary recreational waters) receive priority for 5-in-30 studies. Other waters are studied as resources permit. Three AMS stations are located within this watershed which are all along the South Fork New River. As seen in Figure 2-19, two of the sites had 0 to 7% of samples taken during this cycle result in levels over 400 colonies/100 ml and the southern most site had 7 to 10%. Possible sources of elevated levels of FCB are discussed in the subwatershed sections. Figure 2-20 shows the geometric mean of FCB levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the South Fork New River watershed. The geometric mean is a type of mean or average, which indicates the central tendency or typical value of a set of numbers. The highest yearly geometric mean for FCB was recorded in 2003. The figure also includes the yearly average stream flow, as seen in Figure 2-4, to show how flow can be linked to FCB levels. fIgurE 2-19: PErcENtagE of SaMPLES WIth ELEVatED fcB LEVELS (2003-2008) 2.10 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 fIgurE 2-20: SuMMarIzED fEcaL coLIforM BactErIa VaLuES for aLL Data coLLEctED at aMBIENt SaMPLINg StatIoNS IN huc 0505000102 WIth oVErLayINg fLoW 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 FC B ( c o l o n i e s / 1 0 0 m l ) Geometricmean Av e r a g e Y e a r l y F l o w (c f s ) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 cf s 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 cf s * NC FCB Standard (5-in-30 data only): Geomean not > 200/100 ml or 400/100 ml in 20% of samples. For more information regarding any of the parameters listed above, see Section 3.3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning. For additional information about ambient monitoring data collected in this river basin, see the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report. ReCommeNdatioNs & aCtioN PlaNs at the wateRshed sCale dwQ PRioRity summaRy Table 2-1 is a list of waters in the South Fork New River & Fox Creek Watersheds that DWQ has prioritized for restoration/protection. The order of priority is not based solely on the severity of the steams impairment or impacts but rather by the need for particular actions to be taken. A stream that is currently supporting its designated uses may be prioritized higher within this table than a stream that is currently impaired. This is based on a more wholistic evaluation of the drainage area which includes monitoring results, current and needed restoration/protection efforts, land use and other activities that could potentially impact water quality in the area. Some supporting streams may have a more urgent need for protections than an impaired stream with restoration needs already being implemented. The third and fourth columns of this table list potential stressors and sources that may be impacting a stream based on in-field observations, monitoring data, historical evidence, permit or other violations, and other staff and public input. In many cases, additional study is needed to determine exact source(s) of the impact (s). The last column includes a list of recommended actions. 2.11 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 taBLE 2-1: PrIorItIzatIoN of WatErS IN thE South forK NEW rIVEr & fox crEEK WatErShEDS (hIghESt to LoWESt PrIorIty) StrEaM NaME au#cLaSS.PotENtIaL StrESSor(S) PotENtIaL SourcE(S)StatuS actIoNS NEEDED South Fork New R. (SFNR) 10-1-(1), 10-1-(3.5)a & 10-1-(3.5)b WS-IV;CA;+ C;+ C;+ Habitat Degradation, Nutrients, pH Construction, WWTP Impaired SS, SEC, NMC, P (Hellbender Salamander) Boone Cr. (Kraut Cr.) 10-1-4-4 C;Tr;+Habitat Degradation, Temperature, Turbidity, DO, Copper ASU Steam Station, Urban Impacts, Construction, Piped Streams Impacted DS, RBR, SC, E SFNR 10-1-(33.5)B;ORW Habitat Degradation, Turbidity, pH, Nutrients, Copper Agriculture, Abandoned Mine Supporting RBR, Ag, NMC Naked Cr.10-1-32 C;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Turbidity, Toxins Construction, Golf Course, Urban Impacts Impaired SC, RBR, E, WRP, DS, SEC Middle Fork SFNR 10-1-2-(1), 10-1-2-(6), 10-1-2-(14) & 10-1-2-(15) WS-IV;+ WS-IV;Tr;+ WS-IV;+ WS-IV;CA;+ Urban Impacts, Blowing Rock WTP Impacted M East Fork SFNR 10-1-3-(1), 10-1-3-(7) & 10-1-3-(8) WS-IV;Tr;+ WS-IV;+ WS-IV;CA;+ Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Urban Impacts, Blowing Rock WTP Impaired RBR, M Obids Cr.10-1-27-(1) 10-1-27-(2) C;Tr;+ WS-IV;Tr;+ Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Agriculture (Livestock access) Supporting Ag, RBR, E Pine Swamp Cr.10-1-24 C;+Turbidity Stormwater Volume & Velocity Supporting RBR, Ag, E Cranberry Cr. (Mulberry Cr.) 10-1-37 B;Tr;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Nutrients Straight Channels, Agriculture Supporting R, Ag, RBR, E Prathers Cr.10-1-38 B;Tr;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Nutrients Agriculture Impacted RBR, Ag, NMC Norris Fork 10-1-10-2 C;Tr;+Turbidity Construction Supporting SEC BMPs SFNR 10-1-(20.5) & 10-1-(26)a WS-V;HQW WS-IV;HQW Supporting RBR, E Roan Cr.10-1-31-(1) 10-1-31-(1.5) 10-1-31-(2) C;Tr;+ WS-IV;Tr;+ WS-IV;CA;Tr;+ Sedimentation Agriculture Supporting Ag, E, RBR Winkler Cr.10-1-4-(1), 10-1-4-(2), 10-1-4-(3.5)a & 10-1-4-(3.5)b WS-II;HQW,Tr WS- II;HQW;Tr;CA C;Tr;+C;Tr;+ Urban Impacts, Pipped Streams Supporting DS, M Grassy Cr.10-3 C;Tr;+Nutrients, pH Agriculture, Straight Channels Impacted Ag, RBR Class.: Classification (e.g., C, S, B, WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV, WS-V, Tr, HQW, ORW, SW, UWL) Stressor: Chemical parameters or physical conditions that at certain levels prevent waterbodies from meeting the standards for their designated use (e.g., low/high DO, nutrients, toxicity, habitat degradation, etc.). Source: The cause of the stressor. (Volume & Velocity: when a stream receives stormwater runoff at a much higher volume and velocity than it would naturally receive due to ditching, impervious surfaces, etc.) Status: Impaired, Impacted, Supporting, Improving Actions Needed: Restoration (R), Protection (P), Stormwater Controls (SC), Stressor Study (SS), Education (E), Local Ordinance (LO), Best Management Practices (BMPs), Sediment and Erosion Control BMPs (SEC), Species Protection Plan (SPP), Forestry BMPs (F), Agriculture BMPs (Ag), Nutrient Mgnt Controls (NMC), Riparian Buffer Restoration (RBR), Daylight Stream (DS), Monitoring (M), Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP). 2.12 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 StrEaM NaME au#cLaSS.PotENtIaL StrESSor(S) PotENtIaL SourcE(S)StatuS actIoNS NEEDED Nathans Cr.10-1-36 B;Tr;+Habitat Degradation Impacted M SFNR 10-1-(3.5)c & 10-1-(14.5) C;+ C;+ Habitat Degradation, Turbidity, pH Poor Riparian Buffers Impacted M SFNR 10-1-(26)b & 10-1-(30)WS-IV;HQWWS-IV;HQW;CA pH, Turbidity, Nutrients Supporting SS Little Peak Cr.10-1-35-4 B;Tr;+Toxins Abandoned Mine Impaired R - Currently Underway Ore Knob Br.10-1-35-3 B;Tr;+Toxins Abandoned Mine Impaired R - Currently Underway Peak Cr.10-1-35-(1),10-1-35-(2)a &10-1-35-(2) b C;Tr;+B;Tr;+B;Tr;+ Toxins Abandoned Mine Impaired R - Currently Underway Pine Orchard Cr.10-1-15-1 C;Tr;+Turbidity Supporting RBR South Beaver Cr.10-1-25-2 C;Tr;+Habitat Degradation (Riparian Buffers) Supporting RBR Piney Fork 10-1-37-3 B;Tr;+Improving M Class.: Classification (e.g., C, S, B, WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV, WS-V, Tr, HQW, ORW, SW, UWL) Stressor: Chemical parameters or physical conditions that at certain levels prevent waterbodies from meeting the standards for their designated use (e.g., low/high DO, nutrients, toxicity, habitat degradation, etc.). Source: The cause of the stressor. (Volume & Velocity: when a stream receives stormwater runoff at a much higher volume and velocity than it would naturally receive due to ditching, impervious surfaces, etc.) Status: Impaired, Impacted, Supporting, Improving Actions Needed: Restoration (R), Protection (P), Stormwater Controls (SC), Stressor Study (SS), Education (E), Local Ordinance (LO), Best Management Practices (BMPs), Sediment and Erosion Control BMPs (SEC), Species Protection Plan (SPP), Forestry BMPs (F), Agriculture BMPs (Ag), Nutrient Mgnt Controls (NMC), Riparian Buffer Restoration (RBR), Daylight Stream (DS), Monitoring (M), Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP). 2.13 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 status & ReCommeNdatioNs foR moNitoRed wateRs uNdeRstaNdiNg this seCtioN In this Section, more detailed information about stream health, special studies, aquatic life stressors and sources and other additional information is provided by each 12-digit Hydrological Unit Code (HUC). Waterbodies discussed in this Chapter include all monitored streams, whether monitored by DWQ or local agencies with approved methods. Use Support information on all monitored streams within this watershed can be seen on the map in Figure 2-1, and a Use Support list of all monitored waters in this basin can be found in the Use Support Methodology Chapter. Use Support & Monitoring Box: Each waterbody discussed in the Status & Recommendations for Monitored Waters within this Watershed section has a corresponding Use Support and Monitoring Box (Table 2-2). The top row indicates the 2010 Use Support and the length of that stream or stream segment. The next two rows indicate the overall Integrated Report category which further defines the Use Support for both the 2008 and the 2010 reports. These first three rows are consistent for all boxes in this Plan. The rows following are based on what type of monitoring stations are found on that stream or stream segment and may include benthic, fish community and/or ambient monitoring data. If one of these three types of monitoring sites is not shown, then that stream is not sampled for that type of data. The first column indicates the type of sampling in bold (e.g., Benthos) with the site ID below in parenthesis (e.g., CB79). The latest monitoring result/rating of that site is listed in the next column followed by the year that sample was taken. If there is more than one benthic site, for example, on that stream, the second site ID and site rating will be listed below the first. The last row in the sample box in Table 2-2 is the AMS data. The data window for all AMS sites listed in the boxes in this Plan is between 2004-2008. Only parameters exceeding the given standard are listed in the second column with the percent of exceedance listed beside each parameter. Please note any fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) listing in the last row (as seen in Table 2-2) only indicates elevated levels and a study of five samples in 30 days (5-in-30) must be conducted before a stream becomes Impaired for FCB. taBLE 2-2: ExaMPLE of a uSE SuPPort aND MoNItorINg Box uSE SuPPort: imPaiRed (14 MI) 2008 IR Cat.4a 2010 IR Cat.4 Benthos (CB79) (CB80)Fair (2002)Fair (2002) Fish Com (CF33) Good-Fair (2002) AMS (C1750000) Turbidity - 12% FCB - 48% 2.14 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 south foRk New RiveR (sfNR) The full length South Fork New River runs from the Town of Boone 125 miles northeast to the New River confluence at the New River State Park. The river’s watershed is split into ten smaller subwatersheds (12-digit HUs) that are discussed in the following sections. This section will review the South Forks water quality status by AU segments. AU#’s: 10-1-(1), 10-1-(3.5)a & 10-1-(3.5)b The SFNR begins at the confluence of the Middle and East Fork South Fork New Rivers in the Town of Boone. This five and a half mile stretch within the Headwaters SFNR subwatershed (050500010201) receives runoff from a wide variety of land uses, including sports fields, commercial properties, pastures and a quarry along the stream banks with residential and forested land further up the banks. The Town of Boone’s WWTP also discharges to this portion of the SFNR. The two segments of the river running from Winkler Creek to US-421 [AU#: 10-1- (3.5)a & b] were added to the 2008 Impaired Waters list for ecological/biological integrity. Segment 10-1-(3.5)b was originally placed on the Impaired Waters List in 1998 for ecological/biological integrity and removed from the 2000 List. Water Quality Status The majority of the SFNR located within this subwatershed, 5.1 miles of 5.5 miles, initially appeared on the Impaired Waters list in 2008. Three DWQ sampling stations, located at the US-421 bridge, monitor the benthic and fish communities as well as physical/chemical parameters (AMS). Fish community samples taken this cycle indicated an improvement in species diversity as well as the quantity of the community from the previous cycle. However, a benthic sample collected in November of 2003, resulted in a declined rating of Fair from Good-Fair in August of 2003. The 2008 benthic rating echoed the November 2003 rating of Fair. Data from surrounding tributaries indicate the immediate drainage area is having more of an impact on the river than surrounding tributaries. Silt covered 40% of the benthos in this reach limiting habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. The excess silt is likely a result of stormwater runoff carrying loose sediment from a large land disturbing activity at the confluence of Hardin Creek and the SFNR. Physical/chemical sample results also show the stream is experiencing periods of high turbidity during storm events. Nutrient levels, particularly ammonia, have been reduced as a result of upgrades to the Town of Boone’s WWTP; however, reductions in total nitrogen and total phosphorus are still needed to support the river’s designated uses. pH levels at this site have gradually increased from 6.6 to around 7.6 between 1997 and 2009. In September 2010, a survey was conducted to identify locations throughout the state of the Hellbender salamander. A population was found in the SFNR near Boone. More information about the Hellbender Salamander can be found on the NC National Heritage Program website. This section of the SFNR will remain on the Impaired Waters List in 2012 and will be re-sampled in 2013. Recommendations It is recommended that both county and municipal planning departments work cooperatively to ensure construction projects are completed in an environmentally responsible manner. Local governments are also urged to partner with local environmental groups and DWQ to determine the need for a Watershed Restoration Plan. A stressor study is recommended to pinpoint the source of nutrients and other stressors that are impacting the benthic community. DWQ supports the need for funding a Watershed Restoration Plan for this drainage area that includes an implementation plan and post implementation monitoring. The presence of the Hellbender salamander increases the priority of restoration and protection of this drainage area. uSE SuPPort: imPaiRed (5.5 MI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (KB16) Fair (2008) Fish Com (KF12) Good (2008) AMS (K2100000) No Exceedances 2.15 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 AU#’s: 10-1-(3.5)c & 10-1-(14.5) These two segments of the SFNR are approximately 61 miles from the edge of Boone to just upstream of Couches Creek and flow through three subwatersheds (Meat Camp Creek-SFNR: 050500010202, Elk Creek-SFNR: 050500010203 and Old Fields Creek-SFNR: 050500010204). Land cover for the drainage area is a mixture of agriculture lining the stream banks, small scattered urban and forested areas. Water Quality Status These segments were last sampled in 1990 when the benthic community received a Good-Fair rating. There are no known water quality issues in the segments. Recommendations DWQ will monitor KB90 during the next sampling cycle, if resources are available, to determine if there as been a significant change in water quality of this drainage area. AU#’s: 10-1-(20.5) & 10-1-(26)a These two segments of the SFNR are approximately 25 miles from just upstream of Couches Creek to Obids Creek and flow through three subwatersheds (Old Fields Creek-SFNR: 050500010204, Pine Swamp-SFNR: 050500010205 and Beaver Creek-SFNR: 050500010206). Land cover for the drainage area is a mixture of agriculture and forest. Water Quality Status The upstream segment [AU#: 10-1-(20.5)] has been monitored for benthic health three times since 1998 and holds a secondary use classification of HQW. The first two samples rated Excellent; however, the most recent sample taken in 2008 declined to a Good rating. This decline indicates more pollution tolerant taxa inhabiting the stream. Limited instream habitat and poor riparian buffers are responsible for the low habitat score. Specific conductivity and pH levels were both higher than past samples (105µS/cm and 9.2, respectively). Habitat conditions and an increasing pollution tolerance level combined with elevated turbidity, conductivity and pH levels indicate signs of recent impacts to the aquatic life in this segment. If impacts continue, the benthic rating for this segment is expected to decline during the next cycle. Recommendations Riparian buffer restoration is suggested along sections of the river that are lacking buffers of the correct width or all together. Educational efforts are also suggested for this area to inform property owners of the importance of maintaining proper width riparian buffers. AU#’s: 10-1-(26)b & 10-1-(30) These two segments of the SFNR [AU#: 10-1-(26)b & (30)] are approximately seven miles from just downstream of the Obids Creek to Naked Creek and flow through two subwatersheds (Beaver Creek-SFNR: 050500010206 and Naked Creek-SFNR: 050500010207). Land cover for the drainage area is a mixture of agriculture, forest and residential. Segment 10-1-(26)b was added to the 2006 Impaired Waters List for low pH violations but removed from the 2008 list. Water Quality Status A benthic site located at NC-16/18 has been sampled five times between 1990 and 2008. Each of these samples has resulted in an Excellent rating. The most recent sample showed a large and diverse benthic community; however, this community is slightly more pollution tolerant than of those found in the 2003 sample. This is an indication that impacts to instream water quality are present. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (60.5 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB90) Good-Fair (1990) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (24.6 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB2) Good (2008) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (7.3 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB3) Excellent (2008) AMS (K3250000) No Exceedances 2.16 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 An AMS station is located just downstream of the benthic station, at NC-16 and NC-88. Between 2005 and 2009, there were no parameters with exceedances greater than 10% which would cause the stream to be added back to the Impaired Waters list. However, parameters of interest at this station include turbidity, specific conductivity, nutrients and pH which were all elevated as compared to the previous cycle. Fecal coliform bacteria levels were, on average, lower than the previous cycle. Several low pH readings, below the state water quality standard of 6.0, in the late 1990s and early 2000s placed this segment on the 2006 Impaired Waters List. It was removed from the 2008 list due to a reduction in the percent of samples with low pH violations. The last low pH violation was recorded in 2001 and the first high pH violation (greater than 9.0) was recorded in 2002. As seen in Figure 2-21, yearly averages of pH have been steadily increasing. The specific cause of the increasing pH levels is unknown at this time. Recommendations A stressor study should be conducted to determine the source of the increased pH. In western portion of the State, a downward trend is being seen in pH levels. This site does not appear to be affected by the unknown cause of low pH in the western portion; therefore, a separate study should be prioritized. AU#: 10-1-(33.5) This segment of the SFNR is 22.5 miles long, from Dog Creek to the confluence with the New River. The land cover in this drainage area is dominated by agriculture and forest. No permitted dischargers are located along the segment; however, it does receive flow from Peak, Little Peak Creeks and Ore Knob Branch, which are all Impaired waters. This segment holds a National Wild & Scenic River classification as well as a State use classification of ORW. Water Quality Status This segment includes an AMS station and a benthic macroinvertebrate station. Both stations are located along US-221, near Scottville. The benthic station has been monitored since 1983 and received an Excellent rating since 1990 as it did again in 2008. Specific conductivity and pH levels have both increased since the 2003 sample, indicating the presence of a water quality pollutant. Much of the streambanks along the segment lack any form of riparian buffer and are often used for agriculture activities. Physical and chemical parameters measured at the AMS station (K4500000) were all within North Carolina’s water quality standards. However, the data did show elevated levels of turbidity and copper and slightly higher nutrient levels as compared to the previous sampling cycle. A copper ore mine on Ore Knob Branch is the likely source of elevated copper. See the Peak Creek-South Fork New River subwatershed discussion for more details about the closed mine. Recommendations DWQ will work with SWCD to prioritize this segment of the river for the most appropriate agricultural BMPs to reduce the amount of nutrients and sediment that runs off farmlands. Educational efforts are also recommended to inform landowners of the importance of minimizing time soil is exposed between crop rotation and maintaining adequate riparian buffers. fIgurE 2-21: yEarLy Ph aVEragES for K3250000 BEtWEEN 1998 aND 2009 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 pH K325 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 pH pH Average (yr) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (22.5 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB10) Excellent (2008) AMS (K4500000) No Exceedances 2.17 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Local Initiatives In 2008, the National Committee for the New River (NCNR) combined efforts with the New River State Park to work on a streambank and riparian buffer restoration project. The streambank along a reach of the South Fork river in the New River State Park had severely eroding streambanks and lacked accessible floodplain and vegetated riparian buffers. The primary goal of the project was to reduce erosion; establish functional riparian zones; stabilize streambanks; restore connection of the stream to the flood plain; provide shading of the streams, and improve aquatic habitat. With funding from CWMTF, the NCNR stabilized 1350 linear feet of riverbank by sloping the banks, constructing in-stream structures to protect the bank, and planting a riparian buffer. The New River State Park contributed funds to plant trees on the project site, extending the average riparian buffer zone to over 200 feet. fIgurE 2-22: StrEaM & BuffEr rEStoratIoN EffortS aLoNg South forK (LEft: March 2010; rIght: May 2010) *Pictures Provided by NCNR’s Lynn Caldwell south foRk New RiveR headwateRs (huC: 050500010201) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(1), (3.5)a & (3.5)b], Middle Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-2-(1), (6), (14) & (15)], East Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-3-(1), (7) & (8)] & Winkler Creek [AU#:10-1-4-(1) & (3.5)] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, urban and agriculture. There are five minor and one major NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. The majority of streams in the subwatershed hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. The Towns of Blowing Rock and Boone are located in the southern and northern portion of the subwatershed, respectively. The subwatershed also includes two Impaired waterbodies (South Fork New River [AU: 10-1-(3.5)b] and East Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-3-(1)]). Middle Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-2-(1), (6), (14) & (15)] The Middle Fork South Fork New River runs about 11 miles from its source in the Town of Blowing Rock to the SFNR confluence in the Town of Boone. The river mostly flows north along US 221/321. Between the Towns of Blowing Rock and Boone, the river receives run off from light development along the streambanks, the Boone Golf Course and discharge from four minor NPDES facilities. Water Quality Status The first two segments of the river [AU#: 10-1-2-(1) & (6)], or the first nine miles, were last sampled in 2003. The 2003 benthic sample (KB67) was taken as part of a special study to determine impacts of a sodium hydroxide spill and received a Good-Fair rating. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (11.1 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB1) Good-Fair (2008) Fish Com (KF8) Not Rated (2008) 2.18 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 The lower portion of the river [AU#: 10-1-2-(14) & (15)] was sampled in 2008 just upstream of the SFNR confluence. This benthic site (KB1) has been sampled five times since 1993, when it received an Excellent rating. Since that time, ratings have fluctuated between Good and Good-Fair. The 2008 Good-Fair rating and analysis indicates the river has been degrading gradually over time. The largest number of pollution tolerant species were collected during this cycle. The site also had elevated specific conductivity levels and poor habitat ratings. A fish community site is located at the same location as the benthic site and was first monitored in 1998 resulting in an Excellent rating. The fish site was not monitored in 2003 due to a sodium hydroxide spill. The 2008 sample showed a decline in number of pollution intolerant species, as well as a decline in bioclassification. The site was given a Not Rated due to the combined effects of the spill, described below, and the urban nature of this stream. In 2003, the Blowing Rock Water Treatment Plant spilled approximately 3,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide about eight miles upstream of the sampling site, causing an estimated 14,000 to 15,000 fish kill in the Middle Fork and upper part of the SFNR. DWQ conducted a special study to determine the effect of the spill on the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Samples from three weeks after the spill indicated no significant impact to the benthic community on the Middle Fork. Other samples taken during the study on the East Fork and the SFNR; however, did show impacts. Those are discussed further in those respective stream discussions below. Due to this spill, no fish sample was taken during the last cycle. Recommendations DWQ will re-sample site KF8 to determine the current water quality conditions. Sampling during the upcoming cycle will also assist in evaluating if the urban land use is having an impact on the fish community. The Boone Dam should be considered for a Dam Removal Project. American Rivers works closely with local agencies to determine whether it is environmentally beneficially to remove a particular dam or if the act of removing the dam would cause unnecessary damage to the aquatic life and it habitat. Additional information about American Rivers and what they do can be found online. East Fork South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-3-(1), (7) & (8)] The East Fork South Fork New River is approximately three miles from source to the confluence with the SFNR. Headwaters drain pasture and other agricultural lands before transitioning to urban residential areas just before the confluence. The last mile of the river flows through the Boone Golf Course. One segment [AU#: 10-1-3-(1)] was added to the 2008 Impaired Waters list. The upstream and downstream segments are Supporting. Water Quality Status Two segments [AU#: 10-1-3-(1) & (8)] of the river were listed for the first time on the 2008 Impaired Waters list for biological integrity; however, the most downstream segment [AU#: 10-1-3-(8)] was removed from the 2010 Impaired Waters list. The upstream two mile segment [AU#: 10-1-3-(1)] was monitored for the first time at KB103 in 2003 as part of a special study to determine impacts of a sodium hydroxide spill from the Blowing Rock WTP in November 2003. The 2003 sample rated the benthic community as Fair as a result of the WTP spill. This site has not been re-sampled; however, the biological community has likely recovered from the spill impacts. The downstream half mile of the river [AU#: 10-1-3-(8)] has historically had an Excellent or Good benthic community at site KB12 but was rated Poor in 2003 due to the release of sodium hydroxide. The benthic community has since recovered from those impacts and received a Good rating in 2008, which removed the downstream segment from the 2010 Impaired Waters list. uSE SuPPort: imPaiRed (5.8 MI) 2008 IR Cat. 5 2010 IR Cat. 5 Benthos (KB12) (KB103) Good (2008) Fair (2003) 2.19 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the East Fork South Fork New River basinwide benthic site KB12. Special study site KB103 will be re-sampled to determine if the water quality has improved to support the rivers use sufficiently, depending on resource availability. It is also recommended that local agencies work with the Boone Golf Course to plant a proper riparian buffer along the stretch of the river that flows through the property. Local Initiatives Just across the river from the golf course, the National Committee for the New River (NCNR) began efforts to restore 1,442 linear feet of an unnamed tributary of the East Fork New River located on the Deerfield United Methodist Church property. This reach was incised and one section was migrating toward Deerfield Road. There was an old, degraded, and dangerous culvert under the church parking lot and another culvert through a grassy area which had dangerous sink-holes. The upper reach of the channel was daylighted and restored to a natural dimension, pattern, and profile. A new channel was created just downstream of a garden and a new culvert placed through the parking lot, well away from the road. Natural channel structures such as crossvanes, J-hooks, log deflection jams, and rootwads were placed throughout the high stress areas of the reach to control scour/erosion, create habitat and establish a stable riffle-pool sequence. A 50-foot riparian buffer was planted along the project reach. fIgurE 2-23: StrEaM rEStoratIoN EffortS aLoNg EaSt forK (LEft: BEforE; rIght: aftEr) *Pictures Provided by NCNR’s Lynn Caldwell Winkler Creek [AU#:10-1-4-(1), (2), (3.5)a & (3.5)b] Winkler Creek is about six and a half miles long from source to the confluence with the SFNR. Headwaters of the creek drain mostly forest with single family homes and pasture lands along the streambanks. The last two miles of the stream, before it merging with the South Fork, flows through the Town of Boone. A thin riparian buffer is present along the banks of this portion; however, the area has a significant amount of impervious surface and is channeled underground periodically. The creek is currently supporting its designated uses according to the 2010 Integrated Report. Water Quality Status Winkler Creek has been monitored by DWQ since 1993 at a benthic station (KB17), located directly behind Watauga High School on the town limits of Boone. Historically, this station has had a stable, pollution intolerant benthic community. The sample taken in 2008 was rated Excellent as well. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (6.3 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB17) Excellent (2008) 2.20 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor the basinwide benthic station KB17 or relocate the site to upstream of the South Fork confluence. Data from this station could provide information on changes in water quality as the land use shifts from agriculture to urban. DWQ supports local efforts which involve property owners and other stakeholders in the planning process of evaluating and determining the best strategy for daylighting the full length of the stream. Boone Creek (Kraut Creek) [AU#: 10-1-4-4] Boone Creek is just over two and a half miles running from the northwest potion of the Town of Boone to Winkler Creek. The full length of the creek runs through a dense urban area with significant impervious surfaces. Portions of the creek have been piped underground. These watershed conditions can cause, among other water quality issues, flashy conditions within the stream during and shortly after storm events. DWQ does not currently collect data on this stream; therefore, the stream is not given a use support rating. Water Quality Status (Special Study) In 2006 and 2007, a study was conducted by Appalachian State University (Baseline Monitoring Case Study of a High-Gradient, Urbanized Stream - Boone Creek, Boone, NC) to provide a baseline for water quality data along Boone Creek. A two page summary of this study can be found online. Data for this study was collected between May 2006 and May 2007. Parameters sampled during this time were temperature, electrical conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH and pressure. One of the main focuses of this study was evaluating thermal behavior of the stream. Between May and August of 2006, temperatures in the stream ranged from 40°F to 72°F, which is over the North Carolina standard for Trout Waters. During the full length of the study, temperature averaged a 10-12°F difference within a 24 hour period in a one mile segment of the stream. The greater temperature differences occurred mostly during and shortly after storm events, when parking lots and other impervious surfaces are heated by the sun and then transferred that heat to stormwater runoff. This drainage area has a large percentage of impervious surfaces which can also cause the stream to become flashy. The study also discussed the stream’s chemistry and impacts from sedimentation. High levels (600-800 NTU) of turbidity were seen in the stream following rain events for one to six hours and would remain around 50 NTU for several days. Land clearing for construction projects in and around the Appalachian State University are sources of these high levels. pH levels upstream were found to be around 7 (neutral) and declined to more acidic levels further downstream. During winter months, the decline may have been due to salt on the roads. Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels stayed between 0 and 5 mg/l during the summer months in 2006. The DO standard in North Carolina for instantaneous readings is 4 mg/l. Copper samples were also noted as above the State’s action level. Recommendations Recommendations in the study discussed above suggested a major stream remediation. However, additional data is needed in combination to what was collected to plan a successful long term remediation. Other less expensive measures suggested by the study include wider riparian buffers and wetland areas located along the creek and installation of low impact development stormwater BMPs (e.g., green roofs, pervious pavements, bio-retention and collecting rain water). Daylighting the stream to increase habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates is also suggested by the study (Thaxton, 2007). DWQ supports the recommendation for planning and implementation of an in-depth stream restoration/ remediation project which includes stream daylighting. This type of long term project which is planned in detail is more likely to have measurable and lasting results than installing BMPs individually. Stormwater BMPs and wider buffer zones are economically feasible options to start with until project funding is secure, but should also be included in a larger restoration plan. uSE SuPPort: -- (2.7 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.-- 2.21 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Local Initiatives Actions to restore the streambanks and riparian zones along Boone Creek have already begun. The National Committee for the New River (NCNR) applied for a grant to implement the Boone Creek/“Kraut Creek” Enhancement project, designed to improve 185 linear feet of the creek beginning just behind 970 Rivers Street in Boone. This site is in the downtown area of Boone where encroaching development and the resulting stormwater runoff had caused severe streambank erosion. Part of an asphalt parking lot and a wooden fence (as seen in left picture in Figure 2-24) were removed on the right side of the creek. The banks were sloped to provide access to the floodplain. On the left side of the creek, a rock buttress and rock vanes were constructed to protect adjacent property. A riparian buffer was established to protect both sides of the creek, as seen in the picture to the right. fIgurE 2-24: rIParIaN BuffEr rEStoratIoN EffortS aLoNg BooNE crEEK (LEft: March 2007; rIght: octoBEr 2008) *Pictures Provided by NCNR’s Lynn Caldwell This project was initiated by the Kraut Creek Committee of Boone and NCNR. Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) provided most of the funding for the project. The Boone Chamber of Commerce provided a cash match, and Appalachian State University provided both cash and in-kind donations. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(1), (3.5)a & (3.5)b] This segment of the River flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. meat CamP CReek-south foRk New RiveR (050500010202) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(3.5)c], Howard Creek [AU#: 10-1-9], Meat Camp Creek [AU#: 10-1-10] & Norris Fork [AU#: 10-1-10-2] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban area in the southern portion. There is one minor NPDES discharger permit in this subwatershed. The majority of streams in the subwatershed hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. Howard Creek [AU#: 10-1-9] Howard Creek is ten miles from source to the South Fork New River [AU#: 10- 1-(3.5)c] and contains mostly agriculture, forest and spotted areas of residential land use. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (10 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB18) Excellent (2008) Fish Com (KF6) Not Rated (2008) 2.22 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Water Quality Status A benthic and fish community monitoring site are located on either side of NC-194. The benthic site has maintained the Excellent rating it has received since 1988, with exception to the 2003 rating of Good. Results from the fish sample shows the stream is healthy and supports a rich community of fish through good quality water and habitat. The fish community was Not Rated because DWQ does not currently have criteria for small mountain trout streams. Norris Fork [AU#: 10-1-10-2] Norris Fork is approximately four miles long from source to Meat Camp Creek. The stream begins in pasture lands then flows over a mile through forest before reaching more pasture and residential land. Water Quality Status The benthic community was first monitored on Norris Fork in 2003 when it received an Excellent rating. The 2008 sample dropped a rating to Good. Even though the number of macroinvertebrates were similar to the previous sample, the species collected in 2008 were more pollution tolerant. High silt levels due to land clearing activities for residential properties are a possible source of this decline. Residential development is expected to continue in this area. Recommendations Norris Fork is a designated Trout Water. The Town of Boone is delegated responsibility from the state to implement the Sediment and Erosion Control Program which inspects land clearing activities on a regular basis to ensure the sedimentation BMPs are being properly maintained. Meat Camp Creek [AU#: 10-1-10] Meat Camp Creek flows from the source at the northern most point of the subwatershed ten miles southeast to the South Fork New River. As in most of this subwatershed, a mixture of pastures and residential properties line this creek and its drainage area. Water Quality Status This stream has historically received a Good or Excellent benthic rating since monitoring began in 1990. Results from 2008 showed little to no change. The fish community was Not Rated because DWQ does not currently have criteria for small mountain trout streams. However, biologists noted a healthy fish community with decent habitat. Cobb Creek [AU#: 10-1-10-3] Cobb Creek is approximately three miles from source to Meat Camp Creek [AU#: 10-1-10]. This drainage area has a mixture of land cover of forest, agriculture and residential property further downstream. This stream holds the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. Water Quality Status Water quality for Cobb Creek is unknown at this time; however, a DWQ Random Ambient Monitoring System (RAMS) station was located about two miles upstream of its confluence with Meat Camp Creek. This was a temporary station where data was collected for two years (2009-2010). A summary of that data will be discussed here when it is available. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(3.5)c] This segment of the River flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (4.3 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB21) Good (2008) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (10.4 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB20) Excellent (2008) Fish Com (KF24) Not Rated (2008) uSE SuPPort: -- (2.7 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.-- RAMS (K2500000) Data Not Yet Available 2.23 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 elk CReek-south foRk New RiveR (050500010203) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(3.5)c & (14.5)], Pine Orchard Creek [AU#: 10-1-15-1] & Elk Creek [AU#: 10-1-15] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban area in the southern portion. There is one minor NPDES discharger permit in this subwatershed. No waters in this subwatershed are on the Impaired Waters List. Pine Orchard Creek [AU#: 10-1-15-1] Pine Orchard Creek is three and a half miles long from source to its confluence with Elk Creek [AU#: 10-1-15]. The downstream half runs parallel to NC-194. The drainage area is mostly forested with some agriculture and residential properties on the north bank. Water Quality Status This creek has been monitored since 2003 when it received an Excellent benthic rating. Over the past five years the creek has seen little to no change in water quality. However, there was an increase in silt covering the stream floor. This indicates sediment is entering the creek during storm events. Recommendations Riparian buffer restorations is suggested for any reaches of the creek that is lacking proper vegetation. Unnamed Tributary to South Fork New R. [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)ut4] Water Quality Status This unnamed tributary was sampled as part of a special study to evaluate possible impacts on water quality by Rockwater Farms. Two benthic samples were collected at an upstream and downstream location from the farm. The two sites were about 300 meters apart in distance. The upstream site (KB130) had habitat score of 32 out of 100 and was described by biologists as a ditch. The downstream site (KB140) had double the habitat score (66) of the upstream site and a much higher quality benthic community. Both sites were given a Not Rated because the drainage area was not large enough to meet rating criteria; otherwise, the tributary would have been Impaired. Taxa found at the downstream site indicate the issue is being caused by poor habitat verses the instream water quality. For more information about the results of this study, see B-20070309. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(3.5)c] This segment of the River flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. old fields CReek-south foRk New RiveR (050500010204) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)], Mill Creek [AU#: 10-1-18], & Old Field Creek [AU#: 10-1-22] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban areas. There are no NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. No waters in this subwatershed are on the Impaired Waters List. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (3.5 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB22) Not Impaired (2008) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (1.0 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB130) (KB104) Not Rated (2007) Not Rated (2007) 2.24 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Unnamed Tributary to Mill Creek [AU#: 10-1-18ut4] This Unnamed Tributary to Mill Creek is a little over one mile from source to Mill Creek [AU#: 10-1-18]. The majority of the stream is surrounded by forest with agriculture lining the lower portion on the northern side. Water Quality Status This stream was monitored in 2007 as part of the special study conducted on the unnamed tributary to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)ut4] discussed above. The station located on this unnamed tributary was used as a reference site for the special study (B-20070309). This site had the highest habitat score (80 out of 100) of all three sites sampled. The community collected was extremely intolerant to pollution and reflects the comparatively undisturbed nature of this drainage area. For more information about the results of this study, see B-20070309. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)] One segment [AU#: 10-1-(14.5)] of the SFNR flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. PiNe swamP-south foRk New RiveR (050500010205) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5)], Gap Creek [AU#: 10-1-23], & Pine Swamp Creek [AU#: 10-1-24] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban areas. There is one minor NPDES discharger permit in this subwatershed. No waters in this subwatershed are on the Impaired Waters List. Pine Swamp Creek [AU#: 10-1-24] Pine Swamp Creek runs five and a half miles from source to the South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5)]. The majority of the stream is surrounded by cow pastures and Christmas tree farms. Water Quality Status This creek was monitored by DWQ in 2003 and 2008 and received a Good benthic rating for each. A large amount of silt was visible in the stream and made up 30% of the substrate. The stream also has poor riparian buffers and severe bank erosion. The silty substrate may be originating from the eroded banks or stormwater pulling sediment from the drainage area. Many farms are ditched for faster draining; however, this can cause a larger volume of sediment to enter the stream at a high velocity. This results in a stream becoming flashy which accelerates the erosion of streambanks. Recommendations A restoration effort is recommended for this stretch to reestablish the streams natural meandering which will reduce the velocity. Proper riparian buffers are highly encouraged to reduce the volume of runoff that reaches the stream. DWQ also recommends an local educational effort to inform property owners of the importance of allowing streams to keep their natural flow path. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5)] This segment of the River flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (1.3 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB129) Not Impaired (2007) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (5.5 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB108) Good (2008) 2.25 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 BeaveR CReek-south foRk New RiveR (050500010206) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5), (26)a & (26)b], South Beaver Creek [AU#: 10-1-25-2], Beaver Creek [AU#: 10-1-25], & Obids Creek [AU#: 10-1-27] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban areas including the southern portion of the Town of West Jefferson. There are two minor NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. The majority of streams in this subwatershed, with exception to the South Fork New River, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. No waters in this subwatershed are on the Impaired Waters List. South Beaver Creek [AU#: 10-1-25-2] South Beaver Creek runs about seven miles from source to its confluence with Beaver Creek and includes Lake Ashe about one mile upstream of Beaver Creek. The majority of this drainage area is forested with scattered rural communities. Water Quality Status This creeks benthic community was sampled in 2003 and 2008 and received a Good rating both years. The community appears to be stable with diverse and pollution sensitive taxa. The site had a relatively high habitat score of 75 out of 100; however, was lacking a riparian buffer on the right bank. Obids Creek [AU#: 10-1-27] Obids Creek runs over six miles from source to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1-(26) a]. The majority of this drainage area is agriculture and forest with scattered rural communities. Agriculture here is dominated by Christmas tree farms and pastures. Water Quality Status This creek was sampled for both benthic and fish communities in 2008 which both resulted in a Good rating. Both samples were taken at the same location near the mouth of the creek. This was the first fish sample take on the creek. The diversity and amount of pollution intolerant species were slightly lower than expected for a site that is an optimal nursery area due to its proximity to the South Fork. The benthic sample was slightly lower than the previous sample; however, it remains a Good rating. The instream habitat was in good condition but lacks steady riparian zones and cattle have access to the stream. Riparian buffer zones with shading trees can keep the water temperature down and filter pollutant or excess nutrients from storm runoff before reaching the stream. Recommendations Currently, cattle have direct access to the creek which can degrade habitat impacting the aquatic life. DWQ will work with SWCD to prioritize the need for livestock fencing along this creek. It is also recommended that local agencies educate land owners in this drainage area about the importance of maintaining riparian zones which include trees along this stream. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(20.5), (26)a & (26)b] This segment of the River flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (6.8 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB5) Good (2008) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (6.3 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB6) Good (2008) Fish Com (KF13) Good (2008) 2.26 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Naked CReek-south foRk New RiveR (050500010207) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(26)b, (30), (31.5) & (33.5)], Roan Creek [AU#: 10-1-31], Naked Creek [AU#: 10-1-32], & Dog Creek [AU#: 10-1-33] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and urban areas including almost the entire Town of Jefferson. There are three minor NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. The majority of streams in this subwatershed, with exception to the SFNR and Naked Creek, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. The lower portion of Naked Creek is the only water in this subwatershed that is currently on the Impaired Waters List (2010 list). Roan Creek [AU#: 10-1-31] Roan Creek is over 13 miles long from source to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1-(30)] and holds a secondary use classification of Trout Waters. The majority of this drainage area is agriculture and forest with scattered rural communities. Portions of the stream run along NC-88. Water Quality Status This creek was sampled for both benthic and fish communities in 2008 which both resulted in a Good rating. Both samples were taken at the same location near the mouth of the creek. This was the first fish sample take on the creek and included a fairly diverse and abundant community. However, the benthic rating declined from the Excellent it received in 2003. The decline in abundance and pollution sensitivity of the community could be contributed to the amounts of silt filling in benthic habitat which was not seen in the 2003 sample. Recommendations Even though the creek was given Good bioclassification ratings, the decline in benthic community indicates the drainage area is being impacted. There is a significant amount of Fraser Fir Christmas tree farms in this drainage area which can contribute to excessive sediment reaching the stream if not harvested correctly. DWQ will work with local agencies to provide public education related to the importance of good riparian zones and other agricultural BMPs focused on the reduction of sediment reaching the stream and impacts to aquatic life. Additional information about tree farming and best management practices are discussed in the Other Natural Resource Programs Chapter. Online educational materials are also found within that chapter. Naked Creek [AU#: 10-1-32] Naked Creek is just over six miles from source, north of the Town of Jefferson, to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1-(31.5)]. The first mile of the stream flows through a tree farm with little to no riparian buffers. After flowing through the Town of Jefferson it flows through farm lands and the Jefferson Landing golf course and residential area. Extensive segments of the creek are channelized and diverted underground. The lower segment of Naked Creek [AU#: 10-1-32b], which is two and a half miles, is on the 2010 Impaired Waters List for degraded ecological/ biological integrity within the fish community. Water Quality Status Naked Creek was originally placed on the first Impaired Waters List in 1998 and stayed on the list until 2006 when it was removed. The creek’s benthic community was first monitored in 1986 when it received a Good- Fair (KB8) upstream of the Town of Jefferson’s WWTP and a Poor rating (KB9) downstream of the facility. The upstream site has alternated between Good-Fair and Good ratings since that time. Degradation at this site has historically been linked to urban runoff and sedimentation. The downstream site had received a Poor or Fair rating until 2003 when it rated Good-Fair. This higher rating was likely due to a combination of major uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (13.4 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB7) Good (2008) Fish Com (KF20) Good (2008) uSE SuPPort: imPaiRed (6.1 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (KB8) (KB139) Good (2008) Good-Fair (2008) Fish Com (KF14) Fair (2008) 2.27 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 upgrades completed at the Jefferson WWTP and heavy rains. A USGS flow gage station on the South Fork just upstream of the Naked Creek confluence recorded the highest yearly average flow (cfs) in 2003 (between 1997 and 2009). This could have had a significant impact on dilution of the WWTPs effluent and other toxins from urban stormwater runoff. It was removed from the 2006 list due to the Good-Fair benthic rating at KB9 in 2003. Town of Jefferson WWTP The Town of Jefferson’s WWTP has been a major contributing factor or source of the impairment for Naked Creek since first listed in 1998. The plant failed three toxicity tests in 1994 which was attributed to landfill leachate being processed through the plant. Other methods of leachate disposal have since been found and is no longer processed by the facility. Due to numerous other violations and recommendations by DWQ, the facility obtained funding to make approximately $1.9 million worth of upgrades to the facility. These upgrades were completed in 2004. Latest inspections confirm the effluent discharged by the facility is no longer having an impact on the creek. Therefore, the facility will be no longer be considered a source of Naked Creek’s impairment. Current Monitoring Naked Creek was monitored at the same upstream benthic station (KB8) in 2008; however, the downstream site (KB9) was moved in 2008 to just before the confluence with South Fork and received a new station number of KB139. The upstream site increased ratings from Good-Fair to Good in 2008 using a less intensive sampling method than the 2003 sample. The differences in ratings may be due to the type of samples taken. Despite the higher rating, aquatic habitat for this site was poor. Long sections of the creek upstream of this site completely lack riparian buffers including almost the entire downstream segment. Other upstream sections of the creek have sporadic riparian buffers of varying quality. Silt was also noted lining the substrate. Station KB139 was moved to its current location a mile downstream because the development of a gated community blocked access to KB9. Site KB139 received a moderate habitat score; however, conductivity levels are significantly higher and water clarity was slightly turbid. The benthic surface was covered in silt and water was being withdrawn from the creek for lawn and golf course irrigation. The gated community, Jefferson Landing, includes a large golf course which was built along either side of Naked Creek spanning the last mile and a half before the South Fork confluence. During the 2008 sample, houses were being constructed along the one side of the stream. A fish community sample was taken at the same location as KB139. This was the second sample taken at station KF14 and it received the same rating of Fair as the previous sample taken in 1998. This sample was collected about three months prior to the benthic sample at site KB139. This site received the lowest total habitat score of any other fish station in the New River Basin in 2008. This was due to turbid water, poor bank stability and lack of riparian buffers. The percent of pollution tolerant fish collected was elevated for a mountain stream. Fish populations in this stream are being stressed from instream water quality issues as well as poor habitat. Recommendations Naked Creek is the highest priority for stream restoration and protection in the New River basin. With exception of the 2006 and 2008 lists, Naked Creek has been on the Impaired Waters list since 1998. It is recommended that local agencies and watershed groups, with assistance from DWQ develop, a Watershed Restoration Plan that will target restoring the stream to more natural flow conditions, enhancing sediment and erosion control measures on construction sites, implementing additional controls focused on reducing volume and velocity of stormwater and establishing wider riparian zones. Riparian buffers with tree canopies would greatly assist with reducing the water temperature of the stream as well as filter pollutants before the stream reaches the SFNR. Educational efforts should be aimed towards property owners within the Naked Creek drainage area to reduce the amount of fertilizers and pesticides used as well as the need for riparian zones along the stream. DWQ supports the need to fund a Watershed Restoration Plan that includes stormwater management, post restoration monitoring and local educational efforts. 2.28 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(26)b, (30), (31.5) & (33.5)] This segment of the River flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. CRaNBeRRy CReek (050500010208) Includes: Cranberry Creek (Mulberry Creek) [AU#: 10-1-37], Meadow Fork [AU#: 10-1-37-2], Piney Fork [AU#: 10-1-37-3], Piney Branch [AU#: 10-1-37-5], & Beaver Branch [AU#: 10-1-37-6] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture. There are no NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. Majority of the streams hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. There are no waters in this subwatershed currently on the Impaired Waters List. Piney Fork [AU#: 10-1-37-3] Piney Fork is just over five miles from source to Cranberry Creek [AU#: 10-1- 37] around Laurel Springs. Land cover in this drainage area is dominated by Christmas tree farms with patches of forest. Water Quality Status The stream was sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates in 1998 within the headwaters. The site received a Good rating at that time. Local Initiatives The Alleghany SWCD installed several agricultural BMPs in 2005 and 2006 on a property near the confluence with Cranberry Creek which included almost 3,000 feet of livestock exclusion, feed and waste storage, stream protection, stream crossings and critical area planting. These efforts will assist with reported channelization and sedimentation the SWCD noted during the previous planning cycle. Recommendations Depending on available resources, DWQ will monitor Piney Fork (KB69) to provide a use support rating which properly reflects any water quality improvements resulting from the implementation of these agricultural BMPs. Cranberry Creek (Mulberry Creek) [AU#: 10-1-37] Cranberry Creek is almost 19 miles long from source to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1- (33.5)]. This stream is the main catchment for this subwatershed which has land cover with equal parts agriculture and forest. Christmas tree farms dominate the majority of agriculture in this drainage area. Water Quality Status Cranberry Creek was sampled (KB15) about two miles upstream of its confluence with the South Fork. The majority of this subwatershed drains to this creek, upstream of the benthic sampling site (KB15) which provides a wholistic view of the water quality conditions in the subwatershed. This site has been monitored since 1990 and received an Excellent benthic rating in 2008. Aquatic life and habitat conditions have remain stable at this higher rating since 1998. About a mile and a half downstream of the benthic site is a fish community station. In 1998, the creek was given an Excellent rating for its fish community. In 2008, that rating dropped to Good. The habitat was given a score of 53 out of 100 due to unstable banks, poor riparian areas, shallow pools, straight channel and the on- going stream widening. Biologists noted the presence of an abundant cyprinid population, which are attracted to waters with algae on hard surfaces. This could be an indication of high nutrient levels; however, this area is a popular fishing location and may have been stocked with cyprinids. Cyprinids can be a favorite amongst fishermen due to the size and strength of these fish. uSE SuPPort: -- (5.2 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.-- Benthos (KB69) Good (1998) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (18.9 MI) 2008 IR Cat.2 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB15) Excellent (2008) Fish Com (KF2) Good (2008) 2.29 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Recommendations Riparian buffer restoration is recommended to assist in restabilizing stream banks and reducing excess nutrients reaching the stream. Educational efforts are needed to inform local land owners of ways to reduce habitat degradation to better support the fish community and ensure recreational fishing can continue. The stream would also benefit from restoring the stream to its natural meandering channel with deeper pools which attack fish. Peak CReek-south foRk New RiveR (050500010209) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)], Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-(1) & (2)], Ore Knob Branch [AU#: 10-1-35-3], Little Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-4], & Nathans Creek [AU#: 10-1-36] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest, agriculture and mining. There are no NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. Majority of the streams, with exception to the SFNR, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. Waters on the 2010 Impaired Waters list within this subwatershed are Peak Creek, Little Peak Creek and Ore Knob Branch. Nathans Creek [AU#: 10-1-36] Nathans Creek is four miles long from source to the west side of the South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)]. This drainage area has a mixed land use of forest, agriculture and some urban. Water Quality Status Nathans Creek’s benthic community was monitored in 1998 at KB77. At that time, the site received a rating of Good-Fair. Even though the macroinvertebrates present were pollution-sensitive, indicating higher water quality, the lower rating was given due to the low quantity collected. Recommendations DWQ will do a one-time sample at this site to ensure the water quality has not degraded further, depending on the availability of resources. Little Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-4] Little Peak Creek is almost three miles from source to Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1- 35-(2)b]. The drainage area is a mix of some residence, forest and agriculture, dominated by tree farming. The creek also receives runoff from the Ore Knob Mine which is discussed below in the Ore Knob Branch section. Water Quality Status Little Peak Creek has been on the Impaired Waters List since 1998 and remains on the 2010 list. This impairment is a result of impacts to aquatic life from runoff from the Ore Knob Mine. The habitat in this creek is relatively good, indicating the issues are based on the quality of water. Due to the small drainage area of this creek, DWQ would not normally assign a rating to the benthic site (KB14) located near the confluence with Peak Creek. However, the toxic situation at this site ranks it among the worst benthic sites in the state, justifying the Poor rating. Recommendations Information about the Ore Knob Mine and recommendations are discussed within the Ore Knob Mine Chapter. Ore Knob Branch [AU#: 10-1-35-3] Ore Knob Branch is just under one mile from source to Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1- 35-(2)b]. The land cover is similar to the rest of the subwatershed, with exception to the presence of the Ore Knob Mine. uSE SuPPort: -- (4.1 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.-- Benthos (KB77) Good-Fair (1998) uSE SuPPort: imPaiRed (2.8 MI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (KB14) Poor (2008) uSE SuPPort: imPaiRed (0.9 MI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 2.30 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Water Quality Status Ore Knob Branch has been on the Impaired Waters List since 1998 and remains on the list in 2010 due to the Poor benthic rating at KB13 on Peak Creek. This creek is the main catchment for runoff from the abandoned Ore Knob Mine. The mining site was not properly closed, which has resulted in highly acidic and metal-laden surface water running off the property and into Ore Knob Branch and Peak Creek, subsequently causing their impairment. This issue is discussed in greater detail within the Ore Knob Mine Chapter. Initiatives Restoration on Ore Knob began in the 1990s and still continues today. The site was classified as an EPA Superfund site in September 2009. Since that time, EPA has led the restoration efforts in coordination with state and local agencies. These efforts are discussed in greater detail within the Ore Knob Mine Chapter. Recommendations The state will continue to work with all local and federal agencies involved to assist in restoration efforts of the abandoned mine. Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-(1) & (2)a & b] Peak Creek is a total of 10.5 miles long from source to the SFNR [AU#: 10- 1-(33.5)] and split into three segments. The land cover in this drainage area is mix of forest and agriculture. The creek also receives runoff from the Ore Knob Mine, which is discussed above in the Ore Knob Branch section. The most downstream segment [AU#: 10-1-35-(2)b] of Peak Creek has been on the Impaired Water List since 1998 and remains on the list in 2010. Water Quality Status The middle segment ([AU#: 10-1-35-(2)a]: from the water supply dam at Appalachian Sulphides, Inc., to Ore Knob Branch) was monitored in 2008 and was rated Excellent for its benthic community (KB11). This site received a Good rating in 2003. The 2008 sample had an increase in pollution intolerant species, including the collection of an extremely rare caddisfly which has only been collected one other time in North Carolina by DWQ since 1983. An undisturbed riparian zone, diverse in-stream benthic surfaces and a mostly forested watershed resulted in one of the highest habitat scores within the basin (93 out of 100) during this cycle. There is no influence of the Ore Knob Mine on this segment of the creek. The downstream segment of Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-(2)b] is almost three miles from the Ore Knob Branch to the South Fork. The benthic sample result was similar to past results at this station and was rated Poor in 2008. Despite the high habitat score (82 out of 100), the community is highly stressed and borders extirpation. This site (KB13) is approximately one mile downstream of the KB11, which had a conductivity level of 38 µS/ cm and pH of 6.3, whereas the KB13 site had levels of 170 µS/cm and 3.1, respectively. An orange precipitate covered all instream surfaces and inhabitants at the KB13 site. This dramatic drop in water quality from what is seen upstream is due to the toxic flow coming from Ore Knob Branch which, receives runoff from the Ore Knob Mine. These severely acidic and toxic conditions will continue until the abandoned mine is stabilized. Recommendations Information about the Ore Knob Mine and recommendations are discussed within the Ore Knob Mine Chapter. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)] This segment of the River flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. uSE SuPPort: imPaiRed (10.5 MI) 2008 IR Cat.5 2010 IR Cat.5 Benthos (KB11) (KB13)Excellent (2008)Poor (2008) 2.31 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 PRatheR CReek-south foRk New RiveR (050500010210) Includes: South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)], Prathers Creek [AU#: 10-1-38] & Crab Fork [AU#: 10-1-38-1] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture. There are no NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. Majority of the streams, with exception to the South Fork New River, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. There are no waters in this subwatershed on the 2010 Impaired Waters list. Prathers Creek [AU#: 10-1-38] Prathers Creek is approximately 11 miles from source to the SFNR [AU#: 10-1- (33.5)]. This drainage area has a mixed land use of livestock pasture agriculture and forest. Water Quality Status Prathers Creek’s fish community was monitored for the first time during this cycle. The fish community received a rating of Good-Fair due to the pollution tolerant species collected. The high percentage of omnivores and herbivores collected indicates elevated nutrients, likely results from the combination of agricultural practices and an open tree canopy. Biologists also noted a complete lack of riparian buffer zones. A benthic site nearby was monitored in 1990 and received a Good-Fair rating. Recommendations DWQ will continue to monitor this location and work with the SWCD to prioritize assistance with the installation of agricultural BMP measures throughout this subwatershed as well as riparian buffer restoration. South Fork New River [AU#: 10-1-(33.5)] This segment of the River flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. gRassy CReek-New RiveR (050500010302) Includes: New River [AU#: 10a], Grassy Creek [AU#: 10-3] & Piney Creek [AU#: 10-4] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture. There are no NPDES discharger permits in this subwatershed. Majority of the streams, with exception to the New River, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. There are no waters in this subwatershed on the 2010 Impaired Waters list. Grassy Creek [AU#: 10-3] Grassy Creek is approximately four miles long from the NC/VA state line to the New River [AU#: 10a]. This drainage area has a mixed land use of agriculture dominated by the growth of Christmas tress and forest. Water Quality Status Both benthic and fish communities were sampled here for the first time during this cycle. The fish community site (KF16 - 50 feet from the confluence with the New River) was given the highest habitat score (95 out of 100) of any fish site within the basin sampled this cycle. However, the species collected were pollution tolerant and indicated an elevated nutrient source. Possible sources of excess nutrients are agricultural practices upstream and inadequate riparian buffer zones. Biologists also noted increased photosynthetic activity by the upstream periphyton was causing an elevated pH level compared to other sites in the basin. uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (11.1 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Fish Com (KF15) Good-Fair (2008) uSE SuPPort: suPPoRtiNg (4.1 MI) 2008 IR Cat.-- 2010 IR Cat.2 Benthos (KB126) Good (2008) Fish Com (KF16) Good-Fair (2008) 2.32 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 A benthic sample (KB126) was also collected as part of a special study (B-20081007) to determine effects of new development upstream. The site was rated Good and given a habitat score of 81 out of 100. However, the site had a relatively high specific conductance (101 µS/cm) for this river basin. Recommendations DWQ will work with SWCD to prioritize implementation of agricultural BMPs focused towards reducing nutrient and sediment runoff, as well as riparian buffer restoration. New River [AU#: 10a] The New River begins in this subwatershed where the SFNR and the North Fork New River converge and continue north four and a half miles to the NC/VA state line. This segment holds the secondary use classification of ORW. Land use in this drainage area is mostly forest, with some agriculture, which dominates the headwaters of this subwatershed. This segment of the New River is not monitored by DWQ at this time. However, the river is sampled once it crosses the state line back into NC. For more information on the water quality status of that segment, see the Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds Chapter. 2.33 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 RefeReNCes References marked with (*) indicates a DWQ special study report. These reports are not currently available online. Contact Jay Sauber by phone at (919) 743-8416 or by e-mail at Jay.Sauber@ncdenr.gov to receive a hardcopy. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of Water Quality (DWQ). August 2004a. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCA 2B. Raleigh, NC. (http:// h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/). ____. DWQ. Planning Section. Basinwide Planning Unit (BPU). November 2008. Supplemental Guide to Basinwide Planning: A support document for basinwide water quality plans. Raleigh, NC. (http://por- tal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/about/supplementalguide) ____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Ecosystems Unit. April 2010. New River Basin Am- bient Monitoring Systems Report (January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2008). Raleigh, NC. (http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=01be0501-d4a0-42ae-b4c3- 1349dd8d0ea6&groupId=38364) ____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Biological Assessment Unit (BAU). April 2009. Basin- wide Assessment Report: New River Basin. Raleigh, NC. (http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/docu- ments/NewBasinwideFinal_09.pdf) ____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. October 2008. (B-20081007) Results from benthic sampling of eight sites re- quested by DWQ Planning Section and Division of Soil and Water Conservation in HUCS 06010103 (Watauga River Basin) and 05050001 (New River Basin) during summer 2008. Raleigh, NC. ____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. March 2007. (B-20070309) Benthic Macroinvertebrate Special Study, UT South Fork New River (New River Subbasin 01) Watauga and Ashe Counties, February 9th, 2007. Raleigh, NC. Pate, Travis. 2009. Watershed Assessment in North Carolina: Building a Watershed Database with Popula- tion, Land Cover, and Impervious Cover Information. Master Theses, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Thaxton, C.S., W.P. Anderson, C.M. Babyak. 2007 - Non-peer reviewed. Baseline monitoring, analysis, and modeling of the Boone Creek watershed. Final Report for the University Research Council Competi- tive Grants program, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC. Note: URL addresses for hyperlinks found in this plan are listed in the Acronyms & Definitions Chapter. 2.34 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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) [¡[¡ [¡[¡ [¡[¡ [¡[¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ #* #*#* KB 8 2 KB 9 8 BrushCr. WI L K E S AL L E G H A N Y LittleRiver BrushCr. Gla d e Cre e k ElkCreek C rabCreek DogCreek VileCreekWol f B r . 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. New R . BrushCreek Laur e l B r . BigPin e C r e e k Sp a r t a K9 7 5 0 0 0 0 K9 6 0 0 0 0 0 K7 9 0 0 0 0 0 KB 9 8 KB 9 7 KB 3 6 KB 3 4 KB 7 3 KB 3 8 KB 3 7 KB 4 2 KB 3 5 KB 4 9 KB 4 7 KB 4 1 KB 4 6 KB 4 0 KB 1 3 3 KB 1 3 2 KB 1 2 8 KB 1 0 0 KB 1 0 4 KB 1 0 1 KF 7 KF 4 KF 3 KF 1 9 KF 1 8 KF 1 7 ¬«18 £¤21 ¬«89 ¬«93 £¤22 1 ¬«18 £¤21 0 2 4 6 8 1 Mi l e s An i m a l O p e r a t i o n P e r m i t ¡³Le g e n d Ra n d o m A m b i e n t ¢¡NP D E S W W D i s c h a r g e Mo n i t o r i n g S i t e s Mi n o r Hy d r o l o g y - U s e S u p p o r t Wa t e r s h e d B o u n d a r y Co u n t y B o u n d a r i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Ma j o r #* Am b i e n t Fi s h C o m m u n i t y Su p p o r t i n g Im p a i r e d No D a t a Be n t h o s Pr i m a r y R o a d s XY¢¡[¡"à) 3.3 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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 rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED 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. 20 1 1 N EW rIV E r B aSI N P LaN: orE K NoB M IN E ( S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ) 4.1 CHAPTER 4 oRe kNoB miNe Water Quality Issues & Restoration Efforts oRe kNoB miNe miNe histoRy Ore Knob Mine is a former copper mine which was operated intensively from 1871 to 1883. Then limited mining activities took place until 1957 when it was operated by Appalachian Sulphides Inc. For the next five to six years, the mining company extracted the ore from 11 openings and one main shaft. Ore was then ground in a processing facility in the Little Peak Creak drainage area. Using a froth flotation and cyanide leaching process, Copper, gold and silver was extracted further. The waste tailings from this process were mostly pumped into a large tailings impoundment located on Ore Knob Branch. A smaller portion of the tailings were dumped in a small hollow adjacent to the processing facility. The drainage from the processing facility and associated waste piles is an acidic toxic mix that has contaminated the surface and ground water in the drainage area. Figure 4-1: Photos taken oF the Waste/tailings Piles During a site Visit in December 2006 by DWQ. (toP leFt: toP oF imPounDment Facing the settling PonD; toP right: looking north east across the imPounDment; bottom: on imPounDment looking back across tailings Pile.) 20 1 1 N EW rIV E r B aSI N P LaN: orE K NoB M IN E ( S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ) 4.2 Figure 4-2: tailings imPounDment anD PonDs Features anD longituDinal ProFile (black & Veatch, 2008). !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!! ! E EEE E ! ! prof il e lin e ( ins et) E E water controlstructure pipe underneath tailings (inferred path) Tailings Impoundment Features and Longitudinal Profile Ponds (water/swampy) 0 100 200 300 400 Feet FIGURE 2-4 NAD 1983 State Plane North Carolina FIPS 3200 (feet) o PR O J E C T S \ O r e K n o b \ R e p o r t \ M a p D o c s \ F i g u r e 2 - 4 _ T a i l i n g s I m p o u n d m e n t _ 0 2 2 3 0 8 . m x d Fe b r u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 Perennial Intermittent Surface Water culvertsettlingbasin dam concrete pipe inlet collapsed pipe outflow concretepipe inlet spring spring seep seep seeps settling basin Tailings Impoundment Ore Knob B r a n c h headwat e r s Contours (2-ft interval) 2962 2978 2956 2962 Ore KnobBranch A' A 2820 2840 2860 2880 2900 2920 2940 2960 2980 3000 3020 3040 3060 3080 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 Ground Distance (feet) Ele v a t i o n a b o v e M S L ( f e e t ) ~5x vertical exaggeration settling basin dam settling basin(dry) starter dam upperdamface current tailings impoundment surface ~76 ft ~30 ft southwestern corner of tailings (drainage from the 19th century operations area)original topography(reconstructed basedon surrounding topography) A A' ~1,550 ft Profile of the Tailings Impoundment (current surface and reconstructed original topography) North South culvert Ore Knob Branch intermittent ponding (approximate boundary) tailings dam collapsedpipe outflow ! ! concretepipe inlet(projected) 20 1 1 N EW rIV E r B aSI N P LaN: orE K NoB M IN E ( S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ) 4.3 desCRiPtioN of CoNtamiNated aRea & imPaCts The main area of the Ore Knob Mine that is impacting surface and ground water is the tailings pile which is a little over 20 acres and holds most of the waste tailings from the mining operations. This is seen in Figure 4-2 as the area outlined in red. The tailings pile, estimated at 720,000 cubic yards, is held behind a 60 foot dam. Behind the large dam is a settling basin held back by a smaller 20 foot dam. This smaller dam has a culvert which drains directly to Ore Knob Branch. Two small streams flow into the southern portion of the pile where it intermittently ponds (two blue lines at the bottom left corner of Figure 4-2). A concrete pipe inlet drains the intermittent pond, bypassing majority of the tailings pile and the larger dam, discharging into the settling basin. Two spring fed ponds, located on either side of the northern portion of the pile, filter through the tailings and seeps through the larger dam where it then collects in the settling basin. The tailings piles as well as the mine shafts are causing acidic metal-laden runoff to contaminate surface and groundwater on the site which then flows into Little Peak Creek, Ore Knob Branch and Peak Creek [AU#: 10-1-35-(2)b]. Multiple studies have been conducted since the early 1990’s to measure the impact on water quality and the environment. These studies have detailed results within their respective study reports which are discussed below. RestoRatioN aCtivity histoRy (1990’s to 2005) Restoration efforts to the abandoned mine and its receiving streams began in the early 1990’s by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and DWQ. Under Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (PL 104-303), USACE published the Ore Knob Aquatic Restoration Project: Draft Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment (March 2003). The goal of the project was defined “to return aquatic macrobiota and fish to Peak Creek and Little Peak Creek.” Quantitatively, the project would restore up to 14.3 acres of aquatic habitat (6.9 stream miles). In order to meet the goals and objectives of the Ore Knob project, restoration of the former processing area and reclamation of the tailings area, which include mine portals and shafts, would be necessary. This involves three distinct treatments: (1) diversion of surface water runoff away from and around tailings; (2) isolation of the tailings; and (3) passive treatment of acid discharge through the use of wetlands. Implementation of the project was expected to restore 6.9 miles of aquatic habitat and 24 acres or more of terrestrial (wetland and upland) habitat. Two million dollars was allocated for project study, design and construction, and operation and maintenance costs. Even though, due to federal budget constraints, funding for the full Ore Knob Aquatic Restoration Project was not provided, the 2003 document has been utilized in almost all Ore Knob restoration projects since. ReCeNt aCtivity (2005 to 2010) 319 Watershed Management Plan In 2005, NCSU was awarded funding to develop a Watershed Management Plan for the Ore Knob Mine area. This study included surface water monitoring for pH, DO, temperature, acidity and numerous metal values. Averages for these values are summarized in Figure 4-4. These parameters were monitored at seven locations within the area during the study. Locations of five of those monitoring stations are listed in Table 4-1 and shown in Figure 4-3. table 4-1: monitoring locations For FiVe oF nine sites samPleD During 319 Project StatIoN #LocatIoN StatIoN #LocatIoN StatIoN #LocatIoN 1 Peak Creek 3 Discharge from tailings 5 Peak Creek just before South Fork New River2Southern intermittent pond 4 Ore Knob Branch 20 1 1 N EW rIV E r B aSI N P LaN: orE K NoB M IN E ( S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ) 4.4 Results of the sampling indicated pH levels at all stations except one were significantly lower than the states surface water quality standard of 6. The one station that was not below the standard was Site 1 which is the only site upstream of the mines impacted area. Acidity levels were highest were the concrete pipe discharges the tailings into the settling basin (Site 3). Copper was the only metal, sampled during this study, that showed higher levels at Site 2 (located at the intermittent pond) than Site 3. Site 2 represents runoff from the watershed area upstream (south) of the tailings pile as well as runoff that flows through the adits (a slightly sloped passage into the mine) before it enters the intermittent pond at the south end of the tailings pile. Higher copper levels at this site indicate signs of filtration of the metal as the water from the intermittent pond travels through the tailings pile. All other metals shown in Figure 4-4 had a much higher value once discharged from the tailings pile into the settling basin. Site 4 (Figure 4-3), which is located on Ore Knob Branch just before its confluence with Peak Creek, results showed that much of the contaminates were reaching Peak Creek. And Site 5, on Peak Creek just before its confluence with the South Fork, results also showed evidence of the contaminates, but to a lesser degree. The study concluded the primary sources of the contaminates/pollution were 1) erosion of the face of the larger dam (north side of the dam), 2) adits that release acid mine discharge (AMD) from the former underground mine that is upstream of the intermittent pond, and 3) AMD generated within the tailings pile. Due to the contaminate levels found during this study and the degree of environmental and human health hazards, the state coordinated with the EPA to have the mine designated as a Superfund site (Borden and Behrooz, 2009). Figure 4-3: samPle locations For the 319 WatersheD restoration Plan Project FunDeD by the 319 grant* Sou t h F o r k P e a k C r e e k Peak Cree k Li t t l e P e a k C r e e k Tailings Pile Ore K n o b B r . * Imagery by Google Earth 20 1 1 N EW rIV E r B aSI N P LaN: orE K NoB M IN E ( S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ) 4.5 Figure 4-4: aVerages For FiVe monitoring sites samPleD For the ore knob 319 Project 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1 2 3 4 5 Alu m i n u m ( m g / l ) Stations Aluminum (mg/l) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1 2 3 4 5 Co p p e r ( m g / l ) Stations Copper (mg/l) NC Standard (0.007mg/l) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1 2 3 4 5 Ir o n ( m g / l ) Stations Iron (mg/l) Evaluation Level (>1.0mg/l) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 2 3 4 5 Ma n g a n e s e ( m g / l ) Stations Manganese (mg/l) Evaluation Level (>0.2mg/l) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 1 2 3 4 5 Su l f a t e ( m g / l ) Stations Sulfate (mg/l) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1 2 3 4 5 Zin c ( m g / l ) Stations Zinc (mg/l) NC Standard (0.05mg/l) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 pH Stations Lab pH NC Standard (6-9) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1 2 3 4 5 DO ( m g / l ) Stations DO (mg/l) NC Standard ( 5mg/l) 20 1 1 N EW rIV E r B aSI N P LaN: orE K NoB M IN E ( S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ) 4.6 DWQ & Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Activity DWQ and EPA Region 4 conducted site visits in 2007 to check on the degradation status of the embankment and tailings. During the February 2007 visit, the concrete pipe used to divert stream flow under the tailings pile to the settling pond was blocked at both inlet and outlets causing the flow to filter through the tailings. The 60 foot dam (Figure 4-5: top right) exhibited rills up to three feet deep along with numerous seeps. Storm runoff and water seeping from the dam face would be collected in the settling pond before reaching Ore Knob Branch; however, the settling pond had been completely filled with sediment which likely eroded from the face of the dam. This surface and groundwater was monitored in 2007 and 2008 as part of a 319 grant project. In April 2009, the site was proposed for the National Priority List which became official September 23, 2009. Since that time, federal agencies developed a clean up effort based on past studies and stabilization efforts. As of July 2010, actions have included: £20,000 of 720,000 cubic yards of tailings and sediment excavated from the settling pond; £Restored a freeboard in the settling pond so it now acts as a clarifier as water empties into Ore Knob Branch; £Completed the diversion channel designed to reroute 200 gallons per minute of surface water around the tailings dam; £Recycled soil and sediment excavated from the site to re-use throughout the rest of the site; and £Completed a geotechnical stability analysis and a slope stability analysis for the tailings dam face. In July of 2010, EPA Region 4 requested additional funding to complete the remaining restoration of the site. This will cover the capping of the tailings impoundment and add vegetation throughout the site, excavate tailings from Ore Knob Branch and excavate and stabilize the 1950’s mine and mill site. Federal sediment and erosion controls will be put in place during the restoration efforts. However, federal measures are not as preventive as state measures; therefore, elevated turbidity levels are expected to occur in Ore Knob Branch, Peak Creek and possibly the South Fork until restoration is completed. DWQ will continue to work with EPA as requested through the remainder of the project. 20 1 1 N EW rIV E r B aSI N P LaN: orE K NoB M IN E ( S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ) 4.7 Figure 4-5: Photos oF tailings Pile anD DoWnstream taken During a site Visit in july 2007 by DWQ. (toP leFt: toP oF larger Dam Facing the settling basin; toP right: settling basin looking back toWarDs larger Dam; bottom leFt: toP oF larger Dam looking back across tailings Pile; bottom right: ore knob branch DoWnstream oF settling basin culVert.) RefeReNCes Black and Veatch. March 2008. Expanded Site Inspection Report Ore Knob Former Mine Site. CERCLIS ID: NCN000409895. EPA Contract 68-W99-043, Work Assignment 700-SAEA-A4ND, Black and Veatch Project 048700.08.83. Asheville, NC. Borden, Robert C. and Behrooz, Mehnroosh. January 1, 2009. Ore Knob Mine Tailings Pile - Watershed Restoration Plan. Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering. North Carolina State University. NCDENR, 319 Program Funded. Raleigh, NC. (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basin- wide/319_Documents/documents/OreKnob_Watershed_Plan.pdf) Note: URL addresses for hyperlinks found in this plan are listed in the Acronyms & Definitions Chapter. 20 1 1 N EW rIV E r B aSI N P LaN: orE K NoB M IN E ( S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ) 4.8 5.1 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: W at Er Q ua NtIty 2 0 1 1 uNdeRstaNdiNg stReam flow Stream flow is monitored by U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations at selected stations across the state. Flow, often abbreviated as “Q”, is measured in terms of volume of water per unit of time, usually cubic feet per second (cfs). Minimum flows are intended to be only occasional short-term events that maintain stream conditions at a survivable level for aquatic life. One example of such a minimum flow requirement is the “7Q10 flow” - the lowest flow occurring for seven consecutive days, with a probability of occurring once every 10 years. This is a drought flow statistic that is used to determine wastewater discharge effluent limits such that the pollutant load can still be assimilated and chemical water quality standards can still be maintained during the driest week occurring once every 10 years. This type of minimum flow will not protect ecological integrity if it is frequently the only flow in the stream, and/or occurs for long periods of time. The potential for global climate change to change the patterns of water availability adds to the importance of protecting ecological flows, not just maintaining minimum flows of increasing duration. A minimum flow approach does not incorporate critical characteristics of a flow regime (magnitude, timing, frequency, duration, variability and rate of change) needed to protect ecological integrity. Minimum flows lack the variability between different times of year (monthly and seasonal), as well as the inter-annual variability between different types of years (wet, dry, average). For additional information about stream flow see DWR’s Environmental Flows web page. maNagiNg flow fRom imPouNdmeNts miNimum Release ReQuiRemeNts One of the purposes of the Dam Safety Law is to ensure maintenance of minimum streamflows below dams. Conditions may be placed on dam operations specifying mandatory minimum releases in order to maintain adequate quantity and quality of water downstream of the impoundment. The Division of Water Resources (DWR), in conjunction with the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), recommends conditions related to release of flows to satisfy minimum instream flow requirements. The Division of Land Resources (DLR) issues the permits and is responsible for enforcement. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses most dams associated with hydropower under the Federal Power Act. Flow requirements may also be established for CHAPTER 5 wateR QuaNtity IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN ChaPteR toPiCs £Understanding Stream Flow £Managing Flow from Impoundments £Water Supply, Demand, Availability & Planning £SWAP 5.2 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: W at Er Q ua NtIty 2 0 1 1 non-dam projects that require a Finding of No Significant Impact to satisfy a state or federal environmental review or as a condition of a permit required by the Clean Water Act. Calculated minimum stream flows for impoundments in the New River Basin are listed in Table 5-1. If the inflow is less than the minimum release, the minimum release becomes that inflow rate. taBLE 5-1: MINIMuM rELEaSE froM IMPouNDMENtS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN NaME of DaM PurPoSE WatErBoDy DraINagE arEa MINIMuM rELEaSE Hydroelectric Dams Sharpes Falls (FERC #: 6322) Hydroelectricity Production North Fork New River 112 mi2 None a Impoundment Dams/Weirs Roaring Gap (Lake Louise)Amenity & Irrigation Laurel Branch 1.06 mi2 1.4 cfs Old Beau Upper Amenity & Irrigation Laurel Branch 1.33 mi2 None b Old Beau Lower Amenity & Irrigation Laurel Branch 1.54 mi2 1.6 cfs South Fork New River Weir Town of Boone Water Supply South Fork 19.5 mi2 4.0 c cfs Winkler Creek Dam Town of Boone Water Supply Winkler Creek 5.7 mi2 2.4 c cfs a Even though there is no minimum flow, the project must operate in a run-of-river mode; i.e., instantaneous inflow equals instantaneous outflow. Note: A noncompliant project can noticeably alter the stream flow. b The upper and lower ponds were built in series so that the system will provide 1.6 cubic feet/second (cfs) downstream. c The Section 404 permit, issued by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, also states “the Town of Boone will in all cases be permitted to withdraw a maximum of 4.6 cfs from the combined sources.” wateR suPPly, demaNd, availaBility & PlaNNiNg Division of Water Resources summarized water quantity in the New River Basin in 2001 in a four page document on their web site. Information included in this document includes: £Water demand and use, £Local Water Supply Plans, £Self-Supplied use and registered water withdrawals, £Water availability, and £Interbasin transfers of surface water. wateR withdRawals North Carolina General Statute G.S. 143-215.22H, originally passed in 1991, requires surface water and ground water withdrawals that meet conditions established by the General Assembly to register the water withdrawals and surface water transfers with the State and update those registrations at least every five years. Agricultural water users that withdraw one million gallons of water a day or more and non-agricultural water users that withdraw one hundred thousand gallons of water a day are required to register. Administrative rules that became effective in March 2007 (15A NCAC 02E.0600) stipulate that registrants must also report their water usage annually to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. In its 2008 session, the General Assembly established civil penalties for failure to comply with these requirements. In the New River Basin, there are five registered users that withdraw surface water (Table 5-2). 5.3 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: W at Er Q ua NtIty 2 0 1 1 taBLE 5-2: currENt SurfacE WatEr WIthDraWaLS By LocaL WatEr SuPPLy SyStEMS* couNty SyStEM NaME SourcE PuBLIc WatEr SuPPLy ID LINK 1 oWNErShIP Ashe Jefferson New River 01-05-015 Municipality Watauga Blowing Rock Flat Top Branch 01-95-020 Municipality Watauga Boone South Fork NR 01-95-010 Municipality Watauga Boone Winklers Creek 01-95-010 Municipality Watauga Appalachian State University Norris Branch 01-95-101 State 1 Additional information on average water use by day and month along with a wide variety of other information about the water supply (the facilities LWSP) can be found at the Public Water Supply ID Link supplied in this table.* Note: This is not necessarily a complete list. Omission from this list does not excuse any party from meeting their permit conditions. loCal wateR suPPly PlaN (lwsP) Units of local government that supply or plan to supply water to the public are required to prepare a Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP). Like the withdrawal registrations, a LWSP must be updated at least every five years and systems required to prepare a LWSP must also report water usage annually to the Division of Water Resources. Preparing a LWSP and keeping it updated meets a local government’s obligation to register their water withdrawals under General Statute 143- 215.22H. The LWSPs for the five registered users are linked in Table 5-2. Other LWSP reports can be searched on DWRs Water Supply Planning website. The Town of Sparta The Town of Sparta updated their LWSP in 2007. At that time the plan stated that “Sparta and the Town of Independence, Va. are currently pursuing an interconnection with water being drawn from the New River which will replace the existing well systems currently serving each town.” That status of that project is progressing and is projected to be completed in 2011. The Town of Boone A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development State Office for a new run-of-river withdrawal for the Town of Boone to be located on the Watauga County side of the South Fork New River just upstream of the community of Brownwood. The drainage area at the proposed intake is estimated by the applicant to be 101.7 square miles. The intakes proposed permitted capacity is 4.0 million gallons per day (MGD), or 6.18 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed project’s purpose and need included an emergency source to the Town of Blowing Rock of 0.5 MGD, or 0.77 cfs, through an interconnection. The project is supposed to address Boone’s projected 2030 maximum daily demand of 6.8 MGD, or 10.5 cfs, in combination with its existing water sources. The withdrawal mechanism will be a sub-channel infiltration gallery. The applicant estimated the 7Q10 flow at the proposed intake to be 35.61 cfs, or 23.0 MGD. Twenty percent of this value is 7.12 cfs, or 4.6 MGD. Excepting certain circumstances, DWR has historically considered the withdrawal of a volume less than that representing 20 percent of the 7Q10 as not triggering an intensive field study. The applicant did examine the impact of withdrawals on water depth at the first riffle complex downstream of the intake in consideration of the extensive use of the river for boating. Boone’s water treatment plant’s treatment capacity will also be expanded from 3.0 MGD to 4.5 MGD, or 6.95 cfs as part of the proposed project. 5.4 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: W at Er Q ua NtIty 2 0 1 1 souRCe wateR assessmeNt & PRoteCtioN (swaP) of PuBliC wateR suPPlies iN the New RiveR BasiN iNtRoduCtioN The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 emphasize pollution prevention as an important strategy for the protection of ground and surface water resources. This new focus promotes the prevention of drinking water contamination as a cost-effective means to provide reliable, long-term and safe drinking water sources for public water supply (PWS) systems. In order to determine the susceptibility of public water supply sources to contamination, the amendments also required that all states establish a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP). Specifically, Section 1453 of the SDWA Amendments require that states develop and implement a SWAP to: £Delineate source water assessment areas; £Inventory potential contaminants in these areas; and £Determine the susceptibility of each public water supply to contamination. In North Carolina, the agency responsible for the SWAP is the Public Water Supply (PWS) Section of the DENR Division of Environmental Health (DEH). The PWS Section received approval from the EPA for their SWAP Plan in November 1999. The SWAP Plan, entitled North Carolina’s Source Water Assessment Program Plan, fully describes the methods and procedures used to delineate and assess the susceptibility of more than 9,000 wells and approximately 207 surface water intakes. To review the SWAP Plan, visit the PWS website. deliNeatioN of souRCe wateR assessmeNt aReas The SWAP Plan builds upon existing protection programs for ground and surface water resources. These include the state’s Wellhead Protection Program and the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program. Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program North Carolinians withdraw more than 88 million gallons of groundwater per day from more than 9,000 water supply wells across the state. In 1986, Congress passed Amendments to the SDWA requiring states to develop wellhead protection programs that reduce the threat to the quality of groundwater used for drinking water by identifying and managing recharge areas to specific wells or wellfields. Defining a wellhead protection area (WHPA) is one of the most critical components of wellhead protection. A WHPA is defined as “the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or wellfield, supplying a public water system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and reach such water well or wellfield.” The SWAP uses the methods described in the state’s approved WHP Program to delineate source water assessment areas for all public water supply wells. More information related to North Carolina’s WHP Program can be found on the SWAP website. Water Supply Watershed Protection (WSWP) Program DWQ is responsible for managing the standards and classifications of all water supply watersheds. In 1992, the WSWP Rules were adopted by the EMC and require all local governments that have land use jurisdiction within water supply watersheds adopt and implement water supply watershed protection ordinances, maps and management plans. SWAP uses the established 5.5 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: W at Er Q ua NtIty 2 0 1 1 water supply watershed boundaries and methods established by the WSWP program as a basis to delineate source water assessment areas for all public water surface water intakes. Additional information regarding the WSWP Program can be found at their website. susCePtiBility deteRmiNatioN – NC’s oveRall aPPRoaCh The SWAP Plan contains a detailed description of the methods used to assess the susceptibility of each PWS intake in North Carolina. The following is a brief summary of the susceptibility determination approach. Overall Susceptibility Rating The overall susceptibility determination rates the potential for a drinking water source to become contaminated. The overall susceptibility rating for each PWS intake is based on two key components: a contaminant rating and an inherent vulnerability rating. For a PWS to be determined “susceptible”, a potential contaminant source must be present and the existing conditions of the PWS intake location must be such that a water supply could become contaminated. The determination of susceptibility for each PWS intake is based on combining the results of the inherent vulnerability rating and the contaminant rating for each intake. Once combined, a PWS is given a susceptibility rating of higher, moderate or lower (H, M or L). Inherent Vulnerability Rating Inherent vulnerability refers to the physical characteristics and existing conditions of the watershed or aquifer. The inherent vulnerability rating of groundwater intakes is determined based on an evaluation of aquifer characteristics, unsaturated zone characteristics and well integrity and construction characteristics. The inherent vulnerability rating of surface water intakes is determined based on an evaluation of the watershed classification (WSWP Rules), intake location, raw water quality data (i.e., turbidity and total coliform) and watershed characteristics (i.e., average annual precipitation, land slope, land use, land cover, groundwater contribution). Contaminant Rating The contaminant rating is based on an evaluation of the density of potential contaminant sources (PCSs), their relative risk potential to cause contamination, and their proximity to the water supply intake within the delineated assessment area. Inventory of Potential Contaminant Sources (PCSs) In order to inventory PCSs, the SWAP conducted a review of relevant, available sources of existing data at federal, state and local levels. The SWAP selected sixteen statewide databases that were attainable and contained usable geographic information related to PCSs. souRCe wateR PRoteCtioN The PWS Section believes that the information from the source water assessments is the basis for future initiatives and priorities for public drinking water source water protection (SWP) activities. The PWS Section encourages all PWS system owners to implement efforts to manage identified sources of contamination and to reduce or eliminate the potential threat to drinking water supplies through locally implemented protection planning. To encourage and support local SWP, the state offers PWS system owners assistance with local SWP planning as well as materials such as: £Fact sheets outlining sources of funding and other resources for local SWP efforts. £Success stories describing local SWP efforts in North Carolina. 5.6 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: W at Er Q ua NtIty 2 0 1 1 £Guidance about how to incorporate SWAP and SWP information in Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs). Information related to SWP can be found online. PuBliC wateR suPPly susCePtiBility deteRmiNatioNs iN the New RiveR BasiN In April 2004, the PWS Section completed source water assessments for all drinking water sources and generated reports for the PWS systems using these sources. The assessments are updated regularly; the most recent updates were published in May 2010. The results of the assessments can be viewed in two different ways, either through the interactive ArcIMS mapping tool or compiled in a written report for each PWS system. To access the ArcIMS mapping tool, simply click on the “NC SWAP Info” icon on the web page. To view a report, select the PWS System of interest by clicking on the “Source Water Assessment Results-2010” link found on the SWAP web page. In the New River Basin, 201 public water supply sources were identified. Six are surface water sources, one is groundwater under the influence of surface water (i.e. a spring) and 194 are groundwater sources. Of the 194 groundwater sources, 2 of them have a Higher, 176 have a Moderate and 16 have a Lower susceptibility rating. The one groundwater under the influence of surface water has a Moderate susceptibility rating. Table 10-1 identifies the surface water sources and their overall susceptibility ratings. It is important to note that a susceptibility rating of Higher does not imply poor water quality. Susceptibility is an indication of a water supply’s potential to become contaminated. taBLE 5-3: SWaP rESuLtS for SurfacE WatEr SourcES IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN PWS ID NuMBEr INhErENt VuLNEraBILIty ratINg coNtaMINaNt ratINg oVEraLL SuScEPtIBILIty ratINg NaME of SurfacE WatEr SourcE PWS SyStEM NaME 0105015 H L M South Fork of NR Town of Jefferson 0195010 H L M South Fork of NR Town of Boone 0195010 H L M Winklers Creek Town of Boone 0195020 M L M Town Lake Town of Blowing Rock 0195101 H L M Howard’s Creek Appalachian State Univ. 0195101 M L M Norris Branch Appalachian State Univ. RefeReNCes North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of Water Resource (DWR). March 2007. Water Use During Droughts and Water Supply Emergencies. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCAC 2E .0600. Raleigh, NC. (http://www.ncwater.org/Rules_Policies_and_Regulations/Planning/drought_rules. pdf) ____. DWR. 1991. § 143-215.22H. Registration of Water Withdrawals and Transfers Required. Raleigh, NC. Note: URL addresses for hyperlinks found in this plan are listed in the Acronyms & Definitions Chapter. 6.1 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L o c a l I n i t i a t i v e s & V o l u n t a r y I n c e n t i v e P r o g r a m s 2 0 1 1 loCal iNitiatives The focus of this Section is to highlight some of the local initiatives that have been planned or implemented throughout this planning cycle. This Section also includes a list of watershed groups and natural resource agencies focused on improving water quality across the basin. There may be more of these groups and agencies active within the basin and as DWQ becomes aware of water quality improvement or protection activities, they will be updated within this Section. Please contact the New River Basin Planner to have your program/projects listed here. the imPoRtaNCe of loCal iNitiatives Local initiatives to protect water quality are essential to any community because local citizens make decisions that affect change in their own communities. There are a variety of limitations local initiatives can overcome including limited state government budgets and staff resources, minimal regulations for land use management, rulemaking processes and many others. Local organizations and agencies are able to combine professional expertise in a watershed, thus allowing groups to holistically understand the challenges and opportunities of different water quality efforts. Involving a wide array of people in water quality projects also brings together a wide range of knowledge and interests and encourages others to become involved and invested in these projects. By working in coordination across jurisdictions and agency lines, more funding opportunities may be available. This will potentially allow local entities to do more work and be involved in more activities because their funding sources are diversified. The most important aspect of these local endeavors is that the more localized the project, the better the chances for success. The collaboration of local efforts are key to water quality improvements. There are good examples of local agencies and groups using these cooperative strategies throughout the basin and specific groups and projects are discussed within each of the 10-digit watershed write ups in the three Subbasin Chapters. Some of these groups are listed below. DWQ applauds the foresight and proactive response of local watershed groups and local governments to address any number of water quality problems. CHAPTER 6 loCal iNitiatives & voluNtaRy iNCeNtive PRogRams IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN ChaPteR toPiCs £Local Initiatives £NCNR £CG&L £319 Grant £SWCD £CWMTF 6.2 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L o c a l I n i t i a t i v e s & V o l u n t a r y I n c e n t i v e P r o g r a m s 2 0 1 1 NatioNal Committee foR the New RiveR Land Protection NCNR protects land critical for preserving important wildlife habitat, rare and endangered species, cornerstones of biodiversity, and working farmland along the New River and its tributaries, through voluntary acquisitions and conservation easements. Restoration NCNR works with private landowners to stabilize eroding stream banks, restore riparian buffers to preventing further erosion, and to create healthy riparian habitat for wildlife and aquatic life. Advocacy NCNR works to increase citizens’ capacity to defend and protect the New River watershed, by working with local citizens to identify and address specific land and water use activities that threaten the New River’s health, wildlife, and scenery. New River Builder Program The National Committee for the New River’s New River Builder Program was begun in 1998 to establish or improve riparian buffers in the New River Basin. Under CWMTF 2007-407, 14.15 miles of streambank were planted with 112,870 livestakes and 1,060 trees and potted shrubs. Sites are evaluated for suitability for planting. Severely eroded streambanks are not suitable as River Builder sites. All sites are planted with livestakes of native shrubs, potted native shrubs, and native trees. During a visit with the owner, type and location of shrubs and trees are discussed. River access points are marked and owner questions are addressed. Landowners sign an agreement for each site to leave the plantings undisturbed for 15 years. There is also a small cost share fee charged for each site. A test plot of 100 livestakes is marked at planting and survival monitoring is done at each site annually after the leaves have fallen, in autumn or winter. To date NCNR has planted almost 70 miles of riparian buffer, including 600,000 livestakes and 18,000 trees and shrubs. Since 1998, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund has funded the River Builder Program almost continuously. fIgurE 6-1: rESuLtS of thE NcNr’S NEW rIVEr BuILDEr PrograM (LEft: 2005; rIght: 2009) *Pictures Provided by NCNR’s Lynn Caldwell 6.3 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L o c a l I n i t i a t i v e s & V o l u n t a r y I n c e n t i v e P r o g r a m s 2 0 1 1 alleghaNy CouNty/NRCs Between 2008 and 2010, the Alleghany County Natural Resource Conservation Service has successfully spent over one million dollars of funding from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to protect water quality and improving animal health in Alleghany County. Listed below are some of the accomplishments the County has completed in those three years: £20+ wells; £5 waste storage structures; £4 agricultural handling facilities; £100+ watering tanks for live stock; £Several miles of cattle exclusion fencing; £Several miles of pipeline installed to place tanks away from streams; £200+ acres of true Prescribed Grazing with stockpile winter forage; £Several Stream Crossings; £Heavy-Use areas protected; £2500 feet of stream restoration; and £Wetlands created and/or restored. alleghaNy CouNty eNviRothoN Alleghany County has been very active in the North West Envirothon competition since its inception in 1999. The first Alleghany County Envirothon was held March 2008 as a way to provide additional training and experience for local teams entering the thirteen county NW Envirothon Competition held each spring in Wilkes County. There are 52 teams registered for the 2011 regional event to be held March 31, 2011. The spirit of competition stimulates student’s interests in environmental concerns and cultivates student’s desire to learn more about our natural resources and environmental issues and motivates them to further develop their skills and grow into environmentally-aware, action- oriented adults. Teams are tested on their knowledge and understanding of local natural resource issues in aquatics, forestry, soils, wildlife, and current issues. The “Outdoor Masters” from Glade Creek Elementary and the “Green Machine” from Alleghany high school competed with 49 middle school and 51 high school teams in the North Carolina State Envirothon held April 23-24, 2010 at Cedarock Park in Alamance County. They moved on to the state level competition after winning one of the top seven seats in the Area 2 NW Envirothon competition held March 25, 2010 at the McGee Educational Resource Center in Wilkesboro, NC. fedeRal, state & loCal iNCeNtive PRogRams CoNstRuCtioN gRaNts & loaNs (Cg&l) The NC Construction Grants and Loans (CG&L) Section of DWQ provides grants and loans to local government agencies for the construction, upgrades and expansion of wastewater collection and treatment systems. As a financial resource, the section administers five major programs that assist local governments. Of these, two are federally funded programs administered by the state, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program and the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). The STAG is a direct congressional appropriations for a specific “special needs” project within NC. The High Unit Cost Grant (SRG) Program, the State Emergency Loan (SEL) Program and the State Revolving Loan (SRL) Program are state funded programs, with the later two being below market revolving loan money. The Section also received an additional 6.4 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L o c a l I n i t i a t i v e s & V o l u n t a r y I n c e n t i v e P r o g r a m s 2 0 1 1 Capitalization Grant authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in the amount of $70,729,100. These funds are administered according to existing SRF procedures. All projects must be eligible under title VI of the Clean Water Act. For more information, please see the CG&L website. No funds were awarded in the New River Basin between 2003 and 2010. seCtioN 319 - gRaNt PRogRam Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration and restoration projects. Through annual base funding, there is approximately $450,000 available for demonstration and education projects across the state. An additional $2 million is available annually through incremental funds for restoration projects statewide. All projects must provide non-federal matching funds of at least 40% of the project’s total costs. Project proposals are reviewed and selected by the North Carolina Nonpoint Source Workgroup made up of state and federal agencies involved in regulation or research associated with nonpoint source pollution. Information on the North Carolina Section 319 Grant Program application process is available online. Descriptions of current projects and general Section 319 Program information are available online. Many 319 projects are demonstration projects and educational programs that allow for the dissemination of information to the public through established programs at NC State University (NCSU) and the NC Cooperative Extension Service. Other projects fund stream restoration activities that improve water quality. Between 2003 and 2010, there were two projects in the New River basin funded through the Section 319 Program. Managed by NCSU, the goal of one project – Anaerobic Biotreatment of Acid Mine Drainage at Ore Knob Mine – was to develop a watershed restoration plan for a watershed impaired by acid mine drainage from an abandoned copper and zinc mine. The watershed characterization included surface water and groundwater monitoring and extensive characterization of the mine tailings pile. The project also evaluated several alternative approaches to the management and cleanup of the tailings pile and the acid mine drainage being released from the pile to achieve required pollutant load reductions. The second 319 project was coordinated by the National Committee for the New River, which restored the headwaters of an unnamed tributary to the Little Phoenix River in Ashe County. The project successfully restored the stream dimension and profile to 315 linear feet of the tributary, allowing the sediment load to be properly transported through the stream reach during high flow events. This restoration included the replacement of a culvert with a steel beam and concrete bridge. Stream banks were stabilized to prevent further erosion, with a 99% survival rate observed at the end of the project period for the trees and shrubs that were planted. Benthic habitat in the stream was greatly improved through this restoration project, as indicated by monitoring conducted by the Division of Water Quality. Table 6-1 list the most current 319 contracts in the New River Basin. More information can be found about these contracts and the 319 Grant Program on their website. taBLE 6-1: 319 graNt coNtractS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN BEtWEEN 2003 & 2008 fIScaL yEar coNtract NuMBEr NaME DEScrIPtIoN 10-DIgIt huc agENcy fuNDINg 2004 711 Little Phoenix Creek Stream Restoration Stream Restoration 0505000101 National Committee for New River $65,400 2005 EW06045 Anaerobic Biotreatment of Acid Mine Drainage of Ore Knob Mine Innovative BMP 0505000102 NCSU $153,194 Total Funded:$ 218,594 6.5 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L o c a l I n i t i a t i v e s & V o l u n t a r y I n c e n t i v e P r o g r a m s 2 0 1 1 soil & wateR CoNseRvatioN The Division of Soil and Water Conservation cooperates with federal and local partners to administer a comprehensive statewide program to protect and conserve the state’s soil and water resources. The division serves as staff for the North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission to help deliver conservation programs at the local level. The division provides leadership and assistance in locally-led conservation to the state’s 96 local soil and water conservation districts and their state association by providing financial, technical and educational assistance to districts, landowners, agricultural producers and the general public. The division delivers programs in nonpoint source pollution management, cost share for agricultural best management practices, technical and engineering assistance, soil surveys, conservation easements, and environmental and conservation education. Their mission is to provides programs, technical services and educational outreach promoting voluntary natural resource management and conservation on the private lands of North Carolina through a non-regulatory, incentive-driven approach. Locally, the Alleghany Soil and Water Conservation District has allocated a total of $618,757 in cost shared funding to improve water quality in the New River basin between 2006 and 2010 with the installation of several Agricultural Cost Share Program BMPs and Community Cost Share Program BMPs which are listed out below. Agricultural Cost Share Program (ACSP) The ACSP is a voluntary program to protect water quality by installing best management practices on agricultural lands. This approach is supported by financial incentives, technical and educational assistance, research, and regulatory programs provided to farmers by local soil and water conservation districts. Alleghany County Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Cover BMPs: £399 ac. BMPs to decrease erosion by improving ground cover (pasture renovation, cropland conversion, critical area stabilization, conservation tillage) Stream Protection BMPs: £21,435 ft livestock exclusion £48 troughs or tanks with heavy use areas £13 wells £2365 ft agricultural road repair £7 stream crossings £7 spring developments Waste Management BMPs: £8 feed/waste storage structures with heavy use areas £9 roof run off/stormwater management systems Benefits include: £2070 acres affected £1632 tons of soil saved £5386 lbs of nitrogen managed/saved £3485 lbs of phosphorus managed/saved Alleghany County adopted the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program in 2003 which is administered by the Soil & Water District. As of February 2011, the county has 9,932 acres of land enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Program. The purpose of this program is to promote 6.6 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L o c a l I n i t i a t i v e s & V o l u n t a r y I n c e n t i v e P r o g r a m s 2 0 1 1 the health, safety, rural agricultural values, and general welfare of the County, and more specifically, increase identity and pride in the agricultural community and its way of life; encourage the economic and financial health of farming; increase protection from undesirable, non-farm development; and increase the protection of farms from nuisance suits and other negative impacts on properly managed farms. More information about this program can be found in the Alleghany County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance online. Community Conservation Assistance Program CCAP is a voluntary, incentive-based program designed to improve water quality through the installation of various best management practices (BMPs) on urban, suburban and rural lands not directly involved with agriculture production. Eligible landowners may include homeowners, businesses, schools, parks and publicly owned lands. How rapid urbanization affects water quality becomes important as North Carolina’s land use continues to change. CCAP can help educate landowners on water quality, stormwater management and retrofit practices to treat stormwater runoff. Alleghany County Through the Community Conservation Assistance Program the 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 affect 500 people in the Town of Sparta by reducing N and P 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. The district is partnering with the local high school shop class to convert 55 gallon barrels used by local businesses into rain barrels for homeowners. This will help by treating the roof runoff and keeping the plastic barrels out of the landfill and out of the river, where they sometimes end up. The Alleghany District also partnered with the Ecosystems Enhancement Program to find stream restoration projects on several sub-watersheds in the county. Projects on Crab Creek, Glade Creek and Little Pine Creek are currently under construction or near completion. The district is working with EEP to find willing landowners for a new project in one of the priority areas identified in the Bledsoe Creek Watershed Management Plan which was completed in 2007. (More information on projects such as benefits, acres of easement, etc. should be available through EEP.) The district has acquired a conservation easement on a farm on the New River and hopes to hold more easements that will allow for protection of the New River watershed. 6.7 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L o c a l I n i t i a t i v e s & V o l u n t a r y I n c e n t i v e P r o g r a m s 2 0 1 1 fIgurE 6-2: Nc acSP BMPS IMPLEMENtED IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN BEtWEEN 1-2003 & 10-2010 ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ VTU ¢¡\¢¡¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡\¢¡\¢¡ ¢¡ \ ¢¡ ÇÇ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ^_^_^_^_ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\\\\\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ \ \\ \\ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ Ç¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ÇÇÇ ¢¡¢¡ Ç ÇÇÇ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ÇÇÇÇ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ Ç¢¡¢¡Ç ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡Ç ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ Ç ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ Ç ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ^_^_^_^_ Ç¢¡\Ç¢¡¢¡\Ç¢¡¢¡\Ç¢¡¢¡\¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ÇÇ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \¢¡¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ VTU ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ÇÇ¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡Ç¢¡Ç ÇÇ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ÇÇÇÇ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ÇÇ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡ÇÇ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡Ç ¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡ ÇÇ¢¡Ç¢¡Ç¢¡Ç¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ÇÇÇÇÇÇ^_Ç^_Ç^_Ç^_Ç^_Ç^_Ç¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ÇÇÇÇÇÇ \\\\ ^_^_^_^_ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ #0#0#0#0#0 ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡ \ \ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\ \ \\\\ \ \\\\ \ \\\\ \ \ \\\\\ \\\\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\\ \\\\ \\\\\\ \\ \\\\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ \\\\\\ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ \\\\ #0#0#0#0#0#0 \\\\ \\\\ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ #0#0#0#0#0 ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\ \\\\\\ \\\\\\ \\\\ ¢¡ \\ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ \¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡ \\ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡ ¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ #0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0 #0#0#0#0#0 #0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0 Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n La n s i n g Bo o n e Bl o w i n g Ro c k Sp a r t a WA T A U G A AS H E AL L E G H A N Y WI L K E S 0 3 6 9 1 2 1. 5 Mi l e s ¯ NC A C S P B M P s I m p l e m e n t e d B e t w e e n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0 NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 Le g e n d NC A C S P B M P s Wa s t e M a n a g e m e n t Ag r i - C h e m i c a l P o l l u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n Co m m u n i t y C o n s e r v a t i o n Er o s i o n / N u t r i e n t R e d u c t i o n St r e a m P r o t e c t i o n Se d i m e n t / N u t r i e n t R e d u c t i o n Hy d r o l o g y Co u n t y B o u n d a r y Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d s Ç VTU #0 \¢¡^_ 6.8 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L o c a l I n i t i a t i v e s & V o l u n t a r y I n c e n t i v e P r o g r a m s 2 0 1 1 CleaN wateR maNagemeNt tRust fuNd (Cwmtf) Created in 1996, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) makes grants to local governments, state agencies and conservation non-profits to help finance projects that specifically address water pollution problems. The fund has made several investments in the New River Basin. Table 6-2 includes a list of recent (2003-2009) projects and their cost. These projects include several land acquisitions and restoration funding. taBLE 6-2: cLEaN WatEr MaNagEMENt truSt fuND ProjEctS BEtWEEN 2003 - 2009 ID aPPLIcaNt NaME PurPoSE aMouNt fuNDED totaL coSt 2010D-010 Blue Ridge Conservancy - donated/ Long Branch Cr Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $314,794 2010D-007 Blue Ridge Conservancy - donated/ Old Orchard Mini-grant- Donated $19,000 $68,500 2010D-005 National Committee for the New River - donated/ ,MacConnell Tract Mini-grant- Donated $20,100 $182,650 2010D-001 National Committee for the New River - donated/ Gentry Tract Mini-grant- Donated $22,225 $435,675 2010-414 National Committee for the New River - Rest/ Old Field Creek Stream Restoration Restoration $95,100 $208,165 2010-413 National Committee for the New River - Rest/ River Builder Project, New River Restoration $285,852 $307,000 2010-035 National Committee for the New River - Acq/ Darnell Tract,New River State Park, Roan Creek Acquisition-Buffers $416,000 $931,710 2010-004 Blue Ridge Conservancy - Acq/ Braun Tract, Big Laurel Creek Acquisition-Buffers $1,621,000 $3,819,713 2009D-017 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Tobin Tr Mini-grant- Donated $24,975 $278,384 2009D-015 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Black Tr Mini-grant- Donated $23,800 $205,350 2009D-014 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Baldridge Farm Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $86,750 2008S-003 West Jefferson, Town of - Storm Minigrant/Planning/Little Buffalo Creek Mini-grant- Stormwater $50,000 $55,000 2008G-010 Watauga County - Mini/Greenway/Planning/ New River Mini-grant- Greenway $35,000 $42,000 2008G-005 Sparta, Town of - Greenway Planning Minigrant/ Bledsoe Cr Other $35,000 $44,000 2008D-014 Piedmont Land Conservancy - Donated Minigrant/ Davis Chapel Tr Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $480,000 2008D-012 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Baldwin Tr/ Helton Cr Mini-grant- Donated $20,700 $406,600 2008D-004 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Black Tract/ UT Prathers Cr Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $1,385,000 2008-812 National Committee for the New River - Plan/Rest/ Old Field Creek Restoration (Withdrawn)Planning $24,000 $34,400 2008-811 National Committee for the New River - Plan/ Rest/ Lambert-Leight Tracts, North Fork New River (Withdrawn) Planning $25,000 $45,800 2008-810 National Committee for the New River - Plan/ Rest/ Boone Greenway Restoration Restoration $25,000 $75,000 6.9 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L o c a l I n i t i a t i v e s & V o l u n t a r y I n c e n t i v e P r o g r a m s 2 0 1 1 ID aPPLIcaNt NaME PurPoSE aMouNt fuNDED totaL coSt 2008-711 Pilot View RC&D, Inc - Storm/ Town of Sparta BMPs and Master Plan Stormwater $297,250 $397,424 2008-420 Resource Institute, Inc - Rest/ Pine Orchard Creek Creek Restoration Restoration $374,000 $446,612 2008-409 National Committee for the New River - Rest/ NRSP Oliver Tract, South Fork New River Restoration $152,000 $165,700 2008-408 National Committee for the New River - Rest/ Jimmy Smith Park, Boone Creek Restoration $55,000 $73,040 2008-401 Appalachian State University - Rest/ Boone Creek Restoration Restoration $422,400 $1,067,727 2008-1011 National Committee for the New River - InnovSW/ Kraut Cr Urban SW Demo Innovative Stormwater $136,000 $148,000 2008-069 Sparta, Town of - Acq/ Bledsoe Creek Greenway Acquisition-Buffers $200,000 $240,491 2008-052 NC Wildlife Resources Commission - Acq/ Miller-Hufnagel Tracts, Ben Bolen Creek (Withdrawn) Acquisition-Buffers $316,000 $872,880 2008-047 NC Div Parks & Recreation - Acq/ Snake Mountain Tract, North Fork New River (Withdrawn) Acquisition-Buffers $603,000 $3,645,370 2008-022 High Country Conservancy - Acq/ Bluff Mountain, Buffalo Creek Acquisition-Buffers $710,000 $1,402,550 2008-002 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Acq/ Pond Mountain Tract, Big Horse Creek Acquisition-Buffers $5,000,000 $13,800,000 2007S-003 Boone, Town of - SStorm Minigrant/ South Fork New River Mini-grant- Stormwater $50,000 $62,000 2007D-005 National Committee for the New River - Donated Minigrant/ Peak Tract, S. Fork New River Mini-grant- Donated $21,453 $162,553 2007D-004 National Committee for the New River - Donated Minigrant/ Arrendell Tract, N. Fork New River Mini-grant- Donated $21,607 $165,607 2007D-003 National Committee for the New River - Donated Minigrant/ Earnhardt Tract, Grassy Creek (Withdrawn) Mini-grant- Donated $22,334 $412,834 2007D-002 National Committee for the New River - Donated Minigrant/ Caldwell Tract, S. Fork New River Mini-grant- Donated $22,172 $200,992 2007D-001 National Committee for the New River - Donated Minigrant/ Langer Tract, S. Fork New River Mini-grant- Donated $23,241 $326,241 2007-703 Boone, Town of - Storm/ Constructed Wetlands and Retrofits, South Fork New River Stormwater $178,000 $280,000 2007-418 Resource Institute, Inc - Rest/ Pine Orchard Creek Restoration Restoration $146,000 $236,000 2007-407 National Committee for the New River - Rest/ River Builder Program, New River Tributaries Restoration $238,000 $253,336 2007-406 National Committee for the New River - Rest/East Fork New River Restoration Restoration $189,962 $233,307 2007-405 National Committee for the New River - Rest/ Boone Creek Restoration Restoration $27,000 $35,912 2006D-033 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Old Fields Farm, Elk Creek Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $1,415,000 6.10 NC D W Q N E W R I V E R B A S I N P L A N : L o c a l I n i t i a t i v e s & V o l u n t a r y I n c e n t i v e P r o g r a m s 2 0 1 1 ID aPPLIcaNt NaME PurPoSE aMouNt fuNDED totaL coSt 2006D-032 High Country Conservancy - Donated Minigrant/ Reninger Tract, Winkler Creek Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $415,000 2006D-023 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Koontz Farm, Stillhouse Branch Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $1,480,000 2006B-014 National Committee for the New River - Acq/ Main Tracts, North Fork New River and Mine Branch (Transferred to Div of Parks and Rec Acquisition-Buffers $116,000 $358,415 2006A-819 Sparta, Town of - Stormwater Minigrant/ Stormwater Drainage Study, Bledsoe Creek Mini-grant- Stormwater $27,000 $30,000 2005D-021 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Coffey Tract, Aho Branch Mini-grant- Donated $20,000 $300,000 2005D-017 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Tobin Farm, South Beaver Creek Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $325,000 2005D-015 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Tate Farm II, Ripshin Creek Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $565,000 2005D-007 National Committee for the New River - Donated Minigrant/ Smith Farm Mini-grant- Donated $20,300 $151,300 2005D-006 National Committee for the New River - Donated Minigrant/ Kemp Tract, North Fork New River Mini-grant- Donated $18,000 $39,000 2005D-004 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Davis Tract, Little Horse Creek *Mini-grant- Donated $24,000 $124,000 2005D-003 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Clark/Burleson Tract, Little Horse Creek Mini-grant- Donated $24,000 $174,000 2005D-001 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Almond Farm, Piney Creek Mini-grant- Donated $15,000 $235,000 2005B-028 NC Div Parks & Recreation - Acq/ Bower and Darnell Tracts, South Fork New River Acquisition-Buffers $2,270,000 $6,561,000 2005A-805 National Committee for the New River - Plan/Rest/ Boone Creek Greenway and Restoration Plan Planning $30,000 $54,000 2004D-013 High Country Conservancy - Donated Minigrant/ Horseshoe Farm Tract Mini-grant- Donated $24,052 $361,552 2004D-009 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ McCarthy Tract, Little Glade Creek * Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $207,000 2004D-005 National Committee for the New River - Donated Minigrant/ Joyner Tract, Big Horse Creek Mini-grant- Donated $23,200 $99,200 2004D-002 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Chanlett Tract, Stillhouse Branch Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $308,000 2004D-001 Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust - Donated Minigrant/ Stack Tract Mini-grant- Donated $25,000 $348,000 2004B-027 Nature Conservancy, The - Acq/ Trout Club Tract, Long Hope Creek Acquisition-Buffers $2,967,000 $3,418,000 2003A-016 National Committee for the New River - Acq/ New River Heights Tract, South Fork (Withdrawn) Acquisition-Buffers $396,000 $714,050 Total Amounts $18,222,723 $51,717,584 7.1 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: oth Er N at u r a L rES ou r c E P ro g r a MS 2 0 1 1 NatuRal ResouRCe PRogRams The efforts of several Natural Resource Programs are discussed throughout this basin plan. Many of these programs are mentioned briefly in the Watershed Chapters as part of a coordinated effort to protect and/or restore water quality and are locally based. Other programs which have similar purposes but have a basin, state or national focus are discussed in more detail here. This chapter is by no means a complete listing of Natural Resource Programs that are active in the New River basin, but rather a discussion of a few highly active programs and their involvement in restoration and/or protection efforts within the basin. The Source Water Assessment & Protection Program is discussed in the Water Quantity Chapter. Additional programs may be added in the future. Several locally based Natural Resource Programs and their efforts during this planning cycle are discussed in the Voluntary Incentive Programs & Local Initiatives Chapter. That chapter will also expand as additional local program efforts become known. eCosystem eNhaNCemeNt PRogRam (eeP) EEP uses watershed planning at two scales (basinwide and local) to identify the best locations to implement stream, wetland and riparian buffer restoration/enhancement and preservation projects. The planning process considers where mitigation is needed and how mitigation efforts might contribute to the improvement of water quality, habitat and other vital watershed functions in the state. Watershed planning requires GIS data analysis, stakeholder involvement, water quality monitoring, habitat assessment and consideration of local land uses and ordinances. It is a multi- dimensional process which considers science, policy and partnership. RiveR BasiN RestoRatioN PRioRities EEP River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRPs) are focused on the identification of Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) within the 8-digit Cataloging Units (subbasins) that comprise individual river basins. TLWs represent priority areas (14-digit HUCs) for the implementation of stream and wetland mitigation projects. GIS screening factors considered in the selection of TLWs include: documented water quality impairment and habitat degradation, the presence of critical habitat or significant natural heritage areas, the presence of water supply watersheds or other high-quality waters, the condition of riparian buffers, estimates of impervious cover, existing or planned transportation CHAPTER 7 otheR NatuRal ResouRCe PRogRams IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN ChaPteR toPiCs £EEP £Forestry 7.2 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: oth Er N at u r a L rES ou r c E P ro g r a MS 2 0 1 1 projects, and the opportunity for local partnerships. Recommendations from local resource agency professionals and the presence of existing watershed projects are given significant weight in the selection of TLWs. RBRP documents (and TLW selections) for each of the 17 river basins in North Carolina are updated periodically to account for changing watershed conditions, increasing development pressures and local stakeholder priorities. The most recent update to the New River Basin TLWs occurred in 2009. In total, eight 14-digit HUCs have been designated TLWs by EEP in the New River basin (8-digit CU 05050001). The updated RBRP, including a summary table of Targeted Local Watersheds, can be found at EEP’s New River Basin website. loCal wateRshed PlaNNiNg EEP Local Watershed Planning (LWP) initiatives are conducted in specific priority areas (typically a cluster of two or three Targeted Local Watersheds) where EEP and the local community have identified a need to address critical watershed issues. The LWP process typically takes place over a two-year period, covers a planning area around 50 to 150 square miles, and includes three distinct phases: I - existing data review and preliminary watershed characterization (largely GIS-based); II – detailed watershed assessment (including water quality & biological monitoring and field assessment of potential mitigation sites); and III – development of a final Project Atlas and Watershed Management Plan. EEP collaborates with local stakeholders and resource professionals throughout the process to identify projects and management strategies to restore, enhance and protect local watershed resources. In 2005, EEP initiated a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) effort in the 111-square mile Little River and Brush Creek watersheds in Alleghany County. This LWP culminated in 2007 with the development of a Project Atlas identifying stream and wetlands restoration and preservation sites within priority sub-watersheds and a detailed Watershed Management Plan for the Bledsoe Creek focus area. This work included the development of specific stormwater management recommendations for the Town of Sparta and the identification and modeling of stormwater BMP project sites. EEP is currently working with local resource professionals and landowners to implement stream and wetland restoration/enhancement and preservation projects in the two LWP watersheds. For more information on this LWP initiative, go to the EEP LWP Fact Sheet. More information about the River Basin Restoration Priorities and LWP project areas within the New River Basin can be found on the EEP website. eeP PRojeCts iN the New RiveR BasiN As of September 2010, EEP had a total of 15 mitigation projects in some stage of being completed in the New River Basin. These stages include design; construction; monitoring (construction complete); and long-term stewardship. Table 7-2 provides details on these projects, which include stream and wetland restoration/enhancement and preservation projects. In total, EEP is in some stage of restoration or enhancement on over 45,000 feet of stream and approximately 20 acres of wetlands in the New River basin. In addition, the program is in some stage of preservation on over 29,000 feet of stream and 22 acres of wetlands. For additional information about EEP’s Project Implementation efforts, go to the EEP Project Implementation webpage. To view the locations of these project sites, go to EEP’s Web Map site. taBLE 7-1: NEW rIVEr BaSIN tLWS & LWP SuMMary 8-DIgIt hu tLW’S (#)LWP 05050001 8 Little River & Brush Creek (including Bledsoe Creek) 7.3 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: oth Er N at u r a L rES ou r c E P ro g r a MS 2 0 1 1 taBLE 7-2: EEP ProjEctS IN SoME StagE of coMPLEtIoN IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN (8-DIgIt hu 05050001) huc ProjEctS (#)StrEaM rEStoratIoN/ENhaNcEMENt (ft)StrEaM PrESErVatIoN (ft)WEtLaND rEStoratIoN/ENhaNcEMENt (ac)WEtLaND PrESErVatIoN (ac) 05050001 15 45,384 29,491 19.9 22.2 foRestRy foRestlaNd owNeRshiP* Approximately 98% of the forestland in the basin is privately-owned, with the remaining 2% comprised of publically-owned lands. The most notable public forested lands in the basin are New River State Park, and Mount Jefferson State Park. Within North Carolina’s portion of this river basin, there are no State Forests or National Forest lands. * The ownership estimates come from the most recent data published by the USDA-Forest Service (“Forest Statistics for North Carolina, 2002.” Brown, Mark J. Southern Research Station Resource Bulletin SRS-88. January 2004). foRest wateR Quality RegulatioNs Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (Article 4-GS113A, referred to as “SPCA”). However, forestry operations may be exempted from specific requirements of the SPCA if the operations meet the compliance performance standards outlined in the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A NCAC 1I .0100 - .0209, referred to as “FPGs”) and General Statutes regarding stream and ditch obstructions (GS 77-13 and GS 77-14). The FPG performance standard rule-codes and topics include: £.0201: Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) £.0202: Prohibition of Debris Entering Streams and Waterbodies £.0203: Access Road and Skid Trail Stream Crossings £.0204: Access Road Entrances £.0205: Prohibition of Waste Entering Streams, Waterbodies, and Groundwater £.0206: Pesticide Application £.0207: Fertilizer Application £.0208: Stream Temperature £.0209: Rehabilitation of Project Site The NC-DFR is delegated the authority to monitor and evaluate forestry operations for compliance with these aforementioned laws and/or rules. In addition, the NC-DFR works to resolve identified FPG compliance questions brought to its attention through citizen complaints. Violations of the FPG performance standards that cannot be resolved by the NC-DFR are referred to the appropriate State agency for enforcement action. During the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2009 there were 167 FPG inspections conducted on forestry- related sites in the basin; approximately 81% of the sites were in compliance upon the initial site inspection. 7.4 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: oth Er N at u r a L rES ou r c E P ro g r a MS 2 0 1 1 otheR wateR Quality RegulatioNs In addition to the multiple State regulations noted above, NC-DFR monitors the implementation of the following Federal rules relating to water quality and forestry operations: £The Section 404 silviculture exemption under the Clean Water Act for activities in wetlands; £The federally-mandated 15 best management practices (BMPs) related to road construction in wetlands; £The federally-mandated BMPs for mechanical site preparation activities for the establishment of pine plantations in wetlands of the southeastern U.S. wateR Quality foResteRs The entire river basin is included within the coverage area of a Water Quality Forester, who is based out of the Lenoir District Office. Statewide, there is a Water Quality Forester position in 9 of NC-DFR’s 13 operating districts. Water Quality Foresters conduct FPG inspections, assist with BMP implementation, develop pre-harvest plans, and provide training opportunities for landowners, loggers and the public regarding water quality issues related to forestry. These foresters also assist County Rangers on follow-up site inspections and provide enhanced technical assistance to local agency staff. Water Quality Foresters are the primary point of contact in their districts for responding to water quality or timber harvesting questions or concerns that are suspected to be related to forestry activities. foRestRy Best maNagemeNt PRaCtiCes Implementing forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) is strongly encouraged to efficiently and effectively protect the water resources of North Carolina. In 2006, the first ever revision to the North Carolina forestry BMP manual was completed. This comprehensive update to the forestry BMP manual is the result of nearly four years of effort by the NC-DFR and a DENR- appointed Technical Advisory Committee consisting of multiple sector stakeholders, supported by two technical peer-reviews. The forestry BMP manual describes measures that may be implemented to help comply with the forestry regulations while protecting water quality. Copies of the forestry BMP manual can be obtained at a County or District office, or online. In the basin during this period, the NC-DFR assisted with or observed 265 forestry activities in which BMPs were either implemented or recommended, encompassing a total area greater than 10,000 acres. From March 2000 through March 2003, the DFR conducted a statewide BMP Implementation Survey on 565 active forest harvest operations to evaluate the usage of forestry BMPs. This survey evaluated 18 sites in this river basin, with a resulting BMP implementation rate of 68%. The problems most often cited in this survey across the state relate to stream crossings, skid trails and site rehabilitation. A copy of this report is available from the DFR Raleigh Central Office or can be downloaded from the Web site water quality webpage. A second round of BMP Implementation Surveys was conducted on additional logging sites statewide from 2006 to 2008; at this time, the data is being compiled and a report of the findings will be available in 2010. These periodic, recurring BMP surveys serve as a basis for focused efforts in the forestry community to address water quality concerns through better and more effective BMP development, implementation and training. PRoteCtiNg stReam CRossiNgs with BRidgemats The NC-DFR provides bridgemats on loan to loggers for establishing temporary stream crossings during harvest activities in an effort to educate loggers about the benefits of installing crossings in this manner. Temporary bridges can be a very effective solution for stream crossings, since 7.5 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: oth Er N at u r a L rES ou r c E P ro g r a MS 2 0 1 1 the equipment and logs stay completely clear of the water channel. Bridgemats are available for use in this basin, and have been for several years. Periodic status reports, a list of bridgemat suppliers, and additional information are available at DFR bridgemat webpage. ChRistmas tRee PRoduCtioN North Carolina’s Christmas tree industry is predominant within the New River basin, and remains an important economic driver in this region of the state. It should be noted that the NC-DFR does not oversee regulations or land-clearing activities associated with Christmas tree production. These activities are not considered forestry (“silviculture”) activities, but are instead deemed to be an agricultural or horticultural activity. County Soil & Water Conservation District or USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) personnel can provide BMP assistance. Additional information about Christmas trees is available from the N.C. Cooperative Extension Service. foRest RegeNeRatioN & PlaNNiNg Approximately 2,900 acres of land were established or regenerated with forest trees across the basin from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2009. During this same time period the NC- DFR produced more than 700 individual forest plans for landowners that encompassed almost 31,000 acres of forestland in the basin. eduCatioN & outReaCh Each year since 2004 the NC-DFR summarizes its BMP, water quality, and nonpoint source accomplishments in a color brochure entitled “Year In Review”. This report is available on the Web. The North Carolina Forestry Association, in cooperation with forest industry, NC-DFR, and NCSU, conducts educational programs annually at different locations in the North Carolina. The first program is called the Forestry and Environmental Camp, and is for middle and high school aged children. These 3-day long camps introduce children to the basic science and math skills needed when practicing forestry. The second program is the Sustainable Forestry Teachers Academy/Tour, and educates school teachers about forestry practices and how forest products are manufactured. For more information about these programs visit NC Forestry Association web page. CoNtaCts taBLE 7-3: North caroLINa Dfr coNtactS for thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN offIcE LocatIoN coNtact PErSoN PhoNE aDDrESS Lenoir District: D2 Water Quality Forester (828) 757-5611 1543 Wilkesboro Blvd., NE Lenoir, NC 28645-8215 Western Regional Office: Region III Asst. Regional Forester (828) 665-8688 14 Gaston Mountain Road Asheville, NC 28806-9101 Raleigh Central Office Nonpoint Source Branch - Forest Hydrologist (919) 857-4856 1616 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 Griffiths Forestry Center Water Quality & Wetlands Staff Forester (919) 553-6178 Ext. 230 2411 Old US Hwy 70-West Clayton, NC 27520 7.6 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: oth Er N at u r a L rES ou r c E P ro g r a MS 2 0 1 1 RefeReNCes North Carolina Department of Environment Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of Forest Resources (DFR). January 1990. Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Qual- ity. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A General Statute 77-13 and 77-14. Raleigh, NC. ____. Division of Water Quality (DWQ). August 2004a. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCA 2B .0220. Raleigh, NC. ____. Division of Land Resources (DLR). 1999. Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. § 113A Article 4. Raleigh, NC USDA-Forest Service. Forest Statistics for North Carolina, 2002. Brown, Mark J. Southern Research Station Resource Bulletin SRS-88. January 2004. Note: URL addresses for hyperlinks found in this plan are listed in the Acronyms & Definitions Chapter. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.1 CHAPTER 8 2010 use suPPoRt & methodology IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN 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 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.2 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.3 AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species  NC 2010 Integrated Report  North Fork New River 0505000101New River Basin Watershed Upper New River 05050001New River Basin Subbasin North Fork New River 0505000101New River Basin Watershed Big Horse Creek10-2-21-(4.5)From SR#1362 to SR#1353 (Tuckerdale)5.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Big Horse Creek (Horse Creek) 10-2-21-(7)From SR#1353 (Tuckerdale) to North Fork New R 6.5 FW Miles C:+  1  1 Big Laurel Creek10-2-14 From source to North Fork New River 17.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  1 Brush Fork10-2-8 From source to North Fork New River 5.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Buffalo Creek10-2-20 From source to North Fork New River 9.7 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  3a Helton Creek10-2-27 From NC-VA State Line to North Fork New River 19.0 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  3a Hoskin Fork10-2-7 From source to North Fork New River 5.2 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1 From source to Buffalo Creek 4.4 FW Miles C;Tr:+   5 Little Horse Creek10-2-21-8 From source to Big Horse Creek 10.9 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Little Phoenix Creek10-2-23 From source to North Fork New River 4.6 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Long Shoals Creek10-2-25 From source to North Fork New River 2.7 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 10/20/2010 Page 198 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.4 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  North Fork New River 0505000101New River Basin Watershed Middle Fork Little Horse Creek 10-2-21-8-1 From source to Little Horse Creek 4.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Millpond Branch10-2-28 From source to North Fork New River 2.0 FW Miles C:+  1 North Fork New River10-2-(1)From source to Three Top Creek 14.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  1 North Fork New River10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River 36.5 FW Miles C:+  1  1  1 Rich Hill Creek10-2-15 From source to North Fork New River 4.9 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Roundabout Creek10-2-10 From source to North Fork New River 4.0 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Three Top Creek10-2-13 From source to North Fork New River 13.2 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  3a South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed Cranberry Creek (Mulberry Creek) 10-1-37 From source to South Fork New River 18.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+  1  1 East Fork South Fork New River 10-1-3-(1)From source to Watauga County SR 1524 2.3 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+   5 East Fork South Fork New River 10-1-3-(8)From .8 mile downstream of Watauga Co SR 1524 to S Fk New River 0.5 FW Miles WS-IV;CA:+  1 10/20/2010 Page 199 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.5 AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species  NC 2010 Integrated Report  South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed Howard Creek10-1-9-(6)From the Appalachian State University Raw Water Supply Intake Dam to South Fork New River 3.6 FW Miles C;Tr,HQW  1  3a Little Peak Creek10-1-35-4 From source to Peak Creek 2.8 FW Miles B;Tr:+   4s Meat Camp Creek10-1-10 From source to South Fork New River 10.4 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  3a Middle Fork South Fork New River 10-1-2-(15)From 0.4 mile downstr of US Hwy 221 & 321 to South Fk New River 0.5 FW Miles WS-IV;CA:+  1  3a Middle Fork South Fork New River 10-1-2-(6)From Brown Branch to Boone Dam 3.5 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+  1 Naked Creek10-1-32b From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to South Fork New River 2.5 FW Miles C:+  1   5 Norris Fork10-1-10-2 From source to Meat Camp Creek 4.3 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Obids Creek10-1-27-(2)From a point 0.9 mile downstream of NC Hwy 163 to South Fork New River 2.8 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+  1  1 Ore Knob Branch10-1-35-3 From source to Peak Creek 0.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+   4s Peak Creek10-1-35-(2)a From Water Supply Dam at Appalachian Sulphides, Inc to Ore Knob Branch 2.1 FW Miles B;Tr:+  1 10/20/2010 Page 200 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.6 AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species  NC 2010 Integrated Report  South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed Peak Creek10-1-35-(2)b From Ore Knob Branch to South Fork New River 2.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+   4s Pine Orchard Creek10-1-15-1 From source to Elk Creek 3.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Pine Swamp Creek (Pine Swamp) 10-1-24 From source to South Fork New River 5.5 FW Miles C:+  1 Prathers Creek10-1-38 From source to South Fork New River 11.1 FW Miles B;Tr:+  1 Roan Creek10-1-31-(2)From 0.5 mile upstream of mouth to South Fork New River 0.4 FW Miles WS- IV;Tr,CA:+  1  1 South Beaver Creek(Lake Ashe) 10-1-25-2a From source to Lake Ashe 5.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 South Fork New River10-1-(20.5)From a point 0.4 mile upstream of Couches Creek to a point 2.8 mile upstream of Obids Creek 21.8 FW Miles WS-V;HQW  1 South Fork New River10-1-(26)b From Obids Creek to a point 0.6 miles upstream of Roan Creek 6.6 FW Miles WS-IV;HQW  1  1  1  1 South Fork New River10-1-(3.5)a From Winkler Creek to 0.1 miles downstream of Hunting Lane 0.3 FW Miles C:+   5  1  1  1 10/20/2010 Page 201 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.7 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 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.8 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 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.9 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 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.10 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.11 Page 1 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2010 Use Assessment Methodology EPA Approved August 31, 2010 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.12 Page 2 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Table of Contents Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Assessment Units and Water Quality Classifications ...................................................................... 3 Data Window/Assessment Period ...................................................................................................... 4 Data Availability and Quality .............................................................................................................. 4 Use Support Categories and Water Quality Standards .................................................................. 4 Aquatic Life Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................. 4 Numerical Water Quality Standards .............................................................................................. 4 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Standards ............................................................................................ 5 Freshwater Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Class C, B, WS) ...................................... 5 Saltwater Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Class SC, SB, SA) ..................................... 5 Trout Water Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Supplemental Class Tr) ....................... 5 Swamp Water Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Supplemental Class Sw) ................. 5 pH ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 pH Standards ................................................................................................................................. 6 Low pH Assessment (Class C, SC, B, SB, SA, WS) ................................................................. 6 High pH Assessment (Class C, SC, B, SB, SA, WS) ................................................................ 6 Swamp Water Low pH Assessment (Supplemental Class Sw) .............................................. 7 Temperature Use Assessment ........................................................................................................ 7 Temperature Standards ............................................................................................................... 7 Temperature Assessment ............................................................................................................ 7 Temperature Screening Criteria for Trout Waters (Supplemental Class Tr) ...................... 8 Assessment of Extreme Temperature Conditions ................................................................... 8 Chlorophyll a ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Chlorophyll a Standard ................................................................................................................ 8 Chlorophyll a Standards Assessment ........................................................................................ 8 Toxic Substances and Action Levels Metals ................................................................................. 9 Toxic Substances Numerical Standards .................................................................................... 9 Metals Action Level Standards .................................................................................................... 9 Toxic Substances and Action Level Metals Assessment ......................................................... 9 Turbidity ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Turbidity Standards .................................................................................................................... 10 Turbidity Assessment ................................................................................................................. 10 Ecological/Biological Integrity ....................................................................................................... 11 Aquatic Life Narrative Standards.............................................................................................. 11 Aquatic Life Assessment ............................................................................................................ 11 Recreation Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................. 11 Pathogen Indicator Standards ...................................................................................................... 12 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Assessment Criteria .............................................................................. 12 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Screening Assessment ......................................................................... 12 Enterrococci Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................. 12 Enterrococcus Screening Assessment ......................................................................................... 12 Advisory Posting Assessment ....................................................................................................... 12 Shellfish Harvesting Assessment Methodology ............................................................................. 13 Shellfish Harvesting Standards .................................................................................................... 13 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Assessment Criteria .............................................................................. 13 DEH Shellfish Sanitation Growing Area Classification Assessment ........................................ 13 Water Supply Assessment Methodology ......................................................................................... 13 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.13 Page 3 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Water Supply Standards ................................................................................................................ 13 Water Supply Assessment ............................................................................................................. 13 Fish Consumption Assessment Methodology ................................................................................. 14 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Assessment Criteria ............................................................ 14 Dioxin Assessment Criteria ........................................................................................................... 14 Mercury Assessment Criteria ........................................................................................................ 14 Purpose Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) which Congress enacted in 1972 requires States, Territories and authorized Tribes to identify and establish a priority ranking for waterbodies for which technology-based effluent limitations required by section 301 are not stringent enough to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards, establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the pollutants causing impairment in those waterbodies, and submit, from time to time, the list of impaired waterbodies and TMDLs to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Current federal rules require states to submit 303(d) lists biennially, by April 1st of every even numbered year. The “303(d) list” is technically considered the impaired waters listed as Category 5, requiring a TMDL. EPA is required to approve or disapprove the state-developed §303(d) list within 30 days. For each water quality limited segment impaired by a pollutant and identified in the §303(d) list, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be developed. Assessment Units and Water Quality Classifications Water quality assessments are based on water quality classifications as well as data availability. Water quality classifications are associated with a stream reach or area that is described in the schedule of classifications. Reaches vary in length or area and are sometimes split into smaller units to represent application of water quality data. Classifications are represented by a series of numbers called index numbers, 27-33-43-(1), as an example. Water quality assessments are applied to assessment units or AUs. AUs are, for the most part, the same as index numbers. When an AU is subdivided because of data applicability a letter is added to indicate this smaller unit. For example, if Index number 27-33-43-(1) (12 miles in length) is divided into three different segments because of three different available data types the new segments would be 27-33-43-(1)a, 27-33-43-(1)b and 27-33-43- (1)c. The combined mileage of the AUs would be 12 miles. Decisions on the length or area to apply data to are based on the data type, waterbody characteristics, stations indicating similar water quality, watershed information and landmarks on which to base descriptions. The AUs where water quality concerns are evident are used as markers. Solutions to water quality concerns, including TMDLs, typically encompass entire watersheds. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.14 Page 4 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Data Window/Assessment Period The data window for the 2010 Water Quality Use Assessment (305(b) and 303(d) Integrated Reporting) includes data collected in calendar years 2004 through 2008 (five years). Some AUs may have biological data collected earlier for waters that have not been resampled during this data window or where the current impairment is based on that sample. The data collection year is noted for each AU. Data Availability and Quality Data are collected by various state and federal agencies. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality (DWQ) collects most of the data used for water quality assessments. There are significant data sets collected by NCDENR Division of Environmental Health (DEH) for use in coastal water quality assessment. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) also provides data in several AUs. Local governments and environmental groups as well as industry, municipal and university coalitions also provide data. Submitted data sets must include an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) or other documentation to assure that the data were collected in a manner consistent with agency data. A standing solicitation for data is maintained on the DWQ website. DWQ evaluates all data and information submitted. Use Support Categories and Water Quality Standards There are numerical and narrative water quality standards that are in place to protect the various best uses of North Carolina waters. Best uses include aquatic life or biological integrity, recreation or swimming, fish consumption, shellfish harvesting and water supply. Water quality assessments are based on the standards and data availability for the applicable use support category- aquatic life, recreation etc. Dissolved oxygen standards are used to assess aquatic life and pathogen indicators are used to assess recreation for example. Standards assessment criteria have been developed for each parameter assessed. The standards assessment criteria are used to make water quality assessments- not the standards themselves. While the standards assessment criteria are based on the standards they are different in that a frequency term is included. The details of how each standard is assessed are discussed in the following sections. Aquatic Life Assessment Methodology Numerical Water Quality Standards The aquatic life numerical water quality standards are assessed using a 10% exceedance of the standard criterion. These assessments use ambient monitoring data from the five year assessment period (2004-2008). If no aquatic life numerical water quality standards exceed the 10% criterion then the AU is Supporting aquatic life water quality standards. This AU/multiple-parameters assessment is a Category 1 listing not requiring a TMDL. If greater than 10% of the Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.15 Page 5 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 samples exceed the numerical standard and there are at least 10 samples, then the AU is Impaired for that parameter. The AU/parameter assessment is listed in Category 5, requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. The NC DWQ “Redbook” contains the complete descriptions of water quality standards and surface water classifications [15a NCAC 02B .0200 - .0300] Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Standards Freshwater dissolved oxygen: not less than 6.0 mg/l for trout waters; for non-trout waters, not less than a daily average of 5.0 mg/l with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/l; swamp waters, lake coves or backwaters, and lake bottom waters may have lower values if caused by natural conditions. Salt water dissolved oxygen: not less than 5.0 mg/l, except that swamp waters, poorly flushed tidally influenced streams or embayments, or estuarine bottom waters may have lower values if caused by natural conditions. Freshwater Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Class C, B, WS) A fresh non-swamp water AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below 4 mg/l for instantaneous samples (monthly) or when greater than 10% of samples are below a daily average of 5mg/l. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. Saltwater Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Class SC, SB, SA) A saline/estuarine non-swamp water AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below 5 mg/l. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. Trout Water Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Supplemental Class Tr) A supplemental classified Trout water AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below 6 mg/l. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. Swamp Water Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Assessment (Supplemental Class Sw) A supplemental classified swamp (Sw) AU was Not Rated for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below 4 mg/l (5 mg/l for salt) for instantaneous samples (monthly) or when greater than 10% of samples were below a daily average of 5 mg/l (freshwater only). There is not a numerical standard for these waterbodies and natural background conditions cannot be determined. This is a category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. A swamp like AU (not classified Sw) was Not Rated for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below 4 mg/l (5 mg/l for salt) for instantaneous samples Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.16 Page 6 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 (monthly) or when greater than 10% of samples were below a daily average of 5mg/l (freshwater only) and when greater than 10% of samples were below a pH of 6.0 (SU) for freshwater or 6.8 (SU) for saltwater. Geographic location, biological data, tributary classifications, discharges and land use were considered when assigning use support ratings to waters considered to be swamp like or receiving significant swamp water input. pH pH Standards Freshwater pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.0 and 9.0 except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions; Saltwater pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.8 and 8.5 except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions; Low pH Assessment (Class C, SC, B, SB, SA, WS) A non-swamp water AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below a pH of 6.0 (SU) for freshwater or 6.8 (SU) for saltwater. A swamp like AU (not classified Sw) was Not Rated for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were below a pH of 6.0 (SU) for freshwater or 6.8 (SU) for saltwater or when greater than 10% of samples were below a dissolved oxygen of 4 mg/l (5 mg/l for salt) for instantaneous samples (monthly) or when greater than 10% of samples were below a daily average of 5mg/l (freshwater only) Geographic location, biological data, tributary classifications, discharges and land use were considered when making use support determinations on waters considered to be swamp like or receiving significant swamp water input. High pH Assessment (Class C, SC, B, SB, SA, WS) An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than a pH of 9 (SU) for freshwater or 8.5 (SU) for saltwater. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.17 Page 7 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Swamp Water Low pH Assessment (Supplemental Class Sw) A supplemental classified swamp (Sw) AU was assessed as Impaired when greater than 10% of samples were below 4.3 (SU). A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Temperature Use Assessment Temperature Standards For freshwaters- Temperature: not to exceed 2.8°C (5.04°F) above the natural water temperature, and in no case to exceed 29°C (84.2°F) for mountain and upper piedmont waters and 32°C (89.6°F) for lower piedmont and coastal plain waters. The temperature for trout waters shall not be increased by more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) due to the discharge of heated liquids, but in no case to exceed 20°C (68°F). Lower piedmont and coastal plain waters mean those waters of the Catawba River Basin below Lookout Shoals Dam; the Yadkin River Basin below the junction of the Forsyth, Yadkin, and Davie County lines; and all of the waters of Cape Fear, Lumber, Roanoke, Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Chowan, Pasquotank, and White Oak River Basins; except tidal salt waters which are assigned S classifications. Mountain and upper piedmont waters mean all of the waters of the Hiwassee; Little Tennessee, including the Savannah River drainage area; French Broad; Broad; New; and Watauga River Basins; and those portions of the Catawba River Basin above Lookout Shoals Dam and the Yadkin River Basin above the junction of the Forsyth, Yadkin, and Davie County lines. For saltwaters- Temperature: shall not be increased above the natural water temperature by more than 0.8°C (1.44°F) during the months of June, July, and August nor more than 2.2°C (3.96°F) during other months and in no cases to exceed 32°C (89.6°F) due to the discharge of heated liquids. Temperature Assessment A mountain or upper piedmont AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 29°C. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. A lower piedmont or coastal plain stream AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 32°C. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.18 Page 8 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the water was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Temperature Screening Criteria for Trout Waters (Supplemental Class Tr) A supplemental classified trout water (Tr) AU was Not Rated for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 20°C. The presence of heated discharges was not determined. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Assessment of Extreme Temperature Conditions A waterbody that exceeds the above criteria may be Not Rated for aquatic life because of meteorological conditions that occur on a regular basis. These conditions must be documented and reassessment will occur after more normal conditions return. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Examples of extreme conditions may include extreme drought, reservoir drawdown, hurricane impacts and flooding, dam failure, and saltwater encroachment. Other extreme conditions may be documented as needed for future assessments Chlorophyll a Chlorophyll a Standard Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40 g/l in sounds, estuaries, and other waters subject to growths of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation. Other waters subject to growths are interpreted by DWQ to include dam backwaters, lakes and reservoirs. Chlorophyll a Standards Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 40 g/l. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. Some reservoirs in North Carolina are sampled fewer than 10 times during the assessment period. These data are used to document eutrophication issues. Reservoirs are targeted for increased monitoring to determine if there are standards violations using the above methodology. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.19 Page 9 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Toxic Substances and Action Levels Metals Toxic Substances Numerical Standards Refer to the NC DWQ “Redbook” for complete text of standards Arsenic: 50 ug/l Beryllium: 6.5 ug/l; Cadmium: 0.4 ug/l for trout waters and 2.0 ug/l for non-trout waters; Chlorine, total residual: 17 ug/l; Chromium, total recoverable: 50 ug/l; Cyanide: 5.0 ug/l Fluorides: 1.8 mg/l; Lead, total recoverable: 25 ug/l; Mercury (assessed in fish consumption category) Nickel: 88 ug/l; 8.3 ug/l Chlorides: 230mg/l; (note this is an action level standard) Metals Action Level Standards Action Level Copper: 7 ug/l FW or 3 ug/l SW Action Level Silver: 0.06 ug/l; Action Level Zinc: 50 ug/l; Toxic Substances and Action Level Metals Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than the above standards or action level standards. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. These are Category 5 listings requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. The action level standard for Iron was not assessed during this assessment period because the standard is being reevaluated and the Iron exceedances of the Action Level have been shown to be a natural condition. Action levels are used for permitting purposes and are not used as the only information to assess aquatic life uses. Copper and Zinc may be indicators of potential impacts to aquatic life. DWQ will review Copper and Zinc assessments that result in Category 5 listings. The review will be used to determine if the Category 5 listing is appropriate. The following criteria will be used to determine if a review is warranted. 1. A collocated Good, Excellent, Natural or Not Impaired biological rating or Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.20 Page 10 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 2. A collocated Good-Fair, Moderate or Not Rated biological rating and less than 25% of Copper or Zinc samples exceed the evaluation level. 3. There are no biological data available and less than 25% of Copper or Zinc samples exceed the evaluation level. The Water Quality Assessment Team will evaluate and integrate the following lines of watershed information to determine if a Category 5 listing for Copper and/or Zinc is warranted. 1- Analysis of duration, frequency and magnitude of exceedances. 2- Historical data and trends for the parameter of interest. 3- Detailed assessment of all available biological data. 4- Qualitative aquatic habitat information. 5- Natural or background conditions assessment including current imagery. 6- Sample quality (note that Zinc samples can be easily contaminated) 7- Waterbody classifications and other designated uses. 8- Exceedances of other likely associated metals. 9- Biological data in nearby Assessment Units. 10- Potential Sources of metals 11- Site specific hardness After review the Assessment team will determine if the AU/parameter assessment is more appropriately listed in a Category other than 5. Each reviewed assessment will require documented justification for a final Integrate Report category other than Category 5. Turbidity Turbidity Standards Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) in streams not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes or reservoirs designated as trout waters; for lakes and reservoirs not designated as trout waters, the turbidity shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, the existing turbidity level cannot be increased. Turbidity Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 50 NTU or 10 NTU for Tr waters or 25 NTU for lakes, reservoirs and estuarine waters. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.21 Page 11 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Ecological/Biological Integrity Aquatic Life Narrative Standards The aquatic life narrative water quality standard is assessed using a biological integrity index criterion (or bioclassification). Biological integrity means the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced and indigenous community of organisms having species composition, diversity, population densities and functional organization similar to that of reference conditions. Waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Sources of water pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard. Aquatic Life Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when a fish or benthic macroinvertebrate community sample received a bioclassification of Severe, Poor or Fair and there were no other Aquatic Life standards violations. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when a fish or benthic macroinvertebrate community sample received a bioclassification of Severe, Poor or Fair and there were other Aquatic Life numeric standards violations. This is a Category 4s listing requiring a TMDL for the identified aquatic life numerical standards violation (Category 5 or 4t listing) impairing the ecological/biological integrity of the waterbody. An AU was assessed as Impaired for aquatic life when a fish or benthic macroinvertebrate community sample received a bioclassification of Severe, Poor or Fair and an approved TMDL for an aquatic life numerical water quality standard has been completely implemented. This is a Category 5s listing requiring a TMDL. Recreation Assessment Methodology Recreation standards were assessed using fecal coliform bacteria data collected at DWQ ambient stations and special study sites and enterrococci data collected at DEH Recreational Monitoring sites in coastal waters. Screening criteria were used to assess areas for potential standards violations. DEH advisory postings were also used for recreation assessments as well. The following criteria were used to assess waters for recreation. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.22 Page 12 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Pathogen Indicator Standards Organisms of coliform group: fecal coliforms not to exceed geometric mean of 200/100 ml (MF count) based on at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30-day period and not to exceed 400/100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period. Enterococcus, including Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus avium and Enterococcus gallinarium: not to exceed a geometric mean of 35 enterococci per 100 ml based upon a minimum of five samples within any consecutive 30 days. Fecal Coliform Bacteria Assessment Criteria An AU was assessed as Impaired when the geometric mean was greater than 200 colonies/100ml or greater than 20% of the samples were higher than 400 colonies/100ml. At least 5 samples must have been collected within the same 30- day period. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Fecal Coliform Bacteria Screening Assessment An AU was Not Rated when the geometric mean was greater than 200 colonies/100ml or greater than 20% of the samples were higher than 400 colonies/100ml. Samples were not collected in the same 30-day period. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. These AUs are prioritized for resampling 5 times in 30 days based on classification and available resources. Data are reviewed yearly for prioritization. Enterrococci Assessment Criteria An AU was assessed as Impaired when the geometric mean was greater than 35 colonies/100ml. At least 5 samples must have been collected within the same 30- day period. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Enterrococcus Screening Assessment An AU was Not Rated when the geometric mean was greater than 35 colonies/100ml. Samples were not collected in the same 30-day period. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Advisory Posting Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired when a swimming advisory was posted for greater than 61 days in any 5 year period (includes permanent postings). This is a Category 4cr listing not requiring a TMDL. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.23 Page 13 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 Shellfish Harvesting Assessment Methodology Shellfish Harvesting standards were assessed using DEH growing area classifications. The following criteria were used to assess waters for shellfish harvesting. Shellfish Harvesting Standards Organisms of coliform group: fecal coliform group not to exceed a median MF of 14/100 ml and not more than 10% of the samples shall exceed an MF count of 43/100 ml in those areas most probably exposed to fecal contamination during the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution conditions. Fecal Coliform Bacteria Assessment Criteria DEH fecal coliform data were not assessed to determine standards violations. Category 5 impairments were based on Growing Area Classifications alone. DEH Shellfish Sanitation Growing Area Classification Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired when the DEH growing area classification was Prohibited or conditionally approved. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Water Supply Assessment Methodology Water Supply standards were assessed using data collected at DWQ ambient stations located in Class WSI-WSV waters. The following criteria were used to Impair waters for water supply. Category 5 listings were only made when Standards Assessment Criteria (SAC) were exceeded. Water Supply Standards Refer to Water Quality “Redbook” for complete text of standards Barium: 1.0 mg/l; Chloride: 250 mg/l; Manganese: 200 ug/l; (not human health or aquatic life- not assessed) Nickel: 25 ug/l; Nitrate nitrogen: 10.0 mg/l; 2,4-D: 100 ug/l; 2,4,5-TP (Silvex): 10 ug/l; Sulfates: 250 mg/l; Water Supply Assessment An AU was assessed as Impaired for water supply when greater than 10% of samples were greater than the above standards except for manganese. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: 2 0 1 0 uSE S uPP or t & M Eth o DoLog y 2 0 1 1 8.24 Page 14 of 14 2010 Integrated Report Methodology EPA Approved 8/31/2010 If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Fish Consumption Assessment Methodology Fish Consumption was assessed based on site-specific fish consumption advisories. The advisories were based on the NC Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) consumption advisories developed using fish tissue data that exceed standards. The following criteria were used to Impair waters for fish consumption. Because of the statewide Mercury advice there were no use cases for Supporting fish consumption and therefore no overall Category 1 waters. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Assessment Criteria An AU was assessed as Impaired when a site-specific advisory was posted for PCBs. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Dioxin Assessment Criteria An AU was assessed as Impaired when a site-specific advisory was posted for dioxins. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. Mercury Assessment Criteria An AU was assessed as Impaired for fish consumption when greater than 10% of samples were greater than 0.012 g/l. A minimum of 10 samples was needed to rate the water as Impaired. This is a Category 5 listing requiring a TMDL. If the 10% criterion was exceeded and fewer than 10 samples were collected the AU was Not Rated and targeted for further sampling. This is a Category 3a listing not requiring a TMDL. Statewide advice for Mercury in fish tissue was not assessed because it was not associated with a specific AU but was applied to all waters of the state. All AUs are considered Impaired and in Category 5 for the statewide Mercury fish consumption advice. Previous site specific listings for Mercury will no longer be listed in Category 5. DWQ continues to monitor mercury in fish tissue, and has identified specific locations where Mercury levels exceed 0.4mg/kg of fish tissue. maPs IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN maPs iN this ChaPteR iNClude: £Old DWQ Subbasins to 10-Digit HUC Conversion Map £10-Digit HUC Maps of 12-Digits -North Fork New River Watershed (0505000101) -South Fork New River & Fox River Watersheds (0505000102 & 0505000103) -Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds (0505000104 & 0505000106) £2004 Impaired Waters Map £2006 Impaired Waters Map £2008 Impaired Waters Map £2010 Impaired Waters Map £Designated Trout Waters £ORW, HQW & Water Supply Areas £2010 Population Density in the New River Basin (coming soon) £2001 Land Cover in the New River Basin £2006 Land Cover in the New River Basin £Agricultural Cost Share Program BMPs (2003-2009) £Eco Regions £NPDES Discharge Permits (Point Source) £NPDES Non-Discharge Permits £Animal Operations La n s i n g Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Bo o n e Bl o w i n g Ro c k Sp a r t a ASHE WATA U G A ASHE ALLE G H A N Y 05 - 0 7 - 0 1 05 - 0 7 - 0 2 05 - 0 7 - 0 3 0 4 8 12 16 2 Mil e s ¯ Ol d D W Q S u b b a s i n L i n e s & N e w H y d r o l o g i c U n i t C o d e Co n v e r s i o n M a p NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 Le g e n d 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d s ( H U C ) Ol d S u b b a s i n s L i n e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r i e s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 - N o r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 - S o u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 - F o x C r e e k W a t e r s h e d 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 - L i t t l e R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 - C h e s t n u t C r e e k W a t e r s h e d La n s i n g Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n ASHE WATA U G A ASHE ALLEGHANY Up p e r N o r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6 ) Bi g L a u r e l C r e e k (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) Bi g H o r s e C r e e k (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 ) Th r e e T o p C r e e k (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 ) He l t o n C r e e k (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 8 ) He a d w a t e r s No r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) Li t t l e H o r s e C r e e k (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) Mi d d l e N o r t h Fo r k N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) Lo w e r N o r t h Fo r k N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 9 ) 0 2. 5 5 7. 5 10 1. 2 5 Mi l e s ¯ 12 - D i g i t S u b w a t e r s h e d s i n t h e N o r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r W a t e r s h e d NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 Le g e n d 10 - D i g i t H U C L i n e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r i e s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s La n s i n g Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Bo o n e Bl o w i n g Ro c k Sp a r t a ASH E WAT A U G A AL L E G H A N Y Cr a n b e r r y C r e e k (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 8 ) Be a v e r C r e e k - So u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 6 ) Gr a s s y C r e e k - Ne w R i v e r ( 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 ) El k C r e e k - So u t h F o r k Ne w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 ) He a d w a t e r s So u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 ) Pi n e S w a m p - So u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 5 ) Me a t C a m p C r e e k - So u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 ) Na k e d C r e e k - So u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 7 ) Pe a k C r e e k - So u t h F o r k Ne w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 9 ) Pr a t h e r C r e e k - So u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 ) Old F i e l d s C r e e k - So u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 ) Br i d l e Cr e e k - Ne w Ri v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 5 ) 0 4 8 12 16 2 Mi l e s ¯ 12 - D i g i t S u b w a t e r s h e d s i n t h e So u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r & Fo x C r e e k W a t e r s h e d s NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 Le g e n d 10 - D i g i t H U C L i n e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r i e s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Sp a r t a AL L E G H A N Y Br u s h C r e e k (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 5 ) Gl a d e C r e e k - L i t t l e R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 6 ) El k C r e e k - N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 ) Br u s h C r e e k - N e w R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 3 ) Cr a b C r e e k - L i t t l e R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 7 ) Pi n e S w a m p C r e e k - L i t t l e R i v e r (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 4 ) Ch e s t n u t C r e e k (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 3 ) 0 2 4 6 8 1 Mi l e s ¯ 12 - D i g i t S u b w a t e r s h e d s i n t h e L i t t l e R i v e r & Ch e s t n u t C r e e k W a t e r s h e d s NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 Le g e n d 10 - D i g i t H U C L i n e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r i e s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Sp a r t a Bl o w i n g Ro c k Bo o n e La n s i n g AS H E WA T A U G A AL L E G H A N Y Nor t h F o rk N e w R i v er So u t h For k N ew River Little R iv e r New River New R . 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 3 6 9 1 2 1. 5 Mi l e s Ne w R i v e r B a s i n 20 0 4 I m p a i r e d W a t e r s NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d Im p a i r e d Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d B o u n d a r y Hy d r o l o g y * T h e I m p a i r e d s t r e a m s m a r k e d o n t h i s m a p a r e b a s e d o n 2 0 0 4 U s e Su p p o r t M e t h o d o l o g i e s w h i c h a r e n o t l i s t e d i n t h i s P l a n . S e e t h e MT U we b s i t e f o r t h e 2 0 0 4 M e t h o d o l o g y d o c u m e n t . Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Sp a r t a Bl o w i n g Ro c k Bo o n e La n s i n g AS H E WA T A U G A AL L E G H A N Y Nor t h F o rk N e w R i v er So u t h ForkNewRiver Little Riv e r N e w River New R . 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 3 6 9 1 2 1.5 Mil e s Ne w R i v e r B a s i n 20 0 6 I m p a i r e d W a t e r s NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d Im p a i r e d Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d B o u n d a r y Hy d r o l o g y * T h e I m p a i r e d s t r e a m s m a r k e d o n t h i s m a p a r e b a s e d o n 2 0 0 6 U s e Su p p o r t M e t h o d o l o g i e s w h i c h a r e n o t l i s t e d i n t h i s P l a n . S e e t h e MT U we b s i t e f o r t h e 2 0 0 6 M e t h o d o l o g y d o c u m e n t . Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Sp a r t a Bl o w i n g Ro c k Bo o n e La n s i n g AS H E WA T A U G A AL L E G H A N Y Nor t h F o rk N e w R i v er So u t h For k N ew River Little Riv e r New River New R . 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 3 6 9 1 2 1.5 Mil e s Ne w R i v e r B a s i n 20 0 8 I m p a i r e d W a t e r s NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d Im p a i r e d Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d B o u n d a r y Hy d r o l o g y * T h e I m p a i r e d s t r e a m s m a r k e d o n t h i s m a p a r e b a s e d o n 2 0 0 8 U s e Su p p o r t M e t h o d o l o g i e s w h i c h a r e n o t l i s t e d i n t h i s P l a n . S e e t h e MT U we b s i t e f o r t h e 2 0 0 8 M e t h o d o l o g y d o c u m e n t . Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Sp a r t a Bl o w i n g Ro c k Bo o n e La n s i n g AS H E WA T A U G A AL L E G H A N Y Nor t h F o rk N e w R i v er So u t h ForkNewRiver Little Riv e r N e w River New R . 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 3 6 9 1 2 1.5 Mil e s Ne w R i v e r B a s i n 20 1 0 I m p a i r e d W a t e r s NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d Im p a i r e d Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d B o u n d a r y Hy d r o l o g y La n s i n g Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Bo o n e Blo w i n g Ro c k Sp a r t a 0 4 8 12 16 2 Mil e s Tr o u t W a t e r s i n t h e N e w R i v e r B a s i n NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a i l t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 Le g e n d Tr o u t W a t e r s Hy d r o l o g y Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d s La n s i n g Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Bo o n e Bl o w i n g Ro c k Sp a r t a 0 3 6 9 1 2 1. 5 Mil e s Ou t s t a n d i n g R e s o u r c e W a t e r s , H i g h Q u a l i t y W a t e r s & Wa t e r S u p p l y W a t e r s h e d i n t h e N e w R i v e r B a s i n NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a i l t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 Le g e n d 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d s OR W S p e c i a l M a n a g e m e n t St a t e g y W a t e r Hy d r o l o g y Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Ou t s t a n d i n g R e s o u r c e W a t e r s Hi g h Q u a l i t y & W a t e r S u p p l y Wa t e r S u p p l y W a t e r s h e d Hi g h Q u a l i t y W a t e r Population Density Map: Coming Soon 0 2 . 5 5 7 . 5 1 0 1. 2 5 Mi l e s 20 0 1 L a n d C o v e r - N e w R i v e r B a s i n NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d s Op e n W a t e r De v e l o p e d Ba r r e n L a n d Fo r e s t s Sh r u b / S c r u b Gr a s s l a n d Ag r i c u l t u r e We t l a n d s 0 2 . 5 5 7 . 5 1 0 1. 2 5 Mi l e s 20 0 6 L a n d C o v e r - N e w R i v e r B a s i n NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ma r c h 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d s Op e n W a t e r De v e l o p e d Ba r r e n L a n d Fo r e s t s Sh r u b / S c r u b Gr a s s l a n d Ag r i c u l t u r e We t l a n d s ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ VTU ¢¡\¢¡¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡\¢¡\¢¡ ¢¡ \ ¢¡ ÇÇ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ^_^_^_^_ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\\\\\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ \ \\ \\ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ Ç¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ÇÇÇ ¢¡¢¡ Ç ÇÇÇ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ÇÇÇÇ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ Ç¢¡¢¡Ç ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡Ç ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ Ç ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ Ç ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ^_^_^_^_ Ç¢¡\Ç¢¡¢¡\Ç¢¡¢¡\Ç¢¡¢¡\¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ÇÇ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \¢¡¢¡¢¡\¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ VTU ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ÇÇ¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡Ç¢¡Ç ÇÇ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ÇÇÇÇ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ÇÇ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡ÇÇ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡Ç ¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡Ç¢¡ ÇÇ¢¡Ç¢¡Ç¢¡Ç¢¡Ç¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ÇÇÇÇÇÇ^_Ç^_Ç^_Ç^_Ç^_Ç^_Ç¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ÇÇÇÇÇÇ \\\\ ^_^_^_^_ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ #0#0#0#0#0 ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡ \ \ \\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\ \ \\\\ \ \\\\ \ \\\\ \ \ \\\\\ \\\\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\\ \\\\ \\\\\\ \\ \\\\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ \\\\\\ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ \\\\ #0#0#0#0#0#0 \\\\ \\\\ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ #0#0#0#0#0 ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\ \\\\\\ \\\\\\ \\\\ ¢¡ \\ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ \¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡ \\ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡ ¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ \\\\ ¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡¢¡ ¢¡¢¡¢¡¢¡ #0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0 #0#0#0#0#0 #0#0#0#0#0#0#0#0 Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n La n s i n g Bo o n e Bl o w i n g Ro c k Sp a r t a WA T A U G A AS H E AL L E G H A N Y WI L K E S 0 3 6 9 1 2 1. 5 Mi l e s ¯ NC A C S P B M P s I m p l e m e n t e d B e t w e e n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 - O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0 NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 Le g e n d NC A C S P B M P s Wa s t e M a n a g e m e n t Ag r i - C h e m i c a l P o l l u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n Co m m u n i t y C o n s e r v a t i o n Er o s i o n / N u t r i e n t R e d u c t i o n St r e a m P r o t e c t i o n Se d i m e n t / N u t r i e n t R e d u c t i o n Hy d r o l o g y Co u n t y B o u n d a r y Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d s Ç VTU #0 \¢¡^_ 10 _ D i g i t _ H U C s e l e c t i o n EP A L e v e l I V E c o r e g i o n s Am p h i b o l i t e M o u n t a i n s Ne w R i v e r P l a t e a u So u t h e r n C r y s t a l i n e R i d g e s a n d M o u n t a i n s So u t h e r n M e t a s e d i m e n t a r y M o u n t a i n s So u t h e r n S e d i m e n t a r y R i d g e s EP A L e v e l I V E c o r e g i o n s i n t h e N e w R i v e r B a s i n #*XY XY #* XY #* #* #* #*#*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Sp a r t a Bl o w i n g Ro c k Bo o n e La n s i n g AS H E WA T A U G A AL L E G H A N Y Nor t h F o r k New Riv e r Sout h ForkNewRiver Little R iv e r N e w Ri v er N ewR. 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 2 . 5 5 7 . 5 1 0 1. 2 5 Mil e s NP D E S P o i n t S o u r c e D i s c h a r g e P e r m i t s i n t h e N e w R i v e r B a s i n NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ma r c h 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d B o u n d a r y Im p a i r e d ( 2 0 1 0 L i s t ) Hy d r o l o g y NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) #*XY #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Sp a r t a Bl o w i n g Ro c k Bo o n e La n s i n g AS H E WA T A U G A AL L E G H A N Y Nor t h F o r k Ne w Riv e r So ut h ForkN e w River Little Riv er New Ri v er New R . 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 2 . 5 5 7 . 5 1 0 1.2 5 Mil e s NP D E S N o n D i s c h a r g e r P e r m i t s i n t h e N e w R i v e r B a s i n NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ma r c h 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d B o u n d a r y Im p a i r e d ( 2 0 1 0 L i s t ) Hy d r o l o g y NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) #0 ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³¡³ ¡³ Je f f e r s o n We s t Je f f e r s o n Sp a r t a Bl o w i n g Ro c k Bo o n e La n s i n g AS H E WA T A U G A AL L E G H A N Y Nor t h F o r k New Riv e r Sout h ForkNewRiver Little R iv e r N e w River N ewR. 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 05 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 2 . 5 5 7 . 5 1 0 1. 2 5 Mil e s An i m a l O p e r a t i o n P e r m i t s i n t h e N e w R i v e r B a s i n NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ma r c h 2 0 1 1 ® An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) Le g e n d Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 10 - D i g i t W a t e r s h e d B o u n d a r y Im p a i r e d ( 2 0 1 0 L i s t ) Hy d r o l o g y ¡³ Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.1 defiNitioNs tErM DEfINItIoN 30Q2 The minimum average flow for a period of 30 days that has an average recurrence of one in two years. 7Q10 The annual minimum 7-day consecutive low flow, which on average will be exceeded in 9 out of 10 years. Assessment Unit (AU)A stream segment to which data is applied in order to make determinations for use support. It can be an entire stream or just the portion for which water quality has established. Basin The watershed of a major river system with an average size of 10,596 square miles. There are 17 major river basins in North Carolina. (Also referred to as a 6-digit hydrologic unit.) Benthic/Benthos Macroinvertebrates Aquatic organisms, visible to the naked eye (macro) and lacking a backbone (invertebrate), macroinvertebrates that live in or on the bottom of rivers and streams (benthic). Examples include, but are not limited to, aquatic insect larvae, mollusks and various types of worms. Some of these organisms, especially aquatic insect larvae, are used to assess water quality. See EPT index and bioclassification for more information. Best Management Practices (BMPs)Techniques that are determined to be currently effective, practical means of preventing or practices reducing pollutants from point and nonpoint sources, in order to protect water quality. BMPs include, but are not limited to: structural and non-structural controls, operation and maintenance procedures, and other practices. Often, BMPs are applied as system of practices and not just one at a time. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) A measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the decomposition of biological matter or chemical reactions in the water column. Most NPDES discharge permits include a limit on the amount of BOD that may be discharged. Bioclassification A rating of water quality based on the outcome of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling of a stream. There are five levels: Poor, Fair, Good-Fair, Good and Excellent. Channelization The physical alteration of streams and rivers by widening, deepening or straightening of the channel, large-scale removal of natural obstructions, and/or lining the bed or banks with rock or other resistant materials. Chlorophyll a A chemical constituent in plants that gives them their green color. High levels of chlorophyll a in a waterbody, most often in a pond, lake or estuary, usually indicate a large amount of algae resulting from nutrient over enrichment or eutrophication. CHAPTER 10 aCRoNyms, defiNitioNs, & hyPeRliNks Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.2 tErM DEfINItIoN Class B Waters protected for all Class C uses in addition to primary recreation. Primary recreational activities include swimming, skin diving, water skiing, and similar uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis. Class C Waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. Class SA Tidal salt waters that are used for commercial shellfishing or marketing purposes and are also protected for all Class SC and Class SB uses. All SA waters are also HQW by supplemental classification. Class SB Tidal salt waters protected for all SC uses in addition to primary recreation. Primary recreational activities include swimming, skin diving, water skiing, and similar uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis. Class SC All tidal salt waters protected for secondary recreation such as fishing, boating, and other activities involving minimal skin contact; fish and noncommercial shellfish consumption; aquatic life propagation and survival; and wildlife. Class SWL These are saltwaters that meet the definition of coastal wetlands as defined by the Division of Coastal Management and which are located landward of the mean high water line or wetlands contiguous to estuarine waters as defined by the Division of Coastal Management. Class WL Freshwater Wetlands are a subset of all wetlands, which in turn are waters that support vegetation that is adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. These waters are protected for storm and flood water storage, aquatic life, wildlife, hydrologic functions, filtration and shoreline protection. Coastal Counties Twenty counties in eastern NC subject to requirements of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). They include: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington. Coastal Plain One of three major physiographic regions in North Carolina. Encompasses the eastern two-fifths of state east of the fall line (approximated by Interstate I-95). Conductivity A measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. It is dependent on the concentration of dissolved ions such as sodium, chloride, nitrates, phosphates and metals in solution. Degradation The lowering of the physical, chemical or biological quality of a waterbody caused by pollution or other sources of stress. Drainage Area Land surrounding and draining to a small creek, stream or river. Typically smaller than a subbwatershed. Dystrophic Naturally acidic (low pH), “black-water” lakes which are rich in organic matter. Dystrophic lakes usually have low productivity because most fish and aquatic plants are stressed by low pH water. In North Carolina, dystrophic lakes are scattered throughout the Coastal Plain and Sandhills regions and are often located in marshy areas or overlying peat deposits. NCTSI scores are not appropriate for evaluating dystrophic lakes. Effluent The treated liquid discharged from a wastewater treatment plant. Eolian Sediment deposited, produced, or eroded by wind EPT Index This index is used to judge water quality based on the abundance and variety of three orders of pollution sensitive aquatic insect larvae: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies). Eutrophic Elevated biological productivity related to an abundance of available nutrients. Eutrophic lakes may be so productive that the potential for water quality problems such as algal blooms, nuisance aquatic plant growth and fish kills may occur. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.3 tErM DEfINItIoN Eutrophication The process of physical, chemical or biological changes in a lake associated with nutrient, organic matter and silt enrichment of a waterbody. The corresponding excessive algal growth can deplete dissolved oxygen and threaten certain forms of aquatic life, cause unsightly scums on the water surface and result in taste and odor problems. Fall Line A geologic landscape feature that defines the line between the piedmont and coastal plain regions. It is most evident as the last set of small rapids or rock outcroppings that occur on rivers flowing from the piedmont to the coast. Future Water Supply (FWS)Supplemental classification for waters intended as a future source of drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes. FWS would be applied to one of the primary water supply classifications (WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, or WS-IV). Currently no water bodies in the state carry this designation. Geographic Information System An organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze and display all forms of geographically referenced information. Habitat Degradation Identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or change in habitat quality. This term includes sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour. Headwaters Small streams that converge to form a larger stream in a watershed. High Quality Waters (HQW)Supplemental classification intended to protect waters which are rated excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through Division monitoring or special studies, primary nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission, and other functional nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission. The following waters are HQW by definition: WS-I, WS-II, SA, ORW, Primary nursery areas (PNA) designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission, and Waters for which DWQ has received a petition for reclassification to either WS-I or WS-II. Hydrilla The genus name of an aquatic plant - often considered an aquatic weed. Hydrologic Unit Code A watershed area defined by a national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by the Water Resources Council. This system divides the country into regions, subregions, basins, subbasins, watersheds and subwatersheds. A hierarchical code consisting of two digits for each of the above six levels combined to form an 12-digit hydrologic unit (subwatershed). An 12-digit hydrologic unit generally covers an average of 40 square miles. Hypereutrophic Extremely elevated biological productivity related to excessive nutrient availability. Hypereutrophic lakes exhibit frequent algal blooms, episodes of low dissolved oxygen or periods when no oxygen is present in the water, fish kills and excessive aquatic plant growth. Impacted Waters Any site with 7.1% to 10.0% of AMS samples over a parameter’s standard will be considered Impacted as well as streams with a biological rating of Good- Fair. The term Impacted is not an official DWQ term and is used by the DWQ Planning Section to indicate streams with the potential of becoming impaired in the near future. These impacted waters are identified to allow better targeting and prioritizing of resources to prevent further degradation. Impaired Term that applies to a waterbody that is not meeting the designated use criteria. See the Use Support Methodology for details as to how waters across the state are designated as Supporting, Not Rated or Impaired. Impervious Incapable of being penetrated by water; non-porous. Loading Mass rate of addition of pollutants to a waterbody (e.g., kg/yr) Macroinvertebrates Animals large enough to be seen by the naked eye (macro) and lacking backbones (invertebrate). Macrophyte An aquatic plant large enough to be seen by the naked eye. Mesotrophic Moderate biological productivity related to intermediate concentrations of available nutrients. Mesotrophic lakes show little, if any, signs of water quality degradation while supporting a good diversity of aquatic life. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.4 tErM DEfINItIoN NCIBI North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity. A measure of the community health of a population of fish in a given waterbody. Nonpoint Source A source of water pollution generally associated with rainfall runoff or snowmelt. The quality and rate of runoff of NPS pollution is strongly dependent on the type of land cover and land use from which the rainfall runoff flows. For example, rainfall runoff from forested lands will generally contain much less pollution and runoff more slowly than runoff from urban lands. Notice of Violation (NOV)An NOV serve to alert the permittee of permit infractions and request that whatever caused the violation be corrected immediately. Many times these will not include a fine. Depending upon the severity of the violation, the permittee may receive a Notice of Violation and Assessment of a Civil Penalty, which will include a fine. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)Supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Oligotrophic Low biological productivity related to very low concentrations of available nutrients. Oligotrophic lakes in North Carolina are generally found in the mountain region or in undisturbed (natural) watersheds and have very good water quality. Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)All outstanding resource waters are a subset of High Quality Waters. This supplemental classification is intended to protect unique and special waters having excellent water quality and being of exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance. pH A measure of the concentration of free hydrogen ions on a scale ranging from 0 to 14. Values below 7 and approaching 0 indicate increasing acidity, whereas values above 7 and approaching 14 indicate a more basic solution. Phytoplankton Aquatic microscopic plant life, such as algae, that are common in ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries. Piedmont One of three major physiographic regions in the state. Encompasses most of central North Carolina from the Coastal Plain region (near I-95) to the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains region. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) PCBs are man-made chemicals that persist in the environment. There are a number of adverse health effect associated with exposure to PCBs. Riparian Zone Vegetated corridor immediately adjacent to a stream or river. See also SMZ. Runoff Rainfall that does not evaporate or infiltrate the ground, but instead flows across land and into waterbodies. Sedimentation The sinking and deposition of waterborne particles (e.g., eroded soil, algae and dead organisms). Seeps Seeps are areas that remain wet due to groundwater seepage. The plant community generally consists of a dense bed of wetland herbs. Silviculture Care and cultivation of forest trees; forestry. SOC Special Order by Consent. An agreement between the Environmental Management Commission and a permitted discharger found responsible for causing or contributing to surface water pollution. The SOC stipulates actions to be taken to alleviate the pollution within a defined time. The SOC typically includes relaxation of permit limits for particular parameters, while the facility completes the prescribed actions. SOCs are only issued to facilities where the cause of pollution is not operational in nature (i.e., physical changes to the wastewater treatment plant are necessary to achieve compliance). Species of Concern Species of Concern are those species about which NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has some concerns regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) The area left along streams to protect streams from sediment and other pollutants, protect streambeds, and provide shade and woody debris for aquatic organisms. SU Standard unit; measurement of pH. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.5 tErM DEfINItIoN Subbasin A river basin is broken up into smaller subbasins areas with an average size of 700 square miles. (Subbasins are also referred to as 8-digit hydrologic units.) Subwatershed A watershed is broken up into smaller subwatershed areas with an average size of 40 square miles. Subwatersheds are also referred to as 12-digit hydrologic units.) Swamp Waters (SW)Supplemental classification intended to recognize those waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)A term used by the Ecosystem Enhancement Program that identifies priority areas for planning and restoration. These watershed boundaries are based on 14-digit hydrologic units created by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) that are no longer used by the NRCS. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) The amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and maintain its uses and water quality standards. Tributary A stream that flows into a larger stream, river or other waterbody. Trophic Trophic classification is a relative description of a lake’s biological productivity, which is the ability of the lake to support algal growth, fish populations and aquatic plants. The productivity of a lake is determined by a number of chemical and physical characteristics, including the availability of essential plant nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), algal growth and the depth of light penetration. Lakes are classified according to productivity: unproductive lakes are termed “oligotrophic”; moderately productive lakes are termed “mesotrophic”; and very productive lakes are termed “eutrophic”. Trout Waters (Tr)Supplemental classification intended to protect freshwaters which have conditions which shall sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout on a year-round basis. This classification is not the same as the NC Wildlife Resources Commission's Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters designation. Turbidity An expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather than transmitted in straight lines through a sample. All particles in the water that may scatter or absorb light are measured during this procedure. Suspended sediment, aquatic organisms and organic particles such as pieces of leaves contribute to instream turbidity. Unique Wetland (UWL)Supplemental classification for wetlands of exceptional state or national ecological significance. These wetlands may include wetlands that have been documented to the satisfaction of the Environmental Management Commission as habitat essential for the conservation of state or federally listed threatened or endangered species. Water Supply I (WS-I)Waters protected for all Class C uses plus waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes for those users desiring maximum protection for their water supplies. WS-I waters are those within natural and undeveloped watersheds in public ownership. All WS-I waters are HQW by supplemental classification. Water Supply II (WS-II)Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS-I classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-II waters are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds. All WS-II waters are HQW by supplemental classification. Water Supply III (WS-III)Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a more protective WS-I or II classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-III waters are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds. Water Supply IV (WS-IV)Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS-I, II or III classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-IV waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.6 tErM DEfINItIoN Water Supply V (WS-V)Waters protected as water supplies which are generally upstream and draining to Class WS-IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water or as waters formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. Watershed A subbasin is broken up into smaller watershed areas with an average size of 227 square miles. Watersheds are also referred to as 10-digit hydrologic units.) Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)The aggregate toxic effect of a wastewater measured directly by an aquatic toxicity test. Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.7 aCRoNyms acroNyM MEaNINg §Section µg/l Microgram per liter µmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter µs/cm microsiemens per centimeter 30Q2 Annual Minimum 30-day Consecutive Low Flow 5-in-30 Study FCB study that measures five samples within a 30 day period. 7Q10 Seven day, consecutive low flow with a ten year return frequency; The lowest stream flow for seven consecutive days that would be expected to occur once in ten years ACOE United States Army Core of Engineers ACSP Agriculture Cost Share Program AMS Ambient Monitoring System APES Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study APNEP Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program AU Assessment Unit B (Class B)Stream Classification B: Primary Recreation, Fresh Water BAT Best Available Technology BCT Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology BMPs Best Management Practices BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand BODlt Long-Term Biochemical Oxygen Demands BPJ Best Professional Judgement BPU Basinwide Planning Unit C (Class C)Class C Water Quality Classification; fish waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and other uses CAFI Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation CAMA Coastal Area Management Act CBOD Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand CCAP Community Conservation Assistance Program CES Cooperative Extension Service cfs Cubic Feet per Second cfu/ml Colony Forming Units per milliliter CG&L Construction, Grants & Loans CGIA Center for Geographic Information and Analysis CMSWS Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stormwater Services CMUD Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department Cn Cyanide COD Chemical Oxygen Demand COG Council of Governments colonies/ml Colonies per milliliter CRC Coastal Resources Commission CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program CWA Clean Water Act CWMTF Clean Water Management Trust Fund CWS Community Water System Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.8 acroNyM MEaNINg D Dystrophic -Descriptive trophic state classification for lakes/reservoirs DAQ Division of Air Quality DDD Dichloro Diphenyl Dichloroethane DDE Dichloro Diphenyl Ethylene DDT Dichloro Diphenyl Tricholoroethane DEH Department of Environmental Health DFR Division of Forest Resources DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DLR Division of Land Resources DMF Division of Marine Fisheries DO Dissolved Oxygen DOT Division of Transportation DWQ Division of Water Quality DWR Division of Water Resources E Eutrophic -Descriptive trophic state classification for lakes/reservoirs EAA Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives EEP Ecosystem Enhancement Program EMC Environmental Management Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera, the three insect orders commonly used to test water quality EQI Environmental Quality Institute ESS Environmental Science Section FC Fecal Coliform FCB Fecal Coliform Bacteria FDA United States Food and Drug Administration FMC FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FS Fully Supporting GIS Geographical Information Systems H Hypereutrophic -Descriptive trophic state classification for lakes/reservoirs HA Hydrologic Area HQW High Quality Waters HU Hydrologic Unit HUC Hydrologic Unit Code ICWW Intracoastal Waterway IR Integrated Report lbs Pounds LCAT Lower Creek Advisory Team LCWRIP Lower Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan LWP Local Watershed Plan (associated with EEP) LWSP Local Water Supply Plan M Mesotrophic -Descriptive trophic state classification for lakes/reservoirs MCSESCO Mecklenburg County Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance MEP Maximum Extent Practicable MFC Marine Fisheries Commission Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.9 acroNyM MEaNINg mg/l Milligrams per liter MGD Million Gallons per Day MPN Most Probable Number MRO Mooresville Regional Office MS Management Strategy MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems NC DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code NCDEH National Shellfish Sanitation Program NCDWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality NCEEP North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program NCIBI North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity NCRWQP North Carolina Recreational Water Quality Program NCTSI North Carolina Trophic State Index ND No Data NH3-N Ammonia nitrogen NHP National Heritage Program NOV Notice of Violation NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPS Nonpoint Source Pollution NR Not Rated NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRI Natural Resources Inventory NSSP National Shellfish Sanitation Program NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units O Oligotrophic -Descriptive trophic state classification for lakes/reservoirs ORW Outstanding Resource Waters PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls pH Potential of Hydrogen POTWs Pubic Owned Treatment Works PS Partially Supporting RAMS Random Ambient Monitoring System RBRPs River Basin Restoration Priorities RC&D Resource Conservation and Development Program SA Class SA Water Classification; saltwaters that have sufficient water quality to support commercial shellfish harvesting SB Class SB Water Classification; saltwaters with sufficient water quality for frequent and/or organized swimming or other human contact SBR Sequencing Batch Reactor SC South Carolina SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control SDR Sediment Delivery Ratio SEL State Emergency Loan SIU Significant Industrial Users (DWQ-Pretreatment Program) SMZ Streamside Management Zone Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.10 acroNyM MEaNINg SOC Special Order of Consent SOD Sediment Oxygen Demand SPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund SRG SRL State Revolving Loan SSLW Steady State Live Weight ST Fully Supporting but Threatened STAG State and Tribal Assistance Grant SU Standard Units, units in which to measure pH Sw Swamp Waters SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District SWIM Surface Water Improvement & Management Program (Charlotte-Mecklenburg) TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TLW Targeted Local Watersheds TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TN Total Nitrogen TOT Time-Of-Travel TP Total Phosphorus Tr Trout Waters TRC Total Residual Chlorine TSS Total Suspended Solids UNCC University of North Carolina at Charlotte URW Use Restoration Watershed USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFS United States Forestry Service USGS United States Geological Survey UT Unnamed Tributary WET Whole effluent toxicity WLA Wasteload Allocation WPCOG Western Piedmont Council of Government WQC Water Quality Committee WRC Water Resource Commission WRP Watershed Restoration Plan WRP Wetland Reserve Program WS Water Supply WTP Water Treatment Plant WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plants Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.11 hyPeRliNk iNdex Symbols 319 Grant Program .......................................................................................................................................................................6.4 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/nps/319program 2005 New River Basinwide Water Quality Plan ..........................................................................................................................3.21 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/New.htm 2009 Basinwide Assessment Report: New River Basin ...................................................................................................1.4, 2.4, 3.4 http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/documents/NewBasinwideFinal_09.pdf 2009 New River Basinwide Assessment Report ....................................................................................................ES.7, 1.6, 2.6, 3.6 http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=01be0501-d4a0-42ae-b4c3-1349dd8d0ea6&groupId=38364 A ACSP ...........................................................................................................................................................................................6.5http://www.enr.state.nc.us/dswc/pages/agcostshareprogram.html Alleghany County Soil & Water Conservation District ................................................................................................................6.5http://www.alleganyctyswcd.org/ American Rivers ..........................................................................................................................................................................2.18http://www.americanrivers.org/ Assessment of Bledsoe Creek Subwatersheds .............................................................................................................................3.19http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Little_River/TM2.pdf B Basinwide Planning Unit ....................................................................................................................................................1.26, 3.22 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/new Benthic Standard Operating Procedures ..........................................................................................................................1.3, 2.3, 3.3 http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAUwww/benthossop.pdf C CCAP ...........................................................................................................................................................................................6.6 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/swc/ccaplandingpage CG&L ...........................................................................................................................................................................................6.4 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/cgls Classifications and Standards Unit ...........................................................................................................................................ES.13 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu current projects .............................................................................................................................................................................6.4 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/nps/319program/319projects CWMTF .......................................................................................................................................................................................6.8 http://www.cwmtf.net/ D DFR bridgemat webpage ..............................................................................................................................................................7.5 http://dfr.nc.gov/water_quality/bridgemats.htm Division of Land Resources .........................................................................................................................................................5.1 http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/ Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.12 Division of Soil and Water Conservation .....................................................................................................................................6.5 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/swc/home Division of Water Resources ..................................................................................................................................................5.1, 5.3 http://www.ncwater.org/ DWR’s Environmental Flows .......................................................................................................................................................5.1 http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/index.php?tabid=0 DWRs Water Supply Planning ......................................................................................................................................................5.3 http://www.ncwater.org/Water_Supply_Planning/Local_Water_Supply_Plan/search.php E EEP LWP Fact Sheet ....................................................................................................................................................................7.2 http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Little_River/Little_River.pdf EEP New River website ......................................................................................................................................................3.17, 3.19 http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/pull_down/by_basin/New_RB.html EEP Project Implementation webpage ..........................................................................................................................................7.2 http://www.nceep.net/services/implementation/project_implementation.htm EEP’s New River Basin website ...................................................................................................................................................7.2 http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/pull_down/by_basin/New_RB.html EEP’s Web Map site .....................................................................................................................................................................7.2 http://www.nceep.net/GIS_DATA/mapping/eep_web_mapping_system.html EEP website ..................................................................................................................................................................................7.2 http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/pull_down/by_basin/New_RB.html Environmental Science Section ................................................................................................................................................ES.12 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ess/home Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................................................1.7, 2.7, 3.7 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/ExecutiveSummary.pdf F Final Report .................................................................................................................................................................................1.24 http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=4c3ba3e3-738c-4bc3-baca-53e4ce3ccd54&groupId=38364 Fish Community SOP ......................................................................................................................................................1.3, 2.3, 3.3 http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAUwww/IBI%20Methods.2006.Final.pdf four page document ......................................................................................................................................................................5.2 http://www.ncwater.org/Reports_and_Publications/swsp/swsp_jan2001/final_pdfs/B11_New.pdf L Little River - Bledsoe Creek Watershed Management Plan ..............................................................................3.12, 3.15, 3.18, 3.20 http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Little_River/FINAL_Bledsoe_Crk_WMP.pdf Little River & Chestnut Creek Watershed Chapter ...................................................................................................................ES.11 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter3-0505000104-06PRwithApp.pdf Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds Chapter ....................................................................................................................2.32 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter3-0505000104-06PRwithApp.pdf M Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.13 Maps Chapter ........................................................................................................................ES.10, ES.13, ES.15, 1.1, 2.8, 2.9, 3.1 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter9-MapsPR.pdf Modeling & TMDL Unit’s ...............................................................................................................................................1.7, 2.7, 3.7 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu Monitoring Coalition Program .................................................................................................................................................ES.12 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ess/eco/coalition N National Priority List ....................................................................................................................................................................4.6 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfin.htm#NC N.C. Cooperative Extension Service ............................................................................................................................................7.5 http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/ctnotes/index.html NC Forestry Association ...............................................................................................................................................................7.5 www.ncforestry.org NC National Heritage Program.........................................................................................................................1.15, 1.16, 1.24, 2.14 http://www.ncnhp.org/ NCNR ...........................................................................................................................................................................................6.2 http://www.ncnr.org/index.php New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report ...............................................................ES.9, 1.7, 1.10, 2.7, 2.10, 3.7, 3.10 http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=01be0501-d4a0-42ae-b4c3-1349dd8d0ea6&groupId=38364 New River Basin Local Watershed Plan ....................................................................................................................3.13, 3.15, 3.18 http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/pull_down/by_basin/New_RB.html New River Basin Planner .............................................................................................................................................................6.1 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/contacts North Fork New River Watershed Chapter ..........................................................................................................ES.5, ES.10, ES.14 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter1-0505000101withApp.pdf O online ..........................................................................................................................................................................................2.20 http://pimlico.phys.appstate.edu/krautcreek/ online ...........................................................................................................................................................................................7.4 http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/water_quality/bmp_manual.htm Ore Knob Mine Chapter .....................................................................................................................................................2.30, 2.31 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter4-OreKnobPR.pdf Other Natural Resource Program Chapter ..........................................................................................................................3.17, 3.19 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter7-OtherNaturalResourceProgramsPR.pdf P Potential Nitrogen Contributions from On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems to NC’s River Basins and Sub-basins ...........ES.14 http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/TB324Finalmay29.pdf protecting and conserving stream buffers and natural areas ..................................................................................ES.7, 1.8, 2.8, 3.8 http://www.ctnc.org/site/PageServer PWS website ................................................................................................................................................................................5.4 http://swap.deh.enr.state.nc.us/swap/ Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: gLoSS ar y & hyPE rLI N K S 2 0 1 1 10.14 S Section 319 Grant Program ..........................................................................................................................................................6.4 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/nps/319program selected stations ............................................................................................................................................................................5.1 http://nc.water.usgs.gov/realtime/real_time_new.html South Fork & Fox Creek Watershed Chapter ............................................................................................................................ES.13 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter2-0505000102-3PRwithApp.pdf Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning ..........ES.4, ES.9, ES.13, 1.3, 1.7, 1.10, 2.3, 2.7, 2.10, 3.3, 3.7, 3.10 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/about/supplementalguide SWAP website ..............................................................................................................................................................................5.4 http://swap.deh.enr.state.nc.us/swap/ SWP ...........................................................................................................................................................................................5.6 http://swap.deh.enr.state.nc.us/swap/ T This report ....................................................................................................................................................................................7.5 http://dfr.nc.gov/water_quality/year_in_review.htm U Use Support Methodology Chapter ......................................................................................................1.3, 1.14, 2.3, 2.13, 3.3, 3.12 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter8-UseSupportandMethodPR.pdf V Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance .................................................................................................................6.6 http://www.alleghanycounty-nc.gov/ordinances/1-206.pdf Voluntary Incentive Programs & Local Initiatives ........................................................................................................................7.1 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter6-LocalInitiativesandVolIncentivesPR.pdf W Water Quality Chapter ................................................................................................................................................................ES.8 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/Chapter5-WaterQuantityPR.pdf water quality webpage ..................................................................................................................................................................7.4 http://dfr.nc.gov/water_quality/water_quality.htm Watershed Management Plan ........................................................................................................................................................4.3 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/319_Documents/documents/OreKnob_Watershed_Plan.pdf web page .......................................................................................................................................................................................5.6 http://swap.deh.enr.state.nc.us/swap/ Wildlife Resources Commission ...................................................................................................................................................5.1 http://www.ncwildlife.org/ WSWP Program ...........................................................................................................................................................................5.5 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wswp/index.html NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-A.1 Draft 2010 Ir catEgory INtEgratED rEPortINg catEgorIES for INDIVIDuaL aSSESSMENt uNIt/uSE SuPPort catEgory/ ParaMEtEr aSSESSMENtS. a SINgLE au caN haVE MuLtIPLE aSSESSMENtS DEPENDINg oN Data aVaILaBLE aND cLaSSIfIED uSES. 1 All designated uses are monitored and supporting 1b Designated use was impaired, other management strategy in place and no standards violations for the parameter of interest (POI) 1nc DWQ have made field determination that parameter in exceedance is due to natural conditions 1r Assessed as supporting watershed is in restoration effort status 1t No criteria exceeded but approved TMDL for parameter of interest 2 Some designated uses are monitored and supporting none are impaired Overall only 2b Designated use was impaired other management strategy in place and no standards violations Overall only 2r Assessed as supporting watershed is in restoration effort status overall only 2t No criteria exceeded but approved TMDL for POI Overall only 3a Instream/monitoring data are inconclusive (DI) 3b No Data available for assessment 3c No data or information to make assessment 3n1 Chlorophyll a exceeds TL value and SAC is met-draft 3n2 Chlorophyll a exceeds EL value and SAC is not met first priority for further monitoring-draft 3n3 Chlorophyll a exceeds threshold value and SAC is not met first second priority for further monitoring-draft 3n4 Chlorophyll a not available determine need to collect-draft 3t No Data available for assessment –AU is in a watershed with an approved TMDL 4b Designated use impaired other management strategy expected to address impairment 4c Designated use impaired by something other than pollutant 4cr Recreation use impaired no instream monitoring data or screening criteria exceeded 4cs Shellfish harvesting impaired no instream monitoring data- no longer used 4ct Designated use impaired but water is subject to approved TMDL or under TMDL development 4s Impaired Aquatic Life with approved TMDL for Aquatic Life POI or category 5 listing 4t Designated use impaired approved TMDL 5 Designated use impaired because of biological or ambient water quality standards violations and needing a TMDL 5r Assessed as impaired watershed is in restoration effort status aPPeNdix 1-a uSE SuPPort ratINgS for aLL MoNItorED WatErS IN thE North forK NEW rIVEr WatErShED NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-A.2 AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species  NC 2010 Integrated Report  North Fork New River 0505000101New River Basin Watershed Upper New River 05050001New River Basin Subbasin North Fork New River 0505000101New River Basin Watershed Big Horse Creek10-2-21-(4.5)From SR#1362 to SR#1353 (Tuckerdale)5.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Big Horse Creek (Horse Creek) 10-2-21-(7)From SR#1353 (Tuckerdale) to North Fork New R 6.5 FW Miles C:+  1  1 Big Laurel Creek10-2-14 From source to North Fork New River 17.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  1 Brush Fork10-2-8 From source to North Fork New River 5.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Buffalo Creek10-2-20 From source to North Fork New River 9.7 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  3a Helton Creek10-2-27 From NC-VA State Line to North Fork New River 19.0 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  3a Hoskin Fork10-2-7 From source to North Fork New River 5.2 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1 From source to Buffalo Creek 4.4 FW Miles C;Tr:+   5 Little Horse Creek10-2-21-8 From source to Big Horse Creek 10.9 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Little Phoenix Creek10-2-23 From source to North Fork New River 4.6 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Long Shoals Creek10-2-25 From source to North Fork New River 2.7 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 10/20/2010 Page 198 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-A.3 AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species  NC 2010 Integrated Report  North Fork New River 0505000101New River Basin Watershed Middle Fork Little Horse Creek 10-2-21-8-1 From source to Little Horse Creek 4.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Millpond Branch10-2-28 From source to North Fork New River 2.0 FW Miles C:+  1 North Fork New River10-2-(1)From source to Three Top Creek 14.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  1 North Fork New River10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River 36.5 FW Miles C:+  1  1  1 Rich Hill Creek10-2-15 From source to North Fork New River 4.9 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Roundabout Creek10-2-10 From source to North Fork New River 4.0 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Three Top Creek10-2-13 From source to North Fork New River 13.2 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  3a South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed Cranberry Creek (Mulberry Creek) 10-1-37 From source to South Fork New River 18.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+  1  1 East Fork South Fork New River 10-1-3-(1)From source to Watauga County SR 1524 2.3 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+   5 East Fork South Fork New River 10-1-3-(8)From .8 mile downstream of Watauga Co SR 1524 to S Fk New River 0.5 FW Miles WS-IV;CA:+  1 10/20/2010 Page 199 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-A.4 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.1 aPPeNdix 1-B BIoLogIcaL (BENthIc & fISh) SaMPLE SItE Data ShEEtS NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.2 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.3 StatIoN ID*WatErBoDy aSSESSMENt uNIt #DEScrIPtIoN couNty SItE LocatIoN SaMPLE rESuLtS Benthic Sample Sites KB117 Ut. L. Phoenix Cr. 10-2-23ut5 Source to L Phoenix Cr.Ashe Old NC 16 08 - Not Rated 07 - Not Rated KB118*Ut. L. Phoenix Cr.10-2-23ut6 Source to L Phoenix Cr.Ashe SR 1649 07 - Not Impaired KB119*Brush Fk.10-2-8 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88 08 - Excellent KB120*Roundabout Cr.10-2-10 From source to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1308 08 - Excellent KB121*M. Fk. Little Horse Cr. 10-2-21-8-1 From source to Little Horse Cr.Ashe SR 1334 08 - Excellent KB122*Big Horse Cr.10-2-21-(4.5)From SR 1362 to SR 1353 (Tuckerdale) Ashe SR 1362 08 - Excellent KB123*Long Shoals Cr.10-2-25 From source to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1574 08 - Not Impaired KB125*L. Phoenix Cr.10-2-23 From source to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1513 08 - Excellent KB127*N. Fk. New R.10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River Ashe SR 1549 08 - Excellent KB129*Ut. Mill Cr.10-1-18ut4 Source to Mill Cr.Ashe SR 1111 07 - Not Impaired KB134*Buffalo Cr.10-2-20 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 194-88 08 - Excellent KB135*N. Fk. New R.10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River Ashe Old NC 16 08 - Excellent KB136*Helton Cr.10-2-27 From NC-VA State Line to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1526 08 - Excellent KB137*Helton Cr.10-2-27 From NC-VA State Line to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1370 08 - Excellent KB138*Three Top Cr.10-2-13 From source to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1100 09 - Excellent 08 - Good KB141*N. Fk. New R.10-2-(1)From source to Three Top Creek Ashe SR 1118 08 - Excellent KB23 N. Fk. New R.10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River Ashe SR 1100 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB25 Helton Cr.10-2-27 From NC-VA State Line to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1536 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB26 Hoskin Fk.10-2-7 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB27 N. Fk. New R.10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River Ashe SR 1644 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB30 Big Laurel Cr.10-2-14 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB31 Buffalo Cr.10-2-20 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 194-88 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB32 L. Buffalo Cr.10-2-20-1 From source to Buffalo Creek Ashe SR 1153 08 - Fair 03 - Poor KB33 Big Horse Cr. (Horse Cr.) 10-2-21-(7)From SR#1353 (Tuckerdale) to North Fork New R Ashe NC 194 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB63 L. Horse Cr.10-2-21-8 From source to Big Horse Creek Ashe SR 1334 08 - Excellent 03 - Good KB86*Rich Hill Cr.10-2-15 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88 08 - Excellent Fish Community Sample Sites KF21*Buffalo Cr.10-2-20 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88/194 08 - Not Rated KF2 Cranberry Cr.10-1-37 From source to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1600 08 - Good 98 - Excellent KF16*Grassy Cr.10-3 From North Carolina-Virginia State Ashe SR 1549 08 - Good-Fair KF1 Big Horse Cr.10-2-21-(7)From SR#1353 (Tuckerdale) to North Fork New R Ashe SR 1350 08 - Good 98 - Good * New station location; therefore, no data from the previous cycle. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.4 StatIoN ID*WatErBoDy aSSESSMENt uNIt #DEScrIPtIoN couNty SItE LocatIoN SaMPLE rESuLtS KF22*Big Laurel Cr.10-2-14 From source to North Fork New River Ashe NC 88 08 - Good KF5 Helton Cr.10-2-27 From NC-VA State Line to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1536 08 - Not Rated 98 - Good KF10 N. Fk. New R.10-2-(1)From source to Three Top Creek Ashe SR 1119 08 - Good 98 - Good KF23*Three Top Cr.10-2-13 From source to North Fork New River Ashe SR 1123 08 - Not Rated * New station location; therefore, no data from the previous cycle. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.5 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) Southern Crystalline Ridges & Mountains Level IV EcoregionAU Number 10-2-(1) Waterbody N FK NEW R County ASHE Subbasin 2 Latitude 36.407098 Good Bioclassification Longitude -81.681014 KF1005/21/08 Date Station ID Forested/Wetland 035 None Rural Residential 5 Volume (MGD) 0.5 Agriculture Other (describe) No Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Bluehead Chub, Bigmouth Chub.Losses -- Rosyface Shiner. 05/21/08 06/29/98 Site Photograph 18 8 Brown Trout. Reference Site NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 9 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 60 Elevation (ft) Good Good NCIBI 48 50 4 98-56 16 Sample ID 2008-46 4 4 4 5 11.2 Species Total 15 14 10.2 59 6.5 Clear 5 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Watershed -- located along the rural west-central edge of the New River basin where Watauga and Ashe Counties meet; this catchment drains the North Fork New River's headwaters plus the main tributaries of Pine Mountain Branch, Brush Fork, and Hoskin Fork.Habitats -- primarily riffles and runs with some chutes that were holding trout, and a few silt bottom pools; the reach is mostly sunlit because of the vegetation type along the banks and in the riparian corridor (majority of shrubs and grasses vs. trees); substrates exhibited moderate to high embededdness.2008 -- a diverse and abundant population of cool and cold water fish species were present, including three intolerant taxa (New River Shiner, Tonguetied Minnow, and Kanawha Darter); more than twice the total abundance was collected than in 1998 (1368 vs. 552); Western Blacknose Dace (n=553) represented 40% of the sample.1998- 2008 -- very similar species compositions were observed and nearly identical NCIBI metrics were calculated for both monitoring years, indicating that water quality in this headwater catchment has remained good over a ten year period. 3 Western Blacknose Dace. Most Abundant Species 71 cobble, gravel, sand, boulder.Substrate Exotic Species Species Change Since Last Cycle Bioclassification FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr,+ SR 1119 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 3118 Drainage Area (mi2) 23.9 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.6 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification N FK NEW R SR 1100 KB23 07/31/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 2 05050001 36.430000 -81.620833 10-2-(12) Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C:+62 2845 13 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 10 90 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)20.3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)61 pH (s.u.)6.5 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)5 Riffle Habitat (16)15 Left Bank Stability (7)7 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)3 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)81 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 07/31/08 10517 119 57 3.67 2.73 Excellent 08/19/03 9222 81 44 3.96 3.51 Excellent 08/17/98 7710 96 52 4.05 3.23 Excellent 07/29/93 6296 102 50 3.95 3.01 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis The greatest number of EPT taxa collected at the site occurred in 2008. A few EPT taxa were collected for the first time, including: Acroneuria carolinensis, Hydroptila, and Nectopsyche exquisita . Data Analysis The site is 8.2 miles west of Jefferson. This is the site furthest upstream of the three basinwide sites on North Fork New River. The site has consistently received classifications of Excellent following each summer sampling event (a Good was received after a non-summer sampling event in March 1989). No indications of impact are exhibited by the benthic community. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.7 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification N FK NEW R SR 1644 KB27 08/20/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 2 05050001 36.485556 -81.493889 10-2-(12)New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C:+144 2630 18 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 10 90 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) United Chemi-Con, Inc.NC0000019 1.018 Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)24.1 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.4 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)80 pH (s.u.)8.0 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)12 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)4 Riffle Habitat (16)15 Left Bank Stability (7)7 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)0 Total Habitat Score (100)65 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, sand; some boulder, silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10541 99 49 3.93 3.31 Excellent 08/21/03 9234 72 45 3.66 3.31 Excellent 08/19/98 7719 87 50 3.77 2.91 Excellent 07/28/93 6294 93 46 4.00 2.94 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis EPT Richness at the site has shown very little change for the four summer sampling events between 1993 and 2008. Helicopsyche paralimnella has been recorded for the first time from the site; this is only one of five sites in the state so far at which the species has been found by BAU, though undoubtedly more sites will be found. Data Analysis The site is 4.6 miles NNW of Jefferson and is directly upstream of the mouth of Big Horse Creek. The town of West Jefferson is almost entirely included in the catchment above the site. Consistently high EPT Richness and low NCBI values have resulted in classifications of Excellent for each sampling event between 1993 and 2008. The healthy benthic community indicates an absence of stressors at the site. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.8 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification N FK NEW R OLD NC 16 KB135 08/20/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 2 05050001 36.503889 -81.390278 10-2-(12)New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C:+277 2525 33 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)50 30 20 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) United Chemi-Con, Inc.NC0000019 1.018 Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)22.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.4 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)73 pH (s.u.)7.4 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)10 Pool Variety (10)5 Riffle Habitat (16)5 Left Bank Stability (7)7 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)1 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)65 Substrate primarily cobble and gravel; some sand, silt, boulder Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10539 108 55 4.08 3.07 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis There is little difference between this new basinwide site and the former upstream basinwide site in terms of richness within the major groups; the number of taxa collected within each group at the new site is within the range of taxa collected at the upstream site with the exception of Lepidoptera (one taxon collected at this site; never collected at the former site) and Oligochaeta (only lumbriculids collected at this site in 2008; at least two taxa collected upstream). However, there were a few EPT taxa collected at Old NC 16 that have not been collected at NC 16 over eight sampling events, including (all rare within the sample except as noted): Acerpenna pygmaea, Heterocloeon anoka (common), Anthopotamus distinctus, Agnetina, Hydroptila,and Pycnopsyche lepida group. Data Analysis The site is 7.4 miles northeast of Jefferson and six stream-miles above the confluence with South Fork New River. This is the furthest downstream site of the three basinwide sites on North Fork New River. The town of West Jefferson is almost entirely included in the catchment above the site. This site replaces the basinwide site at NC 16, which is about two stream-miles upstream of this site, due to difficult access to the river at NC 16. The four summer sampling events in 1989, 1993, 1998, and 2003 resulted in classifications of Excellent at the former basinwide site. There appears to be little difference in water quality either temporally or longitudinally between sampling events on this lower segment of North Fork New River. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.9 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification HOSKIN FK OFF NC 88 BELOW WILSON BR KB26 07/31/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 2 05050001 36.390480 -81.702190 10-2-7 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+6.7 3125 3 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 10 90 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)17.9 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.1 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)85 pH (s.u.)7.0 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)19 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)4 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)7 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)75 Substrate mix of cobbole, gravel, boulder; some sand Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 07/31/08 10514 ---38 ---3.18 Excellent 08/19/03 9221 ---37 ---2.92 Excellent 08/17/98 7709 ---35 ---3.59 Good 07/23/93 6299 ---30 ---3.56 Good Taxonomic Analysis The number of EPT taxa identified from the site has increased with each successive sampling event since 1993. A few taxa were collected for the first time at the site, including: Ephemerella subvaria, Serratella deficiens, Hexagenia, Acroneuria carolinensis, and Leucotrichia pictipes. Data Analysis The site is about 1.5 miles east of the closest point on the Tennessee Valley Divide and 0.8 stream-miles from the confluence with North Fork New River. Increasing EPT richness with each successive sampling event since 1993 is suggestive of improving water quality at the site. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.10 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification THREE TOP CR OFF SR 1100 BELOW LONG HOPE CR KB138 08/21/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 2 05050001 36.410710 -81.619600 10-2-13 Amphibolite Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+22 2915 8 0.4 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)90 0 0 10 (road) Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)18.8 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.2 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)48 pH (s.u.)--- Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)16 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)15 Left Bank Stability (7)7 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)86 Substrate mostly cobble and boulder; some gravel, bedrock, sand, silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/21/08 10545 ---35 ---2.60 Good Taxonomic Analysis A fairly diverse EPT community exists at the site. There are no historical data for the site, so trends in community composition can not be analyzed. A few taxa were collected here that have not been collected at the former basinwide site downstream, including: Procloeon, Maccaffertium pudicum, Diplectrona modestum, Ceraclea, and Chimarra. Data Analysis The site is 8.1 miles west of Jefferson. This new basinwide site is 1.3 stream-miles upstream of the former site at SR 1100. The site was moved to remove the influence of development directly upstream of the old basinwide site, and to locate it in the Amphibolite Mountains ecoregion so that a potential reference site for the ecoregion could be established. The same number of EPT taxa were recorded for this site in 2008 as were for the former site in 2003. In both cases the additional of a single EPT taxon would have resulted in a classification of Excellent. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.11 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) New basinwide site.Watershed -- a tributary to the North Fork New River that flows north, draining part of west-central Ashe County.Habitats -- high quality instream habitats consisting of riffles and runs with deep chutes that were holding trout, and some small side pools; roads on both sides of the stream prevent broad riparian widths, but the stream's banks were very stable, with some Mountain Laurel on the right bank; the tree canopy provides about 50% shading to the stream.2008 -- a diverse assemblage of cool and cold water fish fauna were collected from the stream, including four species that are considered to be intolerant to pollution (Rock Bass, Tonguetied Minnow, Kanawha Darter, and Appalachia Darter); Fantail Darters represented 36% of the sample and Mottled Sculpin comprised 29%; overall, the fish community of Three Top Creek appears to be healthy, and suggests no obvious water quality issues. Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody THREE TOP CR AU Number 10-2-13 County ASHE Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion Amphibolite Mountains Subbasin 2 Latitude 36.420699 05/20/08 KF23 Not Rated 0.4 Other (describe) Yes 5 Agriculture Bioclassification 1565 Site Photograph Volume (MGD) Forested/Wetland Rural Residential Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 05/20/08 15 (lumber mill) Rock Bass, Brown Trout. Clear 5 Reference Site NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 10 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 14.4 9.5 38 6.4 Fantail Darter. 20 12 7 7 6 16 Most Abundant Species 85 flat cobble, boulder, bedrock, gravel, sand.Substrate Exotic Species Species Total 15 Sample ID 2008-45 Not Rated NCIBI -- 2900 Drainage Area (mi2) 23.1 7 3 2 None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr SR 1123 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Longitude -81.621819 Elevation (ft) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.12 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification BIG LAUREL CR NC 88 KB30 06/19/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 2 05050001 36.443056 -81.613611 10-2-14 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+29 2805 8 0.4 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)60 0 40 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)14.1 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.3 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)42 pH (s.u.)7.1 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)13 Pool Variety (10)4 Riffle Habitat (16)14 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)76 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, sand; some boulder, silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 06/19/08 10468 ---53 ---2.62 Excellent 08/19/03 9225 ---38 ---2.92 Excellent 07/17/98 7712 ---40 ---3.49 Excellent 07/29/93 6298 ---48 ---3.29 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis The greatest number of EPT taxa collected from the site occurred in 2008. Taxa collected for the first time included: Eurylophella verisimilis, Ephemera, Anthopotamus distinctus, Brachycentrus appalachia, Ceratopsyche slossonae, Oecetis persimilis, and Triaenodes ignitus. Data Analysis The site is near the confluence with North Fork New River and about eight miles west of Jefferson. The highest EPT richness and the lowest EPT BI values were recorded for the site in 2008. Each time the site has been sampled it has received a classification of Excellent. The benthic community does not exhibit signs of impact. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.13 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody BIG LAUREL CR County ASHE None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 13.8 Species Total 19 Bioclassification Subbasin 2 Latitude 36.443095 05/20/08 Date Station ID Longitude KF 22 Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 05/20/08 Site Photograph 8 10 Sample ID Rock Bass, Brown Trout. Good Rural Residential 10 Volume (MGD) 0.8 Agriculture Other (describe) Yes Reference Site NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 10 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 85 Forested/Wetland 05 9.9 42 6.4 Turbid 5 16 8 5 5 5 5 4 Mountain Redbelly Dace. Most Abundant Species 71 2008-44 Bioclassification Good NCIBI 52 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr NC 88 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 -81.613795 2835 Elevation (ft) New basinwide site. Watershed -- a tributary to the North Fork New River that drains the northwestern-most edge of Ashe County.Habitats -- good instream habitat qualities in this large mountain stream, consiting primarily of runs and some riffles; moderate to high embeddedness of substrates; good bank stabilities and vegetated riparian widths, but shading is limited to the stream's edges.2008 -- a highly diverse and trophically balanced population of mostly cool and cold water fish species was collected, including seven taxa that are considered intolerant to pollution (Rock Bass, Tonguetied Minnow, New River Shiner, Rosyface Shiner, Kanawha Minnow, Kanawha Darter, and Appalachia Darter); Mountain Redbelly Dace represented 47% of the sample (n=350); two Hellbenders (one adult and one young-of-year) were also collected, suggesting high quality water. Southern Crystaline Ridges & Mountains Level IV EcoregionAU Number 10-2-14 Drainage Area (mi2) 29 sand, gravel, cobble, boulder.Substrate Exotic Species NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.14 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification BUFFALO CR NC 88/194 ABOVE LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK KB134 08/20/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 2 05050001 36.432880 -81.511380 10-2-20 Amphibolite Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+13 2785 5 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)70 20 0 10 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)21.6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.0 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)70 pH (s.u.)6.7 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)14 Pool Variety (10)5 Riffle Habitat (16)14 Left Bank Stability (7)7 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)6 Left Riparian Score (5)3 Right Riparian Score (5)4 Total Habitat Score (100)82 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, boulder; some sand Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10542 ---39 ---2.51 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis The EPT portion of the benthic community at the site is diverse. Baetisca berneri, a mayfly often collected in the New River basin but uncollected at the prior basinwide site on Buffalo Creek, was abundant at this site. The low EPT BI indicates a community intolerant to the presence of pollutants. Data Analysis The site is about 2 miles west of Jefferson. The basinwide site for Buffalo Creek was relocated to above the mouth of Little Buffalo Creek to assess conditions in the catchment without the influence of West Jefferson WWTP; the original basinwide site is about 0.4 stream-miles downstream of the present site. At the new location the catchment is mostly forest and pasture with no urban influence. The high EPT Richness and low EPT BI value indicates a healthy benthic community and the absence of stressors. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.15 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) 2833 Drainage Area (mi2) 12.6 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr NC 88/194 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Longitude -81.511071 Elevation (ft) Fantail Darter. Most Abundant Species 83 flat cobble, gravel, boulder.Substrate Exotic Species 2008-42 Rock Bass, Bluegill, Saffron Shiner, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout. Bioclassification Not Rated 17.0 Species Total 15 9.3 62 6.9 Clear 5 20 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 4 16 Sample ID 12 6 6 7 4 3 NCIBI -- Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 05/19/08 NPDES Number ------ Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 50 Forested/Wetland 15 (road - NC 88 and 194) Agriculture 5 Residential/Commercial 30 Site Photograph Volume (MGD) Reference SiteStream Width (m) Average Depth (m) None 0.4 Other (describe) Yes7 Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion Amphibolite MountainsASHE Subbasin 1 Latitude 36.433146 KF 21 Not Rated New basinwide site.Watershed -- a tributary to the North Fork New River that drains part of central Ashe County, just to the west of Jefferson.Habitats -- high quality instream habitats including swift riffles and runs with a few chutes and a few shallow side pools that were holding trout; good bank stabilities and vegetated riparian widths; the canopy was providing equal amounts of shade and sunlight to the stream; low to moderate embeddedness of substrates; the Buffalo Meadows WWTP (<1MGD, 100% domestic) located 2.8 miles upstream may be contributing to the slightly elevated conductivity.2008 -- a diverse and fairly trophically balanced mix of mostly cool and cold water fish taxa was collected, including three species that are considered intolerant to pollution (Rock Bass, Kanawha Darter, and Rainbow Trout); Fantail Darters (intermediately tolerant insectivores) represented 59% of the collected sample; overall, this stream is supporting a reasonably healthy fish population and appears to have no obvious water quality issues. 05/19/08 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody BUFFALO CR AU Number 10-2-20 County NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.16 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification L BUFFALO CR OFF SR 1153 KB32 08/21/08 Fair County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 2 05050001 36.420480 -81.493220 10-2-20-1 New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+3.0 2865 2 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 80 20 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) West Jefferson WWTP NC0020451 0.5 Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)18.1 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.7 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)276 pH (s.u.)--- Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)3 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)9 Pool Variety (10)4 Riffle Habitat (16)15 Left Bank Stability (7)5 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)1 Total Habitat Score (100)66 Substrate mix of boulder, gravel, cobble; some sand Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/21/08 10543 63 13 6.00 5.00 Fair 08/20/03 9228 22 6 6.40 4.11 Poor 08/18/98 7713 39 14 7.07 5.28 Fair 07/13/93 6265 24 0 8.31 ---Poor Taxonomic Analysis The EPT portion of the benthic community has differed significantly with each sampling event. Even for the two sampling events with similar EPT richness (1998 and 2008) only four taxa were in common. In 2008 four EPT taxa were collected that had not been collected during prior sampling events, and three of those (Maccaffertium pudicum, Hydropsyche betteni, and Leucotrichia pictipes) were abundant in the sample. Data Analysis The site is one mile west of downtown Jefferson and within 0.9 stream-miles downstream of the West Jefferson WWTP. The stream is on the state's 303(d) list for nutrients and impaired biological integrity. For the four sampling events since 1993 the lowest NCBI value is shown for 2008, and EPT Richness is close to the high value from 1998. Of the four years that benthic sampling was performed 2008 exhibited the lowest flows for area streams. Dry conditions should increase instream effluent concentrations from the WWTP upstream; the benthic community does not reflect this. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.17 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) Watershed -- a tributary to the North Fork New River that drains a good portion of the northwestern tip of Ashe County; the site is located just southeast of Lansing.Habitats -- low quality instream habitats composed of wide and swift sandy runs with some boulder and cobble, few pools, and very few riffles for a mountain stream; the banks were generally healthy except for a 25 foot area on the right bank that was sloughng into the stream; riparian zones vegetated with mostly grasses, shrubs and very few trees; full sun over most of the stream due to its' width and the lack of canopy trees.2008 -- a diverse and trophically balanced community of cool and cold water fish species was collected, including six intolerant taxa (Rock Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Tonguetied Minnow, Silver Shiner, Kanawha Minnow, and Kanawha Darter); almost three times the total abundance than in 1998 (652 vs. 242).1998-2008 -- a total of 20 fish species have been collected from this site; in spite of some habitat issues, this stream is supporting a healthy assemblage of fish, and continues to exhibit good water quality. Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody BIG HORSE CR AU Number 10-2-21-(7) Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau County Subbasin 2 Latitude 36.487395ASHE 05/20/08 -81.500386 KF1 Site Photograph 015 0.7 Agriculture Other (describe) No Good Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- White Sucker, Mottled Sculpin, Kanawha Darter, Smallmouth Bass, Kanawha Minnow, Longnose Dace, Brown Trout.Losses -- Rosyside Dace, Bigmouth Chub, Saffron Shiner, New River Shiner, Rosyface Shiner. 05/20/08 06/29/98 Bioclassification 75 48 Rural Residential 10 Forested/Wetland Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Town of Lansing WWTP (<1MGD - 1.1 miles upstream) 4 12.5 9.7 46 268156.2 48 Reference Site NPDES Number NC0066028 Stream Width (m) 13 Average Depth (m) 0.05 5 4 2 5 6.0 Slightly turbid 5 16 8 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 5 Fantail Darter. Most Abundant Species 59 98-57 5 Sample ID 2008-43 sand, cobble, boulder, gravel.Substrate Exotic Species Species Total 15 13 Rock Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Brown Trout. Good Good NCIBI FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr,+ SR 1350 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Elevation (ft)Drainage Area (mi2) Longitude NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.18 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification BIG HORSE CR NC 194 KB33 06/10/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 2 05050001 36.485556 -81.498611 10-2-21-(7)New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C:+56 2635 7 0.4 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)60 10 30 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)17.7 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.9 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)57 pH (s.u.)7.6 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)13 Pool Variety (10)4 Riffle Habitat (16)14 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)4 Total Habitat Score (100)75 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, boulder; some sand Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 06/10/08 10470 123 60 4.33 2.84 Excellent 08/19/03 9226 89 50 3.95 3.42 Excellent 08/18/98 7715 103 56 4.18 3.14 Excellent 07/28/93 6293 129 56 4.10 2.78 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis A large number of EPT taxa have always been collected from the site; the highest number was in 2008. Many taxa were recorded for the first time, including:Brachycercus, Dannella simplex, Ephemerella dorothea, Eurylophella aestiva, Rhithrogena uhari, Ceraclea enodis, and Neophylax fuscus. There were several highly tolerant taxa (i.e. with a tolerance value of 8.0 or greater) either common or abundant that helped to drive the NCBI value up: Corixidae; the midges Chironomus, Polypedilum illinoense group, Procladius, Thienemannimyia group; and Nais , an oligochaete. Data Analysis The site is about 4.7 miles NNW of Jefferson and about 0.25 stream-miles above the confluence with North Fork New River. The site has received a classification of Excellent during each summer sampling event since 1993, in most cases driven by high EPT abundance and richness. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.19 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification L HORSE CR SR 1334 KB63 08/21/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 2 05050001 36.533056 -81.577778 10-2-21-8 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+4.4 2940 2 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)10 90 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)17.9 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.0 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)47 pH (s.u.)--- Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)4 Riffle Habitat (16)15 Left Bank Stability (7)2 Right Bank Stability (7)4 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)0 Right Riparian Score (5)0 Total Habitat Score (100)61 Substrate mix of cobble, boulder, gravel, sand; some silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/21/08 10544 ---38 ---2.92 Excellent 08/19/03 9227 ---33 ---3.03 Good 08/18/98 7716 ---35 ---3.62 Good Taxonomic Analysis EPT Richness was higher in 2008 than for previous years, improving the classification for the site from Good to Excellent. Isogenoides hansoni was identified from the site for the first time in 2008; this is one of 44 sites from which the BAU has collected the stonefly. Leptocerids have not been collected from the site, reflecting the paucity of root mat habitat. Data Analysis The site is about 9.7 miles northwest of Jefferson and 3.6 miles south of the Virginia border. The site attained a classification of Excellent for the first time in 2008. Though the benthic community does not reflect stress, the lack of a riparian zone at the reach sampled is likely limiting the fauna. A canopy over the stream would increase the presence of coldwater stenotherms, root mats provided by trees would diversify benthic habitat, and streamside vegetation would filter pollutants from runoff. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.20 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification HELTON CR SR 1536 KB25 08/20/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 2 05050001 36.535000 -81.422222 10-2-27 New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+44 2575 8 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)90 10 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)16.0 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)69 pH (s.u.)5.9 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)19 Bottom Substrate (15)14 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)14 Left Bank Stability (7)7 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)5 Left Riparian Score (5)0 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)82 Substrate mostly boulder, cobble; some gravel, sand Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10538 ---37 ---2.93 Excellent 08/18/03 9220 ---40 ---3.12 Excellent 08/18/98 7718 ---37 ---3.14 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Though abundant and common in the sample in 1998 and 2003 respectively, Tallaperla was uncollected in August 2008 in spite of ample leafpacks for habitat. The only leptocerid collected during summer sampling was Setodes (rare in the sample) in 1998, reflecting the paucity of root mats at the site.Glossosoma, which was abundant in 2003, was uncollected in both 1998 and 2008. Otherwise the EPT portion of the benthic community was similar among the three summer sampling events at the site, primarily with taxa rare at the site dropping in and out. Data Analysis The site is 8.4 miles NNE of Jefferson, and 1.7 stream-miles from the confluence with North Fork New River. There has been little change in the benthic community among the three summer sampling events, suggesting stable conditions at the site since 1998. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.21 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr,+ SR 1536 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Longitude 2 Latitude Most Abundant Species 80 Cobble, boulder, gravel, and detritusSubstrate Exotic Species Saffron Shiner Bioclassification Not Rated Good NCIBI 98-58 Sample ID 2008-34 Species Total 15 6 9.7 57 7.4 Clear 15 14.9 5 18 13 10 --- 52 Watershed -- drains southern Grayson County, VA and northern Ashe County; no municipalities within the watershed; tributary to the N Fk New River, site is ~ 2 miles from the creek's confluence with the river.Habitat -- runs, riffles, shallow uniform pools, narrow riparian zone on the right; total score in 1998 was 88; bank stability and quality of pools appeared to have declined.2008 -- Rock Bass+Smallmouth Bass+Trout absent; ~ 60% of the fish were Mountain Redbelly Dace, Bluehead Chub, and Central Stoneroller; Mountain Redbelly Dace were extremely abundant along the stream margins; community is Not Rated pending an evaluation in 2009.1998 & 2008 -- 18 species known from the site, including the endemic Kanawha Minnow and Kanawha Darter and the nonindigenous Saffron Shiner, Rainbow Trout, and Rock Bass; 2.4 times more fish collected in 2008 than in 1998 (1,388 vs. 581); 10 times more Mountain Redbelly Dace were collected in 2008 than in 1998; species absent in 2008 were represented by 2-4 fish/species in 1998; and fishery is managed by NCWRC as Delayed Harvest Waters, within the reach, eight 230-389 mm TL stocked Brook Trout and Rainbow Trout were collected. Rural Residential 5 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Drainage Area (mi2) 43.7 00 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) Yes Waterbody HELTON CR 95 Elevation (ft) Subbasin Forested/Wetland County ASHE 36.53472222 2580 Species Change Since Last Cycle 05/08/08 06/30/98 4 Gains -- Kanawha Minnow, Mottled Sculpin, and Kanawha Darter.Losses -- Bluntnose Minnow, Rainbow Trout, and Rock Bass. 7 5 3 Mountain Redbelly Dace 15 Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau AU Number 10-2-27 05/08/08 Date Station ID -81.42138889 KF5 Not Rated None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 4 Site Photograph Reference Site NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) Average Depth (m) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-B.22 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-C.1 aPPeNdix 1-C aMBIENt MoNItorINg SyStEMS StatIoN Data ShEEtS StatIoN ID WatErBoDy au#LocatIoN IMPaIrED (By ParaMEtEr) IMPactED (By ParaMEtEr) K7500000 North Fork New R.10-2-(12)SR 1573 at Crumpler Fecal Coliform (20%)Turbidity (7%) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-C.2 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-C.3 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:K7500000 Location:N FORK NEW RIV AT SR 1573 AT CRUMPLER Stream class:C + NC stream index:10-2-(12) Hydrologic Unit Code:05050001 Latitude:36.50403 Longitude:-81.39004 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 7 8 8.6 9.9 11.4 13.4 14.357000 <5 7 8 8.6 9.9 11.4 13.4 14.357000 pH (SU)<6 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.6 8 8.2 8.657000 >9 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.6 8 8.2 8.657000 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 54 58 61 66 72 79 10056 0 Water Temperature (°C)>29 0.8 3.6 7.2 14.3 20.8 24.2 25.657000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 6 6.2 6.2 11.5 22.2 262.6 26818 4 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1.5 3.1 6.3 13.5 28.2 33057427 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 82 82 262 330 518 610 6108 0 Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 58080 Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 1.2 2 2 2 28080 Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 14 25 25 25 258080 Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 2 2 28080 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 260 260 478 575 922 1000 10008000 Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 108080 Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.26060 Nickel, total (Ni)>88 10 10 10 10 10 10 108080 Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 10 33 338070 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results: Geomean: # > 400: % > 400: %Conf: 55 73.7 11 20 02/01/2005Time period:12/17/2009to Key: # result: number of observations # ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect) EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence %Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-C.4 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-D.1 aPPeNdix 1-d 12-DIgIt SuBWatErShED MaPS NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-D.2 ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #* "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) "à)"à)"à) "à) "à) [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ AS H E WA T A U G A KB 3 0 KB 3 1 KB 2 2 KB 2 1 KB 3 2 KB 2 3 KB 2 6 KB 3 0 KB 8 6 KB 1 3 8 KB 1 3 4 KB 1 2 0 KB 1 1 9 KB 1 4 1 KB 1 2 9 BigLaurelCreek B e a v erCreek Buffal o Cre e k N o rt h F ork N e w R i v e r OldFieldCreek South F o rk New River NorrisFork LongHopeCreek ElkCreek Hoskin F o r k StaggCreek Bru s h F o r k MeatCampCreek ThreeTopCreek LittleLaurelCreek RoundaboutCreek Rock(Stone)Creek LittleCreek CranberryCreek CopelandCreek ClaybankCreek Cabbage Creek B e n Bol e n C r eekMillCreek(GrassyCreek) CallCreek(WestProngOldFieldCreek) Littl e G a p C r e e k S o u t h Br a n ch S o u th Beaver Creek(LakeAshe) RushB r a n c h PineOrchardCreek DoeBranch UTMILL C R CouchesCreek MineBranch W o lf p e n C r e ek WallaceBran c h Jo n esBranch Maine B r anch Wilso n B r a n c h PineMountainBranch Sugar T r e e B r a n c h ( S u g a r B r a n c h ) Graybeal B r a n c h Snyder B r a n c h Big B r a n c h KF 2 3 0 0. 8 1. 6 2. 4 3. 2 0. 4 Mi l e s Th r e e T o p C r e e k S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fis h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-D.3 ¡³#0#0 #0#0#0 "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à)[¡[¡ [¡ KB 3 0 KB31 KB 6 3 KB32KB27 KB 2 3 KB 2 6 KB33 KB 3 0 KB 8 6 KB 1 3 8 KB137 KB134KB122 KB 1 2 1 KB 1 2 0 KB 1 1 9 KB 1 4 1 B i g LaurelCreek Buffalo Cree k LittleHorseCreek NorthForkNewRiver MillCreek S t a g g C r e ek Ri ch Hill C r e ek Bru s h F o r k Dixo n C r e e k T hre e Top Cree k B igHorseCreek LittleLaurelCreek Kilby C reek Roundabout C re e k Ripshin Branch Je r d Branch BigBranch Rock(S t o n e )Creek C ut L a urelCre e k Roaring B ra n c h LongBranch C o p e la n d C re e k ClaybankCreekLostBranch CabbageCreek B e n B o len Cr eek MiddleForkLittleHorseCreek RushB r a n c h GreerBranch SwiftBranch O ld F i el d B r a n c h (G r as s B r a n c h) Bi g HorseCreek(HorseCreek) EastFork R oaring Fork WallaceBranc h BigWindfallBranch(Windfall Creek) SouthForkLittleHorseCreek W o o d a r d Branch Wilso n B r a n c h P i n e M o untain Bra n c h Lit t l e WindfallBranch Sugar T r e e B r a n c h ( S u g a r B r a n c h ) So u p B e a n B r a n c h Graybeal B r a n c h Big B r a n c h KF1 KF 2 3 KF 1 0 KF 2 2 KF 2 1 KF 2 2 0 1 2 3 4 0. 5 Mi l e s Bi g L a u r e l C r e e k S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-D.4 ¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à)"à)"à) "à) "à) [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ AS H E WA T A U G A N o rt h ForkNe w Ri ver N ort h ForkNew River ASH E WAT A U G A NC-88 KB 3 0 KB 3 1 KB 2 2 KB 2 0 KB 2 1 KB 6 3 KB 2 0 KB 2 3 KB 2 6 KB 3 3 KB 3 0 KB 8 6 KB 1 3 8 KB 1 3 4 KB 1 2 1 KB 1 2 0 KB 1 1 9 KB 1 4 1 KB 1 4 0 KB 1 3 0 KB 1 2 9 BigLaurelCreek B e a v erCreek Buffalo Cree k North Fork N e w R iv er MillCreek OldFieldCreek South F ork New River NorrisFork LongHopeCreek ElkCreek Hoskin Fo r k StaggCreek RichHillCreek Brus h F o r k MeatCampCreek DixonCreek ThreeTopCreekGrassy Cr e e k LittleLaurelCreek CobbCreek KilbyCreek RoundaboutCreek BigBranch Rock(Stone)Creek LittleCreek CutLaurelCreek Roaring B ra nch Long Br a n c h CranberryCreek CopelandCreek ClaybankCreek Cabbage Creek B e n Bolen Cr eekMillCreek(GrassyCreek) CallCreek(WestProngOldFieldCreek) Little G a p C r e e k MiddleForkLittleHorseCreek Triv e tt B r a n c h S o uth Br a nch S o u thBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) RushB r a n c h PineOrchardCreek GreerBranch DoeBranch SwiftBranch UTMILLC R PineBranch CouchesCreek MineBranch OldFieldBranch(GrassBranch) EastFork R oaring Fork WallaceBranc h BigWindfallBranch(WindfallCreek) SouthFork LittleHorseCreek J o n esBranch MaineB r anch W o o d ar d Branch Wilso n B r a n c h PineMountainBranch Sugar T r e e B r a n c h ( S u g a r B r a n c h ) So u p B e a n B r a n c h Mo r e t z B r a n c h Big B r a n c h KF 1 KF 2 3 KF 1 0 KF 2 4 KF 2 2 KF 2 1 KF 2 2 0 1 2 3 4 0. 5 Mi l e s He a d w a t e r s N o r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-D.5 E ¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³#0 #0 #0 #0#0 #* #* "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à)[¡ N ort h F ork N ewRiver KB 3 0 KB 3 1 KB 6 3 KB 2 7 KB 3 3 KB 3 0 KB 8 6 KB 1 3 7 KB 1 3 6 KB117KB125 KB 1 2 2 KB 1 2 1 KB 1 2 0 KB118 KB117 B i g LaurelCreek Little H orseCreek N o r t h F or k N e w R i v e r MillCreek SilasCre ek S t a g g C r e e k R i c h Hill Cr e ek Ezr a F o rk P i n e y C r e e k D ixo n C r e e k B igHorseCree k LittleLaurelCreek Kilby C r e e k Roundabout C re e k R ipshin Branch J e r d Branch BigBranch Rock(S t o n e )Creek C u t L a urelCre e k Little H e l t o n C re e k Roaring B r a n c h Lon g B ra n c h C o p e l a n d C re e k LittlePhoenixCreek ClaybankCreek LostBranch C abbage Creek Middle ForkLittleHorseCreek Greer Branch SwiftBranch L it tl e P i n e y C re e k O l d F i e l d B r a n c h (G r a s s B r a n c h ) B i g H orseCreek(HorseCreek) EastFork R o aring Fork BigWindfallBranch(Windfall Creek) SouthForkLittleHorseCreek U TLPHOENIXCR W o o d a r d Branch P i n e M o untain B ra n c h L i t t l e Windfal l Br a n c h F oste r S p ri n g s B r a n c h Sugar T r e e B r a n c h ( S u g a r B r a n c h ) So u p B e a n B r a n c h Shippy Branch OldField Cre e kLongBranchKF5 KF 1 KF 2 2 KF 2 1 KF 2 2 0 0. 7 1 . 4 2 . 1 2 . 8 0. 3 5 Mil e s Li t t l e H o r s e C r e e k S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-D.6 E ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #* #* #* "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡[¡ [¡[¡ NorthFork N e w River N o r t h ForkNewRiver La n s i n g NC-194 KB 7 KB 8 KB 2 5 KB 3 0 KB 2 5 KB 3 1 KB 6 3 KB 3 2 KB 2 7 KB 2 5 KB 2 3 KB 3 3 KB 3 0 KB 8 6 KB 1 3 8 KB 1 3 7 KB 1 3 6 KB 1 3 9 KB 1 3 4 KB 1 1 7 KB 1 3 5 KB 1 2 6 KB 1 2 5 KB 1 2 3 KB 1 2 2 KB 1 2 1 KB 1 2 0 KB 1 1 9 KB 1 1 8 KB 1 1 7 BigLaurelCreek Buffal o Cre e k Little H orseCreek Nor t h Fork Ne w Rive r MillCreek RoanCreek SilasCreek NakedCreek DogCreek StaggCreek RichHillCreek EzraFork HeltonCreek BrushFork PineyCreek DixonCreek ThreeTopCreek B igHorseCreek NathansCreek LittleLaurelCreek KilbyCreek RoundaboutCreek Ripshin Branch JerdBranch BigBranch Rock(Stone)Creek CutLaurelCreek LittleHeltonCreek Roaring B r a n c h Long Bra n c h CopelandCreek LittlePh o e n ix Creek ClaybankCreek LostBranch CabbageCreek SilasB r anch Little Nak e d Creek B e n Bole n Creek MiddleForkLittleHorseCreek PotterBranch MillpondBranch GreerBranch LongShoalsCreek SwiftBranch LittlePineyCreek EastFork R oaring Fork BigWindfallBranch(WindfallCreek) SouthFork LittleHorseCreek U T L P H OENIXCR W o o d ar d Branch Wilson B r a n c h PineMountainBranch Lit t le Windfall Br a n c h FosterSpringsBranch Sugar T r e e B r a n c h ( S u g a r B r a n c h ) So u p B e a n B r a n c h UT HE A L IN G S P RIN GS Shippy B r a n c h Old FieldCreek LongBranch GrassyCreek LongBranch KF 5 KF 5 KF 1 KF 2 3 KF 2 0 KF 1 4 KF 1 0 KF 2 2 KF 2 1 KF 2 2 0 1 2 3 4 0. 5 Mi l e s Bi g H o r s e C r e e k S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-D.7 E E E E EE ¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #* XY #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* !( "à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ ¢¡ AS H E WA T A U G A NorthFork N e w River La n s i n g NC-194 NorthFor k New Ri ver Li ttle B u ff aloCree k NC - 8 8 NC - 1 9 4 NC-194 We s t Je f f e r s o n ClaybankCreek KB7 KB 8 KB3 KB 5 KB6KB25 KB 3 0 KB25 KB 3 1 KB 2 2 KB 6 3 KB 3 2 KB 2 7 KB25 KB 2 3 KB 2 6 KB 3 3 KB 3 0 KB 8 6 KB 1 3 8 KB 1 3 7 KB 1 3 6 KB139 KB 1 0 8 KB 1 3 4 KB 1 1 7 KB135KB126 KB 1 2 5 KB123 KB 1 2 2 KB 1 2 1 KB 1 2 0 KB 1 1 9 KB 1 4 1 KB 1 1 8 KB 1 1 7 KB 1 2 9 B i g LaurelCreek B e a v erCreek Buff a lo C r e e k LittleHorseCreek North F ork N e w R i v er MillCreek Ol d Field Creek R oanCreek SilasCreek O bidsCre e k LongHopeCreek Naked Creek ElkCreek DogCreek Hoskin Fork S t a g g C r e ek R ich Hill C r e ek Ezra F ork H elt o n Creek Bru s h F o r k P in ey C re e k DixonCreek B ear Creek Thre e Top Cree k B igHorseCreek NathansCreek LittleLaurelCreek KilbyCree k Roundabout Creek Ripshin Branch JerdBranch BigBranch Rock(S t o n e)Creek LittleCreek CutLaurelCre e k LittleHeltonCreek Roaring Br a n c h C ole Branch Long Bra n c h C o p e la n d C re e k LittlePh o e ni x Creek LostBranch Cabbage Creek SilasBranch LittleNak e d Creek B e n Bolen Cr eek Mill Creek(Gra s syCreek ) CallCreek(WestPro n g Old Field Cre e k) MiddleForkLittleHorseCreek PotterBra n c hMillpondBranch S o uth Br a nch S o u thBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) RushB r a n c h P in e Orc h ard Creek GreerBranch LongShoalsCreek D o e B r a n ch SwiftBranch LittlePeakCreek Littl e Pi n e y C reek UTMILL C R Couches Creek Min e Branch EastFork R oaring Fork WallaceBran c h BigWindfallBranch(WindfallCreek) SouthForkLittleHorseCreek MaineB r anch U T L P H OENIX CR W o o d ar d Branch Wilso n B r a n c h Cre as e yBranch P in e M ountain Bra n c h Lit t l e Windfall Br a n c h F oster S p rin g s Bra n c h Sugar T r e e B r a n c h ( S u g a r B r a n c h ) So u p B e a n B r a n c h UTHEALINGSPRINGS Shippy B r a n c h Old Field Cre e kNewRiver(NorthCarolinaPortion)Long B r a nc h SouthBeaverCreek(Lake A she) GrassyCreek Big B r a n c h LongBranch KF5 KF 5 KF 1 KF 2 3 KF20 KF13KF14 KF 1 0 KF 2 2 KF 2 1 KF 2 2 0 1 2 3 4 0. 5 Mi l e s Up p e r N o r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-D.8 E E E E E E ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #* #* #* #* "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ La n s i n g NC-194 NorthForkNewRiver L i ttleBuffaloCreek NC-88 NC - 1 9 4 NC-194 We s t Je f f e r s o n NC-16 KB 7 KB 8 KB 3 KB 2 5 K B 2 5 KB 1 0 KB 1 5 KB 1 3 KB 1 4 KB 3 1 KB63 KB 3 2 KB 2 7 KB 2 5 KB 1 0 KB 1 1 KB 3 3 KB 1 3 7 KB 1 3 6 KB 1 3 9 KB 1 3 4 KB 1 1 7 KB 1 3 5 KB 1 2 7 KB 1 2 6 KB 1 2 5 KB 1 2 3 KB122KB121 KB 1 1 8 Peak C r e e k BuffaloCreek LittleHorseCreek NorthForkNewRiver RoanCreek SilasCreek NakedCreek DogCreek StaggCreek EzraFork HeltonCreek PineyCreek BigHorseCreek NathansC r e ek JerdBranch LittleHeltonCreek C ole Branch LongBranch CranberryCreek ( M ulberryCreek) LittlePh o e n i x C re ek ClaybankCreek LostBranch Silas B r anch Little Nak e d CreekPotterBranch MillpondBranch LongShoalsCreek Little P e a k C r e e k LittlePineyCreek B e a verBranch BigWindfallBranch(WindfallCreek)SouthForkLittleHorseCreek U T L P h o e n ix Cr Cre a s e y B r a n c h LittleWindfall Branch FosterSpringsBranch Sugar Tree Branch (Sugar Branch) UT HE A L I N G S P RI N GS Shippy B r a n c h O ld FieldCreek WolfBranch New R i v e r (NorthCarolina Portion) LongBranch Pi n e y Creek GrassyCreek LongBranch KF 5 KF 5 KF 2 KF 1 KF 2 0 KF 1 5 KF 1 4 KF 1 6 KF 2 1 0 0. 8 1.6 2. 4 3. 2 0. 4 Mil e s Mi d d l e N o r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 7 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fis h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-D.9 E ¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #* #* "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡[¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ La n s i n g NC-194 NorthFork N e w Rive r NC - 8 8 NC - 1 9 4 NC-16 H e lt o n Cree k NC - 1 9 4 NC-16 KB10 KB15 KB 6 3 KB 2 7 KB 2 5 KB10 KB 3 3 KB 1 3 7 KB 1 3 6 KB 1 1 7 KB 1 3 5 KB127 KB 1 2 6 KB 1 2 5 KB 1 2 3 KB 1 2 2 KB 1 2 1 KB 1 1 8 Little H orseCreek N o rt h F o rk N e w R iv er MillCreek Silas Cre ek S t a g g C r e e k H e l t o n Cree k P in e y C r e e k B igHorse C reek NathansCree k Je r d Branch Little H e l t o n C re e k Roaring B r a n c h Lo n g Bra n c h C o p e l a n d C re e k Little Ph o e n i x Creek ClaybankCreek L ostBranch Middle ForkLittleHorseCreek MillpondBranch GreerBranch LongShoalsCreek L it tl e P i n e y C re e k BeaverBranch BigWindfallBranch(Windfall Creek) SouthForkLittleHorseCreek U T L P h o enix Cr L i t t l e Windfal l Br a n c h F oste r S p ri n g s B ra n c h Suga r T r e e B r a n c h ( S u g a r B r a n c h ) UTHE A L I N G S P RI N GS O l d Field Cre e k Ne w River(NorthCarolinaPortion) Long B r a n c h PineyCreek G rassyCreek L o n g B r a nch KF 5 KF2 KF 1 KF15KF16 0 0.8 1. 6 2. 4 3. 2 0.4 Mil e s He l t o n C r e e k S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 8 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fis h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : N or t h for K N EW rIV E r W at ErShED ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 ) a PP E N D I cES 1-D.10 E E ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ #0 #0#0 #0#0 "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à)"à) [¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ NC-16 NC-194 NC-16 KB 1 0 KB 1 5 KB27 KB 2 5 KB 1 0 KB33 KB137KB136 KB 1 1 7 KB 1 3 5 KB 1 2 7 KB 1 2 6 KB 1 2 5 KB 1 2 3 KB118 PeakC r e e k NorthForkNewRiver P r a t h e r s Creek SilasCreek DogCreek EzraFork PotatoCreek HeltonCreek C r a b F o r k PineyCreek NathansCr e e k Piney B r a nc h LittleHeltonCreek LittlePhoenixCreekClaybankCreek MapleBranch Silas B r anch MillpondBranch LongShoalsCreek LittlePineyCreek B e a verBranch UTLPhoenixCr FosterSpringsBranch O l d FieldCreek Ne w R i v e r ( NorthCarolina Portion) LongBranch Pi n ey Creek GrassyCreek LongBranch KF 5 KF 2 KF 1 5 KF 1 6 K7 5 0 0 0 0 0 K4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 5 1 1.5 2 0. 2 5 Mil e s Lo w e r N o r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 9 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-A.1 Draft 2010 Ir catEgory INtEgratED rEPortINg catEgorIES for INDIVIDuaL aSSESSMENt uNIt/uSE SuPPort catEgory/ ParaMEtEr aSSESSMENtS. a SINgLE au caN haVE MuLtIPLE aSSESSMENtS DEPENDINg oN Data aVaILaBLE aND cLaSSIfIED uSES. 1 All designated uses are monitored and supporting 1b Designated use was impaired, other management strategy in place and no standards violations for the parameter of interest (POI) 1nc DWQ have made field determination that parameter in exceedance is due to natural conditions 1r Assessed as supporting watershed is in restoration effort status 1t No criteria exceeded but approved TMDL for parameter of interest 2 Some designated uses are monitored and supporting none are impaired Overall only 2b Designated use was impaired other management strategy in place and no standards violations Overall only 2r Assessed as supporting watershed is in restoration effort status overall only 2t No criteria exceeded but approved TMDL for POI Overall only 3a Instream/monitoring data are inconclusive (DI) 3b No Data available for assessment 3c No data or information to make assessment 3n1 Chlorophyll a exceeds TL value and SAC is met-draft 3n2 Chlorophyll a exceeds EL value and SAC is not met first priority for further monitoring-draft 3n3 Chlorophyll a exceeds threshold value and SAC is not met first second priority for further monitoring-draft 3n4 Chlorophyll a not available determine need to collect-draft 3t No Data available for assessment –AU is in a watershed with an approved TMDL 4b Designated use impaired other management strategy expected to address impairment 4c Designated use impaired by something other than pollutant 4cr Recreation use impaired no instream monitoring data or screening criteria exceeded 4cs Shellfish harvesting impaired no instream monitoring data-no longer used 4ct Designated use impaired but water is subject to approved TMDL or under TMDL development 4s Impaired Aquatic Life with approved TMDL for Aquatic Life POI or category 5 listing 4t Designated use impaired approved TMDL 5 Designated use impaired because of biological or ambient water quality standards violations and needing a TMDL 5r Assessed as impaired watershed is in restoration effort status aPPeNdix 2-a uSE SuPPort ratINgS for aLL MoNItorED WatErS IN thE South forK NEW rIVEr & fox crEEK WatErShEDS NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-A.2 AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species  NC 2010 Integrated Report  North Fork New River 0505000101New River Basin Watershed Middle Fork Little Horse Creek 10-2-21-8-1 From source to Little Horse Creek 4.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Millpond Branch10-2-28 From source to North Fork New River 2.0 FW Miles C:+  1 North Fork New River10-2-(1)From source to Three Top Creek 14.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  1 North Fork New River10-2-(12)From Three Top Creek to New River 36.5 FW Miles C:+  1  1  1 Rich Hill Creek10-2-15 From source to North Fork New River 4.9 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Roundabout Creek10-2-10 From source to North Fork New River 4.0 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Three Top Creek10-2-13 From source to North Fork New River 13.2 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  3a South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed Cranberry Creek (Mulberry Creek) 10-1-37 From source to South Fork New River 18.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+  1  1 East Fork South Fork New River 10-1-3-(1)From source to Watauga County SR 1524 2.3 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+   5 East Fork South Fork New River 10-1-3-(8)From .8 mile downstream of Watauga Co SR 1524 to S Fk New River 0.5 FW Miles WS-IV;CA:+  1 10/20/2010 Page 199 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-A.3 AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species  NC 2010 Integrated Report  South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed Howard Creek10-1-9-(6)From the Appalachian State University Raw Water Supply Intake Dam to South Fork New River 3.6 FW Miles C;Tr,HQW  1  3a Little Peak Creek10-1-35-4 From source to Peak Creek 2.8 FW Miles B;Tr:+   4s Meat Camp Creek10-1-10 From source to South Fork New River 10.4 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  3a Middle Fork South Fork New River 10-1-2-(15)From 0.4 mile downstr of US Hwy 221 & 321 to South Fk New River 0.5 FW Miles WS-IV;CA:+  1  3a Middle Fork South Fork New River 10-1-2-(6)From Brown Branch to Boone Dam 3.5 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+  1 Naked Creek10-1-32b From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to South Fork New River 2.5 FW Miles C:+  1   5 Norris Fork10-1-10-2 From source to Meat Camp Creek 4.3 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Obids Creek10-1-27-(2)From a point 0.9 mile downstream of NC Hwy 163 to South Fork New River 2.8 FW Miles WS-IV;Tr:+  1  1 Ore Knob Branch10-1-35-3 From source to Peak Creek 0.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+   4s Peak Creek10-1-35-(2)a From Water Supply Dam at Appalachian Sulphides, Inc to Ore Knob Branch 2.1 FW Miles B;Tr:+  1 10/20/2010 Page 200 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-A.4 AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species  NC 2010 Integrated Report  South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed Peak Creek10-1-35-(2)b From Ore Knob Branch to South Fork New River 2.9 FW Miles B;Tr:+   4s Pine Orchard Creek10-1-15-1 From source to Elk Creek 3.5 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Pine Swamp Creek (Pine Swamp) 10-1-24 From source to South Fork New River 5.5 FW Miles C:+  1 Prathers Creek10-1-38 From source to South Fork New River 11.1 FW Miles B;Tr:+  1 Roan Creek10-1-31-(2)From 0.5 mile upstream of mouth to South Fork New River 0.4 FW Miles WS- IV;Tr,CA:+  1  1 South Beaver Creek(Lake Ashe) 10-1-25-2a From source to Lake Ashe 5.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 South Fork New River10-1-(20.5)From a point 0.4 mile upstream of Couches Creek to a point 2.8 mile upstream of Obids Creek 21.8 FW Miles WS-V;HQW  1 South Fork New River10-1-(26)b From Obids Creek to a point 0.6 miles upstream of Roan Creek 6.6 FW Miles WS-IV;HQW  1  1  1  1 South Fork New River10-1-(3.5)a From Winkler Creek to 0.1 miles downstream of Hunting Lane 0.3 FW Miles C:+   5  1  1  1 10/20/2010 Page 201 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-A.5 AU_NameAU_Number AU_Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species  NC 2010 Integrated Report  South Fork New River 0505000102New River Basin Watershed South Fork New River10-1-(3.5)b From 0.1 mile downstream Hunting Lane to US Hwy.221/421 5.1 FW Miles C:+   5  1  1  1 South Fork New River10-1-(33.5)From Dog Creek to New River 22.5 FW Miles B;ORW  1  1  1 UT MILL CR10-1-18ut4 Source to MILL CR 1.3 FW Miles  1 UT S FK NEW R10-1-(14.5)ut4 Source to S FK NEW R 1.0 FW Miles 3a Winkler Creek10-1-4-(3.5)b From Winkler Creek Road (SR #1549) to South Fork New River 1.7 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1 Fox Creek-New River 0505000103New River Basin Watershed Grassy Creek10-3 From North Carolina-Virginia State 4.1 FW Miles C;Tr:+  1  1 New River (North Carolina Portion) 10b From first point of crossing state line to last point of crossing state line 6.4 FW Miles C;ORW 3a  1 3a Little River-New River 0505000104New River Basin Watershed Bledsoe Creek10-9-7 From source to Little River 5.9 FW Miles C;Tr  1 Brush Creek10-9-10 From source to Little River 27.8 FW Miles C;Tr  1  1 10/20/2010 Page 202 of 372NC 2010 Integrated Report 5-303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 2010 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-A.6 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.1 aPPeNdix 2-B BIoLogIcaL (BENthIc & fISh) SaMPLE SItE Data ShEEtS NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.2 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.3 StatIoN ID*WatErBoDy aSSESSMENt uNIt #DEScrIPtIoN couNty SItE LocatIoN SaMPLE rESuLtS Benthic Sample Sites KB130*Ut. S. Fk. New R. 10-1-(14.5)ut4 Source to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1353 07 - Not Rated KB140*Ut. S. Fk. New R.10-1-(14.5)ut4 Source to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1353 07 - Not Rated KB2 S. Fk. New R.10-1-(20.5)From a point 0.4 mile upstream of Couches Creek to a point 2.8 mile upstream of Obids Creek Ashe SR 1169 08 - Good 03 - Excellent KB3 S. Fk. New R.10-1-(26)b From Obids Creek to a point 0.6 miles upstream of Roan Creek Ashe NC 16-18 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB16 S. Fk. New R.10-1-(3.5)b From 0.1 mile downstream Hunting Lane to US Hwy.221/421 Watauga US 421 08 - Fair 03 - Fair KB10 S. Fk. New R.10-1-(33.5)From Dog Creek to New River Ashe US 221 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB20 Meat Camp Cr.10-1-10 From source to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1333 08 - Excellent 03 - Good KB21 Norris Fk.10-1-10-2 From source to Meat Camp Creek Watauga SR 1337 08 - Good 03 - Excellent KB22 Pine Orchard Cr. 10-1-15-1 From source to Elk Creek Watauga SR 1369 08 - Not Impaired 03 - Excellent KB1 M. Fk. S. Fk. New R. 10-1-2-(15)From 0.4 mile downstr of US Hwy 221 & 321 to South Fk New River Watauga SR 1522 08 - Good-Fair 03 - Good-Fair KB108 Pine Swamp Cr.10-9-5 From source to S. Fork New River Alleghany SR 1128 08 - Good 03 - Good KB5 S. Beaver Cr.10-1-25-2a From source to Lake Ashe Ashe SR 1147 08 - Good 03 - Good KB6 Obids Cr.10-1-27-(2)From a point 0.9 mile downstream of NC Hwy 163 to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1192 08 - Good 03 - Good KB12 E. Fk. S. Fk. New R.10-1-3-(8)From .8 mile downstream of Watauga Co SR 1524 to S Fk New River Watauga SR 1522 08 - Good '03 - Good KB7 Roan Cr.10-1-31-(2)From 0.5 mile upstream of mouth to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1588 08 - Good 03 - Excellent KB8 Naked Cr.10-1-32b From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to South Fork New River Ashe NC 16-88 08 - Good 03 - Good-Fair KB139*Naked Cr.10-1-32b From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1589 08 - Good-Fair KB11 Peak Cr.10-1-35-(2)a From Water Supply Dam at Appalachian Sulphides, Inc to Ore Knob Branch Ashe SR 1599 08 - Excellent 03 - Good KB13 Peak Cr.10-1-35-(2)b From Ore Knob Branch to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1599 08 - Poor '03 - Poor KB14 L. Peak Cr.10-1-35-4 From source to Peak Creek Ashe SR 1595 08 - Poor 03 - Poor KB15 Cranberry Cr.10-1-37 From source to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1603 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB17 Winkler Cr.10-1-4-(3.5)b From Winkler Creek Road (SR #1549) to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1549 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent KB18 Howard Cr.10-1-9-(6)From the Appalachian State University Raw Water Supply Intake Dam to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1328 08 - Excellent 03 - Good KB126*Grassy Cr.10-3 From North Carolina-Virginia State Ashe SR 1548 08 - Good KB34 New R.10b From first point of crossing state line to last point of crossing state line Alleghany SR 1345 08 - Excellent 03 - Excellent * New station location; therefore, no data from the previous cycle. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.4 StatIoN ID*WatErBoDy aSSESSMENt uNIt #DEScrIPtIoN couNty SItE LocatIoN SaMPLE rESuLtS Fish Community Sample Sites KF6 Howard Cr.10-1-9-(6)From the Appalachian State University Raw Water Supply Intake Dam to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1306 08 - Not Rated 98 - Not Rated KF8 M. Fk. S. Fk. New R. 10-1-2-(15)From 0.4 mile downstr of US Hwy 221 & 321 to South Fk New River Watauga SR 1522 08 - Not Rated 98 - Excellent KF24 Meat Camp Cr.10-1-10 From source to South Fork New River Watauga SR 1333 08 - Not Rated 98 - Not Rated KF14 Naked Cr.10-1-32b From 0.4 miles above Jefferson WWTP to South Fork New River Ashe NC 16/88 08 - Fair 98 - Fair KF13*Obids Cr.10-1-27-(2)From a point 0.9 mile downstream of NC Hwy 163 to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1192 08 - Good KF15*Prathers Cr.10-1-38 From source to South Fork New River Alleghany SR 1302 08 - Good-Fair KF20*Roan Cr.10-1-31-(2)From 0.5 mile upstream of mouth to South Fork New River Ashe SR 1588 08 - Good KF12 S. Fk. New R.10-1-(3.5)b From 0.1 mile downstream Hunting Lane to US Hwy.221/421 Watauga US 421 08 - Good 98 - Good * New station location; therefore, no data from the previous cycle. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.5 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification S FK NEW R US 421 KB16 08/19/08 Fair County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.220833 -81.640000 10-1-(3.5)b Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C:+35 3088 15 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 100 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Town of Boone, Jimmy Smith WWTP NC0020621 4.82 Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)23.7 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.0 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)276 pH (s.u.)7.6 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)10 Bottom Substrate (15)6 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)14 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)2 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)1 Total Habitat Score (100)58 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10551 75 19 5.80 4.88 Fair 11/04/03 9302 ---11 ---4.25 Fair 08/20/03 9257 67 24 5.46 4.81 Good-Fair 08/17/98 7734 71 22 5.68 4.14 Good-Fair 07/12/93 6261 69 18 6.17 3.80 Fair Taxonomic Analysis The 2008 sample is dominated by taxa that are pollution-tolerant. Abundant mayflies found here in 2008 included: Pseudocloeon propinquum, Plauditus dubius group, Heterocloeon anoka, Isonychia, and Baetis flavistriga . Other abundant taxa here that are considered generalists and are tolerant were the caddisfly Cheumatopsyche and the dragonfly Calopteryx. Data Analysis The South Fork New River at US 421/221 rated Fair in 2008, the same rating as in 2003. There have been eight samples collected here from 1984 through 2008. Of the seven summer samples (all Full Scale samples) this site rated Fair four times and Good-Fair thrice. This site is just downstream of the Boone WWTP. The 2004 Basinwide Assessment Report noted a gradual decrease in the Biotic Index here (indicating a slightly more pollution- sensitive benthic community) in relation to reductions in NH3 and TKN from effluent from the Boone WWTP beginning in 1998. Unfortunately this trend did not continue in 2008 and the Biotic Index is now back to the level it was in the mid 1990's which indicates a more pollution-tolerant benthic community. This watershed is also heavily agricultural. A large silt load covers 40% of the benthos of this reach limiting habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. There is very little substrate over 10 inches in length in this reach. Overall habitat quality here is low and has been since at least 2003 (scores of 58, 59 and 60). NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.6 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) Bioclassification Latitude 36.220736 Watershed -- this large site is located in the northeast corner of Boone and drains the entire southern-most tip of the New River basin in Watauga County, including the catchments of Winkler Creek, Middle Fork South Fork New River, and East Fork South Fork New River. Habitats -- shallow runs, with a few large riffles, and a few shallow side pools; the canopy was open due to the river's width, but the banks were generally healthy; substrates were highly embedded in this reach of the river; conductivity was elevated because of Boone's WWTP. 2008 -- an extremely diverse and abundant (n=2058) community of fish was collected, including eight intolerant taxa, three of which were not previously collected; Western Blacknose Dace (n=524) comprised 25% of the sample, and Central Stoneroller represented 24% (n=484). 1998-2008 -- although many more fish were collected in 2008, little difference exists between the trophic structures and NCIBI values between samples, suggesting that little has changed in this watershed over a 10 year period (in spite of upstream fish kill in 2003); overall, the fish community continues to thrive here, and suggests good water quality. Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody S FK NEW R County WATAUGA 05/22/08 Longitude -81.639974 KF12 Southern Crystalline Ridges & Mountains Level IV EcoregionAU Number 10-1-(3.5)b Good Site Photograph 010 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Kanawha Minnow, Greenside Darter, Kanawha Darter, Appalachia Darter.Losses -- Bluegill. 05/22/08 06/08/98 Bioclassification 70 56 52 Urban 15 Forested/Wetland Drainage Area (mi2) 34.2 Reference Site NPDES Number NC0020621 Stream Width (m) 13 Average Depth (m) 4.8 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Town of Boone WWTP (0.9 miles upstream) 3100 4 98-51 10 Sample ID 2008-49 5 5 5 5 11.7 8.5 126 6.0 Clear 5 16 5 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 3 Western Blacknose Dace. Most Abundant Species 63 gravel, sand, boulder, silt.Substrate Exotic Species Species Total 22 20 Rock Bass, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout. Good Good NCIBI FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C, + US 421 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Elevation (ft) Subbasin 1 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.7 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification S FK NEW R SR 1169 KB2 08/18/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.299167 -81.468056 10-1-(20.5) Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-V; HQW 143 2830 25 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)25 0 75 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Town of Boone, Jimmy Smith WWTP NC0020621 4.82 Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)23.4 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)105 pH (s.u.)9.2 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)11 Bottom Substrate (15)8 Pool Variety (10)0 Riffle Habitat (16)7 Left Bank Stability (7)2 Right Bank Stability (7)5 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)1 Right Riparian Score (5)1 Total Habitat Score (100)42 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/18/08 10547 99 38 4.84 3.78 Good 08/21/03 9263 98 45 4.19 3.33 Excellent 08/18/98 7737 101 48 4.61 3.64 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Small changes in rare and in some cases common taxa were the main differences between the 2008 collection and past collections. Only one taxonomic group showed any drastic changes: the dragonfly family Gomphidae. In both 1998 and 2003 four taxa were found in the samples but in 2008, this group was absent. One unusual chironomid taxa was found in 2008: Polypedilum sp. P. The infrequently collected caddisfly Oecetis avara was first collected here in 2008. There are only 37 BAU records of this species. Overall EPT and total diversity remains high here. Data Analysis This South Fork New River site rated Good in 2008, a decrease from Excellent in both 1998 and 2003. An increase in the Biotic Index indicates that a more pollution-tolerant community resides in this reach than did in previous years. The number of EPT taxa was also lower in 2008 compared with 1998 and 2003. This reach earned a low habitat scorce due to limited in-stream habitat including substrate sizes that consisted mostly of sand, silt and gravel. The water quality at SR 1169 is an improvement from the next site upstream of here (at US 421, approximately 20 miles upstream). That site rated Fair in 2008. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.8 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification S FK NEW R NC 16/18 KB3 06/19/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.393056 -81.407222 10-1-(26)b New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-IV;HQW 205 2660 40 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)60 30 10 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Town of Boone, Jimmy Smith WWTP NC0020621 4.82 Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)23.1 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.1 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)66 pH (s.u.)8.5 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)12 Left Bank Stability (7)5 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)1 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)69 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 06/19/08 10474 106 54 4.26 3.48 Excellent 08/22/03 9271 104 58 3.67 3.12 Excellent 08/18/98 7742 95 48 4.01 3.44 Excellent 07/14/93 6270 104 51 3.41 2.75 Excellent 07/11/90 5375 97 50 3.79 3.11 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis A large number of taxa were collected here in 2008. The number of EPT taxa collected was 54, only 4 fewer than in 2003, but the total number of taxa collected was slightly higher in 2008 than 2003 (106 versus 104). A diverse aquatic macroinvertebrate community resides in this reach of the South Fork New River. Abundant taxa in past years were generally both collected again in 2008 and were also abundant. Some noteable taxa were first collected at the site in 2008, including: the mayflies Drunella lata, Eurylophella aestiva and Anthopotamus (all common in the sample); the stoneflies Acroneuria mela and Agnetina annulipes (both rare in the sample); and the caddisfly Apatania (common in the sample). Data Analysis This South Fork New River site rated Excellent again in 2008 as it has following each prior sampling event since 1987. The 2008 sample was collected one to two months earlier in the year than past samples, but still within the summer basinwide sampling window. This earlier sampling may have accounted for a few taxa not seen in previous samples (e.g. Drunella lata, Eurylophella aestiva ). Though the total number of aquatic invertebrate taxa collected in 2008 was greater than in all previous years, the Biotic Index was also higher suggesting a slightly more pollution-sensitive community than in past years. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.9 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification S FK NEW R US 221 BELOW CRANBERRY CREEK KB10 08/22/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.473889 -81.336944 10-1-(33.5)New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) B;ORW 300 2545 25 0.4 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)50 25 25 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Town of Boone, Jimmy Smith WWTP NC0020621 4.82 Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)22.6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.2 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)82 pH (s.u.)8.1 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)13 Bottom Substrate (15)11 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)10 Left Bank Stability (7)3 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)0 Left Riparian Score (5)1 Right Riparian Score (5)4 Total Habitat Score (100)63 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel and sand Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/22/08 10563 102 49 4.41 3.26 Excellent 08/23/03 9272 112 47 4.62 3.43 Excellent 08/20/98 7749 112 55 4.24 3.57 Excellent 07/15/93 6273 103 46 4.06 3.09 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis A large number of taxa continue to inhabit this downstream section of the South Fork New River. Many pollution-sensitive taxa are abundant here, including the mayflies: Heterocloeon curiosum, Acerpenna macdunnoughi, Serratella serratoides, Stenacron pallidum, and Leucrocuta. The pollution- sensitive stonefly Acroneuria arenosa and the caddisflies Brachycentrus numerosus and Helicopsyche were also abundant here in in 2008. Most taxa collected in 2008 were also collected in previous years. Data Analysis This site has consistently rated Excellent since 1990. A total of thirteen samples have been collected from this location since 1983. The number of Total Taxa and EPT Taxa have remained high and the Biotic Index has been consistent in showing a pollution-sensitive aquatic community residing here. The site upstream of here (NC 16-88, approximately 18 miles upstream) was also Excellent. The US 221 site is the farthest downstream basinwide site on the South Fork New River. The South Fork and North Fork New River converge approximately 15 miles downstream of this site and then flow northward to Virginia a further five miles downstream. There are no permitted discharges between the US 221 site and the North Carolina- Virginia border, suggesting that an Excellent water quality rating could continue downstream to Virginia. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.10 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification M FK S FK NEW R SR 1522 KB1 08/19/08 Good-Fair County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.201389 -81.650000 10-1-2-(15) Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-IV;CA:+12 3100 5 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 0 100 (golf course/greenway trail) Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)18.3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.3 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)111 pH (s.u.)6.9 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)6 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)2 Right Bank Stability (7)3 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)0 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)56 Substrate mix of cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10550 ---27 ---4.19 Good-Fair 11/04/03 9307 ---29*---2.99 Good 08/20/03 9259 ---24 ---3.26 Good-Fair 08/17/98 7732 ---31 ---2.99 Good 07/12/93 6260 ---37 ---2.97 Excellent *value corrected for seasonality Taxonomic Analysis In general, the EPT taxa found in the Middle Fork of the South Fork New River in 2008 were typical of previous collections. However, the most recent collection contained fewer EPT taxa than most of the past sampling efforts. This site supports an increasingly pollution-tolerant benthic community. Abundant taxa found in 2008 were cosmopolitan species (e.g. Isonychia, Cheumatopsyche, Plauditus dubius group) with few pollution-sensitve species. Data Analysis This site rated Good-Fair in 2008, the same rating it received in summer 2003. The four summer basinwide collections have seen this site go from Excellent and Good in 1993 and 1998 respectively, to Good-Fair in 2003 and 2008. The Biotic Index indicates that the benthic community is becoming more tolerant of aquatic pollution with sensitve species no longer residing in this reach. This site is located just downstream of Boone Golf Club, a large expanse of open area with only a narrow grass riparian zone and few trees. Silt and sand comprised 30% of the benthic area, limiting interstitial benthic habitats and increasing embeddedness. Additionally, there is a small reservior 1.6 miles upsteam of this site and three minor dischargers (>1.5 miles upstream) that may be affecting the benthic community here. In October 2003, one of these dischargers, Blowing Rock Water Treatment Plant (WTP), spilled approximately 3,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide into the Middle Fork South Fork New River (BAU memorandum B-20031113). There does not appear to be any long term effect of this event on the macroinvertebrate community at SR 1522. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.11 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification WS-IV, CA, + SR 1522 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Not Rated Excellent NCIBI Drainage Area (mi2) 12 Clear 5 20 8 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Mottled Sculpin. Most Abundant Species 75 cobble, gravel, boulder, silt, sand.Substrate Exotic Species Species Total 14 16 Green Sunfish, Bluegill, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout. 12.3 9.3 92 6.4 6 98-53 16 Sample ID 2008-50 3 5 8 2 2 38 58 Reference Site NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 5 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 50 Elevation (ft) Urban 20 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Green Sunfish, Rosyside Dace, Bluehead Chub, Creek Chub.Losses -- Rock Bass, New River Shiner, Kanawha Minnow, Longnose Dace, Greenside Darter, Kanawha Darter. 05/22/08 06/09/98 Bioclassification Site Photograph 20 (golf course)10 0.5 Agriculture Other (describe) No None 3100 Date Station ID Longitude -81.649851 KF8 Southern Crystalline Ridges & Mountains Level IV EcoregionAU Number 10-1-2-(15)1 Latitude 36.20128 Subbasin 05/22/08 Watershed - a large trib to the South Fork New River; drains the southern-most tip of the basin. Habitats - rifflles, runs, swift chutes, and a few snag pools; high substrate embeddedness; bordered by a golf course (left) and a fenced cattle operation (right) with narrow riparian widths; the four NPDES facilities (combined discharge of 1.0 MGD, 1.9 to 7.0 miles above) may have elevated the instream waste concentration during droughts. 2008 - a diverse and abundant community of fish (n=803) was collected, including two intolerant taxa (Tounguetied Minnow, and Rainbow Trout); however six of ten NCIBI metrics fell during this assessment. 1998-2003 -- the decline in bioclassification, and particularly the loss of four sparsely populated intolerant species (Rock Bass, New River Shiner, Kanawha Minnow, and Kanawha Darter - 18 individuals combined) may be related to a 2003 spill of sodium hydroxide (3,000 gal.), that occurred in Blowing Rock. These losses may be explained by the combined effects of this spill, and the urban nature of this stream. In light of these extremes, this site was Not Rated; it has likely seen impressive recovery toward its previous bioclass and may continue to improve. Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody M FK S FK NEW R County WATAUGA Forested/Wetland Not Rated Bioclassification NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.12 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification E FK S FK NEW R SR 1522 KB12 08/19/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.202222 -81.648889 10-1-3-(8) Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-IV;CA:+7.2 3100 5 0.1 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 25 0 75 (golf course) Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)18.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.9 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)61 pH (s.u.)6.1 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)3 Instream Habitat (20)11 Bottom Substrate (15)6 Pool Variety (10)4 Riffle Habitat (16)12 Left Bank Stability (7)2 Right Bank Stability (7)2 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)0 Total Habitat Score (100)44 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10549 ---31 ---3.54 Good 11/04/03 9306 ---3 ---5.21 Poor 08/20/03 9258 ---31 ---3.06 Good 08/17/98 7731 ---32 ---3.29 Good 07/12/93 6259 ---37 ---3.34 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis The EPT taxa found in the East Fork of the South Fork New River in 2008 were similar to past basinwide collections. Some taxa were collected in lower abundances (e.g. Isonychia) and some have yet to reestablish (e.g. Maccaffertium pudicum and Ceratopsyche sparna) following an acute, unknown event that occurred in 2003 after the basinwide sampling event for that year. In terms of EPT richness the benthic community has recovered to summer 2003 levels. This site still supports a pollution-intolerant benthic community. Data Analysis This site rated Good in 2008, the same classification it received in summer 1998 and 2003. The loss of benthic fauna in late 2003 following an acute, unknown event does not appear to have been permanent. This site was sampled in November 2003 as a reference site after a spill in the Middle Fork South Fork New River (BAU memorandum B-20031113). This East Fork site has no dischargers upstream nor any larger reserviors which may have been the source of the problems seen in late 2003. Despite the ample evidence of being located just downstream of Boone Golf Club (e.g. grass clippings and golf balls in stream) the benthic fauna at this site appears less affected by the golf course in 2008 than the Middle Fork South Fork New River. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.13 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification WINKLER CR SR 1549 KB17 08/19/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.198333 -81.673611 10-1-4-(3.5)a Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+5.5 3145 6 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)50 50 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)16.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)9.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)46 pH (s.u.)6.0 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)10 Bottom Substrate (15)3 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)4 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)76 Substrate mix of mostly bedrock and boulder with some cobble and gravel Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10548 ---36 ---2.93 Excellent 08/21/03 9262 ---39 ---2.36 Excellent 08/17/98 7733 ---34 ---2.89 Good 07/12/93 6258 ---37 ---2.02 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis EPT taxa collected in 2008 were very similar to past samples here. Abundant taxa included the mayflies Baetis pluto, Epeorus vitreus, Maccaffertium modestum, M. pudicum and Paraleptophlebia. Six stonefly taxa were found at Winkler Creek with Leuctra and Tallaperla being dominant. Caddisflies were well represented with 12 taxa present, but only Ceratopsyche sparna, Cheumatopsyche and Dolophilodes were abundant. The less commonly collected caddisfly, Mystacides nr. alafimbriata, was found to be common here in 2008. Data Analysis The benthic site on Winkler Creek is near the headwaters of South Fork New River, and is located within and near the town limits of Boone. Much of the catchment upstream of the site is forested; only a very minor portion is urban. Winkler Creek rated Excellent in 2008, the same as in 2003 and 1993. The number of EPT taxa collected here has remained stable since the first sampling effort in 1993. The low Biotic Index indicates a pollution-intolerant benthic community residing in this section of Winkler Creek. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.14 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion Amphibolite Mountains Date Station ID 1 Latitude 36.241748 Waterbody HOWARD CR AU Number 10-1-9-(6) County WATAUGA Not Rated05/21/08 Longitude -81.66127 KF6 Site Photograph 0 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No None 3198 Forested/Wetland Residential/School 15 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Green Sunfish, Bluegill, Tonguetied Minnow, Bluehead Chub, Longnose Dace, Appalachia Darter. Losses -- Creek Chub. 05/21/08 06/08/98 0 15.1 Reference Site NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) 7 Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 85 Elevation (ft) Bioclassification Not Rated Not Rated NCIBI -- -- Species Total 17 12 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 6 98-52 16 Sample ID 2008-48 5 20 12 7 9.3 45 6.5 Clear 91 abundant flat rocks, cobble, gravel, boulder.Substrate 7 10 4 4 Drainage Area (mi2) 7.9 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr,HQW SR 1306 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Subbasin Watershed -- a tributary to the North Fork New River located one watershed south of the Meat Camp Creek catchment in northeast Watauga County; drains the primarily forested area just north of Boone.Habitats -- high quality instream habitats consisting of excellent riffles, bedrock chutes, and pools; great canopy coverage offering abundant shade to the stream; very stable banks with a diverse mix of undisturbed vegetation in the riparian zones.2008 -- a highly diverse mix of cold, cool, and warm water species was collected from this mountain stream, including four intolerant taxa (Rock Bass, Tonguetied Minnow, Appalachia Darter, and Rainbow Trout); Central Stonerollers represented 25% of the catch, and the six new species collected were represented by low abundances (maximum of 8 individuals).1998-2008 -- a total of 18 fish species have been collected from this location, including two species of sucker, four species of sunfish (three of which are warm water exotics, suggesting alteration of the original population), six species of minnow, two darter species, and two trout species; overall, this stream appears healthy, and is supporting a rich community of fish through good quality water and habitats. Central Stoneroller. Exotic Species Rock Bass, Redbreast Sunfish, Green Sunfish, Bluegill, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout. Most Abundant Species Species Change Since Last Cycle NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.15 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification HOWARD CR SR 1328 KB18 08/19/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.244444 -81.650000 10-1-9-(6) Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr;HQW 10 3128 6 0.1 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)50 0 50 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)19.6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.3 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)100 pH (s.u.)7.0 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)14 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)7 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)4 Total Habitat Score (100)89 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10552 ---44 ---2.19 Excellent 08/20/03 9254 ---35 ---2.35 Good 08/17/98 7735 ---40 ---2.64 Excellent 07/13/93 6262 102 52 3.85 2.87 Excellent 07/26/88 4633 ---38 ---3.22 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Howard Creek conatains a pollution-intolerant macroinvertebrate community dominated by taxa that one would expect to find in a minimally disturbed small mountain watershed (e.g. Litobrancha recurvata, Neoephemera purpurea). Shredders, such as the stoneflies Tallaperla and Pteronarcys proteus, were abundant in 2008. Data Analysis Howard Creek rated Excellent in 2008, an increase from Good in 2003. As noted in the 2003 report, the Good rating was one EPT taxon away from an Excellent rating. Data from 1988 to 2008 show consistently high water quality with a diverse and pollution intolerant macroinvertebrate community. Residential and commercial development appears to be increasing in this watershed but the sampled reach did not appear to be affected by this as of August 2008. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.16 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) This site was moved about 2.7 miles upstream from the SR 1333 crossing (above Rittle Fork and Cobb Creek) to serve as a regional reference site. Watershed - a tributary to the South Fork New River that drains part of rural northeast Watauga County. Habitats - the 100% riffle habitats are high quality, but there are no functional pools in this 600 foot reach, and the lower 2/3 is completely without a canopy; however, bank stabilities are still good, and the substrates show relatively low levels of embeddedness, which suggests minor amounts of upstream sedimention. 2008 - a fairly diverse mix of cold and cool water species was collected, including three intolerant taxa (Rock Bass, Kanawha Darter, and Rainbow Trout) and almost four times the abundance was observed at this new location (n=1060 vs. 271); Mottled Sculpin (cold water benthic insectivore) represented 84% of the sample.1998-2008 - although separated by a few miles and Not Rated, the fish taxa collected at these two locations reflect similar trophic structures (in spite of the high number of Mottled Sculpin at SR 1335); overall, the fish community suggests good water quality characteristics in this catchment. 05/21/08 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody MEAT CAMP CR AU Number 10-1-10 County Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion Amphibolite MountainsWATAUGA Subbasin 1 Latitude 36.271611 -81.658809 KF24 Reference SiteStream Width (m) Average Depth (m) 7 Not Rated Forested/Wetland 5 (road)15 0.2 Agriculture Other (describe) Yes Urban 0 Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Bluehead Chub, Rainbow Trout.Losses -- White Sucker, Northern Hogsucker, Rosyside Dace. 05/21/08 06/09/98 NPDES Number ------ Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 80 Elevation (ft) Rock Bass, Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout. Bioclassification Not Rated Not Rated NCIBI -- -- None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 0 98-54 16 Sample ID 2008-47 12 6 5 5 13.2 Species Total 10 11 9.8 42 6.5 Clear 5 18 5 3 Mottled Sculpin. Most Abundant Species 75 cobble, gravel, boulder.Substrate Exotic Species 3300 Site Photograph Volume (MGD) Drainage Area (mi2) 10.7 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr SR 1335 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Longitude NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.17 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification MEAT CAMP CR SR 1333 KB20 08/20/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.264444 -81.621944 10-1-10 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+20 3080 10 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)15.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.7 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)57 pH (s.u.)7.0 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)15 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)97 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10554 ---39 ---2.80 Excellent 08/20/03 9255 ---35 ---2.81 Good 08/17/98 7736 ---39 ---2.69 Excellent 07/13/93 6263 ---31 ---2.52 Good 03/05/90 5205 ---37 ---2.60 Good Taxonomic Analysis In 2008 Meat Camp Creek contained 39 EPT taxa, equaling the largest number of taxa collected from this stream. Many of the species collected in 2003 and previous samples were found in 2008. Most of these taxa are sensitive to aquatic pollution. Several taxa appeared for the first time here in 2008. These included the caddisflies Neophylax consimilis (abundant in the sample), Goera fuscula (common), Ceratopsyche morosa, and Neureclipsis (both rare in the sample). The pollution-sensitive mayfly Stenacron pallidum (common) and Tricorythodes (rare) also appeared at this site for the first time in 2008. Data Analysis Meat Camp Creek rated Excellent in 2008. The Good rating received in 2003 was only one EPT short of an Excellent bioclassification. The number of EPT collected here during the five collections since 1990 suggest a stable, pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrate community at the site. Riparian habitat along this reach shows little disturbance and a variety of in-stream microhabitats exist for macroinvertebrate colonization despite a large percentage of bedrock. Water temperatures in Meat Camp Creek were the lowest recorded for all sites in this part of the HUC in 2008. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.18 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification NORRIS FK SR 1337 KB21 08/19/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.280000 -81.676667 10-1-10-2 Amphibolite Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+3.3 3320 3 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 50 50 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)17.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.4 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)36 pH (s.u.)6.9 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)3 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)15 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)4 Right Bank Stability (7)4 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)3 Total Habitat Score (100)78 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/19/08 10553 ---35 ---2.11 Good 08/20/03 9256 ---36 ---1.56 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Taxa collected in 2003 that were not found in 2008 included the caddisflies Fattigia pele, Parapsyche cardis, Brachycentrus spinae and Apatania. New caddisflies for this site in 2008 included Ceratopsyche bronta, Pycnopsyche gentilis and a second (unidentified) species of Pycnopcyshe, Polycentropus and Lype diversa. The stoneflies Suwallia and Isoperla nr holochlora were present in 2003 though absent in 2008, while Paragnetina immarginata was absent in 2003 and present in 2008. These taxa differences resulted in a slightly higher EPT Biotic Index in 2008 compared with 2003. However, overall this site contains a pollution-intolerant macroinvertebrate community. Data Analysis Norris Fork at SR 1337 received a classification of Good in 2008, though the addition of a single EPT taxon would have pushed the classification up to Excellent. The difference in the number of EPT taxa between 2003 and 2008 is very small, but the difference in EPT Biotic Index values is relatively large. Many of the rare but highly intolerant taxa collected in 2003 were absent in 2008. Some recent development has occurred upstream of the site. Higher silt levels were seen in 2008 corresponding to ongoing land clearing activities here. A large number of lots were for sale at the time of sampling suggesting that development would continue in the watershed. Despite this, the EPT Biotic Index in Norris Fork was the second lowest in this part the HUC (formerly subbasin 1). NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.19 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification PINE ORCHARD CR SR 1369 KB22 08/20/08 Not Impaired County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion WATAUGA 1 05050001 36.313333 -81.617222 10-1-15-1 Amphibolite Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+2.6 3080 4 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)50 50 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)16.1 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.5 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)46 pH (s.u.)6.5 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)14 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)5 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)4 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)83 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, and gravel with a large amount of silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10555 ---36 ---2.09 Not Impaired 08/21/03 9260 ---33 ---1.64 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Small differences exist with the taxa collected at the site between 2003 and 2008, but overall the benthic community here remains diverse and pollution-sensitive.Neophylax consimils, a pollution-intolerant case-making caddisfly, was abundant in 2003 and absent in 2008. However, two other taxa,N. mitchelli and N. oligius, were common in 2008. Abundant taxa collected in 2008 included these pollution-sensitive taxa: the mayfly, Drunella conestee; the stonefly Malirekus hastatus ; and the caddisfly Dolophilodes. Data Analysis Pine Orchard Creek had the lowest EPT Biotic Index of any stream in this part of the HUC (formerly subbasin 1) indicating a very pollution-intolerant benthic community here. The classification for the site in 2003 was derived using High Quality Small Mountain Stream (HQSMS) criteria, which are used for stream sites with undisturbed drainage areas under 3.5 square miles. Recent aerial photos and streamside observations show the presence of disturbance from residences, agriculture, and state roads and highways in the watershed, therefore HQSMS criteria can not be applied to the site for 2008. Additionally, since no criteria have been completed for stream sites with drainage areas under 3.0 square miles with disturbance present, this site is given a classification of Not Impaired for 2008 (it would have been classified as Good with large-stream criteria). One notable difference in habitat at the site was an increase in silt from 2003 to 2008 (40% in 2008 versus 0% in 2003 by visual estimation). NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.20 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification PINE SWAMP CR OFF SR 1179 AT MOUTH KB108 08/18/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.312500 -81.464444 10-1-24 Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C:+11 2820 8 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 100 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)21.2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.1 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)30 pH (s.u.)6.4 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)11 Bottom Substrate (15)10 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)10 Left Bank Stability (7)2 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)3 Total Habitat Score (100)66 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/18/08 10546 ---34 ---3.82 Good 08/19/03 9253 ---30 ---3.14 Good Taxonomic Analysis Macroinvertebrates collected in Pine Swamp Creek differed slightly between 2003 and 2008, with four more EPT taxa collected in the latter year. Taxa abundant in the sample were similar between 2003 and 2008, but rare and common taxa varied. New taxa that appeared in 2008 included the caddisflies Ceratopsyche bronta, C. morosa and the mayfly Ephoron leukon. The stonefly Isoperla, common in 2003, was not collected in 2008. The macroinvertebrate community residing in Pine Swamp Creek in 2008 appears to be slightly more pollution-tolerant than in 2003. Data Analysis Pine Swamp Creek at SR 1179 rated Good in 2008 despite the lack of a healthy riparian zone upstream. Active cow pastures and tree farms constitute a sizeable portion of the visible watershed upstream of the sampling reach. A large amount of silt was visible in this stream (30% of the substrate by visual estimation). Though more EPT taxa were found in 2008 than 2003, the Biotic Index for these macroinvertebrates was higher, suggesting a response to either chemical or physical stressors at the site. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.21 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification S BEAVER CR SR 1147 KB5 08/18/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.354167 -81.468056 10-1-25-2a New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C;Tr:+3.0 3020 3 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)------------ Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)16.3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.5 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)48 pH (s.u.)6.8 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)14 Left Bank Stability (7)7 Right Bank Stability (7)2 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)0 Total Habitat Score (100)75 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/18/08 10411 ---35 ---2.83 Good 08/21/03 9264 ---31 ---2.68 Good Taxonomic Analysis The taxa collected in 2008 from South Beaver Creek were very similar to those collected in 2003. The list of abundant taxa in both years were nearly identical. Addional taxa seen in 2008 were mostly rare in abundance with a few exceptions, such as the mayflies Stenacron pallidum, Maccertium modestum and Leucrocuta (all common in the sample). Generally, the macroinvertebrate community residing in this reach is pollution-sensitive and diverse. Data Analysis South Beaver Creek rated Good in 2008, the same rating as in 2003. One additional EPT taxon would have resulted in an Excellent bioclassification. Based on only two samples, the macroinvertebrate community at this site appears stable, diverse and pollution-sensitive. Drought conditions in 2008 resulted in most of the root mats being exposed. Typically, this type of habitat is heavily colonized by aquatic macroinvertebrates. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.22 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification OBIDS CR SR 1192 KB6 08/08/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.345278 -81.404444 10-1-27-(2)New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-IV;Tr:+8.7 2700 5 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)50 0 50 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)18.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)38 pH (s.u.)6.3 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)17 Bottom Substrate (15)11 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)2 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)1 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)71 Substrate mostly cobble with some boulder and gravel Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/08/08 10410 ---31 ---3.28 Good 08/19/03 9252 ---32 ---3.16 Good Taxonomic Analysis The EPT taxa collected from Obids Creek in 2008 are very similar to those from the 2003 collection. An exception to this was the baetid mayfly Baetis tricaudatus , which was abundant in 2003 and absent in 2008. Despite this, all six other taxa from the mayfly family Baetidae were found here in 2008. Other "missing" taxa in 2008 were the heptageniid mayflies Maccaffertium pudicum and M. ithaca , which were common and abundant respectively. One rare taxon, Mystacides nr alafimbriata, was found in 2008. Only 17 records of this species exist in the BAU database going back to 1985. Four of these records, however, are in the New River drainage. Overall, 31 EPT taxa were found in 2008, one fewer than the number in the 2003 collection. Data Analysis Obids Creek rated Good in 2008, the same rating as in 2003. The taxa collected in both years are generally intolerant to aquatic pollution. A slight increase in the EPT Biotic Index reflects the few taxonomic differences and abundances between 2003 and 2008. The open canopy here has resulted in a higher water temperature than other nearby sampled streams of similar size. Additionally, cattle appear to have direct access to the stream which could be limiting in-stream habitat quality. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.23 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) 05/09/08 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody OBIDS CR AU Number 10-1-27-(2) County ASHE Subbasin 1 Latitude 36.345566 Good Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau Longitude -81.4042353 KF13 Site Photograph Reference Site --- Stream Width (m) Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Forested/Wetland 025 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No6 75 2710 This is the first fish community sample collected at this site.Watershed -- drains southeastern Ashe County; no municipalities within the watershed; tributary to South Fork New River, site is ~ 600 ft. upstream from the creek's confluence with the river.Habitat -- high gradient riffles and plunge pools; Rhododendron- and Eastern Hemlock-lined banks; grasses and pastures in the riparian zones; unstable left bank; livestock with access to the stream. 2008 -- diversity of cyprinids and intolerant species were slightly lower than expected; proximity to the river enables the site to serve as a nursery area for Age 1 Rock Bass (n=124 collected) and Smallmouth Bass (n=26 collected); and two endemic species (Kanawha Darter and Appalachia Darter) were collected. Urban 0 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 05/09/08 NPDES Number None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 9 16 15.5 Species Total 17 9.3 37 6.4 Clear 5 19 13 2 2008-37 Most Abundant Species 7 7 1 5 84 Cobble, boulder, gravel, and siltSubstrate Exotic Species Warpaint Shiner, Brown Trout, Rock Bass, Redbreast Sunfish, and Smallmouth Bass Bioclassification Good NCIBI 50 Mottled Sculpin and Central Stoneroller Sample ID Drainage Area (mi2) 8.3 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification WS-IV; Tr:+ SR 1192 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Elevation (ft) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.24 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification ROAN CR SR 1588 KB7 08/20/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.408056 -81.401944 10-1-31-(2)New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) WS-IV; Tr; CA:+7.0 2660 7 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 100 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)21.9 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.5 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)41 pH (s.u.)6.9 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)3 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)8 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)5 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)76 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10558 ---32 ---3.18 Good 08/18/03 9245 ---44 ---3.03 Excellent 08/18/98 7741 ---39 ---2.61 Excellent 07/14/93 6271 ---39 ---3.02 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Most taxonomic differences between 2003 and 2008 pertained to rare taxa. Exceptions to this were: the stone-cased caddisfly Glossosoma, which was abundant in 2003 but absent in 2008; the stoneflies Isoperla and Malirekus hastatus and the caddisfly Rhyacophila fuscula, which were all common in 2003 though absent in 2008. The caddisfly Triaenodes ignitus appeared here in 2008 (and was common in the sample) but had not been found in previous collections. Data Analysis Roan Creek declined from Excellent in the first three samples collected here from 1993 through 2003, to Good in 2008. Four additional EPT taxa would be required for the site to attain a classification of Excellent in 2008. The EPT Biotic Index suggests a slightly more pollution-tolerant macroinvertebrate community than in past years. Overall however, the species residing in this reach contribute to a pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrate community. Noticeable amounts of silt in 2008, (30% by visual estimation compared to 0% in 2003) may have reduced the number of EPT taxa residing here by filling benthic interstitial habitat. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.25 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) New basinwide site.Watershed -- a tributary to the South Fork New River that drains the southeastern central edge of Ashe County, located southeast of Jefferson.Habitats -- good riffles and runs, with one good pool that was holding trout; moderately embedded substrates, but cattle are fenced out of the stream, allowing generally healthy banks; narrow vegetated riparian widths on both sides of the stream and a canopy that provides equal amounts of sun and shade.2008 -- a very abundant (n=1273), fairly diverse, and trophically balanced community of mostly cool and cold water fish species was collected, including four intolerant taxa (Rock Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Kanawha Darter, and Appalachia Darter); Mottled Sculpin represented 53% of the sample; in light of the agricultural land use in the watershed and lasting drought conditions, this stream appears fairly healthy as indicated by its instream habitats, water parameters, and its abundance of fish. 05/19/08 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody ROAN CR AU Number 10-1-31-(2) County ASHE Subbasin 1 Latitude 36.407949 Good Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau Longitude -81.401772 KF20 Site Photograph Volume (MGD) Reference SiteStream Width (m) Average Depth (m)Elevation (ft) None 0.3 Agriculture Other (describe) No5 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 30 Forested/Wetland 055 Rural Residential 15 NCIBI 48 Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 05/19/08 NPDES Number ------ 8 16 Sample ID 8 5 5 7 2 2 12.5 Species Total 14 10.4 38 6.1 Clear 5 19 Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Mottled Sculpin Most Abundant Species 77 gravel, cobble, sand, boulder.Substrate Exotic Species 2008-41 Rock Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Brown Trout. Bioclassification Good 2694 Drainage Area (mi2) 6.7 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification WS-IV, Tr, CA+ SR 1588 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.26 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification NAKED CR NC 16/88 KB8 08/20/08 Good County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.408889 -81.433333 10-1-32b New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) C:+7.1 2750 5 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 100 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)24.4 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.3 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)122 pH (s.u.)8.4 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)15 Bottom Substrate (15)8 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)5 Right Bank Stability (7)3 Light Penetration (10)2 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)63 Substrate a mix of boulder, cobble, gravel sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/20/08 10557 ---34 ---4.37 Good 08/19/03 9250 70 30 4.92 4.11 Good-Fair 08/18/98 7739 71 32 5.16 4.18 Good-Fair 07/14/93 6269 84 36 4.65 3.77 Good Taxonomic Analysis Naked Creek at NC 16-88 contains a typical benthic fauna for this part of the New River Basin. Abundant taxa collected in 2008 (and in most previous years) included the mayflies Acentrella, Baetis flavistriga, Maccaffertium ithaca, and M. modestum. Abundant caddisflies were Ceratopsyche sparna, Cheumatopsyche, Hydropsyche betteni and Leucotrichia pictipes . A few more EPT taxa were collected in 2008 than in recent samples. New taxa to this location in 2008 were the caddisflies Neureclipsis, Oligostomis, Hydatophylax argus and the stonefly Pteronarcys proteus. Data Analysis The few additional EPT taxa found in 2008 elevated this sample from Good-Fair to Good. Though this stream reach is entirely within an agricultural area (corn production), the headwaters of some small tributaries to this stream originate in Mount Jefferson State Park. A forested riparian buffer along this section of stream could aid in maintaining the Good bioclassification or possibly improving it. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.27 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C)20.8 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.6 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)140 pH (s.u.)6.9 Channel Modification (5)4 Instream Habitat (20)16 Bottom Substrate (15)8 Pool Variety (10)8 Riffle Habitat (16)15 Left Bank Stability (7)5 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)2 Total Habitat Score (100)73 Taxonomic Analysis A greater number of taxa were collected here in 2008 compared with the former basinwide site in 2003. Coleoptera (beetles) and Gastropoda (snails) were the most notable groups that reflected greater diversity in 2008, with increases of five and four taxa respectively. Overall, most taxa collected in 2003 at the former basinwide site were also found in 2008 at the new site. Compared with the upstream basinwide site on Naked Creek (at NC 16-88, which received a classification of Good), there were nine fewer EPT taxa. All abundant taxa collected upstream were found here. However, five taxa that were common in the upstream sample were absent at this site off SR 1589: the caddisflies Neophylax consimilis, N. oligus, and Glossosoma; and the mayflies Epeorus vitreus and Maccaffertium pudicum . The beetle Cymbiodyta (Hydrophilidae) was collected here in 2008; this is the first BAU record of the taxon in the New River drainage. This uncommon beetle has only been collected in 25 BAU samples since 1985. Data Analysis This site replaces the former basinwide site at SR 1585, which is about one stream-mile upstream. The former site is within a recently established gated community. Naked Creek off SR 1589 rated Good-Fair in 2008, the same rating received at the former basinwide site at SR 1585 in 2003. The upstream basinwide site on Naked Creek at NC 16-88 rated Good in 2008. A golf course and the outfalls from two minor dischargers (Town of Jefferson WTP, permit NC0083470; Town of Jefferson WWTP, permit NC0021709) are situated between the upstream and downstream basinwide sites, and appear to have an effect on water quality at the downstream site. According to the 2004 Basinwide Assessment Report, upgrades to the WWTP were ongoing at the time of sampling. The specific conductance measured 140 μmhos/cm in 2008, higher than in 2004 at SR 1585 (102 μmhos/cm). Also, habitat issues remain a problem here with large amounts of silt covering benthic surface and ongoing water withdrawals for lawn and golf course irrigation. At the time of the 2008 sampling event new homes were being constructed on the left side of the stream. 5.44 4.43 Good-Fair08/21/08 10559 79 23 mix of boulder, cobble, gravel sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Substrate none ------ Site Photograph 50 (golf course) Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) Visible Landuse (%)0 0 50 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Stream Depth (m) C:+13 2650 7 0.2 Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m) Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.412902 -81.406828 10-1-32b New River Plateau County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Date Bioclassification NAKED CR OFF SR 1589 140 METERS UPSTREAM OF MOUTH KB139 08/21/08 Good-Fair BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.28 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) Waterbody NAKED CR AU Number 10-1-32b County ASHE Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau1 Species Change Since Last Cycle 05/09/08 Site Photograph Reference Site NPDES Number NC0021709 Stream Width (m) Average Depth (m) Date Station ID -81.4070488 KF14 Longitude 0.6 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 40 Elevation (ft)Drainage Area (mi2) 12.4 Fair Forested/Wetland 030 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No82670 1998 site was ~2.2 miles upstream at NC 16/88.Watershed -- drains south-central Ashe County, including the Town of Jefferson; golf course residential community is within the immediate watershed; WWTP discharge is ~ 2 miles upstream; tributary to the South Fork New River; site is ~ 700 ft. upstream from the creek's confluencewith the river.Habitat -- lowest total habitat scores of any fish site in the basin in 2008; runs, riffles, slick periphyton; eroded vertical banks; open canopy within the golf course.2008 -- diversities of darters, cyprinids, and intolerant species were lower than expected; the percentage of tolerant fish (primarily White Sucker and Redbreast Sunfish) was elevated for a mountain stream; high percentage of Omnivores+Herbivores; proximity to the river enables the site to serve as a nursery area for Age 1 Rock Bass (n=250) and a source of temporary migrants (Spotfin Shiner, Warpaint Shiner, Spottail Shiner, Kanawha Rosyface Shiner, and Greenside Darter); and the most nonindigenous species and the second greatest conductivity at any fish site in the basin in 2008.1998 & 2008 -- 23 species known from the stream, including 2 endemic and 9 nonindigenous species. Suburban 30 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date Gains -- Spotfin Shiner, Warpaint Shiner, Spottal Shiner, Kanawha Rosyface Shiner, Brown Bullhead, Brown Trout, Redbreast Sunfish, Pumpkinseed Sunfish, Smallmouth Bass, Largemouth Bass, and Greenside Darter. Losses -- Blacknose Dace, Creek Chub, and Bluegill. 05/09/08 06/09/98 Warpaint Shiner, Brown Bullhead, Brown Trout, Rock Bass, Redbreast Sunfish, Pumpkinseed Sunfish, Smallmouth Bass, and Largemouth Bass Bioclassification Fair Fair NCIBI 36 34 3 Town of Jefferson WWTP Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 4 7 15.6 5 15 6 3 8.1 104 6.2 Turbid Most Abundant Species 50 Cobble, boulder, gravel, and siltSubstrate Exotic Species 1298-55 Sample ID 2008-36 Species Total 5 1 1 Central Stoneroller 20 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;+ off SR 1589 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Subbasin Latitude 36.413027 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.29 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification PEAK CR OFF SR 1599 350 METERS UPSTREAM OF ORE KNOB BR KB11 06/19/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.420833 -81.319444 10-1-35-(2)a New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) B;Tr:+9.0 2700 6 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)75 25 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)18.0 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.3 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)38 pH (s.u.)6.3 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)20 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)7 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)2 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)93 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel and sand Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 06/19/08 10473 ---44 ---2.32 Excellent 08/18/03 9248 ---31 ---2.53 Good 08/19/98 7746 ---35 ---2.77 Good 04/08/96 7032 74 37*4.01*2.47 Excellent 07/15/93 6275 ---35 ---2.61 Good * values corrected for seasonality Taxonomic Analysis A diverse and pollution-sensitive aquatic community resides in this section of Peak Creek (above the confluence of Peak Creek and Ore Knob Branch). In 2008, the number of EPT taxa was higher than in recent collections here (an April 1991 Full Scale sample yielded 50 EPT). Generally, the aquatic macroinvertebrate community was similar to past samples with abundant, pollution-sensitive taxa such as: the mayflies Drunella cornutella, Paraleptophlebia, Stenacron pallidum, and Heptagenia; and the caddisflies Glossosoma, Ceratopsyche slossonae, Dolophilodes, and Neophylax oligius. In 2008 an extremely rare caddisfly, Hydropsyche carolina, was found in Peak Creek. Only one other record exists for this taxon in the North Carolina BAU database going back to 1983. Data Analysis This section of Peak Creek rated Excellent in 2008. The second highest EPT totals and the lowest EPT Biotic Index summarize the 2008 sample here and highlight the high water quality conditions in this stream. An undisturbed riparian zone, diverse in-stream benthic surfaces and a mostly forested watershed have resulted in favorable conditions for macroinvertebrate colonization in this stream (as indicated by the high habitat score received). The location name for this site was formerly "SR 1599." NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.30 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification PEAK CR SR 1599 DOWNSTREAM OF ORE KNOB BRANCH KB13 08/21/08 Poor County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.425000 -81.325000 10-1-35-(2)b New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) B;Tr:+11 2680 8 0.3 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)75 25 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)19.3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.7 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)170 pH (s.u.)3.1 Water Clarity slightly turbid Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)16 Bottom Substrate (15)3 Pool Variety (10)10 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)82 Substrate mix of bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/21/08 10561 ---3 ---2.62 Poor 08/18/03 9247 ---6 ---1.91 Poor 01/13/99 7798 ---5*---1.60 Poor 08/19/98 7747 ---23 ---3.10 Good-Fair 04/08/96 7026 30 14*4.18*2.10 Fair * values corrected for seasonality Taxonomic Analysis In 2008 only three EPT taxa were collected: Pycnopsyche gentilis (one specimen), a second unidentified species of Pycnopsyche (three specimens), and Hydropsyche venularis (one specimen). Precipitate from acid mine drainage covered the caddisflies and/or their cases. It is quite apparent that the benthic community is very highly stressed at the site. Data Analysis This reach of Peak Creek, below the confluence of Ore Knob Branch, received the same classification of Poor in 2008 as in 2003. It appears that in both wet and dry years the highly stressed macroinvertebrate community here borders on extirpation. As seen in the photo, an orange precipitate covered all instream surfaces. The 2004 Basinwide Assessment Report stated that proposed mitigation efforts were planned (in 2004). Unfortunately that work was not initiated, though site stabilization efrorts continue at the mine site itself. Approximately one mile upstream of this site is station KB 11, which earned a classification of Excellent in 2008. Despite the diverse aquatic community residing just upstream, this reach continues to suffer from the acid mine drainage received from Ore Knob Branch. The location name for this site was formerly "BIG PEAK CR RD." NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.31 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification L PEAK CR SR 1595 KB14 08/21/08 Poor County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.427778 -81.344444 10-1-35-4 New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) B;Tr:+2.3 2615 3 0.1 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)17.8 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.7 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)76 pH (s.u.)5.9 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)3 Instream Habitat (20)18 Bottom Substrate (15)12 Pool Variety (10)5 Riffle Habitat (16)16 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)10 Left Riparian Score (5)5 Right Riparian Score (5)5 Total Habitat Score (100)86 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/21/08 10560 ---7 ---2.12 Poor 08/19/03 9249 ---6 ---1.95 Poor 08/19/98 7744 ---7 ---2.02 Poor 04/08/96 7030 16 6*3.58*1.77 Poor 04/16/91 5551 ---5 ---2.01 Poor *values corrected for seasonality Taxonomic Analysis Only seven EPT taxa were found in Little Peak Creek in 2008. Abundant taxa collected here were similar to previous samples (Leuctra, Tallaperla, and Diplectrona modesta). Three larger-bodied case caddisflies were present (all common in the sample): Hydatophylax, Pycnopsyche gentilis, and a second unidentifed species of Pycnopsyche. Acid mine drainage from Ore Knob continues to suppress macroinvertebrate diversity and densities here. Data Analysis Little Peak Creek rated Poor in 2008, the same rating that it has always received. Acid mine drainage creates a toxic situation for aquatic macroinvertebrates here. By current BAU protocols this site would not be assigned a classification due to the small drainage area. However, due to the depauperate benthic community, in the judgment of BAU biologists the site is among the worst in the state and the classification is justified. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.32 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE Waterbody Location Station ID Date Bioclassification CRANBERRY CR SR 1603 KB15 08/21/08 Excellent County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion ASHE 1 05050001 36.456389 -81.315000 10-1-37 New River Plateau Stream Classification Drainage Area (mi2) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m)Stream Depth (m) B;Tr:+35 2585 13 0.2 Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe) Visible Landuse (%)100 0 0 0 Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)NPDES Number Volume (MGD) none ------ Water Quality Parameters Site Photograph Temperature (°C)22.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7.9 Specific Conductance (µS/cm)41 pH (s.u.)6.9 Water Clarity clear Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5)5 Instream Habitat (20)13 Bottom Substrate (15)11 Pool Variety (10)6 Riffle Habitat (16)15 Left Bank Stability (7)6 Right Bank Stability (7)6 Light Penetration (10)7 Left Riparian Score (5)3 Right Riparian Score (5)3 Total Habitat Score (100)75 Substrate mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and silt Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification 08/21/08 10562 93 45 3.96 3.07 Excellent 08/18/03 9246 106 52 4.08 3.07 Excellent 08/19/98 7748 79 42 3.78 3.11 Excellent Taxonomic Analysis Cranberry Creek contained a large number of aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa in 2008. The species composition was similar to the 1998 and 2003 collections. Abundant taxa at this site in 2008 included: Dolophilodes, Neophylax oligius, Paraleptophlebia, and Neoephemera purpurea. Data Analysis Cranberry Creek rated Excellent in 2008. Total taxa and EPT taxa numbers were similar among all three samples collected here. The Biotic Index indicates a pollution-sensitive community residing in this lower section of Cranberry Creek. This watershed contains a large number of tree farms with some mixed agriculture and residences. NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.33 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;+ SR 1600 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Longitude 1 Latitude Most Abundant Species 53 Cobble, gravel, sand, and bouldersSubstrate Exotic Species Warpaint Shiner, Redlip Shiner, Tennessee Shiner, Saffron Shiner, Rock Bass, and Smallmouth Bass Bioclassification Good Excellent NCIBI 98-59 Sample ID 2008-33 Species Total 22 2 9.1 39 5.7 Clear 14 15.4 4 16 8 14 56 60 Watershed -- drains eastern Ashe County; no municipalities within the watershed; tributary to South Fork New River, site is ~ 1 mile upstream of the creek's confluence with the river.Habitat -- straight channel, stream widening is occurring; 100% open canopy; very narrow riparian zones; unstable banks with high erosion potential; and shallow pools; a popular fishing site.2008 -- more total species, species of cyprinids (15), and intolerant species (9) were collected at this site than at any other site, except for at the South Fork New River (also 22 species).1998 & 2008 -- twice as many fish collected in 2008 than in 1998; a very diverse fish community is present, 26 species known from the site, including 16 species of cyprinids, 4 species of darters, 6 endemic species (Tonguetied Minnow, New River Shiner, Kanawha Rosyface Shiner, Kanawha Minnow, Kanawha Darter, and Appalachia Darter), and 7 nonindigenous species; and species present in 1998, but absent in 2008 were represented by 1-5 fish/species. Rural Residential 55 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Drainage Area (mi2) 36.8 025 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No Waterbody CRANBERRY CR 20 Elevation (ft) Subbasin Forested/Wetland County ASHE 36.46944444 2560 Species Change Since Last Cycle 05/08/08 06/30/98 3 Gains -- Tonguetied Minnow, Warpaint Shiner, Tennessee Shiner, Saffron Shiner, Kanawha Rosyface Shiner, and Creek Chub.Losses -- Western Blacknose Dace, White Sucker, Brown Trout, and Greenside Darter. 0 1 1 Mottled Sculpin and Bluehead Chub 20 Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau AU Number 10-1-37 05/08/08 Date Station ID -81.32694444 KF2 Good None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 4 Site Photograph Reference Site NPDES Number --- Stream Width (m) Average Depth (m) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.34 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) Drainage Area (mi2) 13.7 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification B;Tr off SR 1302 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Elevation (ft) Cobble and boulderSubstrate Exotic Species Warpaint Shiner, Redlip Shiner, Tennessee Shiner, Saffron Shiner, Brown Trout, Rock Bass, and Smallmouth Bass Bioclassification Good-Fair NCIBI 46 Central Stoneroller Sample ID 2008-32 Most Abundant Species 4 4 2 2 75 Species Total 19 8.7 42 7.2 Clear 5 18 14 4 None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 6 16 17.2 This is the first fish community sample collected at this site.Watershed -- drains western Alleghany County; no municipalities within the watershed; much of watershed is with livestock pasture, no riparian zones, and an open canopy; tributary to South Fork New River, site is ~ 750 ft. upstream from the creek's confluence with the river.Habitat -- high gradient stream, primarily riffles, runs, and some plunge pools; fairly open canopy; narrow riparian zones.2008 -- Central Stoneroller accounted for 57% of all the fish collected; high percentage of Omnivores+Herbivores, indicative of nonpoint source nutrients and an open canopy; and two endemic species (Kanawha Rosyface Shiner and Kanawha Darter) were present. Rural Residential 10 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 05/07/08 NPDES Number Forested/Wetland 040 0.4 Agriculture Other (describe) No7 50 2520 Longitude -81.3205856 KF15 Site Photograph Reference Site --- Stream Width (m) Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Good-Fair Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau Subbasin 1 Latitude 36.4967511 05/07/08 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody PRATHERS CR AU Number 10-1-38 County ALLEGHANY NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.35 Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) Drainage Area (mi2) 10.6 FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE Stream Classification C;Tr:+ SR 1549 Location 8 digit HUC 05050001 Elevation (ft) Cobble, boulder, and silts on the rocksSubstrate Exotic Species Redlip Shiner, Saffron Shiner, Brown Trout, Rock Bass, Green Sunfish, and Smallmouth Bass Bioclassification Good-Fair NCIBI 40 Bluehead Chub and Central Stoneroller Sample ID 2008-35 Most Abundant Species 7 9 5 5 95 Species Total 18 8.5 84 7.7 Very slightly turbid (easily silted) 5 19 14 7 None Habitat Assessment Scores (max) 8 16 18.0 This is the first fish community sample collected at this site.Watershed -- drains southern Grayson County, VA and northeast corner of Ashe County; no municipalities within the watershed; tributary to the New River, site is ~ 50 ft. from the creek's confluence with the river.Habitat -- greatest habitat score of any fish community site in the basin in 2008, although much of the watershed is without canopy cover in pasture with cattle; high gradient boulder plunge pools; site is atypical.2008 -- 82% of all the fish collected were Bluehead Chub, Central Stoneroller, and Mountain Redbelly Dace; very high percentage of Omnivores+Herbivores were collected, indicative of nonpoint sources of nutrients and open canopy upstream of the reach; proximity to the river enables the site to serve as a nursery area for Age 1 Rock Bass and Smallmouth Bass; one endemic species (Appalachia Darter) was collected; and the greatest pH of any fish community site in the basin in 2008 due to photosynthetic activity by the upstream periphyton. Urban 0 Volume (MGD) Data Analysis Visible Landuse (%) Sample Date N/A 05/08/08 NPDES Number Forested/Wetland 10 (South Fork New River)0 0.3 Agriculture Other (describe) No8 90 2480 Longitude -81.355517 KF16 Site Photograph Reference Site --- Stream Width (m) Average Depth (m) --- Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) Good-Fair Bioclassification Level IV Ecoregion New River Plateau Subbasin 1 Latitude 36.5522927 05/08/08 Date Station ID Species Change Since Last Cycle Waterbody GRASSY CR AU Number 10-3 County ASHE NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-B.36 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-C.1 aPPeNdix 2-C aMBIENt MoNItorINg SyStEMS StatIoN Data ShEEtS StatIoN ID WatErBoDy au#LocatIoN IMPaIrED (By ParaMEtEr) IMPactED (By ParaMEtEr) K2100000 South Fork New R.10-1-(3.5)US 221/421 at Perkinsville Fecal Coliform (10.9%)--- K3250000 South Fork New R.10-1-(26)NC 16/88 near Jefferson ---Fecal Coliform (7.1%) K4500000 South Fork New R.10-1-(33.5)US 221 near Scottville Copper (11.1%) Iron (22.2%) Zinc (11.1%) --- NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-C.2 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:K2100000 Location:S FORK NEW RIV AT US 221 AND 421 AT PERKINSVILLE Stream class:C + NC stream index:10-1-(3.5) Hydrologic Unit Code:05050001 Latitude:36.22088 Longitude:-81.63978 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 7.6 8.2 8.5 9.8 11.8 13 13.757000 <5 7.6 8.2 8.5 9.8 11.8 13 13.757000 pH (SU)<6 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 7.9 8.457000 >9 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 7.9 8.457000 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 86 101 118 156 179 219 31057 0 Water Temperature (°C)>29 1.8 3.5 6.9 14 19.1 20.8 25.757000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 3 5.5 6.2 24.8 6818 10 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1 1.5 2.3 4.5 9.9 15057243.5 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.0857 38 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.24 0.98 1.3 1.7 2.15 3 3.957 0 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.38 0.8957 15 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.26 0.4857 0 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 50 50 60 83 114 206 21010 2 Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5100100 Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 1.8 2 2 2 2100100 Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 21 25 25 25 25100100 Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 2 3 310070 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 190 191 230 265 325 487 50010000 Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 10100100 Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28080 Nickel, total (Ni)>88 10 10 10 10 10 10 10100100 Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 11 16 21 2110040 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results: Geomean: # > 400: % > 400: %Conf: 55 89.1 6 10.9 01/27/2005Time period:12/16/2009to Key: # result: number of observations # ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect) EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence %Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-C.3 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:K3250000 Location:S FORK NEW RIV AT NC 16 AND 88 NR JEFFERSON Stream class:WS-IV HQW NC stream index:10-1-(26) Hydrologic Unit Code:05050001 Latitude:36.39473 Longitude:-81.40750 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 7.6 8.3 8.5 9.8 11.5 13.1 14.658000 <5 7.6 8.3 8.5 9.8 11.5 13.1 14.658000 pH (SU)<6 6.7 7.1 7.4 7.7 8.1 8.6 9.458000 >9 6.7 7.1 7.4 7.7 8.1 8.6 9.458203.4 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 45 61 68 73 80 100 65658 0 Water Temperature (°C)>29 2.3 4.7 8.2 15.4 21.9 24.4 27.158000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 3.9 6.2 6.6 68.4 57618 9 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1.2 1.7 2.8 5.2 22 38058325.2 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.1258 40 NO2 + NO3 as N >10 0.15 0.38 0.51 0.6 0.77 0.85 158000 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.26 0.37 2.556 25 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 3.858 11 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 110 110 120 150 200 310 3109 0 Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 59090 Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 2 2 2 2 29090 Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 25 25 25 25 259090 Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 2 2 29080 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 200 200 220 280 380 480 4809000 Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 109090 Manganese, total (Mn)>200 14 14 16 18 22 29 298000 Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28080 Nickel, total (Ni)>25 10 10 10 10 10 10 109090 Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 10 10 109080 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results: Geomean: # > 400: % > 400: %Conf: 56 21.8 4 7.1 02/01/2005Time period:12/17/2009to Key: # result: number of observations # ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect) EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence %Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-C.4 Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report Station #:K4500000 Location:S FORK NEW RIV AT US 221 NR SCOTTVILLE Stream class:B ORW NC stream index:10-1-(33.5) Hydrologic Unit Code:05050001 Latitude:36.47378 Longitude:-81.33649 Agency:NCAMBNT PercentilesResults not meeting EL# results Min 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Max # ND EL # %%Conf Field D.O. (mg/L)<4 5.6 7.9 8.5 9.5 11.4 13.4 14.658000 <5 5.6 7.9 8.5 9.5 11.4 13.4 14.658000 pH (SU)<6 6.6 7 7.4 7.7 8 8.4 958000 >9 6.6 7 7.4 7.7 8 8.4 958000 Spec. conductance (umhos/cm at 25°C)N/A 35 56 68 72 78 83 14857 0 Water Temperature (°C)>29 1.1 4 8 15.4 22.6 25.6 2758000 Other TSS (mg/L)N/A 2.5 2.5 6.2 6.2 14 48 35419 10 Turbidity (NTU)>50 1 1.2 1.7 3.1 6.6 27.4 26058436.9 Nutrients (mg/L) NH3 as N N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.157 42 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.08 0.33 0.45 0.62 0.74 0.86 0.9557 0 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.26 0.4 356 26 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.857 10 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 64 64 92 200 1765 17000 170009 0 Arsenic, total (As)>10 5 5 5 5 5 5 59090 Cadmium, total (Cd)>2 1 1 2 2 2 2 29090 Chromium, total (Cr)>50 10 10 25 25 25 25 259090 Copper, total (Cu)>7 2 2 2 2 3 24 2491611.1 Iron, total (Fe)>1000 280 280 335 470 1925 20000 2000092022.2 Lead, total (Pb)>25 10 10 10 10 10 15 159080 Mercury, total (Hg)>0.012 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28080 Nickel, total (Ni)>88 10 10 10 10 10 12 129080 Zinc, total (Zn)>50 10 10 10 10 13 71 7191511.1 Fecal Coliform Screening(#/100mL) # results: Geomean: # > 400: % > 400: %Conf: 56 16.5 3 5.4 02/01/2005Time period:12/17/2009to Key: # result: number of observations # ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect) EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence %Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.1 aPPeNdix 2-d 12-DIgIt SuBWatErShED MaPS NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.2 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.3 E E E E EE E E E E E E #0#0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 XY #* #* #* #* #* #* #* "à)"à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡ [¡¢¡ ¢¡ S F N R SF N R Bo o n e Bl o w i n g Ro c k SouthForkNewRiver(SFNR) Winkler C r e e k US-321 U S - 2 2 1 KB 1 KB2 KB 2 0 KB 2 1 KB 1 8 KB 1 6 KB 1 2 KB 1 7 KB 2 0 KB 1 4 0 KB 1 3 0 GapCreek South F ork New River NorrisFork Meat CampCreek Grass y C r e e k HowardCre e k CobbCreek PineR u n DoeFork Bo one Cre e k LaxonCree k FlanneryFork LittleCreek CranberryCreek HodgesCreek Littl e G a p Creek Triv e t t B r a n c h UTMILLC R Pin e B r a n c h CouchesCreekWolfpenCreek D ay s Creek RockyBranch GoshenBra n c h East ForkSouthForkNewRiver J o nesBranch Bro w n B r a n c h Flatto p B r a nch P ayne B r a n c h NorrisB r a n c h M o r e t z B r a n c h KF 8 KF 1 2 KF 2 4 K2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 7 1. 4 2. 1 2. 8 0. 3 5 Mil e s He a d w a t e r s S o u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.4 E EE E E E E E E ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 XY #* #* #* "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡ [¡¢¡ ¢¡ AS H E WA T A U G A N o r t h ForkNe w R iv er We s t Je f f e r s o n SouthForkNewRiver(SFNR) SF N R Bo o n e KF 6 MeatCampCreek SFNR NC-194KB 1 KB 2 2 KB 2 1 KB 1 8 KB 1 6 KB 1 2 KB 1 7 KB 2 0 KB 2 6 KB 1 4 1 KB 1 4 0 KB 1 3 0 KB 1 2 9 B e a v erCreek Gap Creek OldFieldCreek South F ork New River NorrisFork LongHopeCreek ElkCreek Hoskin F or k MeatCampCreek ThreeTopCreekGrass y C r e e k W i nk l e r Cree k HowardCre e k CobbCreek PineR u n DoeFork BooneCreek LaxonCreek FlanneryFork LittleCreek CranberryCreek HodgesCreek B e n B ol e n C r eekMillCreek(GrassyCreek) CallCreek(WestProngOldFieldCreek) Little G a p C r e e k Triv e tt B r a n c h S o u t h Bra n ch S o u thBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) RushB r a n c h PineOrchardCreek DoeBranch UTMILL C R PineBranch CouchesCreek MineBranch W o lf p e n C r e e k DaysCreek GoshenBra n c h EastForkSouthForkNewRiver WallaceBran c h J o nesBranch Maine B r anch Wilso n B r a n c h P ayne Br a n c h M o r e t z B r a n c h Big B r a n c h KF 8 KF 1 2 KF 2 4 K2 1 0 0 0 0 0 K2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 7 1. 4 2. 1 2. 8 0. 3 5 Mil e s Me a t C a m p C r e e k - S o u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.5 E E EE E E E E E E ¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³#0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 XY #* #* #* #* "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡ [¡¢¡ ¢¡ AS H E WA T A U G A NorthForkN e w River L i ttleBuffaloCreekNC-194 We s t Je f f e r s o n SouthForkNewRiver(SFN R) SF N R Bo o n e KF 6 Meat C a m p Cr e e k SFNR NC-194 S o u t h F o r k N e w R iv e r U S - 2 2 1 N C - 1 9 4 WATA U G A ASHE KB 1 KB2KB5 KB 2 2 KB 2 1 KB 1 8 KB 1 6 KB 1 2 KB 1 7 KB32 KB 2 0 KB 2 6 KB 1 3 8 KB108 KB 1 1 9 KB 1 4 1 KB 1 4 0 KB 1 3 0 KB 1 2 9 BeaverCreek Buffal o Cree k Gap Creek Old Field C reek Norr i sF ork LongHopeCreek NakedCreek ElkCreek Hoskin Fork Bru s h Fo r k MeatCampCreek ThreeTopCreek Grass y Creek W inkl e r Cree k HowardCre e k CobbCreek PineR u n DoeFork Boone Cree k Laxon C ree k FlanneryFork LittleCreek ColeBranch C r an b e r r y C reek HodgesCreek LittleNakedCreek B e n Bolen C r eek Mill Cre ek (G ra ssyCreek ) CallCreek(WestPro n g Old Field Cre e k) Little G a p C r e e k Triv e tt B r a n c h S o u t h Br a nch S o uthBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) RushB r a n c h Pi n e O rc h ard Creek DoeB ra n ch UTMILLC R Pin e B r a n ch Couches C reek Min e B ranch WolfpenCreek Day s Creek GoshenBra n c h EastForkSouthForkNewRiver WallaceBran c h J o nesBranch Maine B r anch Wilso n B r a n c h Flatto p B r a nch PineMountainBranch PayneBr a n c h EastForkPineSwampCreek Mo r e t z B r a n c h SouthBeaverCreek(Lake Ashe) Big B r a n c h KF 8 KF 1 2 KF 1 0 KF 2 4 K2 1 0 0 0 0 0 K2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 8 1. 6 2.4 3. 2 0. 4 Mil e s El k C r e e k - S F N R S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.6 E E ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 XY #* #* #* #* #* #* !( "à) "à)"à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ AS H E WA T A U G A N o r t h ForkN e w River L i ttleBuffaloCreek NC-194 We s t Je f f e r s o n SouthForkNewRiver(SFN R) SF N R Bo o n e KF 6 MeatCampCreek SFNR NC-194 SouthForkNewRiver U S - 2 2 1 N C - 1 9 4 SF N R NC - 1 9 4 US-221 KB 7 KB 8 KB 1 KB 2 KB 3 KB 5 KB 6 KB 3 0 KB 3 1 KB 2 2 KB 2 1 KB 1 8 KB 1 6 KB 1 2 KB 1 7 KB 3 2 KB 2 0 KB 2 3 KB26 KB 3 0 KB 8 6 KB 1 3 8 KB 1 3 9 KB 1 0 8 KB 1 3 4 KB 1 2 0 KB 1 1 9 KB 1 4 1 KB 1 4 0 KB 1 3 0 KB 1 2 9 B e a v erCreek Buffal o Cree k Gap Creek OldFieldCreek RoanCreek NorrisFork ObidsCreek LongHopeCreek NakedCreek ElkCreek DogCre ek HoskinFork EzraFork BrushFork MeatCampCreek BearCreek ThreeTopCreekGrass y C r e e k W inkle r Cree k HowardCre e k CobbCreek PineR u n DoeFork BooneCreek RoundaboutCreek Laxon C reek FlanneryFork Rock(Stone)Creek LittleCreek C ole Branch CranberryCreek HodgesCreek LittlePh o e ni x Creek ClaybankCreek CabbageCreek Silas B r anch LittleNak e d Creek B e n Bolen C r eekMillCreek(GrassyCreek) CallCreekLittle G a p C r e e k PotterBranch TrivettBranch SouthBra nch S o u thBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) RushB r a n c h PineOrchardCreek DoeBranch UTMILLC R PineBranch CouchesCreek MineBranch W olf p e n C r e e k EastForkSouthForkNewRiver WallaceBranchJonesBranchMaineBranch Wilson Branch Creas e y Br a n c h PineMountainBranch PayneBr a n c h East ForkPineSwampCreek Moretz Branch SouthBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) Big B r a n c h KF 8 KF 2 3 KF 1 2 KF 2 0 KF 1 3 KF 1 4 KF 1 0 KF 2 4 KF 2 2 KF 2 1 KF 2 2 K2 1 0 0 0 0 0 K2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 8 1.6 2.4 3. 2 0. 4 Mil e s Ol d F i e l d s C r e e k - S F N R S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.7 ¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #* #* #* #*!( "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ AS H E WA T A U G A NorthForkN e w River Lit tleBuffaloCreek NC-194 We s t Je f f e r s o n SouthForkNewRiver(SFNR) SF N R Bo o n e KF 6 Meat C a m p C r e e k SFNR NC-194 S o u t h F o r k N e w Riv e r U S - 2 2 1 N C - 1 9 4 SF N R NC - 1 9 4 US-221 Pine S w a mp Cre e k ASH E WAT A U G A US - 2 2 1 S F N R KB 7 KB 8 KB 1 KB 2 KB 3 KB 5 KB 6 KB13KB14 KB 2 2 KB 2 1 KB 1 8 KB 1 6 KB 1 2 KB 1 7 KB 3 2 KB 2 0 KB11 KB 1 3 8 KB 1 3 9 KB 1 0 8 KB 1 1 9 KB 1 4 1 KB 1 4 0 KB 1 3 0 KB 1 2 9 B e a v erCreek Buffalo Creek Gap Creek Ol d Field Cree k RoanCreek NorrisF ork O bidsCre e k LongHopeCreek NakedCreek ElkCreek MeatCampCreek BearCreek ThreeTopCreek Grassy C r e e k W ink ler Cree k HowardCre e k CobbCreek PineR u n B oone Cree k LaxonCree k FlanneryFork LittleCreek C ole Branch C r an ber r y C reek HodgesCreek Little Nak e d Creek B e n Bole n C r eek Mill Cre ek (G rassyCreek ) Call Creek Little G a p C r e e k PotterBranch S o u th Br a nch S o u thBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) RushB r a n c h P in e O rc h ard Creek LittlePeakCreek UTMILLC R Pin e B r a n c h Couches C reek Min e Branch W o lf p e n C reek Day s Creek GoshenBra n c h EastForkSouthForkNewRiver Maine B r anch Flatto p B r a nch Cre as e y B r a n c h P ayne B r a n c h SouthBeaverCreek(LakeAshe) Big B r a n c h KF 8 KF 2 3 KF 1 2 KF 2 0 KF 1 3 KF 1 4 KF 1 0 KF 2 4 K2 1 0 0 0 0 0 K2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 8 1. 6 2. 4 3. 2 0. 4 Mil e s Pi n e S w a m p C r e e k - S F N R S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 5 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.8 E E ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 XY #* #* #* #* #* #*!( "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ ¢¡ NorthFor k N ew Ri v er Lit tleBuffaloCreek NC - 8 8 NC - 1 9 4 NC-194 We s t Je f f e r s o n SouthForkNewRiverUS-221 NC-194 SF N R NC-194 US-221 PineSwampCreek AS H E WA T A U G A US - 2 2 1 S F N R We s t Je f f e r s o n US - 2 2 1 N C - 1 6 3 NC-16 SFN R KB 7 KB 8 KB 2 KB 3 KB 5 KB 6 KB30 KB 1 0 KB 1 5 KB 1 3 KB 1 4 KB 3 1 KB22 KB 3 2 KB 1 0 KB23 KB 1 1 KB30 KB86KB138 KB 1 3 9 KB 1 0 8 KB 1 3 4 KB 1 1 7 KB 1 2 5 KB 1 1 8 KB140 KB130 KB 1 2 9 PeakC re e k B e a v erCreek BuffaloCreek Gap Creek M ea d o w F ork OldFieldCreek RoanCreek PineyFork ObidsCreek NakedCreek ElkCreek DogCreek EzraFork BearCreek ThreeTopCreekGrassyCreek NathansCreek Piney B ranc h PineRunLaxonCreek C ole Branch CranberryCreek CranberryCreek ( M ulberryCreek) CopelandCreek LittlePho e n ix Creek ClaybankCreek MapleBranch Laurel F o r k SilasB r anch Little Nak e d Creek BenBolenCreekMillCreek(GrassyCreek) CallCreekLittl e G a p C re e k PotterBranch S o u thBeaver Creek LongShoalsCreek LittleP e a k C r e e k B e a verBranch UTMILLC R PineBranch CouchesCreek W o lf p e n C re ek U T L P h oenix Cr ReevesBranch Cre a s e y B r a n c h FosterSpringsBranch Sugar Tree Branch (Sugar Branch) WolfBranch LongBranch Big Branch KF 2 KF23 KF 2 0 KF 1 3 KF 1 4 KF22 KF 2 1 KF 22 K4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 8 1. 6 2.4 3.2 0. 4 Mi l e s Be a v e r C r e e k - S F N R S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 6 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.9 E E E E EE E E E E ¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #* XY #* #* #* #* #* #* !( "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ La n s i n g NorthFork N e w Rive r L i ttleB u ff a l o C reek NC - 8 8 NC - 1 9 4 NC-194 Je f f e r s o n NC-16 NC - 1 9 4 US-221 We s t Je f f e r s o n US - 2 2 1 N C - 1 6 3 NC-16 SFN R K3 2 5 0 0 0 0 SF N R NC-16 NC-16 NC - 8 8 KB 7 KB 8 KB 3 KB 5 KB 6 KB 1 0 KB15 KB 1 3 KB 1 4 KB 3 1 KB 3 2 KB 2 7 KB 1 0 KB 1 1 KB 3 3 KB 1 3 9 KB 1 0 8 KB 1 3 4 KB 1 1 7 KB 1 3 5 KB 1 2 5 KB 1 2 3 KB 1 1 8 KB 1 2 9 PeakC r e e k B e a v erCreek Buffal o Cree k NorthForkNewRiver O l d F ield Creek R oanCreek SilasCreek O bidsCre e k Naked Creek D o g Cre e k StaggCreek Ezr a F o rk PineyCreek B ear Creek NathansCr ee k PineyBranch C ole Branch Lo n g Br a n c h CranberryCreek(MulberryCreek) Little Ph o e ni x Creek ClaybankCreek Si las B r anch Little Nak e d Creek M ill C ree k (G ras sy Cree k ) Call Cre ek PotterBr a n c h MillpondBranch S o u th BeaverCreek LongShoalsCreek Little P e a k C r e e k LittlePineyCreek B e averBranch UTMILL C R Couches C r e ek SouthForkLittleHorseCreek U T L P h o en ix Cr FosterSpri n g s B ra n c h Sugar T r e e B r a n c h ( S u g a r B r a n c h ) WolfBranch Long B r a n c h KF 2 KF 1 KF 2 0 KF15 KF 1 3 KF 1 4 KF 2 1 K7 5 0 0 0 0 0 K4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 6 1. 2 1.8 2. 4 0. 3 Mil e s Na k e d C r e e k - S F N R S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 7 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.10 E ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ #0 #0#0 #0#0 #0#0!( "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ NC-16 NC-16PineSwampCreek US - 2 2 1 N C - 1 6 3 NC-16SFNR K3250000 SFNR NC-16NC-16 NC - 8 8 CranberryCreek(MulberryCr.) N C - 1 8 NC- 1 8 NC-113 N C - 8 8 O r e K nobCr PeakCreek SFN R AL L E G H A N Y AS H E KB7KB8KB3KB6 KB 1 0 KB 1 5 KB 1 3 KB 1 4 KB25 KB 1 0 KB 3 4 KB 3 7 KB 3 6 KB 3 8 KB 1 1 KB 9 7 KB 4 0 KB 4 6 KB 3 7 KB 3 6 KB 8 2 KB139 KB117 KB13 5 KB 1 0 1 KB 1 2 7 KB125 KB123 KB 1 0 1 LittleRiver PeakCreek NorthForkNewRiver Pr ath e r s Creek M e a d o w Fork GladeCre e k RoanCreek SilasCreek P i n e y F o r k ObidsCreek NakedCreek DogCreek PotatoCreek HeltonCreek BledsoeCreek C r a b F o r k VileCreek BearCreek Nathans Cree k Littl e Riv er(S p a rt a L a k e) Piney B ra n c h WolfBranch Pine S w a mp C ree k LittleHeltonCreekLittlePhoenixCreek CheekBranch MapleBranch Silas Branch LittleNakedCreek PotterBranch MillpondBranch EvansBranch LongShoalsCreek Little P e a k C re e k B e averBranch ReevesBranch No Head Branch NewRiver(North Caroli n a Porti o n) FosterSpringsBranch OldFieldCreek WolfBranch LongBranch Pi n ey Creek D o g Creek Elk Cre e k KF 7 KF5 KF 2 KF20 KF 1 5 KF 1 9 KF13 KF14 KF 1 6 K7 9 0 0 0 0 0 K7 5 0 0 0 0 0 K4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 5 1 . 5 2 . 2 5 3 0. 3 7 5 Mil e s Cr a n b e r r y C r e e k - S F N R S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 8 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fis h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.11 EE E E E ¡³¡³¡³¡³ ¡³ ¡³¡³¡³¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0#* #* #* #* #* !( "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ La n s i n g NC-194 NorthFo rk N ew Riv e r L it tle B u ff alo Creek NC - 1 9 4 NC-194 Je f f e r s o n NC-16 NC-16 SF N R US-221 Pine S w a mpCre e k S F N R We s t Je f f e r s o n US - 2 2 1 N C - 1 6 3 NC-16 SFN R K3 2 5 0 0 0 0 SF N R NC-16 NC-16 NC - 8 8 Cranb err y C r eek (MulberryCr.) N C - 1 8 NC- 1 8 NC-113 N C - 8 8 OreKnobCr P e a k C r e e k SFN R KB 7 KB 8 KB 2 KB 3 KB 5 KB 6 KB 1 0 KB 1 5 KB 1 3 KB 1 4 KB 3 1 KB 3 2 KB 2 7 KB 2 5 KB 1 0 KB34 KB 1 1 KB 3 3 KB 1 3 6 KB 1 3 9 KB 1 0 8 KB 1 3 4 KB 1 1 7 KB 1 3 5 KB 1 2 7 KB 1 2 5 KB 1 2 3 KB 1 1 8 Peak Cre e k B e a v erCreek NorthForkNewRiver P r a th e r s Cr e e k M ea d o w F ork R oanCreek SilasCreek P in e y F o r k O bidsCre e k Naked Creek DogCreek Ezr a F ork PotatoCreek HeltonCreek C r a b F o r k PineyCreek B ear Creek Nathans C r e ek LittleRiver(SpartaLake) Piney Bra nc h JerdBranch LittleHeltonCreek C ole BranchLittlePho e ni x Creek ClaybankCreek CheekBranch MapleBra n c h Silas B ranch Little Nak e d CreekPotterBranch MillpondBranch S o u thBeaverCreek EvansBranch LongShoalsCreek Little P e a k C re e k LittlePineyCre e k B e averBranch Couches C reek U T L P h o enix Cr R e e v e s Branc h NewRiver(NorthCarolinaPortion) Foste r S p ri n g s B ra n c h O l d FieldCreek WolfBranch Lon g B ra n c h Pi n ey Creek Elk Cre e k KF 5 KF 2 KF 1 KF 2 0 KF 1 5 KF 1 3 KF 1 4 KF 1 6 KF 2 1 K7900000 K7 5 0 0 0 0 0 K4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 5 1 . 5 2 . 2 5 3 0. 3 7 5 Mil e s Pe a k C r e e k - S F N R S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 9 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fis h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.12 E ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ #0 #0#0#0#0 "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ NC-16 NC-16 US - 2 2 1 K3250000SFNR NC-16 CranberryCreek(Mulberry Cr.) N C - 1 8 NC-113 OreKnob Cr PeakCreek SFN R ALLEGHANY ASHE SouthForkNewRiver KB7 KB 1 0 KB 1 5 KB 1 3 KB 1 4 KB25 KB 3 5 KB 3 4 KB 3 7 KB 3 6 KB 1 1 KB 9 7 KB 4 6 KB 3 7 KB 3 6 KB139 KB135 KB 1 0 1 KB 1 2 7 KB 1 2 6 KB123 KB 1 0 1 PeakCreek NorthForkNewRiver Pr a t h ersCreek M e a d o w Fork RoanCreek P i n e y F o r k DogCreek PotatoCreek HeltonCreek BledsoeCreek C r a b F o r k Nathans C r e e k Lit t l e Riv er(S p a rt a L a k e) Piney B r a n c h Pine S w a mp C r e e k CheekBranch MapleBranch Silas B ranch LittleNakedCreekPotterBranch MillpondBranch EvansBranch LongShoalsCreek Li ttle P e a k C re e k B e averBranch ReevesBranch No Head B ranch NewRiver(North Caroli n a Porti o n) FosterSpringsBranch OldFieldCreek WolfBranch New R iv e r ( NorthCarolina Portion ) LongBranch Pi n ey Creek GrassyCreek D o g Creek Elk Cre e k KF 7 KF5 KF 3 KF 2 KF20 KF 1 5 KF 1 9 KF14 KF 1 6 K7 9 0 0 0 0 0 K7500000 K4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 6 1. 2 1. 8 2.4 0. 3 Mil e s Pr a t h e r C r e e k - S F N R S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.13 E ¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³¡³ #0 #0 #0 #0#0 "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡ La n s i n g NC-194 NC - 1 9 4 NC-16 H e lt o n Cre e k N C - 1 9 4 NC-16 US - 2 2 1 NC-16 Cranberry C r e ek (Mulberry Cr.) NC-18 NC-113 SFN R ALLEGHANY ASHE S o u t h F o r k N e w Riv er KB 1 0 KB 1 5 KB 3 1 KB 2 7 KB 2 5 KB 3 3 KB 1 3 7 KB 1 3 6 KB 1 3 4 KB 1 1 7 KB 1 3 5 KB 1 2 7 KB 1 2 6 KB 1 2 5 KB 1 2 3 KB 1 1 8 NorthForkNewRiver Pr a t h ers C r e e k Silas Creek DogCreek Ezra F ork Potato C r ee k H elt o n Cree k C r a b F o rk P i n e y C r e e k Nathans C r e e k Piney B r a n c h J e r d Branch Little H e lt o n C re e k Little Ph o e n i x C reek ClaybankCreek Maple B r a n c h LostBranch Silas B ranch MillpondBranch EvansBranch LongShoalsCreek L ittl e Pi n e y Cre e k B e averBranch U T L P h o e nix Cr F oste r S p rin g s B ra n c h Ol d Field Cre e k N ewRiver Lon g B r a n c h Pin ey Creek G r a s s y Creek L o ng B r a nc h ElkCreek KF 5 KF3 KF 2 KF 1 KF 1 5 KF 1 6 KF 2 1 K7 5 0 0 0 0 0 K4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 6 1. 2 1. 8 2 . 4 0. 3 Mil e s Gr a s s y C r e e k - N e w R i v e r S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : S ou t h for K N EW rIV E r & fox crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 3 ) a PP E N D I cES 2-D.14 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 3-A.2 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 species  NC 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 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 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 species  NC 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 3-A.5 aPPeNdix 3-B BIoLogIcaL (BENthIc & fISh) SaMPLE SItE Data ShEEtS NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 3-A.6 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 3-B.2 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 3-B.18 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 9457 0 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 28019 9 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 0.157 45 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.05 0.24 0.36 0.55 0.73 0.8 0.8757 1 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28 0.53 2.857 24 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.1 0.9657 8 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 60 60 83 320 7975 16000 160009 0 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 8657 0 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 17818 8 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 0.021 1 NO2 + NO3 as N N/A 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.651 0 TKN as N N/A 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.21 1 Total Phosphorus N/A 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.031 0 Metals (ug/L) Aluminum, total (Al)N/A 51 51 66 120 240 18000 180009 0 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 rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 3-C.4 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 3-D.1 aPPeNdix 3-d 12-DIgIt SuBWatErShED MaPS NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 3-D.2 NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 - 9 3 OreKnob Cr SFN R AL L E G H A N Y S o u t h F o r k N e w Riv er KB 1 0 KB 1 5 KB 1 3 KB 1 4 KB 3 5 KB 3 4 KB 3 7 KB36KB38 KB 1 1 KB 9 7 KB40 KB 4 6 KB 3 7 KB36 KB82KB98KB101 KB 1 2 7 KB 1 2 6 KB 1 0 1 LittleRiver 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 Caroli n a Portio n) N ewRiver Long B r a n c h Pin ey Creek G r a s s y Creek D o g Creek ElkCreek KF 7 KF 3 KF 2 KF 1 5 KF19 KF 1 6 K7 9 0 0 0 0 0 K9600000 K4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 6 1. 2 1. 8 2. 4 0. 3 Mil e s El k C r e e k S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 - 9 3 RockyCreek KB 3 5 KB 3 4 KB 3 7 KB 3 6 KB 3 8 KB 4 9 KB 4 1 KB 9 7 KB 4 0 KB 4 6 KB 3 7 KB 3 6 KB 8 2 KB 9 8 KB 4 7 KB 7 3 KB 1 0 1 KB 1 0 0 KB 1 0 4 KB 1 3 2 KB 1 0 1 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 KF 7 KF 4 KF 3 KF 1 9 KF 1 8 KF 1 7 K7 9 0 0 0 0 0 K9 6 0 0 0 0 0 K9 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0. 6 1. 2 1. 8 2. 4 0. 3 Mil e s Br u s h C r e e k S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 3 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 - 2 2 1 Cranberry C r e e k (Mulberry Cr.) NC-18 NC- 1 8 NC - 9 3 P e a k C r e e k RockyCreek GladeCreekLittleRiver Sp a r t a L ittle River W a t e r f a l l s C reek KB 3 4 KB 3 7 KB 3 8 KB 9 7 KB 4 0 KB 4 6 KB 3 6 KB 8 2 KB98KB104 KB 1 0 1 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 KF 7 KF4 KF 1 9 K7 9 0 0 0 0 0 K9600000K9750000 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 0. 2 5 Mil e s Pi n e S w a m p C r e e k - L i t t l e R i v e r S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 4 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fis h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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-2 2 1 NC-18 NC-93 RockyCreek Gla d e C reek Litt l e Riv e r Sp a r t a B r u shCreek LaurelBranch KB35KB34 KB 3 7 KB 3 8 KB 4 9 KB 4 1 KB97 KB 4 0 KB 4 6 KB 3 6 KB 8 2 KB 9 8 KB 4 2 KB 4 7 KB 7 3 KB 1 0 0 KB 1 0 4 KB 1 2 8 KB 1 3 3 KB 1 3 2 KB 1 0 1 Little R iver BrushCreek MeadowFork GladeCre e k BledsoeCreek VileCreek LittleRiver CrabCreek Moccasin C reek WolfBranch Pine S w a mp Cree k LittleGlad e C re e k B i g Pin e Creek UTUTCRABC R Cheek Branch Littl e Pin e C r e e k Rock Branch EvansBranch NewRiver D o g Creek KF 7 KF 4 KF3 KF 1 9 KF 1 8 KF 1 7 K7900000 K9 6 0 0 0 0 0 K9 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 7 5 1 . 5 2 . 2 5 3 0. 3 7 5 Mil e s Br u s h C r e e k S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 5 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 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 - 2 2 1 N C - 1 8 NC - 9 3 R oc k y C r ee k Glad e C r e ek LittleRiver Sp a r t a KB 3 5 KB 3 4 KB 3 7 KB 3 6 KB 3 8 KB 4 2 KB49 KB 4 1 KB 9 7 KB 4 0 KB 4 6 KB 3 7 KB 3 6 KB 8 2 KB 9 8 KB 4 2 KB47 KB 7 3 KB 1 0 0 KB 1 0 4 KB128 KB133 KB132 KB 1 0 1 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 Haynes B r a n c h No Head Branch NewR iver D o g Creek ElkCreek KF 7 KF 4 KF 3 KF 1 9 KF18 KF17 K7 9 0 0 0 0 0 K9 6 0 0 0 0 0 K9 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0. 6 1. 2 1 . 8 2.4 0. 3 Mil e s Gl a d e C r e e k S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 6 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) NEW rIV E r B aSI N : L Itt LE rIV E r & chES tNut crEE K W at ErShED S ( hu c 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 & 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 ) a PP E N D I cES 3-D.8 E ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³ ¡³¡³¡³#* "à) "à) "à) "à) "à) "à)"à) "à) "à) "à) [¡ [¡ [¡ ¢¡ ¢¡US-2 2 1 N C - 1 8 Glad e C r e e k Little Rive r Sparta LittleRiver KB37 KB 3 8 KB 4 9 KB 4 1 KB40 KB46KB36KB82 KB 9 8 KB 4 7 KB 7 3 KB 1 0 0 KB 1 0 4 KB 1 2 8 KB 1 3 3 KB 1 3 2 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 KF 4 KF19 KF 1 8 KF 1 7 K9 6 0 0 0 0 0 K9 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 0.2 5 Mil e s Cr a b C r e e k - L i t t l e R i v e r S u b w a t e r s h e d (0 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 7 ) NC D i v i s i o n o f W a t e r Q u a l i t y Ba s i n w i d e P l a n n i n g U n i t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ® Le g e n d Hy d r o l o g y Ma j o r R o a d s Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n _ L a n d Co u n t y B o u n d a r y 12 - D i g i t H U C s 20 1 0 U s e S u p p o r t Su p p o r t i n g No o r I n c o n c l u s i v e D a t a Im p a i r e d ¢¡ Ra n d o m A m b i e n t S t a t i o n s ¢¡ Am b i e n t [¡ Fi s h C o m m u n i t y "à) Be n t h o s !( US G S G a g e s Mo n i t o r i n g S t a t i o n s #* NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) XY NP D E S D i s c h a r g e ( M a j o r ) Pe r m i t s ¡³ An i m a l O p e r a t i o n ( C a t t l e ) E St o r m w a t e r #0 NP D E S N o n - D i s c h a r g e ( M i n o r ) 4-A.1 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: aPP E N D I x 4 : B aSI N P ErMI tS 2 0 1 1 APPENDIX 4 PeRmits IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN PeRmits listed £NPDES: Point Source Discharge £NPDES: Non-Discharge £Stormwater £Animal Operations 4-A.2 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: aPP E N D I x 4 : B aSI N P ErMI tS 2 0 1 1 NPdes PeRmits taBLE 14-1: NPDES PoINt SourcE DISchargEr PErMItS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN PErMIt #facILIty NaME PErMIt tyPE cLaSS rEcEIVINg StrEaM PErMIttED fLoW (gPD) North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) NC0000019 United Chemi-Con, Inc.Industrial Process & Commercial Minor North Fork New River 38,000 NC0020451*West Jefferson WWTP Municipal, < 1MGD Major Little Buffalo Creek 500,000 NC0030325 Buffalo Meadows WWTP 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor Buffalo Creek 10,000 NC0066028 Lansing WWTP Municipal, < 1MGD Minor Big Horse Creek 50,000 NCG500267 Elk Creek Lumber Non-contact Cooling, Boiler Blowdown Wastewater Discharge COC Minor Little Buffalo Creek 0 NCG550478 2634 Old Highway 16 Single Family Domestic Wastewater Discharge COC Minor Little Phoenix Creek 450 South Fork New River & Fox Creek Watersheds (HUC 0505000102 & 0505000103) NC0020621*Jimmy Smith WWTP (Town of Boone)Municipal, Large Major South Fork New River 4,820,000 NC0021709*Jefferson WWTP Municipal, < 1MGD Major Naked Creek 300,000 NC0027286 Blowing Rock WWTP Municipal, < 1MGD Minor Middle Fork SFNR 800,000 NC0030848 Jefferson Apparel Company WWTP 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor Dog Creek 8,000 NC0032131 Tweetsie Railroad 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor Middle Fork SFNR 175,000 NC0032158 Roaring River Chalets 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor Middle Fork SFNR 5,000 NC0039608 Summit Woods Apartments WWTP 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor Middle Fork SFNR 8,300 NC0044423 Appalachian State WTP Water Treatment Plant Minor Norris Branch not limited NC0067016 Parkway Elementary School 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor Laxon Creek 5,000 NC0083470 Jefferson WTP Water Treatment Plant Minor Naked Creek not limited NCG500206 International Resistive Company Non-contact Cooling, Boiler Blowdown Wastewater Discharge COC Minor Winkler Creek 0 NCG510152 Former Shell Dollar Mart #5 Groundwater Remediation Wastewater Discharge COC Minor Gap Creek 0 NCG550407 2684 Boggs Road Single Family Domestic Wastewater Discharge COC Minor South Fork New River 300 NCG550430 Riverside Drive / Lot 667 Single Family Domestic Wastewater Discharge COC Minor New River 300 Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds (HUC 0505000104 & 0505000106) NC00269131 Sparta WWTP Municipal, < 1MGD Minor 1 Little River 600,000 NC0078158 Olde Beau Golf Club WWTP 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor Laurel Branch (Laurel Creek)20,000 NC0084832 Nikolas' Restaurant & High Meadow Inn LLC 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor Laurel Branch (Laurel Creek)25,000 1 The Sparta WWTPs Pretreatment Program became inactive in January 2011 when it also became a Minor permit. Even though tables and maps have been changed to reflect the new status, the facility was considered Major during this planning cycle. 4-A.3 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: aPP E N D I x 4 : B aSI N P ErMI tS 2 0 1 1 taBLE 14-2: NPDES NoN-DISchargEr PErMItS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN PErMIt #facILIty NaME PErMIt tyPE cLaSS North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) WQ0007149 United Chemi-Con Inc.Wastewater Recycling Minor South Fork New River & Fox Creek Watersheds (HUC 0505000102 & 0505000103) WQ0004166 Town of Jefferson Residuals Land Application Program Land Application of Residual Solids (503)Minor WQ0013263 Town of Boone High Country 5-5-0 Drying Facility and Distribution Program Distribution of Residual Solids (503)Minor WQ0020293 Jimmy Smith WWTP (Town of Boone)Gravity Sewer Extension, Pump Stations, & Pressure Sewer Extensions Minor WQ0022120 Jefferson WWTP Reuse Minor WQ0022155 Jefferson WWTP Distribution of Residual Solids (503)Minor WQ0021731 Wastewater Reuse System Reuse Minor WQ0010878 West Campus Surface Irrigation Major WQ0012694 Maharishi Spiritual CT-East Campus Surface Irrigation Major WQ0015515 Heavenly Mountain Resort Surface Irrigation Major Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds (HUC 0505000104 & 0505000106) WQ0006242 Town of Sparta Residuals Land Application Site Residuals Minor * Permits from the two previous tables are mapped on the NPDES Permits map found in the Maps Chapter. 4-A.4 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: aPP E N D I x 4 : B aSI N P ErMI tS 2 0 1 1 stoRmwateR PeRmits taBLE 14-3: coMMuNItIES IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN SuBjEct to StorMWatEr aND/or WatEr SuPPLy WatErShED StorMWatEr rEQuIrEMENtS. LocaL goVErNMENt NPDES StatE StorMWatEr PrograM WatEr SuPPLy WatErShED StorMWatEr rEQuIrEMENtSPhaSE I PhaSE II Municipalities Boone Blowing Rock Jefferson West Jefferson Lansing Sparta Counties Ashe Alleghany Watauga taBLE 14-4: StorMWatEr PErMItS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN PErMIt #facILIty NaME PErMIt tyPE cLaSS NCR002037 Blowing Rock Art and History Museum Construction Stormwater Minor NCG140100 Chandler Concrete - Watauga Ready Mix Concrete Stormwater/Wastewater Discharge COC Minor NCGNE0378 NC Nat Gd- Boone Stormwater Discharge, No Exposure Certificate Minor NCG160141 Maymead Materials Inc - Boone Asphalt Paving Mixture Stormwater Discharge COC Minor NCG140101 Chandler Concrete - Boone Ready Mix Concrete Stormwater/Wastewater Discharge COC Minor NCG160039 Maymead Materials Inc Asphalt Paving Mixture Stormwater Discharge COC Minor NCG020129 Radford Quarries Of Boone Inc Mining Activities Stormwater Discharge COC Minor NCG080085 Appalachian Energy Transportation w/Vehicle Maintenance/Petroleum Bulk/Oil Water Separator Stormwater Discharge COC Minor NCG140254 Boone Ready-Mix Incorporated Ready Mix Concrete Stormwater/Wastewater Discharge COC Minor NCG140259 R H Loven Co Incorporated Ready Mix Concrete Stormwater/Wastewater Discharge COC Minor NCR002049 Appalcart Waste Site Construction Stormwater Minor NCG180130 Watauga Wood Products Incorporated Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC Minor NCG140098 Chandler Concrete - Ashe County Ready Mix Concrete Stormwater/Wastewater Discharge COC Minor NCG050182 Gates Corporation Apparel/Printing/Paper/Leather/Rubber Stormwater Discharge COC Minor NCGNE0392 NC Nat Gd- Jefferson Stormwater Discharge, No Exposure Certificate Minor NCG080062 Independence Oil & LP Gas Inc Transportation w/Vehicle Maintenance/Petroleum Bulk/Oil Water Separator Stormwater Discharge COC Minor NCG150003 Ashe County Airport Authority Air Transportation Stormwater Discharge COC Minor NCR000458 Ashe County Airport Authority Construction Stormwater Minor NCG020227 Smithport Quarry Mining Activities Stormwater Discharge COC Minor NCG140281 Chandler Concrete - Crumpler Ready Mix Concrete Stormwater/Wastewater Discharge COC Minor NCG160015 Adams Construction Company Inc Asphalt Paving Mixture Stormwater Discharge COC Minor NCG210273 L & E Lumber Co Incorporated Timber Products Stormwater Discharge COC Minor NCGNE0579 United Chemi-Con, Inc.Stormwater Discharge, No Exposure Certificate Minor NCGNE0149 Pioneer Eclipse Corporation Stormwater Discharge, No Exposure Certificate Minor NCG140099 Chandler Concrete - Alleghany Ready Mix Concrete Stormwater/Wastewater Discharge COC Minor NCG120057 Ashe County Environmental Ser Landfill Stormwater Discharge COC Minor 4-A.5 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: aPP E N D I x 4 : B aSI N P ErMI tS 2 0 1 1 fIgurE 14-1: StorMWatEr PrograM arEaS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN 0 4 8 12 162 Miles Stormwater Permitting Types No Program Identified HQW Watershed ORW Watershed Legend Hydrology HQW & WS-IV Watershed ORW & WS-IV Watershed ORW Spec Strategy Watershed WS-II Watershed WS-IV Watershed Watershed Boundary 4-A.6 Nc D W Q N E W rIV E r B aSI N P L aN: aPP E N D I x 4 : B aSI N P ErMI tS 2 0 1 1 aNimal oPeRatioNs taBLE 14-5: PErMIttED aNIMaL oPEratIoNS IN thE NEW rIVEr BaSIN aS of juLy 2010 PErMIt NuMBEr PErMIt tyPE couNty aLLoWaBLE couNt SSLW factor SSLW1 Little River & Chestnut Creek Watersheds (HUC 0505000104 & 0505000106) AWC030001 Cattle State COC Alleghany 200 800 160,000 AWC030002 Cattle State COC Alleghany 400 1,400 560,000 AWC030003 Cattle State COC Alleghany 500 1,400 700,000 AWC030005 Cattle State COC Alleghany 200 1,400 280,000 AWC030008 Cattle State COC Alleghany 275 1,400 385,000 AWC030013 Cattle State COC Alleghany 150 1,400 210,000 AWC030021 Cattle State COC Alleghany 130 1,400 182,000 AWC030026 Cattle State COC Alleghany 262 1,400 366,800 AWC030033 Cattle State COC Alleghany 466 800 372,800 Total SSWL:3,216,600 1 - SSLW: The Steady State Live Weight is in pounds, after a conversion factor (SSLW Factor) has been applied to the number of animals on a farm. Conversion factors come from the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service guidelines. A map of where these permits are located can be found in the Maps Chapter.