Long Term Analysis of Water Quality Trends in the Toe and Cane River Watersheds: Year Five
Technical Report No. 2013-1 March 2013
Ann Marie Traylor
This Project is funded by the Toe River Valley Watch. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ...... 4 I. Introduction ...... 5 Table 1: Toe River Valley Watch monitoring sites ...... 6 Figure 1: Map of TRVW monitoring sites ...... 7 II. Methodology ...... 8 III. Results and Discussion ...... 9 Table 2: Classification grades based on parameters and ranges ...... 10 A. Acidity (pH) and Alkalinity ...... 12 Figure 2: pH levels at each monitoring site ...... 13 Figure 3: Alkalinity levels at each monitoring site ...... 13 B. Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ...... 14 Figure 4: Turbidity levels at each monitoring...... 15 Figure 5: Total suspended solids concentrations at each monitoring site ...... 15 C. Conductivity ...... 16 Figure 6: Conductivity levels at each monitoring site ...... 16 D. Nutrients ...... 17 Figure 7: Orthophosphate concentrations at each monitoring site ...... 18 Figure 8: Ammonia-nitrogen concentrations at each monitoring site ...... 18 Figure 9: Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen concentrations at each monitoring site ...... 19 E. Biological Monitoring ...... 19 Table 3: Stream Monitoring Information Exchange biological ratings ...... 20 IV. Summary and Conclusions ...... 20 Table 4: Index ratings for the Toe/Cane River watershed monitoring sites ...... 21 Figure 10: Stream temperatures at each site on the day samples were collected ...... 22 Figure 11: Sampling occasions exceeding turbidity standards for each site ...... 23 IV. Summary and Conclusions ...... 23 V. Literature Cited ...... 27 Appendix A: Chain of Custody form ...... 28 Appendix B: Laboratory Analysis ...... 29 Appendix C: Biological Monitoring Data Sheet ...... 30 Appendix D: Parameters and Ranges for Stream Quality Classifications ...... 32 Appendix E: Stream Ranking Index ...... 34 Appendix F: Data Summary ...... 39 Appendix G: Trends Related to Flow in the Toe/Cane River Watershed ...... 40 Appendix H: Trends Related to Time in the Toe/Cane River Watershed ...... 40 Appendix I: Number of Sites Exhibiting Seasonal Trends ...... 41
3 Acknowledgements
Because of the hard work and foresight of the members of Toe River Valley Watch (TRVW), a reliable water quality database is being maintained for the streams in the Toe River Valley. Without this database it would be impossible to either be aware of or understand changes in water quality over time that may results from changing land use. We wish to thank the many donors for financial support of this work, including Mountain Heritage High School, Starli and Jeff McDowell, AMS, Bruce Green, Loy McWhirter, Martha Perry, Jim Carroll, and Chris Baucom. Their support enables the towns of Burnsville and Baskerville to develop a comprehensive water quality database that will assist greatly with planning future development in the area. Continued monitoring will provide additional information on changes taking place as the area continues to grow. Volunteerism continues to be the key to the success of this water monitoring program, and without whom it would be prohibitively expensive. Volunteers who have been responsible for collecting samples monthly over the past year include Jim Carroll, Bruce Greene, Tressa Hartsell, Starli McDowell, Loy McWhirter, Holly Walker, and the Mountain Heritage High School Eco Club. These volunteers are making an important contribution to the preservation of clean water in the French Broad River Basin. Special thanks also go to Ingles Market in Burnsville which has graciously allowed the program to use their cooler as a kit storage area, to project coordinator Jim Carroll, and to Starli McDowell, who has brought the kits to the Weaverville drop off location every month. Thanks also to Market Center in Weaverville for providing cold storage space for water monitoring kits. The Environmental Quality Institute (EQI) would like to acknowledge the efforts of the many organizations, such as TRVW, that are working tirelessly to protect the streams, rivers, forests, and other natural wonders of the region for future generations. Members of these organizations deserve recognition for their contributions of time and money to maintain the beauty and wonder of western North Carolina (WNC).
4 I. Introduction
VWIN's History
The Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) is a volunteer-based, surface water monitoring program operated by the Environmental Quality Institute. The VWIN program was initiated at UNC-Asheville more than two decades ago. In February of 1990, volunteers began monthly sampling of 27 stream sites in Buncombe County. Over time, the program grew to sample more than 200 sites per month throughout WNC. UNC-Asheville hosted the program until October of 2009, when the research laboratory was eliminated due to state budget cuts. In October of 2010, EQI reopened as a nonprofit laboratory. It should be noted that the first batch of samples received was from TRVW. The network currently includes almost 200 stream and lake sites in 14 WNC counties. VWIN stakeholders include regional municipalities and watershed advocacy groups, such as the Buncombe and Henderson County Commissioners, the Buncombe County Metropolitan Sewerage District, Buncombe and Madison County Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the City of Asheville's Stormwater Services Division, the Town of Lake Lure, Rumbling Bald Resort, Haywood Waterways Association, Seven Lakes West Landowners Association, the Environmental and Conservation Organization, the Friends of Lake Glenville, the Lake James Environmental Association, the Toe River Valley Watch, the Elisha Mitchell Audubon Society, and the Town of Lake Santeetlah. EQI provides laboratory analysis of water samples, statistical analysis of water quality results, and written interpretation of the data to stakeholders. Volunteers venture out once per month to collect water samples from designated sites along streams, rivers, and lakes in the region. VWIN data and technical reports are frequently used to support grant requests funding stream restoration, to evaluate the influences of point and nonpoint source pollution in surface waters, and to work for proper stream classifications. An accurate and on-going water quality database, as provided by VWIN, is essential for good environmental planning. The data gathered by the trained volunteers provides an increasingly accurate picture of water quality conditions and changes in these conditions over time. Communities can use this data to identify streams of high water quality that need to be preserved, as well as streams that cannot support further development without significant water quality degradation. In addition, the information allows planners to assess the impacts of increased development and the success of pollution control measures. Thus, this program provides the water quality data for evaluation of current management efforts and can help guide decisions affecting future management actions. The program also promotes volunteerism throughout WNC and educates citizens about the mountains’ natural resources.
5 The Toe River Valley Watch Monitoring Program
Toe River Valley Watch is a non-profit group founded in 2006 to address the challenges of rapid alterations in the landscape from the decline of agriculture and the pressures of development, and to preserve the unique rural heritage of Mitchell and Yancey counties. The main goal is to create solutions that will help the local economy grow without compromising natural resources, to assure a continued, healthy, and abundant supply of clean water in the Toe River, a designated trout stream, and to protect all the creeks and streams that feed into the Toe River. In April of 2007, TRVW began monitoring six sites in the Toe and Cane River watersheds in Yancey and Mitchell Counties to establish a baseline of water quality for some of the major streams in the area. Table 1 is a list of the monitoring sites, and the approximate locations can be found on the map in Figure 1. While EQI was closed from September 2009 through September 2010, TRVW had their samples tested at Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. (ETS), a commercial laboratory in Asheville, NC. EQI resumed sample analysis in October 2010. Monitoring at Site #7 was initiated in September of 2011. Sites #1, #4, and #5 also are also monitored for benthic macroinvertebrates through the volunteer Stream Monitoring Information Exchange (SMIE) program.
Table 1: Toe River Valley Watch monitoring sites
1. Cane Creek at Bakersville 2. Cane Creek at Loafer’s Glory 3. South Toe River downstream from the Mt Mitchell Golf Course 4. North Toe River at Red Hill Bridge 5. Cane River at Mountain Heritage High School 6. Bald Creek at Bald Creek Elementary School 7. Jacks Creek at Smith Johnson Road
6 Figure 1: Map of TRVW monitoring sites
7
7 II. Methodology
Chemical Monitoring
A water monitoring coordinator provides hands-on instruction and experience in sample collection to all volunteers prior to their first day of sample collection. TRVW samples are collected on the second Saturday of each month. Collecting coincident samples from all the sites in the monitoring area greatly reduces meteorological variability between sites. Therefore, the volunteers are asked to collect samples from the assigned site as close to noon as possible. Water samples are collected in five 250mL polyethylene bottles. Each bottle is labeled with the site number and the parameter for which the water from that particular bottle will be analyzed. Each kit includes a chain-of-custody form to be completed by the volunteer. This form includes site number and site location, the time and date of sample collection, the name of the person collecting the sample, weather conditions prior to sample collection, and general observations at the time of collection. Appendix A is a copy of the chain-of-custody form used by the volunteers. After collection, the volunteer takes the samples and data sheet to a designated drop point where the samples are refrigerated. It is the job of the volunteer coordinator to pick up the samples from the drop point and deliver them or ship them to the EQI laboratory for analysis within two days of collection. A description of the laboratory analysis methodology is contained in Appendix B. Standard operating procedures may have been slightly different at the ETS lab for results from September of 2009 through September of 2010. Following analysis of samples, the empty bottles are cleaned in the laboratory and then packed together with a blank chain-of- custody form for use the next month.
Various statistical analyses are performed on the data and are intended to:
1) Characterize the water quality of each stream site relative to accepted or established water quality standards;
2) Compare water quality of each stream site relative to all other sites in the VWIN program;
3) Identify effects of stream water flow, seasonality, and and temporal trends on water quality, after sufficient data has been collected.
Biological Monitoring
The Stream Monitoring Information Exchange program trains volunteers, who receive classroom instruction in general stream ecology principles and the theory behind evaluating water quality. Instruction includes learning how to identify and the significance of the common groups of insects listed in the protocol. Classroom instruction is followed by on-site stream monitoring training. Volunteers work with Group Leaders, who have additional training and experience, to sample all monitoring sites each fall and spring. Riffles are the focus of sampling and are loosely defined as areas >15ft2 where water depth is relatively shallow (10 to 30cm or 4 to 12in) and with visible current. A kick net (mesh size 500m) is used to collect macroinvertebrates in the riffle habitat. Sampling consists of overturning stones (by feet or hands) for one minute, within a 15ft2 area upstream of the net.
8 Organisms are picked from the net, identified and recorded separately from the other collection methods. Leaf packs are collected in riffles at each site, which are rinsed and poured through the net several times to collect the insects. These organisms are picked from the net, identified, and recorded separately from the other samples. A visual survey is also performed by someone with a working knowledge of different types of habitat and insects, in most instances by a group leader. This survey is performed in all habitats in the representative section of stream, including those outside the riffle area. This method often yields taxa not collected in the other two samples and is important to providing a total estimate of taxa richness at a site. These organisms are identified and recorded separately from the kick net and leaf pack samples. A habitat survey is completed at each site to evaluate potential limiting factors to stream health. This survey assesses the observable fish community, riparian vegetation condition, and stream substrates. Several metrics are calculated from this summary, including an Izaak Walton League rating, Virginia Save Our Streams multi-metric index, several taxa richness metrics, and ecological metrics calculated as ratios of trophic groups (identified at family level). A sample data sheet is provided in Appendix C. More details about sampling and analysis can be found in the 2012 SMIE Report (Traylor & O'Neill 2012).
III. Results and Discussion This discussion is based on the five and a half years of data gathered from April 2007 through October 2012. With each additional year of continuous stream monitoring, trends in water quality become more evident, and a clearer picture of actual conditions existing in various streams and watersheds is available. Continuing water quality data collection over time provides updated information on changing conditions. Using this information, financial resources and policies can be focused on areas of greatest concern. A discussion of the stream sites relative to specific water quality parameters follows. To better understand the parameters, explanations, standards and sources of contamination, some definitions of units and terms have been provided. The amount of a substance in water is referred to in units of concentration. Parts per million (ppm) is equivalent to mg/L. This means that if a substance is reported to have a concentration of 1 ppm, then there is one milligram of the substance in each liter (1000 grams) of water. The parameter total suspended solids (TSS) illustrates the weight/volume concept of concentration. According to the statistical summary data for the TRVW sites (Appendix F), site 1 had a median TSS concentration of 4.1mg/L over the past three years, which is equivalent to 4.1ppm. Thus if you filter one liter of water from site 1 on average you will collect sediments that weigh 4.1mg. The same conversion applies for parts per billion (ppb), which is equivalent to micrograms per liter (ug/L). Concentrations of the VWIN parameters in water samples are compared to normal ambient levels. Ambient levels are estimates of the naturally occurring concentration ranges of a substance. For instance, the ambient level of copper in most streams is less than 1ug/L (1ppb). Ambient water quality standards, on the other hand, are used to judge acceptable concentrations. The ambient water quality standard for ammonia-nitrogen to protect trout populations is 1.0 mg/L, but the normal ambient level for most trout waters is about 0.1mg/L. A classification grade was assigned to each site based on the results of analysis. This report shows site-specific grades for each parameter for the three-year period from November of 2009 to October of 2012 (Table 2). The grades are designed to characterize the water quality at each site with regard to individual parameters. Water quality standards were used where
9 applicable to assess the possible impacts these levels could have on human health and organisms in the aquatic environment. For example, the 0.05mg/L ambient level for orthophosphate was used to determine grades for the sites. A grade of "A" would be assigned to a site if the median concentration over the last three years did not exceed this standard. In contrast, due to the detrimental effects that a decrease in pH can have on the organisms that live in streams, a site could receive an "A" if minimum pH value was never lower than 6.0. Appendix D describes the criteria used in the grading system for each parameter. Appendix E is a list of all VWIN stream sites monitored in WNC indexed and ranked using the grading system previously discussed and shown in Table 2. This indexing system was developed to facilitate comparisons of specific problem areas such as sediment and nutrients. Parameters are grouped into these two categories and number grades were assigned to each parameter (A=100, B=75, C=50, D=25). The numbers were added and the total divided by the number of parameters in the dimension. For example, a site with a B in turbidity and a C in total suspended solids would receive a sediment index of (75 + 50)/2 = 62.5 (rounded to 63). Index ratings for each of the two groupings are added and the total divided by 2 to determine the overall index rating for each site. A maximum score of 100 and a minimum of 25 are possible. The index ratings used to include heavy metals (lead, copper, and zinc) at other sites in WNC. However, most other partner VWIN organizations have dropped metal analysis in recent years, making it more practical to eliminate metals in comparisons between regional sites. In order to allow conductivity to be used in the ratings, it is now grouped into the sediment category.
Table 2: Classification grades based on parameters and ranges
Site Description
pH Alkalinity Turbidity TSS Cond OrthoP Ammonia-N Nitrate-N
1 Cane Creek at Bakersville A B C B C B A B
2 Cane Creek at Loafer's Glory A B C B C B A B
3 South Toe River B D A A A A A A
4 North Toe River at Red Hill B C C B D A A A
5 Cane River at MH High Sch B D A A B C A B
6 Bald Creek at Bald Crk Elem B B C D C C A B
7 Jack's Creek at Smith Johnson Rd A A B A D C A B
It is important and useful to compare sites within the mountain area to understand how water quality from each stream ranks, not only within an area, but also within the region. With this information, local governments, organizations, and individuals can compare areas with similar problems or successes and share information, or even develop region-wide plans. It will
10 also be helpful to note changes in ranking over time as stream water quality improves or deteriorates relative to the many other mountain streams tested in the VWIN program. Many factors such as population density, industrial development, topography, and land use patterns can affect water quality. All of these factors must be taken into consideration when comparing stream water data. Appendix F contains summarized statistical data collected over the course of this study. It is a list of minimum, maximum, and median concentrations or values over the past three years, and also the median values for each site over the entire period of the study. With this expanded information, changes in median values over time can be seen. The VWIN data from 179 stream sites throughout Western North Carolina are used in this report to compare water quality from the stream sites in the Toe and Cane River watersheds with water quality from the mountain region in general. It should be noted that, although there are always some sites in each area that are relatively unaffected by human activities, most VWIN sites are generally chosen to measure the effects of human activities on stream water quality. For this reason forest streams are under-represented, and the averages in all areas are weighted somewhat toward streams that experience various degrees of pollution. The data from several sites in WNC that are in exclusively or largely forested areas are also used to compare water quality from each monitoring site with water quality of sites in relatively undisturbed areas. A statistical analysis of the effects of stream water flow, temporal changes, and seasonality on the water quality parameters at individual sites has also been included in this discussion. This analysis is used to determine if changes in concentrations or levels of a parameter relate to changes in water levels, (i.e. flow), increases or decreases over time (i.e. temporal change), and changes of the seasons in WNC (i.e. seasonality). The generalized least squares technique was used to determine trends with time, flow, and season. Trends are observed in the data, and interpretations of what might be causing the trends are suggested. These data and interpretations continue to be strengthened by continuous monitoring over time. Trends are considered significant if the p-value is less than 0.05. The p-value is the probability of obtaining as much trend as observed in the data if, in fact, there was no true underlying trend. Extreme outliers were removed prior to analyses to eliminate the effects of unusual environmental conditions or sampling error, but these outliers did not exceed 1.1% of the samples over all years of monitoring. Data obtained from the ETS laboratory was excluded from the trend analyses. Due to potential differences in protocols and no values provided below the reporting limits, there were concerns about detecting spurious trends. Methodology and instrumentation has been kept the same at the EQI laboratory, so its data has remained consistent. Trends related to flow are determined using flow measurements from nearby United States Geological Survey gauging stations (USGS 2013). This method may also present some problems since gauging stations can only truly represent the streams on which they are located, but it has been found to be the most reliable method of determining these trends. The USGS gauging station on the South Toe River near Celo (USGS-03463300) is utilized to determine relative flow for the sites in the Toe and Cane River watersheds. The logarithm of the ratio of the measured flow to the long-term average flow for each date is used as the predictor variable for flow. Corresponding flow data are analyzed for all sample collection dates from the beginning of the monitoring program to present. Appendix G is a summary of trends related to flow, Appendix H shows trends related to time, and Appendix I shows trends related to season.
11 A. Acidity (pH) and Alkalinity: pH is used to measure acidity. The pH is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. If the value of the measurement is less than 7.0, the solution is acidic. If the value is greater than 7.0, the solution is alkaline (more commonly referred to as basic). The ambient water quality standard is between 6.0 and 9.0. Natural pH in area streams should be in the range of 6.5 - 7.2. Values below 6.5 may indicate the effects of acid rain or other acidic inputs, and values above 7.5 may be indicative of an industrial discharge. Because organisms in aquatic environments have adapted to the pH conditions of natural waters, even small pH fluctuations can interfere with the reproduction of those organisms or can even kill them outright. The pH is an important water quality parameter because it has the potential to seriously affect aquatic ecosystems. It can also be a useful indicator of specific types of discharges. Alkalinity is the measure of the acid neutralizing capacity of a water or soil. Waters with high alkalinity are considered protected (well buffered) against acidic inputs. Streams that are supplied with a buffer are able to absorb and neutralize hydrogen ions introduced by acidic sources such as acid rain, decomposing organic matter and industrial effluent. For example, water can leach calcium carbonate (a natural buffer) from limestone soils or bedrock and then move into a stream, providing that stream with a buffer. As a result, pH levels in the stream are held constant despite acidic inputs. Natural buffering materials can become depleted due to excessive acidic precipitation over time. In that case, further acidic precipitation can cause severe decreases in stream pH. Potential future stream acidification problems can be anticipated by alkalinity measurement. There is no legal standard for alkalinity, but waters with an alkalinity below 30 mg/l are considered to have low alkalinity. WNC streams tend to have low alkalinity because of generally thin soils and because the underlying granitic bedrock does not contain many acid-neutralizing compounds such as calcium carbonate. Figures 2 and 3 are box-and-whisker plots for pH and alkalinity over the past three years at the TRVW monitoring sites. The horizontal bar in the middle of the “boxes” represents the median for each site, while the upper and lower bars represent the 25th and 75th percentiles respectively. The “whiskers” show the range of the data, with outliers indicated by dots. Boxplots are used to identify samples with extreme characteristics, or a particular skew to the data. Outliers are information-rich aspects of the dataset, as they may indicate an ecological disturbance. The plots also show WNC regional median levels and levels in largely undisturbed areas for comparison.
12 Figure 2: pH levels at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely undisturbed areas
Figure 3: Alkalinity levels at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely undisturbed areas
13
B. Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS): Turbidity is a measurement of the visual clarity of a water sample and indicates the presence of fine suspended particulate matter. The unit used to measure turbidity is NTU (nephelometric turbidity units), which measures the absorption and reflection of light when it is passed through a sample of water. Because particles can have a wide variety of sizes, shapes and densities, there is only an approximate relationship between the turbidity of a sample and the concentration (i.e. weight) of the particulate matter present. This is why there are separate tests for turbidity and suspended solids. Turbidity is an important parameter for assessing the viability of a stream for trout propagation. Trout eggs can withstand only small amounts of silt before hatching success is greatly reduced. Fish that are dependent on sight for locating food are also at a great disadvantage when water clarity declines. For this reason, the standard for trout-designated waters is 10NTU while the standard to protect other aquatic life is 50NTU. Mountain streams in undisturbed forested areas remain clear even after a moderately heavy rainfall event, but streams in areas with disturbed soil may become highly turbid after even a relatively light rainfall. Deposition of silt into a stream bottom can bury and destroy the complex bottom habitat. Consequently, the habitat for most species of aquatic insects, snails, and crustaceans is destroyed by stream siltation. The absence of these species reduces the diversity of the ecosystem. In addition, small amounts of bottom-deposited sediment can severely reduce the hatch rate of trout eggs. There is no legal standard for TSS, but values below 30.0mg/l are generally considered low, and values above 100mg/l are considered high. TSS quantifies solids by weight and is heavily influenced by the combination stream flow and land disturbing activities. A good measure of the upstream land use conditions is how much TSS rises after a heavy rainfall. Figures 4 and 5 are box-and-whisker plots for turbidity and TSS at the Toe/Cane River monitoring sites over the past three years. The plots also show WNC regional median levels and levels in largely undisturbed areas for comparison. Note that extreme outliers for turbidity and TSS are shown at the top of the plots, but are not to scale.
14 Figure 4: Turbidity levels at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested areas
Figure 5: Total suspended solids concentrations at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested area
15
C. Conductivity: Conductivity is measured in micromhos per centimeter (umho/cm) and is used to measure the ability of a water sample to conduct an electrical current. Pure water will not conduct an electrical current. However, samples containing dissolved solids and salts will form positively and negatively charged ions that will conduct an electrical current. The concentration of dissolved ions in a sample determines conductivity. Inorganic dissolved solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum affect conductivity levels. Geology of an area can affect conductivity levels. Streams that run through areas with granitic bedrock tend to have lower conductivity because granitic rock is composed of materials that do not ionize in water. Streams that receive large amounts of runoff containing clay particles generally have higher conductivity because of the presence of materials in clay that ionize more readily in water. Elevated levels of conductivity are most often seen in streams receiving industrial or domestic wastewater or urban runoff. These substances also occur naturally in soils and may show higher levels in streams where severe erosion and runoff are occurring. Figure 6 is a box-and-whisker plot for conductivity at the TRVW monitoring sites over the past three years. The plot also shows WNC regional median levels and levels in largely undisturbed areas for comparison.
Figure 6: Conductivity levels at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested area
16 3- + D. Nutrients (Orthophosphate (PO4 ), Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH4 /NH3), and - - Nitrate/Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO3 /NO2 ): Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for aquatic plants and algae. It occurs naturally in water and is in fact, usually the limiting nutrient in most aquatic systems. In other words, plant growth is restricted by the availability of phosphorus in the system. Excessive phosphorus inputs stimulate the growth of algae and diatoms on rocks in a stream and cause periodic algal blooms in reservoirs downstream. Slippery green mats of algae in a stream, or blooms of algae in a lake are usually the result of an introduction of excessive phosphorus into the system that has caused algae or aquatic plants to grow at abnormally high rates. Eutrophication is the term used to describe this growth of algae due to an over abundance of a limiting nutrient. Sources of phosphorus include soil, disturbed land, wastewater treatment plants, failing septic systems, runoff from fertilized crops and lawns, and livestock waste storage areas. Phosphates have an attraction to soil particles, and phosphorus concentrations can increase greatly during rains where surface runoff is a problem. In this report orthophosphate is reported 3- in the form of orthophosphate (PO4 ). To isolate phosphorus (P) from the measurement, divide the reported amount by 3.07. Orthophosphate is a measure of the dissolved phosphorus that is immediately available to plants or algae. Orthophosphate is also referred to as phosphorus in solution. There is no legal water quality standard, but generally levels must be below 0.05 mg/l to prevent downstream eutrophication. Ammonia-nitrogen is contained in the remains of decaying wastes of plants and animals. Some species of bacteria and fungi decompose these wastes and NH3 is formed. The normal ambient level is approximately 0.10 mg/l, and elevated levels of NH3 can be toxic to fish. Although the actual toxicity depends on the pH of the water, the proposed ambient standard to protect trout waters is 1.0 mg/l in summer and 2.0 mg/l in winter. The most probable sources of ammonia nitrogen are agricultural runoff, livestock farming, septic drainage and sewage treatment plant discharges. In WNC, streams with extensive trout farming may also show elevated ammonia-nitrogen concentrations. Like phosphorus, nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen serves as an algal nutrient contributing to excessive stream and reservoir algal growth. In addition, nitrate is highly toxic to infants and the unborn causing inhibition of oxygen transfer in the blood stream at high doses. This condition is known as "blue-baby" disease. This is the basis for the 10 mg/L national drinking water standard. The ambient standard to protect aquatic ecosystems is 10 mg/L as well. The most probable sources are septic drainage and fertilizer runoff from agricultural land and domestic lawns. Nitrates from land sources end up in streams more quickly than other nutrients such as phosphorus because they dissolve in water more readily and can travel with ground water into streams. Consequently, nitrates are a good indicator of the possibility of sources of pollution from sewage or animal waste during dry weather. Figures 7, 8, and 9 are box-and-whisker plots for orthophosphate, ammonia-nitrogen, and nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen at the TRVW monitoring sites over the past three years. The plots also show WNC regional median levels and levels in largely undisturbed areas for comparison.
17 Figure 7: Orthophosphate concentrations at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested area
Figure 8: Ammonia-nitrogen concentrations at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested area
18
Figure 9: Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen concentrations at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested area
E. Biological Monitoring Due to the time constraints and high cost of laboratory testing for organic pollutants, such as pesticides, biological monitoring is preferable. Aquatic insect communities are excellent indicators of toxic substances in streams, since they are in the water constantly and have specific tolerance levels to pollutants. If a stream has good chemical ratings, but poor biological scores, it could mean that unmeasured toxic substances are getting into the water periodically. In the spring and fall of 2008 the Stream Monitoring Information Exchange program began volunteer biological monitoring at the Cane Creek site in Mitchell County and Cane River site in Yancey County respectively. The North Toe River site was added in the spring of 2009. The Cane River and the North Toe River were not sampled in the fall of 2009 due to the frequency of rain events and subsequent stream flooding. Virginia Save Our Streams (VASOS) and Izaak Walton League ratings have been determined at these sites, with analysis of data though the fall of 2011 so far (Table 3). Additional monitoring will continue to form a more complete view of actual trends by season and year.
19 Table 3: Stream Monitoring Information Exchange biological ratings from spring 2008- fall 2011 Number Izaak Taxa of EPT VASOS Walton Izaak Walton Site # Site Season Richness Taxa VASOS RATING League League Rating 1 Cane Creek Spring 2008 21 9 12 Acceptable 24 Excellent Fall 2008 12 7 11 Acceptable 18 Good Spring 2009 14 7 10 Acceptable 25 Excellent Fall 2009 17 7 12 Acceptable 25 Excellent Spring 2010 17 6 10 Acceptable 28 Excellent Fall 2010 18 10 9 Acceptable 21 Good Spring 2011 13 6 10 Acceptable 21 Good Fall 2011 13 7 10 Acceptable 22 Good 4 North Toe River Spring 2009 12 6 9 Acceptable 15 Fair Fall 2009 Not sampled Spring 2010 15 5 8 Acceptable 21 Good Fall 2010 18 9 7 Acceptable 25 Excellent Spring 2011 15 8 12 Acceptable 25 Excellent Fall 2011 15 6 8 Acceptable 31 Excellent 5 Cane River Fall 2008 15 6 8 Acceptable 18 Good Spring 2009 12 7 9 Acceptable 16 Fair Fall 2009 Not sampled Spring 2010 19 11 10 Acceptable 24 Excellent Fall 2010 15 7 11 Acceptable 25 Excellent Spring 2011 18 8 10 Acceptable 28 Excellent Spring 2011 18 7 9 Acceptable 27 Excellent EPT = Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) VASOS = Virginia Save Our Streams Index; VASOS Rating (Acceptable 7-12, Unacceptable 0-6) Izaak Walton Score (Excellent >22, Good 17-22, Fair 11-16, Poor <11)
IV. Summary and Conclusions
General Summary
The North Toe and Cane Rivers in Mitchell and Yancey Counties combine to form the Nolichucky River, which then flows into Tennessee to the north. Monitoring sites in the Toe and Cane River watersheds include the rivers and their tributaries in an attempt to quantify the effects of land uses on the water quality. In general, this area is impacted by agricultural land use, development, stormwater runoff, industrial discharge, mining facilities, and reduced riparian buffers. Chemical analyses of samples collected at the Toe and Cane River watershed sites are intended to characterize the water quality relative to the parameters established by the VWIN program. As discussed in the Results section, the ranking system allows grouping by parameters into categories. This system permits comparison of specific water quality problems such as stream sedimentation and nutrient loading. Table 4 is a summary of the TRVW site scores by water quality issue. With this information it is easier to focus on specific areas with related water quality problems. Characterizing the water quality of any area is a complex task, and interpretation of the data can be difficult due to many factors. With continued long term monitoring, however, various trends become more evident. Five years of data allow for more
20 differences in weather patterns and usually include more samples collected under various conditions. External sources have been used for the discussion of watersheds in this report, such as EQI’s 2012 SMIE report (Traylor & O'Neill 2012), the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Basinwide Report for the French Broad River Basin (NCDENR- DWQ-BPU 2011), and The NC DENR French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009 (NCDENR-EEP 2009). Volunteer observations are also useful in documenting water quality at specific sites.
Table 4: Index ratings for the Toe/Cane River watershed monitoring sites site # site name sediment nutrients overall rating VWIN - WNC Regional Average 70 80 75 1 Cane Creek at Bakersville 58 83 71 average 2 Cane Creek at Loafer's Glory 58 83 71 average 3 South Toe River 100 100 100 excellent 4 North Toe River at Red Hill 50 100 75 average 5 Cane River at MH High Sch 92 75 83 good 6 Bald Creek at Bald Crk Elem 42 75 59 poor 7 Jacks Creek at Smith Johnson Rd 67 75 71 average average for Toe/Cane stream sites 67 85 76 percent sites below regional average 71% 43% 43%
In addition to sample collection, volunteers test water temperature at each site when samples are collected (Figure 10). Water temperature is a critical factor for trout streams where ideal temperature should not exceed 70°F (less than 68° F for brook trout). Monitoring sites have exhibited their highest temperatures in the summers of 2010 and 2011. The lack of stream bank vegetation and stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, such as roads, are most likely causing elevated stream temperatures, especially during exceptionally hot weather. The winter of 2011-12, which was notably mild and yielded little snow (State Climate Office of North Carolina 2013), had higher streamwater temperatures than the previous three winters. The summer of 2012 revealed lower overall water temperatures than in the previous two summers. Drought conditions can have severe impacts on streams, by reducing aquatic habitats, providing less water to dilute point source pollution, and reducing nonpoint source pollution between rainfall events. Much of western North Carolina, including Mitchell and Yancey Counties, experienced an extreme drought that lasted approximately two years from mid-2007 to mid-2009. Since then, rainfall has mostly been normal, with some abnormally dry conditions during the second half of 2010 and sporadically in 2011 and 2012 (Drought Management Advisory Council 2013). A comparison of TRVW monitoring sites with all other stream sites in the VWIN program is presented in Appendix E. These comparisons are based on the most recently updated three years of data for the sites in WNC. This ensures that only current water quality is being rated. Appendix F shows the data summary for each parameter and site for the past three years. The only chemical parameters to exhibit grade changes in 2012 were TSS and orthophosphate. Low TSS scores for Sites #1, 2, 4, and 6 were due largely to high median values, not maximums. Alternatively, Sites #1, 2, 3, and 6 had turbidity grades of C due to high maximum values (>50NTU), even though the medians were low. No site had medians above the 10NTU turbidity standard for trout waters, or above 30mg/L for TSS, although there were high outliers for both
21 Figure 10: Stream temperatures at each site on the day samples were collected. Note that temperatures are missing from almost all sites during the first month of sampling in April 2007, in August 2009 when no samples were taken, and in January 2010 due to ice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 stream temperature F)temperature (degrees stream 20
10
0
11
11
11
11
07 10 08 09 12
08 09 10 12 07 08 09 10 12
08 09 07 10 12
-
-
-
-
- - - - -
------
- - - - -
Jul
Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul
Oct
Oct Oct Jan Apr Oct Oct Oct
Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr
Jan Jan Jan Jan
parameters. Figure 11 shows the percentage of sampling occasions at each site that exceeded the turbidity standards. Four sites (#3, 4, 5, and 6) had low pH values, ranging down to 5.0 standard units, which resulted in grades of B for pH. All pH values less than 6.3, along with the highest value of 10.8, were results from the ETS lab, so it may be a due to a difference in lab protocols instead of actual acidic inputs. Sites #1, 2, and 6 received a conductivity score of C because the medians exceeded 50umhos/cm, while Site #4 received a D for exceeding 100umhos/cm once. All sites except Site #7 had low alkalinity concentrations, less than 30mg/L, which is normal for WNC streams. There were no values at any site above the summer ambient standard of 1.0mg/L concentration for ammonia, or the 10.0mg/L ambient standard for nitrates. Summaries of trends related to flow, time, and season are presented in Appendices G, H, and I, respectively. Trends related to flow indicated increasing turbidity, TSS, and ammonia as flow increased in four of the six sites. Increased flow is attributable to increased rainfall, which causes exposed soil and associated pollutants to contaminate surface waters. Alkalinity, pH, and conductivity declined with increasing flow in four to five of the sites. Declines in these three parameters could be due to acidic rain and/or dilution of streamwater components. Most sites showed higher pH, alkalinity, turbidity, TSS, and ammonia values in the summer months and lower values in the winter. Conductivity exhibited higher values in the fall and lower values in the winter and spring. Winter months yielded higher nitrate concentrations, likely due to nitrate
22 leaching from the soil while plants are dormant or absent. No seasonal trend was detected for orthophosphate at any monitoring site.
Figure 11: The percentage of sampling occasions exceeding turbidity standards for each site (10NTU for trout waters, 50NTU for other aquatic life). .
40
35
30
25
20
15
10 >10NTU >50NTU
5 % of samples exceeding turbidity samples of standards %
0
1 7
2 6
3 4 5
- -
- - -
-
-
South Toe River River Toe South
Cane River at MHHS at River Cane
Cane Cr at Bakersville Bakersville Cr at Cane
Bald Cr at Bald Cr Elem Elem Cr Bald at Cr Bald
Cane Cr at Loafer's Glory Glory Loafer's Cr at Cane North Toe River at Red Hill Hill Red at River Toe North
Jack's Cr at Smith Johnson Rd Johnson Smith at Cr Jack's
Site-Specific Summary
Cane Creek is a tributary of the North Toe River in Mitchell County, with a large area of agricultural land use. It is also the receiving waters for the Bakersville WWTP. TRVW samples two sites along this creek, at Bakersville and Loafer's Glory. The overall VWIN scores for both VWIN monitoring sites improved from Below Average in 2011 to Average, but still haven't rebounded to the Good rating from previous years. The improvement was mostly due to their TSS scores changing from C to B. Both sites had turbidity and TSS medians below the regional average median, but had a few high outliers related to a high-flow event in December of 2009. The downstream site at Loafer's Glory had the highest maximum TSS concentration on this occasion for any TRVW site over the past three years. Both locations had median nutrient concentrations at or below the regional average median. The downstream site had slightly higher medians for most parameters, with the exception of ammonia and nitrates which had the same medians as upstream. Cane Creek at Bakersville showed increasing pH over time. Loafer's Glory exhibited increasing orthophosphate over time, possibly due to the WWTP, and decreasing
23 turbidity, ammonia, and nitrates. Downstream Cane Creek has recorded temperatures up to 80°F, which is higher than the 76°F maximums upstream. The Loafer's Glory site also has more readings at or above 70°F (five above and nine at 70°F) than Bakersville (two above and seven at 70°F). Site #1 at Bakersville has been sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates since the spring of 2008. Spiny crawler mayflies (74%) dominated the spring of 2011 sample. Filter mayflies (47%), round headed swimmer mayflies (16%), and flattened scraper mayflies (12%) were most abundant in the fall. The IWL ratings for both seasons in 2011 were Good, down from Excellent ratings in previous years. The South Toe River borders the east side of the Black Mountain range in Yancey County and flows into the North Toe River upstream of Cane Creek. Site #3 is located in the upper reaches of the river, downstream of the Mount Mitchell Golf Course. The upper South Toe River is considered Outstanding Resource Waters (OWR) by the state of NC. This is one of the most pristine regional VWIN sites, which the water quality data continues to support. The South Toe VWIN monitoring site retains its Excellent rating, with its orthophosphate grade improving from a B to an A. The lowest median and maximum value for every measured parameter is found here. Additionally, it has tighter ranges for most parameters, indicating little variability with time and flow. The South Toe River site shows nitrates increasing with time, and decreasing with flow. It also shows decreasing pH, alkalinity, and turbidity with time. The water temperature of the South Toe River site has never measured greater than 65°F, due to adequate riparian zones and minimal impervious surfaces in the watershed. The North Toe River originates in Avery County, NC, and travels through Mitchell County and along the Yancey County border. Major tributaries include the South Toe River and Cane Creek, before the North Toe merges with the Cane River and they become the Nolichucky River. This river is affected by several industrial mining facilities, the Spruce Pine WWTP, agriculture, and development. Site #4 is located at the Red Hill Bridge downstream of Cane Creek on the Mitchell/Yancey County border. The overall VWIN score remains Average, although its TSS grade improved from C to B, and its orthophosphate grade improved from B to A. While this site scores well for nutrients, it also has a C for TSS (mostly due to high outliers) and a D for conductivity (since six of the 34 samples exceeded 100umhos/cm). The high conductivity may be due in part to the several NPDES dischargers upstream. Orthophosphate and pH show an increasing trend over time at this site. The North Toe River site has recorded temperatures up to 79°F. TRVW has been testing this site for copper since May of 2011. For the 17 samples through October of 2012, the median concentration was 2.0ug/L, and no samples had a concentration higher than 4.5ug/L. While 53% of the samples exceeded the ambient level of 1.0ug/L, none reached the water quality standard of 7.0ug/L. An upstream site on the North Toe River was first sampled for macroinvertebrates in the spring of 2009. Round headed swimmer mayflies (20%) and quick crawling predator stoneflies (17%) were abundant in the spring. Net- spinning caddisflies (71%) dominated the fall sample. Coiled right face snails were present in the fall, indicating good water quality. Both seasons in 2011 resulted in Excellent IWL ratings, with IWL scores increasing since the first sampling in 2009. The Cane River’s headwaters are in the Pisgah National Forest on the west side of the Black Mountain Range. The river runs through rural areas of Yancey County and joins with the North Toe River to form the Nolichucky River. Site #5 is located at the Mountain Heritage High School, downstream of the Burnsville WWTP. This site has declined from Excellent to Good since last year. Orthophosphate fell from a B grade to a C. This site has the highest maximum values for nitrates, ammonia, and orthophosphate. The median conductivity is lower than the
24 regional average median, however a few higher outliers may be due to the WWTP. In fact, the highest orthophosphate and ammonia values at this site occurred in July of 2008 following a failure at the Burnsville WWTP. The volunteer collecting samples reported a sewage smell on five occasions from November 2007 through December 2009. In August of 2010, the volunteer also reported active construction on the opposite side of the river and the side branch dammed upstream of the sample site. This site has the highest (April 2010) and lowest extremes for pH values, however these were measured at a different laboratory, so EQI is not sure of the results. With that being said, the alkalinity is low here which could affect the stream's resistance to pH fluctuations. The Cane River monitoring site exhibits low medians of turbidity and TSS, with no high outliers. Orthophosphate appears to be increasing with time, and alkalinity, turbidity, and ammonia show a decreasing trend with time. The maximum recorded temperature at this site was 79°F. SMIE sampling began at this site in the fall of 2008. Spiny crawler mayflies (26%), flattened scraper mayflies (15%), net-spinning caddisflies (10%), and filter mayflies (10%) were abundant in the spring. Net-spinning caddisflies (48%), giant shredder stoneflies (12%), flattened scraper mayflies (10%), and filter mayflies (10%) were abundant in the fall. The IWL ratings for both seasons in 2011 were Excellent. Taxa richness and IWL scores have been rising since the spring of 2010, perhaps indicating that the benthic invertebrate communities are recovering after the failure of the Burnsville WWTP in July 2008. Bald Creek is a tributary to the Cane River downstream of the VWIN sampling Site #5. The watershed is largely forested, with some development and agricultural land along the creek. This watershed has a history of fecal coliform, high nutrients (especially nitrates), sedimentation, channelization, and lack of riparian buffer, as addressed in the state's Bald Creek Local Watershed Plan (NCDENR-EEP 2006). Site #6 at Bald Creek Elementary School has declined from an overall rating of Below Average in 2011 to Poor, however it has only dropped by one point from a score of 60 to 59. Orthophosphate has declined from a B to a C grade. This site has the highest median turbidity, TSS, and nitrate values, as well as the highest maximum turbidity measurement. Runoff from agricultural areas and residential development are likely contributing to these elevated concentrations. Orthophosphate appears to be increasing with time, with alkalinity, turbidity, and ammonia decreasing with time. Bald Creek had a maximum observed water temperature of 72°F. Jacks Creek is a tributary to the North Toe River, north of Burnsville in Yancey County. The Jacks Creek watershed has the highest percentage of agricultural land use (19%) in the Cane and Toe River basin, with a significant amount of pasture land. It is considered impaired by the state, and is included in the expanded Bald Creek Local Watershed Plan (NCDENR-EEP 2006). Sampling began at the new monitoring site in September 2011. This site is located near the intersection of Jacks Creek Road and Smith Johnson Road. Monitoring was initiated due to concern about sediment impairment, as evidenced by a muddy stream bed. Based on 14 sampling occasions, this site received a VWIN rating of Average. Conductivity and orthophosphate received the lowest grades (D and C respectively). This site had the highest median pH, alkalinity, conductivity, orthophosphate, and ammonia values compared to the six other TRVW sites. This site had the highest maximum alkalinity and conductivity values. The Ecological Conditions Summary Report (NCDENR-EEP 2006) notes high conductivity levels in this stream, being comparable to levels recorded directly below known pollutant sources. The median values for turbidity and TSS are slightly less that the regional average median, with two of 14 measurements exceeding the trout standard of 10NTU for turbidity. The measured water temperature of the site on Jack's Creek only exceeded 70°F once in August of 2012 when it
25 reached 72°F. Since this discussion covers just over one year of monitoring at Jacks Creek, additional sampling will add to the understanding of its water quality under various environmental conditions.
26 V. Literature Cited
Drought Management Advisory Council. (2013). Drought Monitor Archive. US Drought Monitor of North Carolina. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncdrought.org/archive/.
NCDENR, DWQ Basinwide Planning Unit (BPU). 2011. French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR, DWQ. 2007. “Redbook”: Surface Waters and Wetland Standards, NC Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B .0200. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). 2009. French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
NCDENR - EEP and Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc. 2006. Indian-Price Creek, Middle Cane River, & Jacks Creek Watersheds Ecological Conditions Summery Report. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
NCDENR - EEP and Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc. 2006. Bald Creek Local Watershed Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
State Climate Office of North Carolina. (2013). NC CRONOS Database. NC State University. [Online]. Available: http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/cronos.
Traylor, A. M. and G. O'Neill. 2012. Seven Years of Volunteer Biomonitoring in Western North Carolina Streams. The Environmental Quality Institute. 43 p.
US Geological Survey. 2013. USGS Real-Time Water Data for North Carolina. National Water Information System: Web Interface. [Online]. Available: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/rt.
27 Appendix A: Chain of Custody form
Volunteer Water Information Network
Toe/Cane River Watershed 1) Sample Site Number ______2) Sample Site Name ______3) Collection Date ______Day______4) Time Collected ______5) Temperature at drop-off site (in cooler)______6) Volunteer's Name ______7) Volunteer's Phone# &/or Email:______(please provide current mailing address if there has been a change) 8) Water Flow Rate (please circle one) Very High High Normal Low 9) Type of Rain in past 3 days (please circle one) Heavy Medium Light Dry 10) Stream water temperature______11) General Observations (turbidity, waste matter, dead animals upstream, anything out of the ordinary)______
Parameter Results (For Lab Use Only) Parameter and Result Date of Analysis
NH3 mg/L______
NO3 mg/L______
Ortho-P mg/L______
Turb NTU______
TSS _ mg/L _ _ _
Cond _ umhos/cm _ _ _
Alk mg/L______pH______
28 Appendix B: Laboratory Analysis
Samples are kept refrigerated until they are delivered to the EQI laboratory on the Monday morning following Saturday collections. Methods follow EPA or Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater-18th-20th Edition techniques and the EQI laboratory is certified by the State of North Carolina for water and wastewater analysis of orthophosphate, total phosphorus, ammonia-nitrogen, turbidity, total suspended solids, pH, conductivity, fecal coliform, copper, lead, and zinc. All samples are kept refrigerated until the time of analysis. Shipped samples are sent on ice. Analysis for nitrogen, phosphorus, turbidity, and conductivity are completed within 48 hours of the collection time. As pH cannot be tested on site, the holding time for pH is exceeded. Samples are preserved by acidification when immediate analysis does not occur, such as for total phosphorus and heavy metals.
Explanations about the procedures and instruments used in the EQI lab are quite technical in nature and will be omitted from this report. Detailed information is available on request. The reporting limits for each parameter have been provided for both EQI and ETS laboratories.
Approximate Analytical Reporting Limits (RL) for VWIN Water Quality Parameters
PARAMETER EQI RL ETS RL UNITS
Ammonia Nitrogen 0.02 0.10 mg/L Nitrate/nitrite Nitrogen 0.1 0.1 mg/L 3- Total Phosphorus (as PO4 ) 0.02 mg/L 3- Orthophosphate (as PO4 ) 0.02 0.05 mg/L Alkalinity 1.0 1.0 mg/L Total Suspended Solids 10.0 8.2 mg/L Conductivity 10.0 14.9 umhos/cm Turbidity 1.0 1.0 NTU Copper 2.0 10.0 ug/L Zinc 20.0 30.0 ug/L Lead 2.0 5.0 ug/L pH n/a n/a n/a
29 Appendix C: Biological Monitoring Data Sheet SMIE Biomonitoring Field ID Sheet Stream: ______Nearby Road:______County:______Date:______
Group Leader:______Volunteers:______Weather:______
KICK NET Total LEAF PACK Total VISUAL Total STONEFLY 1. Giant Shredder 2. Roach Shredder 3. Quick Crawling Predator 4. Fragile Detritivore MAYFLY 5. Flattened Scraper 6. Spiny Crawler 7. Round Headed Swimmer 8. Burrowing Mayfly 9. Spiny Turtle Mayfly 10. Filter Mayfly CADDISFLY FREE 11. Net Spinner Caddis LIVING 12. Small Head Caddis 13. Stick Bait Caddis ORGANIC 14. Square Log Cabin CASES 15. Sand and Stick 16. Vegetative Case 17. Gravel Coffin Case MINERAL 18. Sand Snail Case CASES 19. Sand/ Mineral Case BEETLES 20. Water Penny 21. Predator Beetle 22. Adult Riffle Beetle 23. Larval Riffle Beetle MEGALOPTERAN 24. Hellgrammite 25. Fishfly 26. Alderfly 27. Oligochaete DIPTERAN 28. Leech 29. Watersnipe 30. Water-worm 31. Fat-headed Cranefly 32. Chironomid Midge 33. Red Midge 34. Blackfly CRUSTACEANS 35. Crayfish 36. Sowbug (Isopod) 37. Scud (Amphipod) SNAILS 38. Coiled Left Face Snail 39. Coiled Right Face Snail 40. Rounded Right Face Snail BIVAVLES 41. Mussels and Clams ODONATES 42. Damselfly 43. Dragonfly
Total Kicknet #: Total Leafpack #:
Please write NOTES on the back, (e.g. if you collected more than one sample, if you preserved the samples, if you threw out some specimens in the preserved sample, etc).
30
Appendix C: Biological Monitoring Data Sheet (continued) SMIE Habitat Sheet
Stream: ______Nearby Road:______County:______Date:______
Group Leader:______Volunteers:______Weather:______
Habitat Characteristics (Circle or place a check next to all that applies, unless otherwise instructed)
1. Fish Presence 6. Riparian Zone Characteristics (and approximate percentages) □ None Observed □ Mostly trees and shrubs _____% Fishes Observed (1-10 11-50 51-100) □ Grasses _____% □ Minnows/small fishes □ Vines (e.g. kudzu) _____% □ Sunfish, catfish and/or bass □ Eroding stream bank _____% □ Trout or sculpin □ Rip-rap or construction fill _____% □ Exotic plant and tree species _____% 2. Barriers to Fish Movement □ Roads/parking lots _____% □ No barriers □ Waterfall 7. Litter and Trash □ Beaver pond or lake □ No trash or litter in water or along bank □ Culvert or pipe □ Trash or litter in water but not on bank □ Trash and litter in trees 1 foot above water surface 3. Stream Characteristics □ Trash and litter in trees more than 1 foot above water □ Clear surface □ Oily Types of trash: ______□ Tea-colored □ Muddy 8. Riffle Sampling Effort □ Green □ Rocks extremely embedded into riffle (very difficult or □ Smelly - describe:______impossible to kick or disturb, sand filling spaces between rocks 4. Leaf Packs □ Rocks moderately embedded into riffle (removed with □ No leaf packs found effort, less sand inspaces) □ Leaf packs found within 10 feet □ Rocks loose in riffle, easy to manipulate □ Leaf packs found within 50 feet □ Leaf packs found more than 50 feet away Notes (may include changes or descriptions of site):
5. Stream Bottom (and approximate percentages) □ Gravel or cobblestones _____% □ Sand _____% □ Bedrock or boulders _____% □ Clay _____% □ Algae _____% □ Woody debris _____%
We love pictures! Pics of the sampling sites, with or without volunteers, may be emailed to: [email protected].
31 Appendix D: Parameters and Ranges for Stream Quality Classifications pH - Grade A= never less than 6.0 Grade B= below 6.0 in less than 10% of samples, never below 5.0 Grade C= never less than 5.0 Grade D= at least one sample was less 5.0.
Alkalinity - Grade A= median greater than 30 mg/L (indicates little vulnerability to acidic inputs) Grade B= median 20-30 mg/L (indicates moderate vulnerability to acidic inputs) Grade C= median less than 20 mg/L (considered to be vulnerable to acidic inputs). Grade D= median less than 15 mg/L (very vulnerable to acidic inputs)
Turbidity - Grade A= median less than 5 NTU and exceeded the standard for trout waters of 10 NTU in less than 10% of samples, but never exceeded 50 NTU Grade B= median less than 7.5 NTU and never exceeded the 50 NTU standard Grade C= median less than 10 NTU and exceeded 50 NTU in less than 10% of samples Grade D= median greater than 10 NTU or exceeded 50 NTU in more than 10% of samples.
Total Suspended Solids - Grade A= median less than 5 mg/L and maximum less than 100 mg/L - not measurably disturbed by human activities Grade B= median less than 7.5 mg/L and exceeded 100 mg/L in less than 10% of samples - low to moderate disturbance Grade C= median less than 10 mg/L and exceeded 100 mg/L in less than 10% of samples - moderate to high disturbance. Grade D= median greater than 10 mg/L or maximum exceeded 100 mg/L in more than 10% of samples - high level of land disturbance
Conductivity - Grade A= median less than 30 umhos/cm, never exceeded 100 umhos/cm Grade B= median less than 50 umhos/cm, exceeded 100 umhos/cm in less than 10% of samples Grade C= median greater than 50 umhos/cm, exceeded 100 umhos/cm in less than 10% of samples Grade D= exceeded 100 umhos/cm in more than 10% of samples.
32 Appendix D (continued)
Total Copper - Grade A= never exceeded water quality standard of 7 ug/L Grade B= exceeded 7 ug/L in less than 10% of samples Grade C= exceeded 7 ug/L in 10 to 20% of samples Grade D= exceeded 7 ug/L in more than 20% of samples
Total Lead - Grade A= never exceeded water quality standard of 10ug/L Grade B= exceeded 10 ug/L in less than 10% of samples Grade C= exceeded 10 ug/L in 10 to 20% of samples Grade D= exceeded 10 ug/L in more than 20% of samples
Total Zinc - Grade A= median less than 5 ug/L, never exceeded water quality standard of 50 ppb Grade B= median less than 10 ug/L, exceeded 50 ppb in less than 10% of samples Grade C= median less than 10 ug/L, exceeded 50 ppb in 10 - 20% of samples. Grade D= Median greater than 10 ug/L or concentration exceeded 50 ppb in more than 20% of samples
Total Phosphorous (as P)- Grade A= median not above 0.03 mg/L Grade B= median greater than 0.03 mg/L but less than 0.07 mg/L. Grade C= median greater than 0.07 mg/L but less than 0.10 mg/L Grade D= median greater then 0.10 mg/L
3- Orthophosphate (as PO4 ) - Grade A= median less than ambient level of 0.05 mg/L Grade B= median between 0.05 mg/L but less than 0.10 mg/L Grade C= median greater than 0.10 mg/L but less than 0.20 mg/L Grade D= median greater then 0.20 mg/L.
Ammonia Nitrogen - Grade A= never exceeded 0.50 mg/L Grade B= never exceeded the proposed ambient standard for trout waters in the summer of 1 mg/L Grade C= exceeded 1 mg/L in less than 10% of samples, but never exceeded 2mg/L Grade D= exceeded 1 mg/L in more than 10% of samples, or at least one sample had a concentration greater than the proposed ambient standard for trout waters in the winter of 2.0 mg/L.
Nitrate Nitrogen - Grade A= median does not exceed 0.3 mg/L, no sample exceeded 1.0 mg/L Grade B= less than 10% of samples exceeded 1.0 mg/L, none exceeded 5 mg/L Grade C= no samples exceeded 5 mg/L Grade D= at least one sample exceeded 5 mg/L
33 Appendix E: Stream Ranking Index
Excellent Median and maximum pollutant levels in all parameters show little effect from human disturbances Good One or more parameters show minor or only occasional increases in pollutant levels from human disturbances Average Exhibits constant low levels of one or more pollutants or sudden significant, but short term increases. Below Ave Median pollutant levels are abnormally high in one or more parameters, or exhibits very high pollutant levels during certain weather conditions Poor Pollutant levels are consistently higher than average in several parameters and/or show extreme levels during certain weather conditions
B = Buncombe County H = Henderson County HW = Hiawassee River Watershed HY = Haywood County J = Jackson/Lake Glenville LJ = Lake James LL = Lake Lure M = Madison County NOT=Nottely River Watershed P = Polk County T = Toe/Cane River Watershed TU = Tuckasegee River watershed
site # site description Excellent 1 H11 Green River at down L Summit 100 2 Hi1 Upper Hiwassee River 100 3 Hi11 Hog Creek 100 4 Hi2 Martin's Creek 100 5 Hi3 Hightower Creek 100 6 Hi6 Eagle Fork Creek 100 7 Hi8 Lower Shooting Creek 100 8 J1 Hurricane Creek at Norton Rd bridge 100 9 J2 Norton Creek at N. Norton Rd bridge 100 10 J5 Cedar Creek at Bee Tree Rd bridge 100 11 J7 Norton Creek above Grassy Camp 100 12 LL6 Pool Creek at Hwy 64/74/9 100 13 Not1 Nottely River upstream 100 14 Not5 Coosa Creek 100 15 T3 South Toe River 100 16 Tu1 East Fork of Tuckasegee River 100 17 Tu14 Deep Creek 100 18 Tu3 Caney Fork 100 19 Tu5 Tuckasegee R above Scott's Crk 100 20 Y1 West Fork Pigeon River/Bethel 100 21 Y3 East Fork Pigeon River/Cruso 100
34 22 Y2 East Fork Pigeon River/Bethel 96 23 Y33 Pigeon River above Canton 96 24 Hi7 Upper Shooting Creek 96 25 J3 Mill Creek downstream from N. Norton br 96 26 J4 Pine Creek at Pine Creek Rd bridge 96 27 LJ5 Linville River at Hwy 126 96 28 Not3 Nottely River 96 29 Not7 Young Cane Creek 96 30 Not8 Ivy Log Creek 96 31 Tu11 Conley Creek 96 32 Tu12 Tuckasegee R below Bryson City 96 33 Tu15 Oconaluftee River 96 34 Tu18 Alarka Creek 96 35 Tu2 West Fork of Tuckasegee River 96 36 Tu4 Cullowhee Creek 96 37 Tu9 Tuckasegee R above Barkers Cr 96 38 Y27 Jonathan Creek in Maggie Valley 92 39 B9A Bee Tree Creek above Owen Lake 92 40 Hi9 Upper Bell Creek 92 41 J6 Glenville Creek at Tator Knob Rd 92 42 LL10 Fairfield Mountains Crk at Lake Lure 92 43 LL9 Buffalo Creek at Lake Lure 92 44 B22 Ivy Creek at Dillingham Road 92 45 Hi4 Scataway Creek 92
Good 46 B12A Bent Creek at SR 191 (at French Broad River) 88 47 B15A Cane Creek at Hwy 74 88 48 B24 Swannanoa River at confluence with North Fork 88 49 B5B Reem's Creek at Ox Creek 88 50 H10 Mills River at Hooper Lane 88 51 H12 Green River at Terry's Ck Rd 88 52 H19 Green River at Old 25 88 53 H20 Clear Creek at Apple Valley Rd 88 54 H21 Mud Creek at Berea Church Rd 88 55 H23 Big Willow Creek at Patterson Rd 88 56 H7 North Fork Mills River 88 57 H8 South Fork Mills River 88 58 H9 Mills River at Hwy 191 88 59 Hi12 Woods Creek 88 60 LL7 Public Golf Course Crk at Hwy 64/74 88 61 Tu10 Barker's Creek 88 62 Tu17 Wayehutta Creek 88 63 Y13 Allens Creek 88 64 H24 Little Willow Creek 84 65 Y10 Richland Creek at West Waynesville 84 66 B20 Ivy Creek at Buckner Branch Road 83 67 B31 Swannanoa River at Grassy Branch Confluence 83 68 LL5 Rocky Broad River at Lake Lure 83 69 T5 Cane River at MH High Sch 83
35 70 Tu7 Savannah Creek 83 71 Tu8 Green's Creek 83 72 LL1 Reedypatch Crk at Hwy 64 (Bat Cave) 83 73 LL15 Buffalo Creek at Bald Mt Lake 83 74 LL8 Cane Creek 1/4 mile above Tryon Bay 83 75 Y9 Plott Creek 83 76 H14 Boylston Creek at Ladson Rd 80 77 H2 French Broad River at Butler Br Rd 80 78 H3 Mud Creek at Erkwood Rd 80
Average 79 B33 North Fork Swannanoa River at Grovestone Quarry 79 80 B9B Swannanoa River at Bee Tree Creek 79 81 LJ2 Catawba River at US-221A 79 82 LL3 Broad River at Hwy 9 (Bat Cave) 79 83 LL4 Rocky Broad River at Chimney Rock 79 84 Tu13 Kirkland Creek 79 85 B10 Bull Creek at Swannanoa River 79 86 LL2 Hickory Crk at Hwy 74 (Bat Cave) 79 87 Not2 Arkaqua Creek 79 88 H15 Bat Fork Creek at Tabor Rd 79 89 H26 Brittain Creek at Patton Park 79 90 B15B Ashworth Creek at Cane Creek 75 91 B17A Swannanoa River at NC81 below S. Tunnel Rd 75 92 B1A Big Ivy at Forks of Ivy 75 93 B23 French Broad River at Jean Webb Park 75 94 B30 Grassy Branch 75 95 B38 Swannanoa River at Bull Creek 75 96 B49 Dingle Creek at Ramble Way 75 97 B50 Dingle Creek at Overlook Rd. 75 98 H1 French Broad River at Banner Farm Rd 75 99 H13 Big Hungry River below dam 75 100 LJ3 North Fork of Catawba River at SR 1552 75 101 T4 North Toe River at Red Hill 75 102 Tu6 Scott's Creek 75 103 Y12 Jonathan Creek downstream 75 104 Y8 Eaglenest Creek 75 105 Y11 Richland Creek at Lake Junaluska 74 106 H25 Gash Creek at Etowah School Rd 71 107 T7 Jack's Creek at Smith Johnson Rd 71 108 Y25 Raccoon Creek downstream 71 109 Y26 Crabtree Creek 71 110 Y4 Pigeon River downstream of Canton 71 111 B35 Smith Mill Creek at Louisiana Blvd. 71 112 B8 Beaverdam Creek at Beaver Lake 71 113 B21 Paint Fork at Ivy Creek confluence in Barnardsville 71 114 B25 South Turkey Creek 71 115 LJ13 North Fork/Catawba River at Old Linville Rd 71 116 T1 Cane Creek at Bakersville 71 117 T2 Cane Creek at Loafer's Glory 71
36 118 H16 Cane Creek at Howard Gap Rd 71 119 H22 Hoopers Creek at Jackson Rd 71 120 H28 Shaw Creek at Hunters Glen 71
Below Average 121 Y24 Raccoon Creek upstream 67 122 B16A Cane Creek at Mills Gap Rd. 67 123 B34 Lower Hominy Creek at SR 191 67 124 Not4 Butternut Creek 67 125 B43 Ross Creek at Swannanoa River 67 126 B5A Ox Creek at Reem's Creek 67 127 B6B Reem's Creek at US 25/70 67 128 H18 Mud Creek at 7th Ave 67 129 H30 Devil's Fork at Dana Rd 67 130 Y31 Beaverdam Crk dnstrm I-40 67 131 Y7 Fines Creek downstream 67 132 B40 Ross Creek at Lower Chunn's Cove Rd bridge 63 133 B42 Ross Creek at Upper Chunn's Cove 63 134 B47 Glenn Creek at entrance to UNCA 63 135 B48 South Creek retention pond 63 136 B7A Glenn Creek at UNC-A Botanical Gardens 63 137 H27 Mill Pond Creek at S Rugby Rd 63 138 H29 Brandy Branch at Mills R Village 63 139 H5 Clear Creek at Nix Rd 63 140 Y14 Rush Fork upstream 63 141 Y19 Fines Creek upstream 63 142 Y32 Beaverdam Crk at Long Branch Rd 63
Poor 143 T6 Bald Creek at Bald Crk Elem 59 144 Y15 Fines Creek midstream 59 145 Y23 Ratcliff Cove Branch 59 146 B12B French Broad River at Bent Creek 58 147 B17B Haw Creek at Swannanoa River 58 148 B1B Little Ivy at Forks of Ivy 58 149 B2 Lower Sandymush Creek 58 150 B27 Flat Creek at US 19/23 58 151 B39 South Creek at Beaver Lake 58 152 B41 Ross Creek at Tunnel Rd 58 153 B7B Reed Creek at Reed Creek Confluence 58 154 H4 Mud Creek at N Rugby Rd 58 155 Y21 Hyatt Creek upstream 55 156 Y5 Pigeon River at Hepco Bridge 55 157 Y6 Rush Fork at Crabtree 55 158 B26 North Turkey Creek at North Turkey Creek Rd. 54 159 B32 French Broad River at Walnut Island Park 54 160 B6A French Broad River at Ledges Park 54 161 Y28 Hyatt Creek left branch 54 162 Y29 Hyatt Creek Owl Ridge Branch 54
37 163 B36 Newfound Creek at Dark Cove Road 50 164 B4 Lower Newfound Creek 50 165 Y20 Cove Creek 50 166 B13 French Broad River at Corcoran Park 46 167 B37 Newfound Creek at Leicester Hwy 46 168 Y22 Hyatt Creek downstream 46 169 B3B Sandymush at Willow Creek 42 170 M2 French Broad River at Barnard Br 33 171 M4 East Fork of Bull Creek 33 172 Y30 Hyatt Creek Green Valley Branch 33 173 M1 Ivy River at 25/70 25 174 M11 Bull Creek 25 175 M12 Grapevine Creek 25 176 M13 California Creek 25 177 M14 Middle Fork Creek 25 178 M15 Paint Fork Creek 25 179 M17 Gabriel's Creek 25
Below Percent - Excellent Good Average Average Poor Buncombe 4 12 31 20 33 Henderson 4 46 29 18 4 Haywood 17 10 20 20 33 Hiawassee 90 10 0 0 0 Jackson/Lake Glenville 100 0 0 0 0 Lake James 25 0 75 0 0 Lake Lure 27 45 27 0 0 Madison 0 0 0 0 100 Nottely 71 0 14 14 0 Tuckasegee River 65 24 12 0 0 Toe 14 14 57 0 14 TOTAL 38 15 24 8 15
38 Appendix F: Data Summary
Site the number assigned to the VWIN site Sample # the number of samples collected for each parameter Low minimum value of any sample(s) Median median value for each site for last 3 years and then for all years monitored High maximum value of any sample(s)
pH - Last 3 Years All Results Alkalinity (mg/L) - Last 3 Years/rep. limit 1 mg/L All Results site sample # low median high sample # median site sample # low median high sample # median 1 35 6.2 7.1 7.5 65 7.1 1 35 14.0 24.0 49.0 65 26.0 2 36 6.0 7.3 8.0 66 7.3 2 36 16.0 26.0 58.0 66 29.0 3 35 5.4 6.6 6.9 65 6.7 3 35 3.0 5.0 10.0 65 6.0 4 34 5.7 7.2 8.0 64 7.1 4 34 10.0 17.5 31.0 64 18.0 5 36 5.0 6.9 10.8 66 6.9 5 36 4.2 9.8 25.0 66 11.0 6 36 5.5 7.3 7.6 66 7.2 6 36 17.0 25.0 52.0 66 27.3 7 14 7.4 7.8 8.2 14 7.8 7 14 38.0 49.5 82.0 14 49.5
Turbidity (NTU) - Last 3 Years/rep. limit 1 NTU All Results TSS (mg/L) - Last 3 Years/rep. limit 4 mg/L All Results site sample # low median high sample # median site sample # low median high sample # median 1 35 <1.0 3.1 56.0 65 3.8 1 35 <4.0 4.1 110.0 65 4.1 2 36 1.4 4.7 190.0 66 5.1 2 36 <4.0 4.8 470.0 66 4.8 3 35 <1.0 0.7 4.2 65 1.3 3 35 <4.0 1.2 4.4 65 0.8 4 34 <1.0 3.3 93.0 64 3.3 4 34 <4.0 4.3 230.0 64 4.1 5 36 <1.0 1.8 9.1 66 2.0 5 36 <4.0 3.4 10.8 66 2.8 6 36 1.2 7.6 350.0 66 8.4 6 36 <4.0 11.1 238.6 66 10.9 7 14 1.2 4.7 24.0 14 4.7 7 14 <4.0 4.6 19.2 14 4.6
Conductivity - Last 3 Years/rep. limit 10 umhos/cm All Results Orthophosphate (mg/L as PO4)-Last 3 Yrs/rep. lim. 0.02 mg/L All Results site sample # low median high sample # median site sample # low median high sample # median 1 35 23.0 61.2 83.0 65 68.8 1 35 0.03 0.06 0.22 65 0.05 2 36 52.6 74.8 113.6 66 77.4 2 36 0.03 0.07 0.32 66 0.07 3 35 <10.0 13.6 25.0 65 13.8 3 35 <0.02 0.03 0.11 65 0.03 4 34 30.0 72.7 124.4 64 72.6 4 34 <0.02 0.04 0.16 64 0.04 5 36 25.7 36.1 180.0 66 35.9 5 36 0.02 0.14 0.48 66 0.10 6 36 61.6 75.3 104.1 66 76.0 6 36 0.03 0.11 0.46 66 0.10 7 14 104.0 118.5 640.8 14 118.5 7 14 0.08 0.18 0.26 14 0.18
Ammonia-nitrogen (mg/L) - Last 3 Years/rep. lim. 0.02 mg/L All Results Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen (mg/L)- Last 3 Years/rep. limit 0.1 mg/L All Results site sample # low median high sample # median site sample # low median high sample # median 1 35 0.02 0.05 0.08 65 0.05 1 35 0.2 0.4 0.7 65 0.4 2 36 0.03 0.05 0.14 66 0.06 2 36 0.2 0.4 0.8 66 0.4 3 35 <0.02 0.03 0.06 65 0.03 3 35 0.1 0.2 0.6 65 0.2 4 34 0.02 0.05 0.16 64 0.05 4 34 0.2 0.3 0.6 64 0.3 5 36 0.02 0.05 0.22 66 0.10 5 36 0.2 0.3 1.2 66 0.3 6 36 <0.02 0.06 0.16 66 0.07 6 36 0.1 0.5 0.8 66 0.5 7 14 0.04 0.06 0.13 14 0.06 7 14 0.2 0.4 0.7 14 0.4
39 Appendix G: Trends Related to Flow in the Toe/Cane River Watershed
increases as flow increases decreases as flow increases
pH pH
TSS TSS
Nitrate-N Nitrate-N
Turbidity Turbidity
Alkalinity Alkalinity
Ortho-phos Ortho-phos
Ammonia-N Ammonia-N Conductivity site # site name Conductivity
1 Cane Creek at Bakersville x x x x x
2 Cane Creek at Loafer's Glory x x x x x x
3 South Toe River x x
4 North Toe River at Red Hill x x x x x x
5 Cane River at MH High Sch x x x x x
6 Bald Creek at Bald Crk Elem x x x x x
Appendix H: Trends Related to Time in the Toe/Cane River Watershed
increasing over time decreasing over time
pH pH
TSS TSS
Nitrate-N Nitrate-N
Turbidity Turbidity
Alkalinity Alkalinity
Ortho-phos Ortho-phos
Ammonia-N Ammonia-N Conductivity site # site name Conductivity
1 Cane Creek at Bakersville x
2 Cane Creek at Loafer's Glory x x x x
3 South Toe River x x x x
4 North Toe River at Red Hill x x
5 Cane River at MH High Sch x x x x 6 Bald Creek at Bald Crk Elem x x x
40 Appendix I: Number of Sites Exhibiting Seasonal Trends
Seasons include the following months: winter = December, January, February spring = March, April, May summer = June, July, August fall = September, October, November
Toe Sites (number of sites examined for trends = 6) high high high high low low low low trend % sites parameter winter spring summer fall winter spring summer fall sites showing trend pH 4 4 4 66.7% alkalinity 4 4 4 66.7% turbidity 4 3 1 4 66.7% total susp sol 5 4 1 5 83.3% conductivity 3 1 2 3 50.0% orthophos. 0 0.0% ammonia-N 5 4 1 5 83.3% nitrate-N 4 1 5 5 83.3%
41