DOCSLIB.ORG

Basin 5 French Broad

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BASIN 5 FRENCH BROAD Basin Description The French Broad Basin is one of six basins in North Carolina that drain the western slope of the Eastern Continental Divide and flow into the Mississippi River System emptying into the Gulf of Mexico. The basin is divided into the French Broad River, the Nolichucky River, and the Pigeon River sub-basins, none of which merge in North Carolina. The French Broad River begins in the mountains of Transylvania County and flows north entering Tennessee north of Hot Springs, NC. The Pigeon River drains Hayward County LWSPs were submitted by 23 public water systems paralleling Interstate 40 north of Canton, NC, and flows into having service area in this basin or using water from this basin. Tennessee. The Nolichucky River is formed by the These systems supplied 38.2 mgd of water to 202,596 persons. convergence of the North Toe River and Cane River north of DWR estimated that 200,084 of the 202,596 persons served by Burnsville, NC. This sub-basin drains the western slope of the these 23 LWSP systems received water from this basin. Of the Blue Ridge north from Mount Mitchell to the Tennessee state 38.2 mgd supplied by these 23 LWSP systems, 38.1 mgd line. The Nolichucky and Pigeon rivers merge with the French comes from water sources in the French Broad Basin, the rest Broad in Douglas Lake, east of Knoxville, Tennessee. These coming from wells in adjoining basins. three sub-basins drain 2816 square miles in North Carolina and about 1500 square miles in Tennessee upstream of Douglas 1992 LWSP SystemWater Use from Basin (mgd) Lake. Extensive portions of this basin lie within the boundaries LWSP Residential Non-residential Total Sub-basin of the Pisgah and Cherokee national forests. Population Use Use Use* Nolichucky R. 6,359 0.47 0.60 1.5 WATER USE French Broad R. 166,165 10.59 11.37 30.6 Factors Affecting Water Demand Pigeon R. 27,560 1.50 0.91 6.0 This basin has about 5% of the State’s residents and Total 200,084 12.6 12.9 38.1 *Total Use includes unaccounted-for water, bulk sales to other systems . contains all or part of 25 municipalities in 10 counties. Asheville, one of the state’s 12 major metropolitan areas, gets On average, residential and non-residential water uses its water supply from this basin. From 1990 to 1997 year- were nearly equal, with residential use accounting for 33% and round population in three counties in this basin grew by 10% non-residential use accounting for 34% basinwide. or more. Over half of the land in the basin is forested. Unaccounted-for water was 27% of total use. LWSP systems expect to supply water to over Total Water Use in Basin 350,000 persons by the year 2020, a 75% increase over 1992 The U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 1995 summary levels. Their demand for water is projected to grow 45% to of water use estimated total water use in the basin at 169 55.3 mgd by 2020. million gallons per day (mgd), with just over two-thirds In the 1992 LWSPs, 8 of the 23 systems using water coming from surface water sources. USGS estimated total from this basin reported that available supply was not adequate basin population at 385,590. Residential demand was to meet estimated demand through 2002. estimated at 24.5 mgd with about two-thirds of this demand DWR encourages systems to begin planning to being supplied by public water systems. Overall, public water manage and meet future water demands before average daily systems supplied 36.6 mgd form surface water and 2.6 mgd water use reaches 80% of a system’s available supply. Data for from ground water for both residential and non-residential 1992 indicated that 10 of the 23 LWSP systems in this basin uses. The remaining residential water demand was met by 8.5 had an average demand above this threshold. By 2020, 11 mgd of self-supplied ground water. In addition, there was systems project demand levels that will exceed 80% of their about 43.3 mgd of self-supplied water withdrawn for non- available supply. residential water uses. Self-supplied Use Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs) The USGS estimated that self-supplied users, All units of local government that supply or plan to excluding power generating facilities, accounted for 52 mgd of supply water to the public are required to develop a LWSP. the 169 mgd total of water used from this basin, as shown in The Division of Water Resources (DWR) reviews LWSPs and the table below. Industrial use comprised 60% of the self- maintains a database of the LWSP information. The current supplied uses, followed by irrigation (19%), domestic (16%), database reflects water use information for 1992. livestock (4%), and commercial (1%). USGS Estimated Self-supplied Water Use in mgd Sub-basin Domestic Livestock Industrial Commercial Irrigation Total SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM 1992 LWSPs Nolichucky R. 1.65 0.21 0.00 0.18 2.21 4.3 !Per capita water use in gallons per day: French Broad R. 6.18 1.11 4.85 0.46 6.72 19.3 Sub-basin 1992 2010 Pigeon R. 0.62 0.52 26.17 0.08 0.76 28.2 Nolichucky River 240 258 Basin Total 8.5 1.8 31.0 0.7 9.7 51.7 French Broad River 182 150 Pigeon River 217 221 Registered Water Withdrawals Before 1999, anyone withdrawing 1.0 mgd or more of !Ten systems are not connected to another water supply surface or ground water was required to registered that system, including all of the systems in the Nolichucky sub- withdrawal with DWR. In this basin there are 42 registered basin and systems in Madison and Transylvania Counties. withdrawals other than LWSP systems or power generating facilities, with the cumulative capacity to withdraw 227 mgd. !Four systems rely on purchase water as their sole supply. Forty-one of these registered withdrawals are from surface water. In 1999, the registration threshold for all water uses !LWSPs in the French Broad sub-basin are not compatible except agriculture was lowered to 100,000 gallons per day. due to discrepancies with interconnection data. March 1, 2000 is the deadline for registering 1999 withdrawals. !These systems used about 36 mgd of surface water and approximately 2 mgd of ground water. WATER AVAILABILITY Surface water is the primary source of water for !The reported raw water supply was 54.7 mgd of surface most of the residents of the basin. LWSPs indicate that water and a 12-hour groundwater supply of 1.9 mgd. 11water systems in these sub-basins withdrew about 36.3 mgd of surface water in 1992. Local water supply plans show that !Asheville and Buncombe and Henderson Counties have 6 systems rely on reservoirs for all or part of their water formed a regional water system; Madison County is planning supply. The combined demand on these reservoirs averaged to develop a county system. about 27.5 mgd in 1992. The estimated available supply from these reservoirs, based on the 20-year safe yield reported in !Five systems were planning new supplies in the 1992 local water supply plans, is 27.2 mgd. LWSPs. Eight of the surface water systems submitting local water supply plans have run-of-river intakes. These intakes !The systems are projecting significant growth, 75% in supplied about 8.8 mgd of water in 1992. The available supply population and 45% in demand, through 2020. from these sources, based on information reported in local water supply plans, is about 27.5 mgd. Maggie Valley !About 10 mgd of additional water supply will be needed by Sanitary District has a 3 mgd withdrawal limit from Campbell water systems in the basin to ensure that water demands in and Jonathan creeks set by DWR based on instream flow 2010 do not exceed 80% of available supply, over 9 mgd of requirements. which will be needed in the French Broad sub-basin. In late 1999, Asheville completed an intake and water treatment plant on the Mills River. Weaverville has plans to !Demand to supply ratios for 1992 and 2010: install an new intake on the Ivy River. There are 9 systems in this basin using ground water. 1992 2010 They have an overall capacity to pump 1.9 mgd of ground # of systems reporting 23 23 water based on the 12-hour yields supplied in their LWSPs. # of systems reporting ratio > 1 5 7 # of systems reporting ratio > 0.9 7 8 INTERBASIN TRANSFERS OF SURFACE WATER Across the state many water users and systems move # of systems reporting ratio > 0.8 10 10 water between sub-basins to meet their needs. The table below # of systems reporting ratio > 0.5 12 14 indicates the number of potential interbasin transfers associated with this basin. Potential Interbasin Transfers based on 1992 data Sub-basin Number mgd OUT mgd IN Nolichucky River 0 0 0 January 2000 Draft French Broad River 3 0.103 0 State Water Supply Plan Pigeon River 0 0 0 DENR, Division of Water Resources Most of the transfer amount shown in the table is due to Hendersonville’s transfer to the Broad Basin. Beech Mountain Boone Elk Park BannerSeven Elk Devils Blowing Rock MITCHELL Newland COUNTY AVERY COUNTY Bakersville 5-1 CaldwellCALDWELL Co N Nolichucky River COUNTY Burnsville Spruce Pine TENNESSEE Hot Springs Lenoir Caldwell Co SE YANCEY 3-1 MADISON CaldwellJoyceton Co Water W Works COUNTY COUNTY Little Switzerland Catawba River Hudson Mars Hill Baton WC BURKE Sawmills Marshall COUNTY Granite Falls Caldwell Co S 5-2 Drexel MCDOWELL Morganton Valdese French Broad River Icard Township WC COUNTY 5-3 Weaverville Pigeon River Marion Burke Co.
Recommended publications
  • French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009

    French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009

    French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 What is a River Basin Restoration Priority? 1 Criteria for Selecting a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 2 French Broad River Basin Overview 3 French Broad River Basin Restoration Goals 5 River Basin and TLW Map 7 Targeted Local Watershed Summary Table 8 Discussion of TLWs in the French Broad River Basin 10 2005 Targeted Local Watersheds Delisted in 2009 40 References 41 For More Information 42 Definitions 43 This document was updated by Andrea Leslie, western watershed planner. Cover Photo: French Broad River, Henderson County during 2004 flood after Hurricanes Frances and Ivan French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009 1 Introduction This document, prepared by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), presents a description of Targeted Local Watersheds within the French Broad River Basin. This is an update of a document developed in 2005, the French Broad River Basin Watershed Restoration Plan. The 2005 plan selected twenty-nine watersheds to be targeted for stream, wetland and riparian buffer restoration and protection and watershed planning efforts. This plan retains twenty-seven of these original watersheds, plus presents an additional two Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) for the French Broad River Basin. Two 2005 TLWs (East Fork North Toe River and French Broad River and North Toe River/Bear Creek/Grassy Creek) were gardens, Mitchell County not re-targeted in this document due to a re-evaluation of local priorities. This document draws information from the detailed document, French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan—April 2005, which was written by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
  • Aquatic Ecosystems

    Aquatic Ecosystems

    February 19, 2014 Nantahala and Pisgah NFs Assessment Aquatic Ecosystems The overall richness of North Carolina’s aquatic fauna is directly related to the geomorphology of the state, which defines the major drainage divisions and the diversity of habitats found within. There are seventeen major river basins in North Carolina. Five western basins are part of the Interior Basin (IB) and drain to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico (Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, French Broad, Watauga, and New). Parts of these five river basins are within the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (NFs). Twelve central and eastern basins are part of the Atlantic Slope (AS) and flow to the Atlantic Ocean. Of these twelve central and eastern basins, parts of the Savannah, Broad, Catawba, and Yadkin-Pee Dee basins are within the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs. As described later in this report, the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs, for the most part, support higher elevation coldwater streams, and relatively little cool- and warmwater resources. To gain perspective on the importance of aquatic ecosystems on the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs, it is first necessary to understand their value at regional and national scales. The southeastern United States has the highest aquatic species diversity in the entire United States (Burr and Mayden 1992; Williams et al. 1993; Taylor et al. 1996; Warren et al. 2000,), with southeastern fishes comprising 62% of the United States fauna, and nearly 50% of the North American fish fauna (Burr and Mayden 1992). Freshwater mollusk diversity in the southeast is ‘globally unparalleled’, representing 91% of all United States mussel species (Neves et al.
  • The Smithfield Review Volume VIII, 2004 Index

    The Smithfield Review Volume VIII, 2004 Index

    INDEX TO VOLUME VIII Index to VolumeVIII Abb's Valley, Virginia .......................................................................................... 61 Abingdon, Virginia ....................................................................................... 10, 13 Acoste (province) ............................................................................................... 87 Ajacan (aboriginal land) .................................................................................... 96 Alexander (Allicksander), John D., Capt .......................................................... 19 Alger, Horatio ..................................................................................................... 41 Amos,? ............................................................................................................... 23 Anderson, Eldred, Rev ............................................................................ 11, 13, 22 Archeological investigations at Saltville ........................................................ 77-8 Army of Tennessee ............................................................................................. 18 Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (APVA) .......... 31, 36- 7 Atlanta, Georgia ................................................................................................. 26 BaltimoreSun .....................................................................................................42. Bandera, notary .................................................................................................
  • Upper North Toe River Watershed Action Plan

    Upper North Toe River Watershed Action Plan

    Upper North Toe River Watershed Action Plan Avery, Mitchell, and Yancey Counties North Carolina Effective January 1, 2015 Prepared for the Blue Ridge Resource Conservation & Development Council, Inc. 26 Crimson Laurel Circle, Suite 2 Bakersville, NC 28705 Prepared by Equinox Environmental Consultation & Design, Inc. 37 Haywood Street Asheville, NC 28801 December 2014 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Page Key to Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................... v Executive Summary ...................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments ...................................................................................... xvii North Carolina 9-Element Plan Checklist .......................................................... xviii 1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and History ......................................................................... 1 1.2 Why the Upper North Toe River is Impaired? ................................................ 4 1.3 Synopsis of Cause and Source of the Primary Stressor – Sediment ....................... 5 1.3.1 Other Stressors ............................................................................. 5 1.4 Why Care? ......................................................................................... 6 1.4.1 Environmental Factors ....................................................................
  • Conservation Assessment for Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus Alleganiensis Alleganiensis) Daudin

    Conservation Assessment for Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus Alleganiensis Alleganiensis) Daudin

    Conservation Assessment for Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis) Daudin (photo credit: John White) USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region June 2003 Prepared by: Joseph Mayasich David Grandmaison Natural Resources Research Institute 5013 Miller Trunk Highway Duluth, MN 55811-1442 Chris Phillips Illinois Natural History Survey Center For Biodiversity 607 East Peabody Drive Champaign, IL 61820 This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service - Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. Conservation Assessment forEastern Hellbender(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis)Daudin 2 Table of Contents SYSTEMATICS...................................................................................................4 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISTICS............................5 BIOLOGY
  • Long Term Analysis of Water Quality Trends in the Toe and Cane River Watersheds: Year Five

    Long Term Analysis of Water Quality Trends in the Toe and Cane River Watersheds: Year Five

    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
  • HWY-0754 Final Report

    HWY-0754 Final Report

    Bogan et al., 2008 Final Report: Alasmidonta phylogenetic relationships 1 Final Report Intraspecific phylogenetic relationships in the freshwater bivalve genus Alasmidonta (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Submitted To: North Carolina Department of Transportation (Project Number: HWY-0754) 18 February 2008 Prepared By: Arthur E. Bogan1 Yanyan Huang2 Morgan Raley1 Jay F. Levine2 1North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences Research Laboratory 4301 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27606 2North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine 4700 Hillsborough Street Raleigh, NC 27606 Bogan et al., 2008 Final Report: Alasmidonta phylogenetic relationships 2 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/NC/2006-56 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Intraspecific phylogenetic relationships in the freshwater bivalve genus 18 February 2008 Alasmidonta (Bivalvia: Unionidae). 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Arthur E. Bogan, Yanyan Huang, Morgan E. Raley and Jay Levine 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) North Carolina State University NC State Museum of Natural Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine Research Laboratory 4700 Hillsborough Street 4301 Reedy Creek Road 11. Contract or Grant No. Raleigh, NC 27606 Raleigh, NC 27607 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered North Carolina Department of Transportation Final Report Research and Analysis Group August 2003 – June 2006 1 South Wilmington Street 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 HWY-0754 Supplementary Notes: 16. Abstract The genus Alasmidonta currently contains 12 species with 3 species presumed extinct. Six species of Alasmidonta occur in North Carolina, including the presumed extinct Alasmidonta robusta.
  • Nolichucky River

    Nolichucky River

    DRAFT· wild and scenic river study january 1980 NOLICHUCKY RIVER NORTH CAROliNA/TENNESSEE AS THE NATION'S PRINCIPAL CONSEHVATION AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HAS BASIC RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WATER, FISH, WILDLIFE, MINERAL, LAND, PARK AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES. INDIAN P,ND TERRITORIAL AFFAIRS ARE OTHER MAJOR CONCERNS OF AMERICA'S "DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES." THE DEPARTMENT WORKS TO ASSURE THE WISEST CHOICE IN MANAGING ALL OUR RESOURCES SO EACH WIU MAKE ITS FULL CONTRIBUTION TO A BEITER UNITED STATES NOW AND tN THE FUTURE. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 APR 16 1SbtJ Honorable Douglas M. Castle Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Mr. Castle: In accordance with the prov~s~ons of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (82 Stat. 906) copies of the Department's draft report on the Nolichucky River are enclosed for your review and comment. As provided in Section 4(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, your views on the report will accompany it when transmitted to the President and Congress. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides for a review period of up to 90 days for the draft report. In order to expedite the study process, we would appreciate receiving your comments within 45 days of the date of this letter. The National Park Service is providing staff assistance on this proposal and can provide any further information you need to complete your review. Please contact Mr. Robert Eastman of that agency (telephone 202/343-5213) if you have any questions.
  • Environmental Management and All Class SA Waters

    Environmental Management and All Class SA Waters

    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. July 19, 2019 Subchapter 2B – Surface Water and Wetland Standards, Section .0300 – Assignment of Stream Classifications Effective June 20, 2019 The attached WQS document is in effect for Clean Water Act (CWA) purposes with the exceptions below: • On July 24, 2018, the EPA disapproved the first sentence of the provision at 15A NCAC 02B .0311(t), which states “The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin was amended effective June 30, 2017 with the reclassification of a section of 18-(71) from upstream mouth of Toomers Creek to a line across the river between Lilliput Creek and Snows Cut from Class SC to Class SC Sw.” o The default Class SC designation remains in effect for CWA purposes. • On March 18, 2009, the EPA disapproved the last sentence of the provision at 15A NCAC 02B .0308(v), which states “Between the last day of May and the first day of November the water quality standard for dissolved oxygen shall not be less than a daily average of 5.0 mg/l with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/l.” SECTION .0300 - ASSIGNMENT OF STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS 15A NCAC 02B .0301 CLASSIFICATIONS: GENERAL (a) Schedule of Classifications.
  • 2016 CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS United States and U.S

    2016 CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS United States and U.S

    NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION 2016 CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS On thecover: Ablackskimmer fishes inFlorida. S ERRITORIE T AND U.S. U.S. AND S UNITED STATE UNITED The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is dedicated to sustaining, restoring and enhancing the nation’s fish, wildlife, plants and habitats for current and future generations. NFWF will advance its mission through innovative public and private partnerships, and by investing financial resources and intellectual capital into science-based programs designed to address conservation 3 priorities and achieve measurable outcomes. In Fiscal Year 2016, NFWF funded more than 860 conservation projects across the nation, generating an on-the-ground conservation impact of more than $353.8 million. KEY Projects supported by NFWF in fiscal year 2016 Alaska Projects supported by NFWF since founding in 1984 (Not to scale) S ERRITORIE T AND U.S. U.S. AND S UNITED STATE UNITED Hawaii (Not to Scale) NOTE: Projects with multiple locations are represented once and some locations are approximate. NFWF Conservation investments Projects supported by NFWF in fiscal year 2016 The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation funded Projects supported by NFWF since founding in 1984 morE ThaN 860 coNsErvatioN projEcTs across ThE NatioN IN FIscal year 2016. NFWF has supported morE ThaN 16,000 projEcTs sincE its FouNding in 1984. S ERRITORIE T AND U.S. U.S. AND S UNITED STATE UNITED Puerto Rico (Not to scale) 4 coNTENTs united states and u.s. Territories Fiscal Year 2016 conservation Investments alabama 09
  • Florida Historical Quarterly, Volume 62, Number 2

    Florida Historical Quarterly, Volume 62, Number 2

    Florida Historical Quarterly Volume 62 Number 2 Florida Historical Quarterly, Volume Article 1 62, Number 2 1983 Florida Historical Quarterly, Volume 62, Number 2 Florida Historical Society [email protected] Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/fhq University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Historical Quarterly by an authorized editor of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Society, Florida Historical (1983) "Florida Historical Quarterly, Volume 62, Number 2," Florida Historical Quarterly: Vol. 62 : No. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/fhq/vol62/iss2/1 Society: Florida Historical Quarterly, Volume 62, Number 2 Published by STARS, 1983 1 Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 62 [1983], No. 2, Art. 1 COVER A patriotic parade along Key West’s Duval Street. The house in the back- ground of this early 1920s photograph belonged to the William Cash family. Courtesy Monroe County Public Library Photographic Archives. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/fhq/vol62/iss2/1 2 Society: Florida Historical Quarterly, Volume 62, Number 2 THE FLORIDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY Volume LXII, Number 2 October 1983 COPYRIGHT 1983 by the Florida Historical Society, Tampa, Florida. Second class postage paid at Tampa and DeLeon Springs, Florida. Printed by E. O. Painter Printing Co., DeLeon Springs, Florida. (ISSN 0015-4113) Published by STARS, 1983 3 Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 62 [1983], No. 2, Art. 1 THE FLORIDA HISTORICAL QUARTERLY Samuel Proctor, Editor Jeffry Charbonnet, Editorial Assistant Earl Ronald Hendry, Editorial Assistant EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Herbert J.
  • Chapter 15 – Natural Resources 133

    Chapter 15 – Natural Resources 133

    Chapter 15 Natural Resources 15.1 Ecological Significance of the French Broad River Basin The French Broad River basin once had one of the most diverse aquatic faunas in the state; now it is one of the most heavily altered basins in western North Carolina. Flat, low elevation areas such as floodplains and other wetlands have been especially affected. Because of these impacts, many aquatic animals are no longer found in the basin, including several freshwater mussels, such as the oyster mussel, Cumberland mocassinshell, and purple lilliput. Fish likely to be absent from the basin include longhead darter, wounded darter, and spotfin chub. In addition to fish thought to be extirpated, many species of fish have not been seen in more than 20 years, including river carpsucker, lake sturgeon, blueside darter, longear sunfish, mountain madtom, and dusky darter. Despite these impacts, many of the aquatic and wetland communities of the French Broad River basin are nationally significant and a number of significant remnants persist. 15.2 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Animal Species For information on any of the species listed in Table 26, visit the NC Natural Heritage Program website at www.ncnhp.org. Table 26 List of Rare Animals Associated with Aquatic and Wetland Habitats in the French Broad River Basin (September 2003) Scientific Common Major State Federal Name Name Group Status Status Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender Amphibian SC FSC Necturus maculosus Common mudpuppy Amphibian SC Stygobromus carolinensis Yancey sideswimmer Crustacean