CHAPTER 1
North Fork New River Watershed NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: North Fork New River Watershed HUC 0505000101 2011 HUC 0505000101
Includes: Three Top Creek, Big Laurel Creek, Buffalo & Little Buffalo Creeks, Little & Big Horse Creeks & Helton Creek
General Watershed Description Watershed at a Glance This ten-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed, with an area of about 250 square miles, is the equivalent to DWQ’s old subbasin 05-07- Counties: 02 and contains the North Fork New River and its tributaries (See DWQ’s Ashe & Watagua Old Subbasins to New HUC Conversion map in the Maps Chapter). The majority of the watershed lies within Ashe County, with the headwaters Municipalities: of the North Fork New River beginning in Watauga County and the Lansing & West Jefferson headwaters of Big Horse Creek and Helton Creek beginning in Virginia. The North Fork New River flows in an east-northeast direction before it Ecoregions: converges with the South Fork New River to form the New River. Amphibolite Mountains, New River Plateau, Southern Crystaline The land cover within this watershed is mostly forested (80%) with Ridges and Mountains, & areas of agriculture (14%) and the least amount of developed land in Southern Sedimentary Ridges the New River basin (3.7%). Rural residential properties and pasture lands are scattered throughout this watershed. Agricultural activities Permitted Facilities: have historically consisted of pasture and cultivated croplands, but within NPDES WWTP:...... 6 the past 20 years has expanded to include Christmas tree farming. Major...... 0 The majority of agricultural lands in this watershed are found along Minor...... 6 streambanks. Non-Discharge Facilities:...... 3 Stormwater:...... 2 Roughly 16,000 acres of conservation land are found in this watershed General...... 2 Individual...... 0 and include easements held by local watershed groups (Elk Knob State Animal Operations:...... 0 Park, Cherokee National Forest and Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust). Population: This watershed’s population is centered mostly around the towns of 2010:...... Coming Soon Lansing and West Jefferson. Lansing’s population declined by 12% between 1990 and 2000, and was estimated to decline by another 2006 Land Cover: one percent by 2010 according to the 2000 census. West Jefferson’s Developed...... 3.81% population increased by 8% in 2000 and was estimated to increase by Forest...... 81.1% another 12% by 2010. Agriculture...... 14.98% Wetlands...... 0.11%
2001 Impervious Surface...0.24%
1.1 F i g ure W 1-1: 1-1: A H B osk
T
i r
n A u
F s U o h N
r K B 2 G k ) " " F A à o o R 6
r r
k
o R th
u
K B 1 o n
c F
k d ) " NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC ) N. F " à
o à
rk C
New K B 1 a
¡
[ R b o
1
iv r D
o e
e i 9 r
r x u L
o
K F e
n
4 t k
C k e e r i k
1 C t
t N
1 r l .
e k
0
e
e B
r ew i
L g
C L l e
a
r u
a oar ) "
u i
à R n
g R K B 1 r
e
B F
l
i o iver C
L g r k
o 2 n r
g L
H e
o « ¬
p 0 e e a 8
C u K B 2
r 8 k
e W
e r
M R
k e
A l i
9 i
K B 3 d a C p U V 1
S d ) "
s t
à
¡ r
9 [
l h
) " e " ers
H
" ) " e à
à
e
4 R i 0
k n
T
E i F
K F c
K B 2
h
¡ h
[ ) " "
e
à e B o r
k r K B 1
H
e h
r
e C l i
2 l
T r k
o ed r C e p K F
3 e a
3 ) "
k à H
3 n K B 8
(0505000101) 8 C
0 c 2 h 2 6
K B 6 M
L
i l
l
C
) i "
à
1 t r
.
N t 3
l o K B 1 e
" ) "
à
r
H t
o
h S
2 t r
a
s
g 1
2 B
e
F g
C
C
u
o r B .
f r
e
f r i
e
g a k K B 1
o k
l * #
o
N H r
e o
th 2
C w r
2 s
) " à e
r L F
e C
R a r
e e ¤ £ e i n k k
4 2 v o e 2 r s J K B 1 r 1 i e n k
W f " ) "
g à N 2 K B 3
2 3 ) " 1 ¡ [ e à K B 3 e 4 * # U V r 1 ew s K B 3 K F * # s 3 9
t
1 o 4 ) "
L à ¡ [
R 2 n ) " "
K B 1 i K F à
2
t 1
) " t "
à l ) " " X Y * #
à
6 e
1 iver
B
P 3
i
u
K B 2 n
f
e 7
f
a
y
l
C
o
r
C e
r e
W . " ) K B 1 7 k à
L
J .
a e P 3 K B 1 t 6 f ers h e
o H 1
r 8 K B 1 s O 8 *
# e
M e
) " à h l o
U V n l 1 d t i
l ed
n i o
2 6
e x F n 5 3
" ) " s C
à
r. i
« ¬ e C
8 " )
à K B 1
8 r
H
l e d
* e #
* k #
UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC C K B 1
1 r " . ) 7 à
* #
) " "
¡ à [
2 g n S
o L
3 h
« ¬
* o K B 2 #
* # K F 1 a
6 " )
l à s 5
5
C K B 2
r . « ¬ 1 8 6 ) " à ¢ ¡ K 7
K B 1 N X Y
5 . * # H M N L e g n Fo 0 rk
P N 0 y ¡ " ) [ o à ¡ ¢ 3 ew 0 d D R n . 5 0 r i E S 0 M o t o M K B 1 l o C W C F B A P S I N r i M a m n P g i i r i u d e o o j m o n u o s a o r 2 y p e n p n u m h t n r " ) g 7 à b D r p e t a s n - i h W a m C o i c r s e o i S W t a e U o r e r y y i r v r t i t p n h i s W t e a s t s W d m a i B o t e a e n R o l s d t i m g t D i S i o ¤ £ u D B o e a 2 u u i n n s s d 2 i n p d c s L s 1 u i p a h c t n a y r i h a o a d n r g r e
a d t r s
r y e s g e
P
i
n
e y
C
r . A « ¬ 9 L 3
1.2 L E G
P
o
t
a
t
H o C 1
r . 8 A N Y Watershed Water Quality Overview The North Fork New River watershed has some of the best water quality in the basin and water quality has changed little in the five years since the last planning cycle. The large areas of forest and minimal agriculture and urban areas create only a minimal human impact to water quality. In DWQ’s efforts to protect the pristine nature of this watershed, a watershed-wide study was conducted to determine if these waters could be reclassified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). As a result, almost the entire watershed was reclassified as ORW. For a map of the affected area and a more detailed discussion see the Additional Studies section below. Little Buffalo Creek, near West Jefferson, is the only Impaired water body in the watershed and was not included in the reclassification.
Water Quality Data Summary for this Watershed Monitoring stream flow, aquatic biology and chemical/physical parameters are a large part of the basinwide planning process. More detailed information about DWQ monitoring and the effects each parameter has on water quality is discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning document. UC 0505000101 2011 H
ed h Understanding the Data ers t
Biological & Ambient Rating Converted to Use Support Category a
Biological (benthic and fish community) samples are given a W bioclassification/rating based on the data collected at the site Figure 1-2: Use Support iver by DWQs Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). These Categories for Biological Ratings R bioclassifications include Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Not Biological Aquatic Life ew Ratings Use Support
Impaired, Not Rated, Fair and Poor. For specific methodology N k
defining how these rating are given see Benthic Standard Excellent r o Operating Procedures (SOP) or the Fish Community SOP. Good
Supporting F Once a rating is given, it is then translated into a Use Support (Categories 1-2) Good-Fair th r
Category (see Figure 1-2). Not Impaired o Not Rated Ambient monitoring data are analyzed based on the percent of Not Rated (Category 3) samples exceeding the state standard for individual parameters for each site within a two-year period. If a standard is exceeded Fair Impaired (Categories 4-5) in greater than 10.0% of samples taken for a particular parameter, Poor that stream segment is Impaired for that parameter. The fecal coliform bacteria parameter is the exception to the rule. See the Fecal Coliform Bacteria section in the Ambient Data portion below. For the purposes of this plan, any site with greater than 7.0% to 10.0% of samples not meeting a parameter’s standard will be considered Impacted.
Figure 1-3: Example of a Use Each biological parameter (benthic and fish community) and each Support and Monitoring Box ambient parameter is assigned a Use Support Category based on its
Use Support: Impaired (14 mi) rating or percent exceedance. Definitions for each category can be 2008 IR Cat. 5 found in Use Support Methodology Chapter. Each monitored stream 2010 IR Cat. 5 segment is then given an overall category which reflects the highest individual parameter category. For example, using the data from Benthos (CB1) Fair (2008) Figure 1-3, the individual parameter categories would be as follows: NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N Benthos - 5, Fish Community - 1, Turbidity - 5. Therefore, the overall Fish Com (CF1) Good-Fair (2008) category, which is reported on the Integrated Report, would be 5 AMS Turbidity - 12% (Impaired). An Integrated Report is developed by the state every two (C1234500) FCB - 48% years and reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1.3 Stream Flow
The basin experienced prolonged Figure 1-4: Yearly Average Flow Rates (cfs) of the USGS Gage droughts in 1998-2002 and 2007-2008 Station in the New River Basin Between 1997 & 2008 and exceptionally high flows resulting USGS Flow Guage 03161000 - SF New River from the remnants of several hurricanes (Figure 1-4). During a three-week 700 period in September 2004, the tropical NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC 600 storm remnants of Hurricanes Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne lead to wide-spread 500 flooding throughout the central and 400 northern mountains in the Catawba, cfs French Broad, New, and Watauga 300 River basins. Rainfall estimates for 200 the combined three storms totaled more than 20-30 inches in certain 100 watersheds. Runoff from the storms produced flash floods throughout the 0 region, with peak flows in excess of 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 10,000 cfs (approximately 500 times Indicates periods of drought in the New River Basin median flows) in upper tributary streams; peaks flows in some tributary rivers exceeded 50,000 cfs. In the New River basin, the peak flow during Hurricane Frances (September 7th - 9th) was 14,700 cfs, which has an approximate recurrence interval of 10 to 25 years. During Hurricane Ivan (September 17th - 18th) the peak flow was 7,550 cfs, which has an o r approximate recurrence interval of 2 to 5 years. More detail about flows in the New River Basin can be found th in the 2009 Basinwide Assessment Report: New River Basin produced by DWQ-Environmental Science F
o Section. r k N ew
R Biological Data iver Biological samples were collected during the spring and summer months of 2004 and 2008 by the DWQ- W Environmental Sciences Section as part of the five-year basinwide sampling cycle, in addition to special a
t studies. Overall, 30 biological sampling sites were monitored within the North Fork New River Watershed. ers The ratings for each station can be seen in Appendix 1-B. h ed
H
UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Each benthic station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure Benthic Sampling Summary 1-5 and color coded based on its current rating. As seen on the map, the ££ Total Stations Monitored...... 25 majority of samples taken in this watershed received an Excellent rating. ££ Total Samples Taken...... 30 This is reflected in the reclassification of almost the entire watershed to £ either High Quality Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters. The recent £ Stations Monitored Twice...... 4 reclassification is discussed in more detail in the Special Studies in this ££ Number of New Stations...... 16 Watershed Section below.
As seen in Figure 1-6, 90% of the 30 sampling events received a Supporting rating and only 3% received an Impaired rating. These ratings are very similar to the previous sampling cycle. Figure 1-7 is a comparison of benthic site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall shifts in ratings. Eight percent of the samples improved their rating from the previous cycle and four percent declined in rating. Twenty-four percent of the benthic ratings had no change, indicating a semi-stable community.
1.4 Figure 1-5: Benthic Stations Color Coded by Current Rating in the North Fork New River Watershed UC 0505000101 2011 H
ed h
Figure 1-6: Current Benthic Site Ratings Figure 1-7: Change in Benthic Site Ratings ers t a Excellent 7% 4% W 3% Good 8% 7% iver
Improved R Good-Fair 10% Declined ew N
Fair 24% k
No Change r 73% 64% o
Poor New Station F th
Not Rated r o Not Impaired
Fish Community Sampling Fish Com. Sampling Summary Each fish community station monitored during the current cycle is shown in Figure 1-8 and color coded based on their current rating. Two of the sites ££ Total Stations Monitored...... 5 were new monitoring sites located in rural watersheds with no NPDES ££ Total Samples Taken...... 5 dischargers. These sites were selected to determine their potential for ££ Number of New Stations...... 2 becoming fish community regional reference sites.
As shown in Figure 1-9, 60% of the five sampling events received a Supporting rating. Two of the samples were Not Rated; therefore, the segments are neither Impaired nor Supporting. Figure 1-10 is a comparison of fish community site ratings sampled during the last two cycles to determine if there are any overall watershed shifts in ratings. The community has remained stable with no change in ratings between the last sampling cycle and the current cycle. NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N
1.5 Figure 1-8: Fish Community Stations Color Coded by Current Rating in the North Fork New River Watershed NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC
Figure 1-9: Current Fish Community Site Ratings Figure 1-10: Change in Fish Community Site Ratings Excellent
o Good r th Improved
F Good-Fair o 40%
r Declined k Fair 50% 50% N 60% No Change ew Poor
R New Station iver Not Rated
W Not Impaired a t ers
h For more information about biological data in this watershed, see the 2009 New River Basinwide Assessment ed Report. Detailed data sheets for each sampling site can be found in Appendix 1-B.
H
UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC Fish Kills/Spill Events No fish kills were reported in this watershed during this planning cycle.
1.6 Ambient Data Chemical and physical samples were taken by DWQ once a month at six sites throughout the New River basin. One Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) station is located in the North Fork New River watershed (see Figure 1-1 for the station location). For more information about the ambient monitoring, parameters, how data are used for use support assessment and other information, see Chapter 2 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning.
The ambient data are used to develop use support ratings biannually, which are then reported to the EPA via the Integrated Report (IR). The IR is a collection of all monitored waterbodies in North Carolina and their water quality ratings. The most current IR is the 2010 version and is based on data collected between 2004 and 2008. If a waterbody receives an Impaired rating, it is then placed on the 303(d) Impaired Waters List. The New River Basin portion of the 2010 IR can be found in Appendix 1-A and statewide on the Modeling & TMDL Unit’s website. Additional information about data from this cycle and seasonal variation in this basin can be found in the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report.
Long Term Ambient Monitoring
The following discussion of ambient monitoring parameters includes graphs showing the median and mean UC 0505000101 2011 H concentration values for ambient station K7500000 in this watershed by specific parameter over a 13 year period (1997-2009). Each major parameter is discussed, even if no current impairment exists. The graphs ed h are not intended to provide statistically significant trend information, but rather give an idea of how changes ers in land use or climate conditions can affect parameter readings over the long term. The difference between t a median and mean results indicate the presence of outliers in the data set. Box and whisker plots of individual ambient stations were completed by parameter for data between 2004 and 2008 by DWQ’s ESS and can be W
found in the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report. iver R
pH ew N
AMS site K7500000 had no pH standard exceedances during this monitoring cycle, as shown in Figure 1-11 by k r
a small green dot. Figure 1-12 shows the mean and median pH levels for all samples taken over the course o of 13 years in the North Fork New River watershed. The pH pattern seen over these 13-years is a steady F th
increase. This trend is seen in all three 10-digit watersheds in the New River Basin and is discussed further r in the Executive Summary. o
Figure 1-12: Summarized pH Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000101 Figure 1-11: Percentage of 8.2 Median Mean Samples Exceeding the pH 8 Standards (2003-2008) 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2
pH 7 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6 NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N
* NC pH Standard: Between 6 and 9 su
1.7 Turbidity As seen in Figure 1-13, AMS site K7500000 exceeded the turbidity standard in 8.8% of the samples collected during this cycle. Possible sources of the elevated turbidity levels are discussed in the 12-digit subbwatershed section. Figure 1-14 shows the mean and median turbidity levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the North Fork New River watershed. The yearly averages are well below the state standard of 50 NTUs, with the exception of the 2007 mean. There were a few turbidity samples measuring between 100 and 300 NTUs in 2007 that were not seen in any other year. NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC While some erosion is a natural phenomenon, human land use practices accelerate the process to unhealthy levels. Construction sites, mining operations, agricultural operations, logging operations and excessive stormwater flow from impervious surfaces are all potential sources. Turbidity violations demonstrate the importance of protecting and conserving stream buffers and natural areas.
Figure 1-14: Summarized Turbidity Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000101 70 Median Mean Figure 1-13: Percentage of 60 Samples Exceeding the Turbidity Standard (2003-2008) 50
40
30 o r Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity
th 20 F
o 10 r k
N 0 ew R iver * NC Turbidity Standard: 50 NUT
W Dissolved Oxygen
a As seen in Figure 1-15, AMS site K7500000 had no DO standard exceedances during this monitoring cycle. t ers Figure 1-16 shows the mean and median of DO levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the
h North Fork New River watershed. DO at this station has been stable for the past 13 years and has seen little ed to no change.
H Figure 1-16: Summarized DO Values for All Data Collected at UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000101 12 Figure 1-15: Percentage of Median Mean Samples Exceeding the DO 10 Standard (2003-2008) 8
6
DO (mg/l) DO 4
2
0
* NC DO Standard: Not < 5 mg/l daily avg. or not < 4 mg/l instantaneous
1.8 Temperature No stream segments in this watershed are Impaired or Impacted due to high temperatures (Figure 1-17). Figure 1-18 shows the mean and median of temperature levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the North Fork New River watershed. The water temperature trend for this AMS station is closely linked to the stream flow levels. During low flow or drought periods, water can sit in small pools and become heated by the sun. This can especially be seen in Figure 1-18 between 2000 and 2002.
Figure 1-18: Summarized Temperature Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000101 Figure 1-17: Percentage of 20 Median Mean Samples Exceeding Temperature 18 Standard (2003-2008) 16 14 12 10
8 UC 0505000101 2011 H
6 Temperature (˚ C) Temperature ed
4 h
2 ers t 0 a W iver * NC Temperature Standard for Mountain/Upper Piedmont Region: 29°C (84.2°F) R
Fecal Coliform Bacteria ew N k
Fecal coliform bacteria occurs in water as a result of the overflow of r
Figure 1-19: Percentage of Samples o domestic sewage and from other nonpoint sources of human and with Elevated FCB Levels (2003- F animal waste, including pets, wildlife and farm animals. The FCB th
2008) r
standard for freshwater streams is not to exceed the geometric mean o of 200 colonies/100 ml or 400 colonies/100 ml in 20% of the samples where five samples have been taken in a span of 30 days (5-in-30). Only results from a 5-in-30 study are to be used to indicate whether a stream is Impaired or Supporting. Waters with a use classification of B (primary recreational waters) receive priority for 5-in-30 studies. Other waters are studied as resources permit.
As seen in Figure 1-19, 20% of samples taken at station K7500000 during this cycle, resulted in levels over 400 colonies/100 ml. However, the geometric mean (calculated average) was 82 colonies/100 ml, indicating only pulses of elevated levels. When the geometric mean breaches 200 colonies/100 ml at a station, it is likely a 5-in-30 study would result in an impairment. Possible sources of the short term elevated FCB levels at this station are discussed in the subwatershed section.
Figure 1-20 shows the geometric mean of FCB levels for all samples taken over the course of 13 years in the North Fork New River watershed. The geometric mean is a type of mean or average that indicates the central tendency or typical value of a data set. The highest yearly geometric mean for FCB was recorded in 2005 NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N (125 colonies/100 ml). The figure also includes the yearly average stream flow, as seen in Figure 1-4, to show how flow can be closely linked to FCB levels. These slightly elevated FCB levels might have been caused by livestock with access to streams, failing septic systems or leaking municipal collection systems. For more specific information about AMS station K7500000 and its subwatershed see the subwatershed discussion below.
1.9 Figure 1-20: Summarized Fecal Coliform Bacteria Values for All Data Collected at Ambient Sampling Stations in HUC 0505000101 with Overlaying Flow 140700 700 Geometricmean 120600 600 Average Yearly Flow YearlyFlow Average 100500 500 NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC 40080 400
30060 300 (cfs) cfs cfs 20040 200 FCB (colonies/100ml) FCB 10020 100
0 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
* NC FCB Standard (5-in-30 data only): Geomean not > 200/100 ml or 400/100 ml in 20% of samples.
For more information regarding any of the parameters listed above, see Section 3.3 of the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina’s Basinwide Planning. For additional information about ambient monitoring data collected in this river basin, see the New River Basin Ambient Monitoring System Report. o r Additional Studies th
F North Fork New River Sampling to Support Potential Reclassification o r
k Purpose of Study: N
ew A request for benthic sampling was received by the DWQ Biological Assessment Unit (BAU) from staff in the WSRO to support the potential reclassification of streams in the North Fork New River 10-Digit Watershed to R
iver either High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) (BF-20090316). Six stream sites were selected for benthic sampling in addition to those sites already scheduled for sampling in the watershed W for 2008. Reclassification of streams would lead to better protection of the high water quality exhibited in a
t much of the North Fork New River Watershed. The watershed is home to the Kanawha Minnow (Phenacobius ers teretulus) which is listed as Vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the h Kanawha Darter (Etheostoma kanawhae) listed as Near Threatened by the IUCN, as well as many other ed endemic fish species.
H UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC Study Results: Twenty-five benthic samples were collected from 24 sites in the North Fork New River watershed in 2008. Eleven of the 25 samples were collected as part of routine basinwide sampling that occurs every five years in the New River basin; seven were collected at the request of staff from DWQ’s Planning Section, WSRO, or Soil and Water Conservation for various studies; and one was collected as part of an internal quality assurance procedure. The remaining six samples were collected specifically to help support potential reclassification of waters in the North Fork New River Watershed. Data from all 25 samples were considered in this special study. Geographic data, habitat conditions, and physical and chemical water data are provided in the special study document.
All but one of the 12 benthic sampling events at large-stream sites requested for special studies and nine of the eleven basinwide sampling events in the North Fork New River Watershed in 2008 resulted in classifications of Excellent. The two small-stream sites collected were assigned either Not Impaired or Not Rated (no DWQ criteria currently exist for classifying small-stream sites with drainage areas under 3.0 square-miles). All five benthic collections on North Fork New River proper, from the uppermost site near the headwater to the site furthest downstream one-quarter miles from the mouth, were among those resulting in classifications of Excellent.
1.10 Recommendations for HQW status were based upon classification of Excellent following benthic sampling during 2008. ORW recommendations are based upon brook trout and hellbender records in addition to biological classification of Excellent. The recommendations were generated by the Environmental Science Section to the Planning Section within DWQ. The Planning Section examined other variables, held public hearings and based the final recommendation to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on all available information.
Approval of Proposed Reclassification: In preparation of the reclassification, DWQ held a public meeting, reviewed public comments and worked closely with local governments and environmental groups. The National Committee for the New River (NCNR) was instrumental in helping DWQ spread the reclassification notice to the public and organizing the public hearings in the area. Local governments, NCNR and DWQ worked together to ensure the reclassification would sufficiently protected water quality and aquatic life while not placing an economical burden on local municipalities. The results of the public comments and meetings were all taken into consideration by the hearing officers and compiled into a collaborative conclusion to be finalized by the EMC.
The reclassification was presented to the EMC in September 2010, and the rule went into effect December UC 0505000101 2011
1, 2010. The approved reclassifications can be seen in Figure 1-21. The majority of the North Fork New H River Watershed received the ORW supplemental classification, which is shown in green on the map. Other ed portions of the watershed received the supplemental designation of HQW: Buffalo Creek; a portion of the h
North Fork New River from the confluence of Buffalo Creek to the confluence of Big Horse Creek; a portion of ers t
Big Horse Creek from the confluence of the North Fork New River to the confluence of Little Horse Creek; and a
Old Field Branch (Grass Branch). These HQW waters are shown in blue on the map. Claybank Creek and W Little Buffalo Creek remain C Tr +, which is shown in yellow. iver
Special Management Strategy (+) R ew The “+” is a special management strategy that will comply with the HQW Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0224) to N k
protect the excellent water quality downstream. Therefore, all waters designated as “+” in this watershed are r regulated as if the waterbody was designated as HQW. o F th
ORW Designation r o The ORW supplemental designation does not allow any new NPDES discharges or expansion of existing discharges. It also requires more stringent stormwater management measures for development activities requiring sediment and erosion control plans (15A NCAC 02B.0225).
HQW Designation The HQW supplemental designation does not permit single family discharges to surface waters, and any new or expanded dischargers must abide by more stringent waste treatment guidelines. More stringent stormwater management measures apply for waters that are draining to and within one mile of HQW waters (15A NCAC 02B.0224). NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N
1.11 Figure 1-21: North Fork New River Approved ORW & HQW Reclassification
Brush Fork Wallace Branch Wallace
This map is only as good as the data available when it was printed and is not intended to replace any rule, regulation or classification classification schedule. or regulation any replace torule,intended isnot when printed was availableand as it data the This as is only good map Hoskin Fork Hoskin
NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC
Doe Branch Doe
Cabbage Creek Cabbage North Fork New River Creek Roundabout Kilby Creek
Map Source: NCDWQ, Published 19Jun2009; Hydrography Source: NCDWQ, Published 30Nov2007 Published NCDWQ, Hydrography Source: Map19Jun2009; NCDWQ, Published Source: Big Laurel Creek
Swift Branch Little Laurel Creek Laurel Little Long Hope Creek
Big Branch
Ashe and Watauga Counties, New River Basin, North Basin, River Carolina Watauga Ashe and Counties, New Ripshin Branch
Rich Hill Creek Hill Rich Three Top Creek Top Three North Fork New River North ORW New Fork
N o r t h F o r k N e w R i v e r
Roaring Branch Mill Creek Mill
Buffalo Creek Stagg Creek Stagg
o Big Horse Creek Horse Big r
th Little Horse Creek Horse Little F o
r Lost Branch Lost k West Jefferson N /HQW Reclassification ew Jerd Branch R
Lansing iver Piney Creek Piney
W Little Piney Creek Piney Little a Jefferson t
ers
Silas Creek Silas Helton Creek Helton h
ed Little Phoenix Creek
H UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC
Millpond Branch 4 3 2 1 0 0.5 Existing ORW Existing HQW Municipal Boundary C;Tr,HQWExisting C;Tr:+Existing C:+ Existing "+" area Proposed HQW Proposed ORW watershed
New River South Fork New River New Fork South Miles
1.12 Recommendations & Action Plans at the Watershed Scale
DWQ Priority Summary Table 1-1 is a list of waters in the North Fork New River Watershed that DWQ has prioritized for restoration/ protection. The order of priority is not based solely on the severity of the steams impairment or impacts, but rather by the need for particular actions to be taken. A stream that is currently supporting its designated uses may be prioritized higher within this table than a stream that is currently impaired. This is based on a more wholistic evaluation of the drainage area which includes monitoring results, current and needed restoration/ protection efforts, land use and other activities that could potentially impact water quality in the area. Some supporting streams may have a more urgent need for protections than an Impaired stream with restoration needs already being implemented.
The third and fourth columns of this table list potential stressors and sources that may be impacting a stream based on in-field observations, monitoring data, historical evidence, permit or other violations, and other staff and public input. In many cases, additional study is needed to determine exact source(s) of the impact(s). The last column includes a list of recommended actions. UC 0505000101 2011 H
Table 1-1: Prioritization of Waters in the North Fork New River Watershed (Highest to
Lowest Priority) ed h
Potential Potential Actions ers
Stream Name AU# Class. Status t Stressor(s) Source(s) Needed a
Little Buffalo Cr. 10-2-20-1 C;Tr:+ Habitat Degradation WWTP, Urban Runoff, Impaired RBR, WRP, DS, W (Riparian Zones), Piped Streams, E, Ag, NMC Elevated Nutrients Agriculture iver Helton Cr. 10-2-27 C;ORW;Tr Sediment, Elevated Agriculture, Logging Impacted SS, Protection R Nutrients, Over (Hellbender Sal.) ew
Stocking N k r
Three Top Cr. 10-2-13 C;ORW;Tr Turbidity Supporting SEC, RBR, o
Protection F (Hellbender Sal.) th r
Little Horse Cr. 10-2-21-8 C;ORW;Tr Habitat Degradation Upstream Erosion Supporting Ag, RBR o Middle Fork Little 10-2-21-8-1 C;ORW;Tr Habitat Degradation Supporting RBR Horse Cr. (Bank Erosion) Long Shoals Cr. 10-2-25 C;ORW;Tr Supporting M Big Horse Cr. 10-2-21-(7), C;ORW Habitat Degradation Supporting RBR 10-2-21-(4.5) & C;ORW;Tr (Riparian Zones) 10-2-21-(1.5) C;ORW;Tr North Fork New 10-2-(12) C;ORW Habitat Degradation, Supporting Protection R. (NFNR) Turbidity (Hellbender Sal.) NFNR 10-2-(1) C;ORW;Tr Supporting P Big Laurel Cr. 10-2-14 C;ORW;Tr Supporting Protection (Hellbender Sal.) Hoskin Fork 10-2-7 C;ORW;Tr Supporting None Class.: Classification (e.g., C, S, B, WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-IV, WS-V, Tr, HQW, ORW, SW, UWL) Stressor: Chemical parameters or physical conditions that at certain levels prevent waterbodies from meeting the standards for their designated use (e.g., low/high DO, nutrients, toxicity, habitat degradation, etc.). Source: The cause of the stressor. (Volume & Velocity: when a stream receives stormwater runoff at a much higher volume and velocity than it would naturally receive due to ditching, impervious surfaces, etc.) NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N Status: Impaired, Impacted, Supporting, Improving Actions Needed: Restoration (R), Protection (P), Stormwater Controls (SC), Stressor Study (SS), Education (E), Local Ordinance (LO), Best Management Practices (BMPs), Sediment and Erosion Control BMPs (SEC), Species Protection Plan (SPP), Forestry BMPs (F), Agriculture BMPs (Ag), Nutrient Mgnt Controls (NMC), Riparian Buffer Restoration (RBR), Daylight Stream (DS), Monitoring (M), Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP).
1.13 Status & Recommendations for Monitored Waters
Understanding this Section In this Section, more detailed information about stream health, special studies, aquatic life stressors and sources and other additional information is provided by each 12-digit Hydrological Unit Code
NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC (HUC). Waterbodies discussed in this Chapter include all monitored streams, whether monitored by DWQ or local agencies with approved methods. Use Support information on all monitored streams within this watershed can be seen on the map in Figure 1-1, and a Use Support list of all monitored waters in this basin can be found in the Use Support Methodology Chapter.
Use Support & Monitoring Box: Table 1-2: Example of a Use Each waterbody discussed in the Status & Recommendations for Support and Monitoring Box Monitored Waters within this Watershed section has a corresponding Use Support and Monitoring Box (Table 1-2). The top row indicates Use Support: Impaired (14 mi) the 2010 Use Support and the length of that stream or stream 2008 IR Cat. 4a segment. The next two rows indicate the overall Integrated Report 2010 IR Cat. 4 category which further defines the Use Support for both the 2008 Benthos and the 2010 reports. These first three rows are consistent for all (CB79) Fair (2002) boxes in this Plan. The rows following are based on what type of (CB80) Fair (2002) monitoring stations are found on that stream or stream segment Fish Com and may include benthic, fish community and/or ambient monitoring (CF33) Good-Fair (2002)
o data. If one of these three types of monitoring sites is not shown, AMS Turbidity - 12% r (C1750000) FCB - 48% th then that stream is not sampled for that type of data. The first column
F indicates the type of sampling in bold (e.g., Benthos) with the site o
r ID below in parenthesis (e.g., CB79). The latest monitoring result/rating of that site is listed in the k
N next column followed by the year that sample was taken. If there is more than one benthic site, for ew example, on that stream, the second site ID and site rating will be listed below the first. The last
R row in the sample box in Table 1-2 is the AMS data. The data window for all AMS sites listed in the iver boxes in this Plan is between 2004-2008. Only parameters exceeding the given standard are listed in the second column with the percent of exceedance listed beside each parameter. W a
t Please note any fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) listing in the last row (as seen in Table 1-2) only ers indicates elevated levels and a study of five samples in 30 days (5-in-30) must be conducted h before a stream becomes Impaired for FCB. ed
H UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC North Fork New River (NFNR) The North Fork New River flows through several 12-Digit subwatersheds. Each of the two segments are discussed below.
North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(1)] Use Support: Supporting The North Fork New River begins at the southern most tip of the Headwaters (14 mi) North Fork New River subwatershed (050500010103). The river flows 50 miles 2008 IR Cat. -- northeast, where it joins the South Fork New River to create the New River. This 2010 IR Cat. 2 segment of the North Fork is approximately 14 miles long. Benthos (KB141) Excellent (2008) Water Quality Status Fish Com The most upstream site (KB141) was sampled in 2008 as part of the North Fork (KF10) Good (2008) New River Sampling to Support Potential Reclassification special study. Details about that study can be found above. The river received an Excellent rating at this site; however, one bank was moderately eroded. A large portion of this drainage area is forested, with some agriculture along the stream banks.
1.14 A fish community sample (KF10) was taken in 2008 just downstream of the confluence with Brush Fork. The last sample taken at this station was in 1998. Results of both samples were very similar and included intolerant cool and cold water species indicating little to no change in water quality over the past ten years.
Recommendations Protection efforts should be taken for this section of the North Fork New River to ensure the continuation of good water quality.
North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] This segment of the North Fork New River stretches over 36 miles across three Use Support: Supporting (36.5 mi) different subwatersheds (Upper North Fork New River: 050500010106; Middle 2008 IR Cat. 2 North Fork New River: 050500010107; and Lower North Fork New River: 2010 IR Cat. 2 050500010109). Land use along this segment is a mixture of agriculture along the stream banks, forest and a few scattered urban residential and commercial Benthos (KB23) Excellent (2008) areas. (KB27) Excellent (2008) (KB135) Excellent (2008)
Water Quality Status (KB127) Excellent (2008) UC 0505000101 2011 H
A benthic site (KB23), located just downstream of Three Top Creek, was AMS (K7500000) No Exceedances sampled in 2008. This basinwide site has been sampled four times since 1993 ed and has consistently received an Excellent rating. The latest sample showed h ers
no impacts to the river’s stable macroinvertebrate community and received a high habitat score. t a
The second benthic monitoring station (KB27) is located at SR-1644 (McNeil Rd), just before the river crosses W into the Middle North Fork New River subwatershed (050500010107). The site has been monitored and rated iver Excellent every cycle since 1993, including 2008. Even though the habitat score for this site was low (65 out R of 100) due to low quality riparian buffers, there is a healthy and stable benthic community. Helicopsyche ew paralimnella was found for the first time at this site in the 2008 sample. This taxa has only been collected at N k
five other sites within the entire state by DWQ. This and other taxa collected indicate an absence of stressors r and healthy water quality for aquatic life along this segment. o F th
The third site (KB135) is located at the Millpond Branch confluence where it received an Excellent rating in r 2008. Due to difficult access, this site replaces the site about two miles upstream at NC-16, which has had a o long history of Excellent ratings. Even though habitat was not ideal for aquatic life (65 out of 100), the benthic community is healthy and stable.
The only AMS station in this watershed is located at the same spot on the river as benthic site KB135. Between 2004 and 2008, there were no major parameter exceedances; however, turbidity levels were elevated. Each parameter is explained in greater detail in the Ambient Data section above along with long term trends.
The fourth benthic site (KB127) is about a fourth of a mile upstream from where the North Fork and South Fork merge into the New River [AU#: 10a]. This site was specifically monitored as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study which is discussed in greater detail above. The benthic community and habitat were very similar to the KB135 site just upstream and resulted in an Excellent rating as well.
In September 2010, a survey was conducted to identify locations throughout the state where the Hellbender salamander is present. A population was found in the North Fork New River. More information about the Hellbender Salamander can be found on the NC National Heritage Program website. NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N
1.15 Three Top Creek (050500010101) Includes: Three Top Creek [AU#: 10-2-13], Long Hope Creek [AU#: 10-2-13-3], & Ben Bolen Creek [AU#:10-2-13-2] This subwatershed is mostly forested land with areas of agricultural activities scattered across the 24 square miles. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed and the majority of streams hold the secondary classification of Trout NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC Waters. All streams in this 12-digit subwatershed drain to Three Top Creek.
Three Top Creek [AU#: 10-2-13] Three Top Creek is approximately 13 miles from source to the North Fork New Use Support: Support (13 mi) River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The majority of the drainage area is forested, with 2008 IR Cat. 2 some areas of agriculture. 2010 IR Cat. 2 Benthos Water Quality Status (KB138) Good (2008) All streams in this 12-digit subwatershed drain to Three Top Creek. The stream Fish Com was sampled for both benthic and fish communities during this cycle. Both (KF23) Not Rated (2008) sites are new basinwide sampling stations.
The fish community sample contained a pollution intolerant population. The site was officially given a Not Rated due to absence of criteria for rating high gradient mountain trout waters. However, the combination of good habitat and a healthy stable fish population shows no indication of water quality issues.
o Two benthic samples were taken at the new monitoring station (KB138). The first sample was taken as part r th of the regular basinwide monitoring and received a Good rating. Biologists noted the sample may have been
F adversely affected by extreme low flow during a record drought at the time. The creek was part of the North o
r Fork New River Reclassification Study (discussed above); therefore, the site was resampled to determine k
N the bioclassification during normal flow level. The results of the July 2009 sample far exceeded the minimum ew requirements for an Excellent rating. R
iver In September 2010, a survey was conducted to identify locations throughout the state of the Hellbender salamander. A small population was found in Three Top Creek. Surveyors talked to local land owners who W explained the population of the salamanders used to be much larger over ten years ago. This could be a
t an indication of water quality impacts in the drainage area. Surveyors noted the stream was moderately ers turbid and the substrate was covered in silt at the time of sampling. More information about the Hellbender h Salamander can be found on the NC National Heritage Program website. ed
H Recommendations UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC Due to the presence of the Hellbender salamander, it is recommended that extra precautions be taken in this drainage area to prevent sediment from reaching the stream. Riparian buffers along this stream should be of adequate width and contain trees and shrubs.
Big Laurel Creek (050500010102)
Includes: Big Laurel Creek [AU#: 10-2-14], Roaring Fork [AU#: 10-2-14-7], & Dixion Creek [AU#: 10-2-14-1] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture spread across the 29 square miles. Small Christmas tree farms are scattered across this area with larger tree farms in the northern headwaters. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed and the majority of streams hold the secondary classification of Trout Waters.
1.16 Big Laurel Creek [AU#: 10-2-14] Big Laurel Creek is approximately 18 miles long from source to the North Use Support: Supporting (17.5 mi) Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The source of the creek is located near Ivy 2008 IR Cat. 2 Hill Road and Three Top Road, and is the collecting stream for all waters in this subwatershed. Land use in this drainage area is a mixture of forest and 2010 IR Cat. 2 agriculture, with the majority of the agricultural lands lining the streambanks. Benthos (KB30) Excellent (2008) Water Quality Status Fish Com (KF22) Good (2008) The creek was sampled for both benthic and fish communities about a tenth of a mile upstream of its confluence with the North Fork. All waters in this subwatershed pass through this point which gives a wholistic view of water quality for the subwatershed. The first set of samples taken during this cycle occurred in 2008, resulting in an Excellent benthic rating and a Good fish community rating. Both ratings were mimicked during the 2009 samples. Benthic samples from 1998 to 2008 indicate water quality slightly improving over the years. The fish station was a new basinwide site in 2008, and was noted as having a highly-diverse and trophically-balanced population. Aquatic habitat was over all in good condition with sufficient riparian buffers, but lacked riffle habitat and pool variety. UC 0505000101 2011 H
Two Hellbender salamanders were collected during the fish community sample; one of adult age and the other
young-of-year. The presence of this particular salamander and their age difference suggests high quality ed water. h ers t
Recommendations a
Due to the presence of the Hellbender salamander, it is recommended that extra precautions be taken in this W
drainage area to prevent sediment from reaching the stream. Riparian buffers along this stream should be iver
protected. R ew
Headwaters North Fork New River (050500010103) N k r
Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(1) & (12)], Hoskin o Fork [AU#: 10-2-7], Brush Fork [AU#: 10-2-8], Rock Creek [AU#: F th
10-2-9] & Roundabout Creek [AU#: 10-2-10] r o This subwatershed has mixed land cover of forest and agriculture spread across the 42 square miles. As seen in much of the New River Basin, agricultural lands are mostly located along the banks of major creeks. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed and the majority of streams hold the secondary classification of Trout Waters.
North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(1) & (12)] Two segments of the North Fork New River flow through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section.
Hoskin Fork [AU#: 10-2-7] Use Support: Supporting (5 mi) Hoskin Fork is roughly five miles from source to the North Fork New River [AU#: 2008 IR Cat. 2 10-2-(2)], mostly flowing parallel to NC-88. The land use is a mix of agriculture 2010 IR Cat. 2 and forest. Benthos (KB26) Excellent (2008)
Water Quality Status NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N The benthic station located below Wilson Branch has been monitored during each five-year cycle since 1993. Each sample taken since 1993 has received a higher score than the last, suggesting water quality is gradually improving. The 2008 sample resulted in an Excellent rating as it did in 2003.
1.17 Little Horse Creek (050500010104)
Includes: Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8], & Middle Fork Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8-1] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest and agriculture. As seen in much of the New River Basin, agricultural lands are mostly located along the banks of major NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC creeks. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed and the majority of streams hold the secondary classification of Trout Waters.
Middle Fork Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8-1] Use Support: Supporting (4.5 mi) Middle Fork Little Horse Creek is approximately four and a half miles from source 2008 IR Cat. -- to Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8]. Land use in this drainage area is mostly 2 forest, with some agriculture along the streambanks. 2010 IR Cat. Benthos Water Quality Status (KB121) Excellent (2008) Middle Fork Little Horse Creek was monitored as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study. There are no historical data for the stream. The stream substrate was covered in sand and silt and banks had noticeable erosion. Vegetation in the riparian zones consisted of only grasses and had little to no tree canopy. Despite the habitat deficiencies, the site (KB121) was among the sites with the most diverse pollution intolerant benthic populations within the study. Because of the Excellent rating given, the stream was recommended for a reclassification to HQW. Results of that study and reclassification are discussed above. o
r Recommendations th
F Riparian buffer restoration is suggested for Middle Fork Little Horse Creek. Establishment of shrubs and
o trees within the riparian buffer zone will assist with stabilizing banks and reducing the amount of sediment that r k reaches the stream bed. Additional trees will also provide a shaded canopy, keeping the water temperature N cooler to support local trout populations. ew R Little Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-8] se upport iver U S : Supporting Little Horse Creek is almost 11 miles from source to Big Horse Creek [AU#: (10.9 mi) W 10-2-21-(7)]. This stream is the main receiving stream for this subwatershed. 2008 IR Cat. 2 a 2010 IR Cat. 2 t Land use is a mixture of forest in the head waters and agriculture along the ers streambanks. Benthos
h (KB63) Excellent (2008) ed Water Quality Status
H Little Horse Creek has been monitored since 1998 just upstream on the Middle Fork Little Horse Creek UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC confluence. In 1998 and 2003 the creek received a Good benthic rating and displayed a stable population. The 2008 sample increased a rating to an Excellent due to a more diverse community. A stonefly (Isogenoides hansoni), which has only been collected at 44 sites statewide, was present in the 2008 sample and had not been previously seen in this stream.
However, despite the current rating, habitat at the site was not ideal for a thriving benthic community. The lack of riparian zone, canopy cover and root mats are likely limiting fauna. Also, a layer of sand and silt indicates erosion issues upstream.
This sample was used for the North Fork New River Reclassification Study. Little Horse Creek was recommended to be reclassified as ORW. Results of that study and reclassification are discussed above.
Recommendations In order to maintain the water quality in Little Horse Creek, DWQ recommends local agencies work with farm owners to install agricultural best management practices to reduce sedimentation and erosion.
1.18 Big Horse Creek (050500010105)
Includes: Big Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-(7), (4.5) & (1.5)] This subwatershed has a mixed land use of forest in the headwaters and agriculture scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks. There is one minor NPDES discharger in this subwatershed. Majority of streams in the subwatershed hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. The Town of Lansing is located in the southern portion.
Use Support: Supporting Big Horse Creek [AU#: 10-2-21-(7), (4.5) & (1.5)] (19.4 mi) Big Horse Creek is approximately 20 miles long from source to the North Fork 2008 IR Cat. 2 New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. Shortly downstream of its source, the creek crosses 2010 IR Cat. 2 the state line into Virginia for roughly two miles before flowing back into North Benthos Carolina. The creek is the major receiving stream of this subwatershed and (KB122) Excellent (2008) provides a good representation of overall water quality for the area. (KB33) Excellent (2008)
Fish Com UC 0505000101 2011 (KF1) Good (2008) H Water Quality Status
There is one benthic and one fish community basinwide sampling station on this creek, located just upstream ed h of the North Fork confluence and downstream of the Town of Lansing. Both sites received relatively low ers habitat scores due to lack of pool variety and small riparian zones. The fish community received a Good rating t a and was noted as having a diverse and trophically-balanced community of cool and cold water fish species. The benthic sample resulted in an Excellent rating. This sample consisted of the most pollution tolerant taxa W collected since sampling started at this site in 1993. However, many new taxa were collected and in greater iver abundance. R ew
An additional benthic sample was collected at SR-1365 as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification N k
Study. The sample resulted in an Excellent rating. The first two segments within North Carolina [AU#: 10-2- r 21-(1.5) & (4.5)] were recommended to be reclassified as ORW. Results of that study and reclassification are o F
discussed above. th r o Recommendations Riparian buffer restoration is recommended to increase tree canopy cover and to help filter pollutants in stormwater runoff.
Upper North Fork New River (050500010106) Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)], Rich Hill Creek [AU#: 10-2-15], Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20] & Little Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20-1] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest in the headwaters, some residential and agriculture scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks. There is one major and four minor NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed. Majority of streams in the subwatershed, excluding the North Fork New River, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. Majority of the Town of West Jefferson is located in the southeastern portion of this subwatershed. NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N Rich Hill Creek [AU#: 10-2-15] Use Support: Supporting (4.9 mi) Rich Hill Creek is approximately five miles from source to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. Land use in this drainage area is a mix of forest and 2008 IR Cat. -- agriculture in the headwaters and along streambanks with scattered residential 2010 IR Cat. 2 areas. Benthos (KB86) Excellent (2008)
1.19 Water Quality Status Rick Hill Creek was specifically monitored as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study near the confluence of the North Fork. This site (KB86) was monitored once before in 1993; both events resulted in an Excellent rating. The stream was recommended for a reclassification to HQW. Results of that study and reclassification are discussed above.
Little Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20-1] NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC Little Buffalo Creek is approximately four and a half miles from its source within Use Support: Impaired (4.4 mi) the Mt. Jefferson State Park, through the town of West Jefferson, to Buffalo 2008 IR Cat. 5 Creek [AU#: 10-2-20]. Land use within this drainage area is a mixture of forest, 2010 IR Cat. 5 agriculture, urban and residential. Portions of the stream that flow through urban areas of West Jefferson are piped underground. Little Buffalo Creek has been Benthos (KB32) Fair (2008) on the Impaired Waters List since 1998 when it was listed for impacts from urban runoff and municipal pretreatment. In 2006, impervious surfaces and the West Jefferson WWTP were added to the list of potential sources of impairment.
Water Quality Status A benthic station (KB32) located at Doggett Road crossing has been sampled four times between 1993 and 2008, receiving either a Fair or a Poor rating each time. The site received a Fair rating in 2008, showing a slight increase in abundance and diversity from the 2003 Poor sample. Biologists noted each of the four samples greatly varied in types of taxa collected. High levels of specific conductivity indicate the presence of waterborne pollutants. The stream received a fairly low habitat score and portions of the stream not piped underground have little to no riparian zones. o r th An unnamed tributary which drains the majority of West Jefferson merges with Little Buffalo Creek near F the West Jefferson WWTP. Large portions of this stream are also piped under commercial areas of West o r Jefferson. The majority of the town’s stormwater runoff flows into this unnamed tributary with little to no natural k N filtering, such as a riparian buffer. ew
R There are many possible sources for this impairment which have varied over the years. The West Jefferson iver WWTP was noted in the previous basin plan as having several discharge permit violations. Between 2003 and 2005, the Town had a few violation causing issues, including discovering a local industry knowingly W discharging mercury and cadmium into the towns collection system. After confirming with samples, West a t
ers Jefferson worked with the WSRO to conduct an unannounced inspection resulting in further confirmation of the illegal discharging. The Town issued civil penalties and pretreatment permit resolving the problem. West h ed Jefferson also had operational issues where they failed to properly remove and land apply solids. The WSRO
took enforcement actions and held meetings with the Town. The Town responded by hiring a contractor and H
UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC a new operator. Discharge from the facility has been considered outstanding by the WSRO since that time. However the facility remains a possible source of Little Buffalo Creek’s Impairment during this cycle. The WWTP will be removed as a possible source, providing the facility stays in good standing during the upcoming monitoring cycle.
Another possible source of impact is urban stormwater runoff. Much of West Jefferson’s stormwater runoff drains into portions of the unnamed tributary which has been piped underground. Bypassing natural riparian buffer zones, which can absorb waterborne pollutants, the contaminated runoff has little to no opportunity to be filtered before reaching Little Buffalo Creek. This concentration of stormwater runoff can be toxic to aquatic life.
Downstream of West Jefferson, land use transitions to pasture land and Christmas tree farms. Agriculture is often a source of excess nutrients if proper BMPs are not utilized. Nutrients were added to the list of possible causes of impairment in 2000.
1.20 Drought-like conditions in 2007 and 2008 likely increased the impacts of the pollutants listed above on aquatic life. Samples taken during the previous cycle were also impacted by a similar drought. The slight increase in bioclassification rating (Poor in 2003 to Fair in 2008) indicates somewhat of an improvement in water quality. This is likely due to upgrades made to the WWTP, which can be seen in the few violations the facility received as compared to the previous cycle.
Recommendations DWQ recommends developing a local stakeholder group to determine the possibility of day-lighting the full length of the creek. DWQ supports the need for funding a project of this nature that would include a Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP), as well as follow up monitoring. The WRP should also include planning for implementation of proper riparian buffers, determining the best locations for additional stormwater control measures and efforts to educate affected property owners and the local community about the purpose of this work.
Buffalo Creek [AU#: 10-2-20] Use Support: Supporting Buffalo Creek is approximately ten miles long from source to the North Fork (9.7 mi)
New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The drainage area consists of mostly forest with 2008 IR Cat. 2 UC 0505000101 2011 H agriculture clustered along streambanks. Headwaters of Buffalo Creek and a 2010 IR Cat. 2 few upstream tributaries are within the Bluff Mountain Preserve and Three Top Benthos ed h Mountain Game Land. (KB134) Excellent (2008)
(KB31) Excellent (2008) ers t Water Quality Status Fish Com a In 2008, two benthic samples, including one above and below the Little Buffalo (KF21) Not Rated (2008) W
Creek confluence, were collected and rated as Excellent. The sample above iver
Little Buffalo Creek (KB134) was collected as part of the North Fork New River Reclassification Study, with R
the purpose of assessing conditions in the catchment without the urban influence of West Jefferson. There ew
was little difference between the two benthic sites. The downstream site (KB31) had a slightly higher specific N k conductivity and pH level, as well as a more pollution tolerant population. However, the site received a higher r o
habitat score due to larger, more stable riparian buffers. F th
A fish community sample (KF21) was also collected at the same location as the upstream benthic sample. r o This new basinwide site was given a Not Rated due to lack of criteria for high gradient mountain trout waters. This stretch of Buffalo Creek provides excellent habitat for a diverse and fairly trophic balance mix of cool and cold water fish. Fifty-nine percent of species collected were pollution intolerant, indicating the stream supports a reasonably healthy population and appears to have no obvious water quality issues.
North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] A portion of this segment flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section.
Middle North Fork New River (050500010107) Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)], Little Phoenix Creek [AU#: 10-2-23] & Long Shoals Creek [AU#: 10-2-25] This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest in the headwaters, with some residential and agriculture scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks. There is one minor NPDES discharger in this subwatershed. Majority of streams NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N in the subwatershed, excluding the North Fork New River, hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters. Use Support: Supporting (2.7 mi) Long Shoals Creek [AU#: 10-2-25] 2008 IR Cat. -- Long Shoals Creek is approximately three miles long from source to the North 2010 IR Cat. 2 Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The drainage area consists of mostly forested Benthos Not Impaired area with agriculture clustered along streambanks. (KB123) (2008)
1.21 Water Quality Status A one time benthic sample was taken in June 2008 to determine if the stream was being impacted by recent development. The site KB123 is located a mile upstream of the confluence with the North Fork New River and had overall good habitat; however, pools were infrequent and filling with silt and sand. The stream’s drainage area is less than 3.0 square miles. The site would have received a classification of Good if criteria for larger stream sites were used. Because, criteria for small streams are still in development, the site is currently classified as Not Impaired. NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC Recommendations The benthic site is located just upstream from its confluence with Foster Springs Branch [AU#: 10-2-25-1] and therefore does not reflect influences from that drainage area. An additional site will be considered on Foster Springs Branch for benthic sampling to assess conditions prior to further development (DWQ, B-20081007). If resources are limited, DWQ will consider moving the current site below the confluence.
Little Phoenix Creek [AU#: 10-2-23] Use Support: Supporting Little Phoenix Creek is approximately five miles long from source to the North (4.6 mi) Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)]. The drainage area consists of mostly forested 2008 IR Cat. -- area with agriculture and residential areas clustered along streambanks. 2010 IR Cat. 2 Benthos Water Quality Status (KB125) Excellent (2008) A one time benthic sample was taken in June 2008 to determine if upstream land clearing activities in 2006 had any long-term impacts on the community downstream. The site was given an Excellent bioclassification and had no signs of impacts from sediment on the benthic community. However, the site was somewhat o r deficient of available macroinvertebrate habitat, pool frequency and riparian zone condition along one bank. th
F (DWQ, B-20081007) o r
k DWQ Special Study (B-20070904): N Approximately 85 acres of land in the headwaters of the unnamed tributary (UT) had been cleared for planting ew of Christmas trees and pasture in 2006. The resulting runoff from the steep slopes of the cleared land had R
iver caused extreme scouring of the UT, resulting in large rocks blocking a downstream culvert over a driveway. This caused flooding and sediment deposition on the property of the downstream landowner. DWQ took W benthic samples at two locations to determine the water quality impacts of this land clearing activity. One a
t sample location was just below the impacted area and the second site was located on a comparable site ers draining to the opposite side of Little Phoenix Creek. h ed The impacted sampling site (KB117) was a little over a tenth of a mile upstream of the culvert, in a heavily
H wooded area. Massive rocks and other debris had been washed downstream and extreme scouring, roughly UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC five meters in height, can be seen in photos taken by biologists in the special study document. The stream wetted width was about one meter where as the channel had been scoured out to four and five meters wide. The habitat still received a relatively good score (78 out of 100); however, the bottom substrate consisted of bedrock, boulders, rubble, no leaf packs and exposed tree roots. The control site (KB118) had similar slope and substrate as the impacted site. However, K118 had no scouring and a channel with similar width as the streams wetted width (one meter) and included leaf packs and other characteristics of a small mountain stream.
Sample results from KB117 indicated the majority of the benthic community had been washed away. Only 24 total individual organisms were found at the site and none of the taxa were found in abundance. However, the control site, had 36 total taxa that were found to be in abundance. The majority of these diverse taxa were intolerant species, commonly found in small mountain streams.
The study indicated a devastating impact to the benthic community due to the recent complete rearrangement of the stream bed and the extreme streambank erosion from unusually high flow levels. Recovery of the impacted UT will be slowed by the fact that the entire stream, including the headwaters, have been scoured.
1.22 This leaves recolonization of the stream primarily to aerial recolonization as adults emerge from Little Phoenix Creek and lay eggs in the UT, rather than downstream drift of individuals from headwater fauna because that fauna has been severely reduced both in diversity and abundance.
Basinwide Planning staff visited the impacted property a month prior to the sampling event. The pictures below show the impacts on the downstream property during a light to moderate rain event which occurred at the time of the visit.
Figure 1-22: Impacts from Improper Land Clearing Activity Upstream. Looking Upstream (Left), Looking Downstream (Right). UC 0505000101 2011 H
ed h ers t a W
iver R
Figure 1-23: Post Streambank Stabilization Restoration Project. Looking Upstream (Left), Looking ew N
Downstream (Right). k r o F th r o
UT Little Phoenix Creek Stream Restoration & Success Story: In 2007, the National Committee for the New River (NCNR) was awarded a Federal 319 Grant in the amount of $65,400 for restoring an unnamed tributary to Little Phoenix Creek (Figure 1-22). The purpose of this project NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N was to repair 315 feet of a UT- Little Phoenix Creek which was severely damaged by excessive flooding as the result of upstream land clearing activities.
The stream restoration was based on natural channel design concepts. Rock step-pool structures were installed in the impacted reach and streambanks reshaped to the proper profile. Once the work was completed, native riparian vegetation was planted along the streambanks to aid in bank stability and to lessen the impacts of thermal pollution on this small headwater stream.
1.23 An existing culvert was removed since it acted as a dam, interfering with proper sediment transport. A bridge that spans the entire flood plane was built that allowed the stream profile to be maintained through the reach.
The goal of the project, to stabilize the lower reach of UT Little Phoenix Creek at the property, was met. DENR officials worked with the landowner at the top of the mountain to stabilize the 85 acres that had been cleared. NCNR worked with both upstream and downstream landowners to develop and implement a site plan. The result is a functional, stable stream that is also attractive. NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC See the project’s Final Report for more detailed information about the purpose, restoration details and final results.
Helton Creek (050500010108) Includes: Helton Creek [AU#: 10-2-27] This subwatershed has mixed land use of agriculture, some residential and forest in the headwaters. There are no NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed. Majority of streams in the subwatershed hold the secondary use classification of Trout Waters.
[AU#: 10-2-27] Use Support: Supporting Helton Creek (19 mi) Helton Creek is approximately 19 miles from the NC/ 2008 IR Cat. 2 VA state line to the North Fork New River [AU#: 10- 2010 IR Cat. 2 2-(12)]. This is the main receiving creek for this subwatershed. Land use is Benthos a mixture of mostly forest on the south side of the stream and agriculture and (KB25) Good (2008) residential on the north side. (KB136) Excellent (2008) o r (KB137) Excellent (2008) th Water Quality Status Fish Com F (KF5) Not Rated (2008) o Helton Creek was monitored at four biological sites during 2008 and 2009. Five r Good-Fair (2009) k benthic samples were taken at three locations along the creek. Two of the three N sites were sampled for purposes of a special study. The most downstream benthic site (KB25) is a basinwide ew site and has been sampled since 1998. Each sample since 1998 has resulted in an Excellent rating, indicating R
iver the stream has a stable benthic community. The rating at this site dropped to a Good when it was sampled a second time in 2008 and maintained that Good rating when sampled again in 2009. W
a The fish community site, which is in the same location as KB25 and is a fish community reference site, was t ers monitored in 2008 and received a Not Rated. This rating was given due to unexpected nature of the number
h and the type of species collected until further sampling could be completed. None of the trout species were ed native or wild and all appeared to be stocked. The 2009 sample showed similar results and was rated Good-
H Fair. The large number of stocked species is either an indication of nutrient inputs upstream from nonpoint UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC sources, or the managed trout fishery is affecting the natural fish predators so that prey species are not being controlled. The specific cause of the drop in rating is not known at this time and the stream is considered to be impacted.
In September 2010, a survey was conducted to identify locations throughout the state of the Hellbender salamander. A population was found in Helton Creek. More information about the Hellbender Salamander can be found on the NC National Heritage Program website.
DWQ Special Study - Helton Creek (B-20081202): A request for benthic sampling was received from the WSRO for three sites on Helton Creek in Ashe County. Sediments from logging, farming, and other agricultural activities in the watershed have filled in the stream above a small low-head dam upstream of SR 1526/Ashe County (KB136), causing a shift in the stream channel. The banks of the new channel are unstable and are a source of additional sediments to the stream. Benthic sampling was requested to assess potential effects of the sediments on the benthic community.
1.24 The locations of the three benthic sites sampled on 13 October 2008 can be seen in Figure 1-1 (KB137, KB136 & KB25). The quarter mile segment of Helton Creek where the stream channel had shifted is located just above the middle site (KB136) and is the source of increased sedimentation. One site was selected upstream of the altered channel, one directly downstream, and a third site near the confluence with North Fork New River.
The two upstream sites rated Excellent and the downstream site rated Good. It was concluded that the benthic data did not indicate impacts to the benthic community downstream of the new channel. A more detailed summary of the biological data and resultant bioclassifications can be found in the Special Study document.
Recommendations A stressor study is recommended to determine the source of the large amount of stocked fish.
Lower North Fork New River (050500010109)
Includes: North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] & Millpond UC 0505000101 2011 H
Branch [AU#: 10-2-28] ed
This subwatershed has mixed land use of forest in the headwaters, some residential h
and agriculture scattered in the headwaters and along streambanks. There are no ers t
NPDES dischargers in this subwatershed. a W North Fork New River [AU#: 10-2-(12)] A portion of this segment flows through this subwatershed. Water quality status and other information about iver R the full length of the river is discussed at the beginning of this section. ew N k r o F th r o NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N
1.25 References
References marked with (*) indicates a DWQ special study report. These reports are not currently available online. Contact Jay Sauber by phone at (919) 743-8416 or by e-mail at [email protected] to receive a hardcopy.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of Water Quality
NC DWQ NEW RIVER BASIN PLAN: N PLAN: BASIN RIVER NEW DWQ NC (DWQ). August 2004a. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Code: 15A NCA 2B. Raleigh, NC. (http:// h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/)
____. DWQ. Planning Section. Basinwide Planning Unit (BPU). November 2008. Supplemental Guide to Basinwide Planning: A support document for basinwide water quality plans. Raleigh, NC. (http://por- tal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/about/supplementalguide)
____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Ecosystems Unit. April 2010. New River Basin Am- bient Monitoring Systems Report (January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2008). Raleigh, NC. (http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=01be0501-d4a0-42ae-b4c3- 1349dd8d0ea6&groupId=38364)
____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). Biological Assessment Unit (BAU). April 2009. Basin- wide Assessment Report: New River Basin. Raleigh, NC. (http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/docu- ments/NewBasinwideFinal_09.pdf)
o ____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. December 2008. (B-20081202) Results from benthic sampling of three sites on r th Helton Creek in Ashe County, HUC 05050001 (New River Basin) October 2008. Raleigh, NC. F o ____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. October 2008. (B-20081007) Results from benthic sampling of eight sites re- r k quested by DWQ Planning Section and Division of Soil and Water Conservation in HUCS 06010103 N
ew (Watauga River Basin) and 05050001 (New River Basin) during summer 2008. Raleigh, NC.
R ____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. March 2009. (BF-20090316) Results From Sampling of Sites in the North Fork iver New River Catchment to Support Potential HQW/ORW Reclassifications. Raleigh, NC. W ____. *DWQ. ESS. BAU. March 2009. (B-20070904) Benthos Sampling below Shatley Farm land clearing, a t ers Ashe County, New River Subbasin 02, August, 2007. Raleigh, NC. h ed Pate, Travis. 2009. Watershed Assessment in North Carolina: Building a Watershed Database with Popula-
tion, Land Cover, and Impervious Cover Information. Master Theses, University of North Carolina at H
UC 0505000101 2011 0505000101 UC Chapel Hill.
Note: URL addresses for hyperlinks found in this plan are listed in the Acronyms & Definitions Chapter.
1.26 IR C IR D raf 3n4 3n3 3n2 3n1 a 1nc 4cs 4cr 4ct 2b 1b 4b 3b 3a 4s 4c 3c t 5r 2r 1r 4t 3t 2t 1t t 5 2 1 2010 2010 e go ry N Assessed as impaired watershed is in restoration effort status effort restoration in is watershed impaired as Assessed needing and TMDL a violations standards quality water ambient or biological of because impaired use Designated TMDL approved impaired use Designated listing 5 category or POI Life for TMDL Aquatic approved with Life Aquatic Impaired development TMDL under or TMDL approved to subject is water but impaired use Designated used longer no data- monitoring instream no impaired harvesting Shellfish exceeded criteria screening or data monitoring instream no impaired use Recreation pollutant than other something by impaired use Designated impairment address to expected strategy management other impaired use Designated TMDL approved an with watershed a in is –AU assessment for available Data No collect-draft to need determine available not a Chlorophyll monitoring-draft further for priority second first met not is SAC and value threshold exceeds a Chlorophyll monitoring-draft further for priority first met not is SAC and ELvalue exceeds a Chlorophyll met-draft is SAC and TLvalue exceeds a Chlorophyll assessment make to information or data No assessment for available Data No (DI) inconclusive are data Instream/monitoring only Overall POI for TMDL approved but exceeded criteria No only overall status effort restoration in is watershed supporting as Assessed only Overall violations standards no and place in strategy management other impaired was use Designated only Overall impaired are none supporting and monitored are uses designated Some interest of parameter for TMDL approved but exceeded criteria No status effort restoration in is watershed supporting as Assessed conditions natural to due is exceedance in parameter that determination field made have DWQ (POI) interest of parameter the for violations standards no and place in strategy management other impaired, was use Designated supporting and monitored are uses designated All o I n P t U r e ara g ra th se m M t e ed t er F R S o A ep ssess ni o o A r upp t to r in m g en ppe k C t red a N s o t . . A e go r sin ew ries available t g n W R le
f AU o dix R r
individual a
a can and t t iver
in h ers classified 1- ave g A
m ssess ul s W I t
iple A
uses f n m
en o assess a
. t th r t U ers ni A m t e /U en
se ll t s
S
h dependin upp
ed
o r t C g
o a t n e
da go t ry a
1-A.1 /
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices tion C;Tr:+ C:+ C;Tr:+ C;Tr:+ C;Tr:+ C;Tr:+ C;Tr:+ C;Tr:+
C;Tr:+ C;Tr:+ C;Tr:+ Page198 372 of 05050001 0505000101 0505000101
4.4 Miles FW 4.6 Miles FW 2.7 Miles FW 5.5 Miles FW 6.5 Miles FW 5.1 Miles FW 9.7 Miles FW 5.2 Miles FW 10.9 Miles FW 17.5 Miles FW 19.0 Miles FW Watershed Watershed vice for several species fish vice LengthArea AU_Units Classifica Subbasin 10/20/2010 NorthFork New River North Fork New River Upper NewUpper River From source to Buffalo Creek to Buffalo source From Creek toHorse Big source From to North source From River Fork New to North source From River Fork New From NC-VA State Line toLine State North NC-VA From Fork New River to North source From River Fork New From source to North source From River Fork New to North source From River Fork New to North source From River Fork New From SR#1362 to SR#1353 to(Tuckerdale) SR#1353 SR#1362 From North to(Tuckerdale) Fork SR#1353 From R New
st for Mercury ad statewide to due consumption fish oved Aug 31, 2010Aug 31, oved AU_Description NC 2010 IntegratedReport Little Buffalo Creek Little Horse Creek Little Phoenix Creek Long Shoals Creek Helton Creek Hoskin Fork Big Laurel Creek Brush Fork Buffalo Creek Big Horse Creek Big Horse Creek (Horse Creek)
AU_Name 1 1 1 5 1 3a 1 3a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10-2-20-1 10-2-21-8 10-2-23 10-2-25 10-2-27 10-2-7 10-2-14 10-2-8 10-2-20 10-2-21-(4.5) 10-2-21-(7) 13,123 WatersAll NC are Category in in Li 5-303(d) New River Basin New River Basin NC 2010 Integrated 5-303(d) List EPAReport Appr 1-A.2 AU_Number New River Basin
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices AU_Number NC 2010 Integrated Report Appr Report EPA List 5-303(d) Integrated 2010 NC New River BasinRiver New New River Basin River New All 13,123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) Li in in Category are NC AllWaters 13,123 10-1-37 10-2-13 10-2-10 10-2-15 10-2-(12) 10-2-(1) 10-2-28 10-2-21-8-1 10-1-3-(8) 10-1-3-(1) 1 5 1 1 3a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AU_Name
(Mulberry Creek) (Mulberry Creek Cranberry Creek Top Three RoundaboutCreek Creek Hill Rich River New Fork North River New Fork North Branch Millpond Creek Horse Little Fork Middle New River New SouthFork Fork East River New SouthFork Fork East NC 2010 Integrated Report Report Integrated 2010 NC AU_Description ovedAug31, 2010 st for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption due to statewide ad Mercury for st
From source to South Fork River FromNew Fork source South to NewForkRiver From source North to NewForkRiver From source North to NewForkRiver From source North to FromThree toTopCreek New River Fromsource ThreeCreek to Top NewForkRiver From source North to FromsourceCreek Little Horse to SR 1524 to S Fk New RiverSRSNew1524Fk to From.8mile Co downstreamof Watauga 1524 SR County From source Watauga to South Fork New River New Fork South North Fork New River New Fork North 10/20/2010 eghraA_nt Classifica AU_Units LengthArea vicefish species several for Watershed Watershed 89FWMiles 18.9 FWMiles 13.2 FWMiles 36.5 FWMiles 14.1 . FWMiles 4.0 FWMiles 4.9 FWMiles 2.0 FWMiles 4.5 . FWMiles 0.5 FWMiles 2.3
0505000102 0505000101 Page 199 of 372 199 Page B;Tr:+ C;Tr:+ C:+ C;Tr:+
C;Tr:+ C;Tr:+ C:+ C;Tr:+ WS-IV;CA:+ WS-IV;Tr:+ tion 1-A.3
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices 1-A.4
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices B S i o a l m og A ple ical ppe S (B i t n e dix D en a th t 1-B a ic S & F & h ee is t s h )
1-B.1
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices 1-B.2
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices * New station location; therefore, no data from the previous cycle. previous the from data no therefore, location; station New * KF1 KF16* KF2 KF21* KB86* KB63 KB33 KB32 KB31 KB30 KB27 KB26 KB25 KB23 KB141* KB138* KB137* KB136* KB135* KB134* KB129* KB127* KB125* KB123* KB122* KB121* KB120* KB119* KB118* KB117 S t ID* a t i o n
Big Horse Cr. Horse Big Cr. Grassy Cr. Cranberry Cr. Buffalo Cr. Hill Rich Cr. Horse L. Cr.) (Horse Cr. Horse Big Cr. Buffalo L. Cr. Buffalo Cr. Laurel Big R. New Fk. N. Fk. Hoskin Cr. Helton R. New Fk. N. R. New Fk. N. TopThree Cr. Cr. Helton Cr. Helton R. New Fk. N. Cr. Buffalo Cr. Mill Ut. R. New Fk. N. Cr. Phoenix L. Cr. Shoals Long Cr. Horse Big Cr. Horse Little Fk. M. Cr. Roundabout Fk. Brush Cr. Phoenix L. Ut. Cr. Phoenix L. Ut. W a t erb o dy 10-2-21-(7) 10-3 10-1-37 10-2-20 10-2-15 10-2-21-8 10-2-21-(7) 10-2-20-1 10-2-20 10-2-14 10-2-(12) 10-2-7 10-2-27 10-2-(12) 10-2-(1) 10-2-13 10-2-27 10-2-27 10-2-(12) 10-2-20 10-1-18ut4 10-2-(12) 10-2-23 10-2-25 10-2-21-(4.5) 10-2-21-8-1 10-2-10 10-2-8 10-2-23ut6 10-2-23ut5 A ssess U ni t # m en t
Source to L Phoenix Cr. L Phoenix to Source From source to Buffalo Creek Buffalo to source From River New Fork North to source From River New Fork North to source From River New Topto Three Creek From River New Fork North to source From River New Fork North to NC-VALine From State River New Topto Three Creek From Top Three to Creek source From River New Fork North to source From River New Fork North to NC-VALine From State River New Fork North to NC-VALine From State River New Topto Three Creek From River New Fork North to source From Cr. Mill to Source River New Topto Three Creek From River New Fork North to source From River New Fork North to source From (Tuckerdale) 1353 SR to 1362 SR From Cr. Horse Little to source From River New Fork North to source From River New Fork North to source From Cr. L Phoenix to Source Fork New R New Fork North to (Tuckerdale) SR#1353 From State Carolina-Virginia North From River New Fork South to source From River New Fork North to source From River New Fork North to source From Creek Horse Big to source From R New Fork North to (Tuckerdale) SR#1353 From Fish Community Sample Sites Sample Community Fish Benthic Sample Sites Sample Benthic D escrip t i o n Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe C o un t y SR 1526 SR 16 NC Old 194-88 NC 1111 SR 1549 SR 1513 SR 1574 SR 1362 SR 1334 SR 1308 SR 88 NC 1649 SR 16 NC Old SR 1350 SR 1549 SR 1600 SR 88/194 NC 88 NC 1334 SR 194 NC 1153 SR 194-88 NC 88 NC 1644 SR 88 NC 1536 SR 1100 SR 1118 SR 1100 SR 1370 SR L o S ca i t t e i o
n 08 - Excellent - 08 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 08 Impaired Not - 07 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 08 Impaired Not - 08 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 08 Impaired Not - 07 Rated Not - 07 Rated Not - 08 98 - Good - 98 Good - 08 Good-Fair - 08 Excellent - 98 Good - 08 Rated Not - 08 Excellent - 08 Good - 03 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 03 Excellent - 08 Poor - 03 Fair - 08 Excellent - 03 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 03 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 03 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 03 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 03 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 03 Excellent - 08 Excellent - 08 Good - 08 Excellent - 09 Excellent - 08 S a m ple R esul 1-B.3 t s
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices s t esul R ple m a S 08 - Good 08 - Not Rated 98 - Good 08 - Good 98 - Good 08 - Not Rated n
o i e t t i ca S o L NC 88 SR 1536 SR 1119 SR 1123 y t un o C Ashe Ashe Ashe Ashe n o i t escrip D New River From source Creek toThree Top From source to North Fork New River From source to North Fork New River StateFrom LineNC-VA to North Fork t en m # t ni U ssess A 10-2-(1) 10-2-13 10-2-14 10-2-27 dy o erb t a W Three Top Cr. ThreeTop Big Laurel Cr. Helton Cr. N. Fk. New R. n o i t a ID* t S * New station location; therefore, no data from the previous cycle. KF10 KF23* KF5 KF22* 1-B.4
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Data Analysis Total HabitatScore(100) Right RiparianScore(5) Left RiparianScore(5) Light Penetration(10) Right BankStability(7) Left BankStability(7) Riffle Habitat(16) Pool Variety(10) Bottom Substrate(15) Instream Habitat(20) Channel Modification(5) pH (s.u.) Specific Conductance(µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) Temperature (°C) Water QualityParameters Upstream NPDESDischargers(>1MGDor<1MGDandwithin1mile) quality inthisheadwatercatchment hasremainedgoodoveratenyearperiod. 2008 more thantwicethetotalabundance wascollectedthanin1998(1368vs.552);WesternBlacknose Dace(n=553)represented40%o population ofcoolandcoldwaterfishspecieswerepresent,includingthreeintoleranttaxa(NewRiverShiner,TonguetiedMin n riparian corridor(majorityofshrubsandgrassesvs.trees);substratesexhibitedmoderatetohighembededdness. some chutesthatwereholdingtrout,andafewsiltbottompools;thereachismostlysunlitbecauseofvegetationtypeal o Fork NewRiver'sheadwatersplusthemaintributariesofPineMountainBranch,BrushFork,andHoskinFork. Watershed Habitat AssessmentScores(max) Water Clarity Stream Classification Species ChangeSinceLastCycle Visible Landuse(%) FISH COMMUNITYSAMPLE MostAbundantSpecies --verysimilarspeciescompositions wereobservedandnearlyidenticalNCIBImetricscalculated forbothmonitoringyear County ASHE N FKNEWR Sample Date 06/29/98 05/21/08 C;Tr,+ --locatedalongtheruralwest-centraledgeofNewRiverbasinwhereWataugaandAsheCountiesmeet;thiscatchmentdrai n Waterbody Subbasin 2 Drainage Area(mi2) Forested/Wetland Western BlacknoseDace. 8 digitHUC 05050001 Clear 23.9 60 None Gains -- Sample ID 2008-46 11.2 10.2 98-56 6.5 59 18 16 71 8 4 5 4 4 4 3 5 SR 1119 Bluehead Chub,BigmouthChub. Location 36.407098 Latitude Rural Residential Elevation (ft) Substrate 3118 5 -81.681014 Longitude Species Total cobble, gravel,sand,boulder. 05/21/08 14 15 Stream Width(m) ExoticSpecies aeStationID Date Losses AU Number Agriculture 9 10-2-(1) --RosyfaceShiner. 35 NPDES Number KF10 Site Photograph --- Brown Trout. NCIBI 50 48 Southern CrystallineRidges&Mountains Average Depth(m) Habitats 2008 0.5 --adiverseandabundant --primarilyrifflesandrunswith Level IVEcoregion ng thebanksandin Bioclassification Other (describe) ow, andKanawhaDarter); Good s, indicatingthatwater Bioclassification Volume (MGD) f thesample. 0 Reference Site Good Good --- s theNorth No 1998- 1-B.5
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent --- 0.3 Acroneuria Excellent Bioclassification Bioclassification 0 Volume (MGD) Stream Depth (m) Other (describe) Level IV Ecoregion 3.01 3.23 2.73 3.51 EPT BI Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Ridges and Southern Crystalline Date 07/31/08 --- 13 Site Photograph BI 3.95 4.05 3.67 3.96 NPDES Number 10-2-(12) 90 AU Number Stream Width (m) Agriculture mix of boulder, cobble, gravel KB23 50 57 44 52 Station ID EPT Longitude -81.620833 2845 Elevation (ft) 10 Urban Substrate 81 96 ST 102 119 Latitude 36.430000 . 5 5 7 7 7 3 2 61 18 12 15 81 7.6 6.5 Location 20.3 SR 1100 62 0 05050001 clear 9222 7710 6296 8 digit HUC 10517 Sample ID Drainage Area (mi2) Forested/Wetland Nectopsyche exquisita 2 and Subbasin C:+ Waterbody 07/31/08 08/19/03 08/17/98 07/29/93 N FK NEW R N FK NEW Sample Date ASHE County Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) (>1MGD or <1MGD and within Upstream NPDES Dischargers Visible Landuse (%) Stream Classification BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE MACROINVERTEBRATE BENTHIC Taxonomic Analysis uding:The greatest number of EPT taxa collected at the site occurred in 2008. A few EPT taxa were collected for the first time, incl carolinensis, Hydroptila, rThe site has consistently received classifications of Excellent following each summer sampling event (a Good was received afte a non-summer sampling event in March 1989). No indications of impact are exhibited by the benthic community. Data Analysis er.The site is 8.2 miles west of Jefferson. This is the site furthest upstream of the three basinwide sites on North Fork New Riv none Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) 1-B.6
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices The healthybenthiccommunityindicates anabsenceofstressorsatthesite. 1993and2008. Consistently highEPTRichness and lowNCBIvalueshaveresultedinclassificationsofExcellentfor eachsamplingeventbetween included inthecatchmentabove the site. almost entirely The siteis4.6milesNNWofJeffersonanddirectlyupstreamthemouthBigHorseCreek.townWest Data Analysis undoubtedly moresiteswillbefound. foundbyBAU,though been recordedforthefirsttimefromsite;thisisonlyoneoffivesitesinstatesofaratwhichspecieshasbe en EPT Richnessatthesitehasshownverylittlechangeforfoursummersamplingeventsbetween1993and2008. Taxonomic Analysis Total HabitatScore(100) Right RiparianScore(5) Left RiparianScore(5) Light Penetration(10) Right BankStability(7) Left BankStability(7) Riffle Habitat(16) Pool Variety(10) Bottom Substrate(15) Instream Habitat(20) Channel Modification(5) Habitat AssessmentScores(max) Water Clarity pH (s.u.) Specific Conductance(µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) Temperature (°C) Water QualityParameters United Chemi-Con,Inc. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATESAMPLE Stream Classification Visible Landuse(%) Upstream NPDESDischargers(>1MGDor<1MGDandwithin1mile) County ASHE Sample Date N FKNEWR 07/28/93 08/19/98 08/21/03 08/20/08 Waterbody C:+ Subbasin 2 Forested/Wetland Drainage Area(mi2) Sample ID 10541 8 digitHUC 6294 7719 9234 clear 05050001 0 144 SR 1644 24.1 Location 8.0 8.4 65 15 12 12 80 0 2 2 7 7 4 4 36.485556 Latitude ST 93 87 72 99 Substrate Urban 10 Elevation (ft) 2630 -81.493889 Longitude EPT Station ID 46 50 45 49 KB27 mix ofcobble,gravel,sand;someboulder,silt Agriculture Stream Width(m) AU Number 90 10-2-(12) NPDES Number 3.66 4.00 3.77 3.93 NC0000019 BI Site Photograph 18 08/20/08 Date EPT BI 3.31 2.94 2.91 3.31 Helicopsyche paralimnella Level IVEcoregion New RiverPlateau Other (describe) Stream Depth(m) Volume (MGD) 0 Bioclassification Bioclassification Excellent 1.018 0.3 Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent has 1-B.7
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Excellent 0.3 1.018 Excellent Bioclassification Bioclassification 0 0 Volume (MGD) Stream Depth (m) Other (describe) New River Plateau New River Level IV Ecoregion 3.07 EPT BI , Anthopotamus distinctus, Agnetina, Date 08/20/08 33 (common) Site Photograph BI NC0000019 4.08 NPDES Number 10-2-(12) 20 AU Number Stream Width (m) Agriculture primarily cobble and gravel; some sand, silt, boulder primarily cobble and gravel; some sand, silt, 55 Station ID KB135 EPT Longitude -81.390278 2525 Elevation (ft) 30 Urban Substrate ST 108 Latitude 36.503889 Acerpenna pygmaea, Heterocloeon anoka 5 5 5 7 7 1 5 2 73 18 10 65 8.4 7.4 Location 22.2 OLD NC 16 OLD NC 277 50 05050001 clear 8 digit HUC 10539 Sample ID group. Drainage Area (mi2) Forested/Wetland 2 Subbasin Pycnopsyche lepida C:+ Waterbody and 08/20/08 N FK NEW R N FK NEW Sample Date ASHE County Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) (>1MGD or <1MGD and within Upstream NPDES Dischargers Visible Landuse (%) Stream Classification BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE MACROINVERTEBRATE BENTHIC 1-B.8 United Chemi-Con, Inc. Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) Taxonomic Analysis theThere is little difference between this new basinwide site and the former upstream basinwide site in terms of richness within major groups; the number of taxa collected within each group at the new site is within the range of taxa collected at the upstream site with the exception of Lepidoptera te(one taxon collected at this site; never collected at the former site) and Oligochaeta (only lumbriculids collected at this si in 2008; at least two taxa tcollected upstream). However, there were a few EPT taxa collected at Old NC 16 that have not been collected at NC 16 over eigh sampling events, including (all rare within the sample except as noted): The four summer sampling events in 1989, 1993, 1998, and 2003 resulted in classifications of Excellent at the former basinwide site. There appears to thbe little difference in water quality either temporally or longitudinally between sampling events on this lower segment of Nor Fork New River. Hydroptila, Data Analysis furthestThe site is 7.4 miles northeast of Jefferson and six stream-miles above the confluence with South Fork New River. This is the downstream site aboveof the three basinwide sites on North Fork New River. The town of West Jefferson is almost entirely included in the catchment the site. This site verreplaces the basinwide site at NC 16, which is about two stream-miles upstream of this site, due to difficult access to the ri at NC 16.
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Total HabitatScore(100) Right RiparianScore(5) Left RiparianScore(5) Light Penetration(10) Right BankStability(7) Left BankStability(7) Riffle Habitat(16) Pool Variety(10) Bottom Substrate(15) Instream Habitat(20) Channel Modification(5) Habitat AssessmentScores(max) Water Clarity pH (s.u.) Specific Conductance(µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) Temperature (°C) Water QualityParameters none Increasing EPTrichnesswitheach successivesamplingeventsince1993issuggestiveofimproving waterqualityatthesite. River. NorthFork New The siteisabout1.5mileseastof theclosestpointonTennesseeValleyDivideand0.8stream-miles fromtheconfluencewith Data Analysis time atthesite,including: forthefirst The numberofEPTtaxaidentifiedfromthesitehasincreasedwitheachsuccessivesamplingeventsince1993.Afewwere collected Taxonomic Analysis BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATESAMPLE Stream Classification Visible Landuse(%) Upstream NPDESDischargers(>1MGDor<1MGDandwithin1mile) County ASHE Sample Date HOSKIN FK 07/31/08 08/19/03 08/17/98 07/23/93 C;Tr:+ Waterbody Subbasin Ephemerella subvaria,Serratelladeficiens,Hexagenia,Acroneuriacarolinensis, 2 Forested/Wetland Drainage Area(mi2) Sample ID OFF NC88BELOWWILSON 10514 8 digitHUC 9221 7709 6299 clear 05050001 0 6.7 17.9 Location 7.0 8.1 75 16 12 19 85 2 2 2 7 7 4 4 BR 36.390480 Latitude ST ------Substrate Urban 10 Elevation (ft) 3125 -81.702190 Longitude EPT Station ID 38 37 35 30 KB26 mix ofcobbole,gravel,boulder;somesand Agriculture Stream Width(m) AU Number 90 NPDES Number 10-2-7 BI ------Site Photograph 3 --- 07/31/08 Date Southern CrystallineRidgesandMountains and EPT BI 3.18 2.92 3.59 3.56 Leucotrichia pictipes Level IVEcoregion Other (describe) Stream Depth(m) Volume (MGD) 0 Bioclassification Bioclassification Excellent 0.3 --- Excellent Excellent . Good Good 1-B.9
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Good Good --- 0.4 Bioclassification Bioclassification Volume (MGD) 10 (road) Stream Depth (m) Other (describe) Level IV Ecoregion Amphibolite Mountains 2.60 Procloeon, Maccaffertium pudicum, EPT BI Date 08/21/08 --- 8 Site Photograph --- BI 10-2-13 NPDES Number 0 AU Number Stream Width (m) Agriculture mostly cobble and boulder; some gravel, bedrock, sand, silt mostly cobble and boulder; some gravel, bedrock, 35 Station ID KB138 EPT Longitude -81.619600 2915 0 Elevation (ft) Urban Substrate --- ST Latitude 36.410710 5 7 7 7 5 2 --- 48 16 12 10 15 86 8.2 Location 18.8 HOPE CR . 22 90 05050001 clear 8 digit HUC 10545 OFF SR 1100 BELOW LONG OFF SR 1100 Chimarra Sample ID Drainage Area (mi2) and Forested/Wetland 2 Subbasin Waterbody C;Tr:+ 08/21/08 Sample Date ASHE Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) (>1MGD or <1MGD and within Upstream NPDES Dischargers County THREE TOP CR THREE Visible Landuse (%) Stream Classification BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE MACROINVERTEBRATE BENTHIC nalThe same number of EPT taxa were recorded for this site in 2008 as were for the former site in 2003. In both cases the additio of a single EPT taxon would have resulted in a classification of Excellent. Taxonomic Analysis onA fairly diverse EPT community exists at the site. There are no historical data for the site, so trends in community compositi can not be analyzed. A few taxa were collected here that have not been collected at the former basinwide site downstream, including: Diplectrona modestum, Ceraclea, Data Analysis heThe site is 8.1 miles west of Jefferson. This new basinwide site is 1.3 stream-miles upstream of the former site at SR 1100. T site was moved to remove the influence of development directly upstream of the old basinwide site, and to locate it in the Amphibolite Mountains ecoregion so that a potential reference site for the ecoregion could be established. none Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) 1-B.10
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices stream preventbroadriparianwidths,butthestream'sbankswereverystable,withsomeMountainLaurelonrightbank;th e quality instreamhabitatsconsistingofrifflesandrunswithdeepchutesthatwereholdingtrout,somesmallsidepools; r issues. sample andMottledSculpincomprised29%;overall,thefishcom munity ofThreeTopCreekappearstobehealthy,andsuggestsno considered tobeintolerantpollution(RockBass,TonguetiedMinnow,KanawhaDarter,andAppalachiaDarter);FantailDarter s 50% shadingtothestream. New basinwidesite. Total HabitatScore(100) Right RiparianScore(5) Left RiparianScore(5) Light Penetration(10) Right BankStability(7) Left BankStability(7) Riffle Habitat(16) Pool Variety(10) Bottom Substrate(15) Instream Habitat(20) Channel Modification(5) pH (s.u.) Specific Conductance(µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) Temperature (°C) Water QualityParameters Habitat AssessmentScores(max) Data Analysis Upstream NPDESDischargers(>1MGDor<1MGDandwithin1mile) Water Clarity Stream Classification Species ChangeSinceLastCycle Visible Landuse(%) FISH COMMUNITYSAMPLE MostAbundantSpecies THREE TOPCR County ASHE Sample Date 05/20/08 Waterbody C;Tr Watershed Subbasin 2 2008 Drainage Area(mi2) oetdWtadRuralResidential Forested/Wetland --atributarytotheNorthForkNewRiverthatflowsnorth,drainingpartofwest-centralAsheCounty. --adiverseassemblageofcoolandcoldwaterfishfaunawerecollectedfromthestream,includingfourspeciesthatare Fantail Darter. 8 digitHUC 05050001 Clear 23.1 65 None N/A Sample ID 2008-45 14.4 6.4 9.5 38 85 16 12 20 2 3 7 7 7 6 5 SR 1123 Location 36.420699 Latitude Elevation (ft) Substrate 2900 15 -81.621819 Longitude Species Total flat cobble,boulder,bedrock,gravel,sand. 52/8KF23 05/20/08 15 Stream Width(m) ExoticSpecies aeStationID Date 10 Agriculture AU Number 10-2-13 NPDES Number 5 Site Photograph --- Rock Bass,BrownTrout. NCIBI -- Average Depth(m) 0.4 oads onbothsidesofthe Amphibolite Mountains Level IVEcoregion Bioclassification Other (describe) Not Rated 15 (lumbermill) treecanopyprovidesabout represented36%ofthe Bioclassification obviouswaterquality Volume (MGD) Habitats Not Rated Reference Site --- --high Yes 1-B.11
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices . Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent --- 0.4 Excellent Bioclassification Bioclassification 0 Volume (MGD) Stream Depth (m) Other (describe) Level IV Ecoregion Eurylophella verisimilis, Triaenodes ignitus 3.29 3.49 2.92 2.62 and EPT BI Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains Ridges and Southern Crystalline Date 06/19/08 --- 8 Site Photograph ------BI 10-2-14 NPDES Number 40 AU Number Stream Width (m) Agriculture mix of cobble, gravel, sand; some boulder, silt KB30 48 40 38 53 Station ID EPT Longitude -81.613611 2805 0 Elevation (ft) Urban Substrate ------ST Latitude 36.443056 4 4 6 6 7 5 2 42 15 13 14 76 9.3 7.1 Location 14.1 NC 88 29 60 05050001 6298 7712 9225 8 digit HUC 10468 Sample ID slightly turbid Drainage Area (mi2) Forested/Wetland 2 Subbasin Waterbody C;Tr:+ 07/29/93 07/17/98 08/19/03 06/19/08 Sample Date ASHE County Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) (>1MGD or <1MGD and within Upstream NPDES Dischargers BIG LAUREL CR BIG LAUREL Visible Landuse (%) Stream Classification BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE MACROINVERTEBRATE BENTHIC Taxonomic Analysis The greatest number of EPT taxa collected from the site occurred in 2008. Taxa collected for the first time included: Ephemera, Anthopotamus distinctus, Brachycentrus appalachia, Ceratopsyche slossonae, Oecetis persimilis, itThe highest EPT richness and the lowest EPT BI values were recorded for the site in 2008. Each time the site has been sampled has received a classification of Excellent. The benthic community does not exhibit signs of impact. Data Analysis The site is near the confluence with North Fork New River and about eight miles west of Jefferson. none Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) 1-B.12
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Upstream NPDESDischargers(>1MGDor<1MGDandwithin1mile) Habitat AssessmentScores(max) Data Analysis Total HabitatScore(100) Right RiparianScore(5) Left RiparianScore(5) Light Penetration(10) Right BankStability(7) Left BankStability(7) Riffle Habitat(16) Pool Variety(10) Bottom Substrate(15) Instream Habitat(20) Channel Modification(5) pH (s.u.) Specific Conductance(µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) Temperature (°C) Water QualityParameters (n=350); twoHellbenders(oneadultandoneyoung-of-year)were alsocollected,suggestinghighqualitywater. River Shiner,RosyfaceKanawhaMinnow,Darter, andAppalachiaDarter);MountainRedbellyDacerepresented47%o mostly coolandcoldwaterfishspecieswascollected,includingseventaxathatareconsideredintoleranttopollution(Rock B bank stabilitiesandvegetatedriparianwidths,butshadingislimitedtothestream'sedges. instream habitatqualitiesinthislargemountainstream,consitingprimarilyofrunsandsomeriffles;moderatetohighembed d New basinwidesite. Water Clarity Stream Classification Species ChangeSinceLastCycle Visible Landuse(%) FISH COMMUNITYSAMPLE MostAbundantSpecies BIG LAURELCR County ASHE Sample Date 05/20/08 Waterbody C;Tr Watershed Subbasin 2 Drainage Area(mi2) Forested/Wetland --atributarytotheNorthForkNewRiverthatdrainsnorthwestern-mostedgeofAsheCounty. Mountain RedbellyDace. 8 digitHUC 05050001 Turbid 85 29 None N/A Sample ID 2008-44 13.8 6.4 9.9 42 71 16 10 4 5 5 5 5 8 5 8 NC 88 Location 36.443095 Latitude Rural Residential Elevation (ft) Substrate 2835 10 -81.613795 Longitude Species Total sand, gravel,cobble,boulder. 05/20/08 19 Stream Width(m) ExoticSpecies aeStationID Date AU Number 10 Agriculture 2008 10-2-14 --ahighlydiverseandtrophicallybalancedpopulationof 5 NPDES Number KF 22 Site Photograph --- Rock Bass,BrownTrout. NCIBI 52 Southern CrystalineRidges&Mountains Average Depth(m) 0.8 Level IVEcoregion edness ofsubstrates;good ass, TonguetiedMinnow,New Bioclassification Other (describe) Good Habitats Bioclassification Volume (MGD) 0 f thesample Reference Site Good --- --good Yes 1-B.13
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Excellent --- 0.2 Excellent Bioclassification Bioclassification 10 Volume (MGD) Stream Depth (m) Other (describe) Level IV Ecoregion Amphibolite Mountains 2.51 EPT BI Date 08/20/08 --- 5 Site Photograph --- BI 10-2-20 NPDES Number 0 AU Number Stream Width (m) Agriculture , a mayfly often collected in the New River basin but uncollected at mix of cobble, gravel, boulder; some sand 39 Station ID KB134 EPT Longitude -81.511380 2785 Elevation (ft) 20 Urban Baetisca berneri Substrate --- ST Latitude 36.432880 4 5 7 7 6 3 4 70 18 14 14 82 7.0 6.7 Location 21.6 13 NC 88/194 ABOVE NC 88/194 70 05050001 clear 8 digit HUC LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK LITTLE BUFFALO 10542 Sample ID Drainage Area (mi2) Forested/Wetland 2 Subbasin Waterbody C;Tr:+ 08/20/08 Sample Date ASHE BUFFALO CR BUFFALO Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) (>1MGD or <1MGD and within Upstream NPDES Dischargers County Visible Landuse (%) Stream Classification BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE MACROINVERTEBRATE BENTHIC The high EPT Richness and low EPT BI value indicates a healthy benthic community and the absence of stressors. Data Analysis uffaloThe site is about 2 miles west of Jefferson. The basinwide site for Buffalo Creek was relocated to above the mouth of Little B Creek to assess sconditions in the catchment without the influence of West Jefferson WWTP; the original basinwide site is about 0.4 stream-mile downstream of the present site. At the new location the catchment is mostly forest and pasture with no urban influence. Taxonomic Analysis The EPT portion of the benthic community at the site is diverse. resencethe prior basinwide site on Buffalo Creek, was abundant at this site. The low EPT BI indicates a community intolerant to the p of pollutants. none Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) 1-B.14
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Habitat AssessmentScores(max) Data Analysis the BuffaloMeadowsWWTP(<1MGD,100%domestic)located2.8 milesupstreammaybecontributingtotheslightlyelevatedconduct and vegetatedriparianwidths;thecanopywasprovidingequalamountsofshadesunlighttostream;lowmoderateemb e high qualityinstreamhabitatsincludingswiftrifflesandrunswithafewchutesshallowsidepoolsthatwereholdi n Upstream NPDESDischargers(>1MGDor<1MGDandwithin1mile) Total HabitatScore(100) Right RiparianScore(5) Left RiparianScore(5) Light Penetration(10) Right BankStability(7) Left BankStability(7) Riffle Habitat(16) Pool Variety(10) Bottom Substrate(15) Instream Habitat(20) Channel Modification(5) pH (s.u.) Specific Conductance(µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) Temperature (°C) Water QualityParameters overall, thisstreamissupporting a reasonablyhealthyfishpopulationandappearstohaveno obvious waterqualityissues. pollution (RockBass,KanawhaDarter,andRainbowTrout);Fanta il Darters(intermediatelytolerantinsectivores)represented59 diverse andfairlytrophicallybalancedmixofmostlycoolcoldwaterfishtaxawascollected,includingthreespeciestha t New basinwidesite. Water Clarity Stream Classification Species ChangeSinceLastCycle Visible Landuse(%) FISH COMMUNITYSAMPLE MostAbundantSpecies County BUFFALO CR ASHE Sample Date 05/19/08 Waterbody C;Tr Watershed Subbasin 1 Drainage Area(mi2) Forested/Wetland --atributarytotheNorthForkNewRiverthatdrainspartofcentralAsheCounty,justwestJefferson. Fantail Darter. 8 digitHUC 05050001 Clear 12.6 50 None N/A Sample ID 2008-42 17.0 6.9 9.3 62 16 12 20 83 3 4 7 6 6 4 5 NC 88/194 Location 36.433146 Latitude Residential/Commercial Elevation (ft) Substrate 2833 30 -81.511071 Longitude Species Total flat cobble,gravel,boulder. 05/19/08 15 temWdh()AverageDepth(m) Stream Width(m) ExoticSpecies aeStationID Date 7 Agriculture AU Number 10-2-20 NPDES Number KF 21 5 Site Photograph --- Trout, BrownTrout. Rock Bass,Bluegill,SaffronShiner,Rainbow NCIBI -- 0.4 15 (road-NC88and194) g trout;goodbankstabilities areconsideredintolerantto Amphibolite Mountains Level IVEcoregion Bioclassification Other (describe) Not Rated % ofthecollectedsample; ddedness ofsubstrates; Bioclassification Volume (MGD) ivity. Not Rated Reference Site --- 2008 Yes Habitats 1-B.15 -- a --
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair 0.2 0.5 Bioclassification Bioclassification 0 Volume (MGD) Stream Depth (m) Other (describe) New River Plateau New River Level IV Ecoregion --- 5.28 4.11 5.00 EPT BI Date 08/21/08 ) were abundant in the sample. 2 Site Photograph BI NC0020451 7.07 8.31 6.40 6.00 NPDES Number 10-2-20-1 20 AU Number Stream Width (m) Agriculture mix of boulder, gravel, cobble; some sand 0 6 KB32 Leucotrichia pictipes 14 13 Station ID EPT and Longitude -81.493220 2865 Elevation (ft) 80 Urban Substrate 39 24 63 22 ST Latitude 36.420480 3 9 4 5 7 2 2 1 --- 18 15 66 8.7 276 Location 18.1 3.0 OFF SR 1153 OFF SR 0 05050001 clear 7713 6265 9228 8 digit HUC 10543 Sample ID Drainage Area (mi2) Forested/Wetland 2 Maccaffertium pudicum, Hydropsyche betteni, Subbasin Waterbody C;Tr:+ 08/18/98 07/13/93 08/21/08 08/20/03 Sample Date ASHE Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) (>1MGD or <1MGD and within Upstream NPDES Dischargers County L BUFFALO CR L BUFFALO Visible Landuse (%) Stream Classification BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE MACROINVERTEBRATE BENTHIC 1-B.16 Taxonomic Analysis The EPT portion of the benthic community has differed significantly with each sampling event. Even for the two sampling events with similar EPT grichness (1998 and 2008) only four taxa were in common. In 2008 four EPT taxa were collected that had not been collected durin prior sampling events, and three of those ( romFor the four sampling events since 1993 the lowest NCBI value is shown for 2008, and EPT Richness is close to the high value f 1998. Of the four treamyears that benthic sampling was performed 2008 exhibited the lowest flows for area streams. Dry conditions should increase ins effluent concentrations from the WWTP upstream; the benthic community does not reflect this. Data Analysis isThe site is one mile west of downtown Jefferson and within 0.9 stream-miles downstream of the West Jefferson WWTP. The stream on the state's 303(d) list for nutrients and impaired biological integrity. West Jefferson WWTP Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100)
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices vegetated withmostlygrasses,shrubsandveryfewtrees;fullsunovermostofthestreamduetoits'widthlackc a a mountainstream;thebanksweregenerallyhealthyexceptfor25footareaonrightbankthatwassloughngintostr e continues toexhibitgoodwaterquality. -- atotalof20fishspecieshavebeen collectedfromthissite;inspiteofsomehabitatissues, thisstreamissupportinga Tonguetied Minnow,SilverShiner, KanawhaMinnow,andDarter);almostthreetimesthetotal abundancethanin1998(652 and trophicallybalancedcommunity ofcoolandcoldwaterfishspecieswascollected,including six intoleranttaxa(RockBass, Lansing. Data Analysis Watershed Total HabitatScore(100) Right RiparianScore(5) Left RiparianScore(5) Light Penetration(10) Right BankStability(7) Left BankStability(7) Riffle Habitat(16) Pool Variety(10) Bottom Substrate(15) Instream Habitat(20) Channel Modification(5) pH (s.u.) Specific Conductance(µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) Temperature (°C) Water QualityParameters Upstream NPDESDischargers(>1MGDor<1MGDandwithin1mile) Habitat AssessmentScores(max) Water Clarity Stream Classification Species ChangeSinceLastCycle Visible Landuse(%) FISH COMMUNITYSAMPLE MostAbundantSpecies BIG HORSECR onySubbasin County ASHE Sample Date Habitats 06/29/98 05/20/08 C;Tr,+ --atributarytotheNorthForkNewRiverthatdrainsgoodportionofnorthwesterntipAsheCounty;siteisloc a Waterbody Town ofLansingWWTP(<1MGD-1.1milesupstream) --lowqualityinstreamhabitatscomposedofwideandswiftsandyrunswithsomebouldercobble,fewpools,very r 2 Drainage Area(mi2) Forested/Wetland Slightly turbid Fantail Darter. 8 digitHUC 05050001 56.2 75 Shiner. Dace, BrownTrout. Gains -- Sample ID 2008-43 12.5 98-57 6.0 9.7 46 59 16 4 5 5 2 4 5 5 8 5 SR 1350 White Sucker,MottledSculpin,KanawhaDarter,SmallmouthBass, KanawhaMinnow,Longnose Location 36.487395 Latitude Rural Residential Elevation (ft) Substrate 2681 Losses 10 --RosysideDace,BigmouthChub,SaffronShiner,NewRiverShi ner, Rosyface -81.500386 Longitude Species Total sand, cobble,boulder,gravel. 05/20/08 13 15 Stream Width(m) ExoticSpecies aeStationID Date 13 Agriculture AU Number 10-2-21-(7) 15 NPDES Number KF1 NC0066028 Site Photograph Rock Bass,SmallmouthBrownTrout. NCIBI 48 48 Average Depth(m) 0.7 healthy assemblageoffish,and nopy trees. Level IVEcoregion Bioclassification Other (describe) New RiverPlateau SmallmouthBass, am; riparianzones Good Bioclassification Volume (MGD) 0 ted justsoutheastof vs.242). 2008 Reference Site Good Good 0.05 --adiverse 1998-2008 No 1-B.17 iffles for
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices . Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent --- 0.4 Neophylax fuscus Excellent Bioclassification Bioclassification 0 and Volume (MGD) Stream Depth (m) Other (describe) New River Plateau New River Level IV Ecoregion , an oligochaete. Nais 2.78 3.14 2.84 3.42 EPT BI Date 06/10/08 group; and --- 7 Site Photograph BI 4.10 4.18 4.33 3.95 NPDES Number 30 10-2-21-(7) AU Number Stream Width (m) Agriculture mix of cobble, gravel, boulder; some sand KB33 56 56 60 50 Station ID EPT Longitude -81.498611 2635 Procladius, Thienemannimyia Elevation (ft) 10 Urban Substrate 89 ST group, 129 103 123 Latitude 36.485556 4 4 6 6 7 2 4 57 15 13 14 75 8.9 7.6 Location 17.7 NC 194 56 60 05050001 clear 6293 9226 7715 8 digit HUC 10470 Sample ID Drainage Area (mi2) Forested/Wetland 2 Chironomus, Polypedilum illinoense Subbasin C:+ Waterbody 07/28/93 06/10/08 08/19/03 08/18/98 Brachycercus, Dannella simplex, Ephemerella dorothea, Eurylophella aestiva, Rhithrogena uhari, Ceraclea enodis, Sample Date ASHE Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) (>1MGD or <1MGD and within Upstream NPDES Dischargers County BIG HORSE CR BIG HORSE Visible Landuse (%) Stream Classification BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE MACROINVERTEBRATE BENTHIC Taxonomic Analysis orA large number of EPT taxa have always been collected from the site; the highest number was in 2008. Many taxa were recorded f the first time, including: toThere were several highly tolerant taxa (i.e. with a tolerance value of 8.0 or greater) either common or abundant that helped drive the NCBI value up: Corixidae; the midges The site has received a classification of Excellent during each summer sampling event since 1993, in most cases driven by high EPT abundance and richness. Data Analysis The site is about 4.7 miles NNW of Jefferson and about 0.25 stream-miles above the confluence with North Fork New River. none Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) 1-B.18
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Total HabitatScore(100) Right RiparianScore(5) Left RiparianScore(5) Light Penetration(10) Right BankStability(7) Left BankStability(7) Riffle Habitat(16) Pool Variety(10) Bottom Substrate(15) Instream Habitat(20) Channel Modification(5) Habitat AssessmentScores(max) Water Clarity pH (s.u.) Specific Conductance(µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) Temperature (°C) Water QualityParameters none provided bytreeswoulddiversify benthichabitat,andstreamsidevegetationwouldfilterpollutants fromrunoff. rootmats zone atthereachsampledislikely limitingthefauna.Acanopyoverstreamwouldincrease thepresenceofcoldwaterstenotherms, thelackofariparian The siteattainedaclassification of Excellentforthefirsttimein2008.Thoughbenthic community doesnotreflectstress, The siteisabout9.7milesnorthwestofJeffersonand3.6milessouththeVirginiaborder. Data Analysis collected fromthesite,reflectingpaucityofrootmathabitat. havenotbeen identified fromthesiteforfirsttimein2008;thisisoneof44siteswhichBAUhascollectedstonefly.Le ptocerids EPT Richnesswashigherin2008thanforpreviousyears,improv ing theclassificationforsitefromGoodtoExcellent. Taxonomic Analysis BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATESAMPLE Stream Classification Visible Landuse(%) County Upstream NPDESDischargers(>1MGDor<1MGDandwithin1mile) ASHE L HORSECR Sample Date 08/21/08 08/19/03 08/18/98 C;Tr:+ Waterbody Subbasin 2 Forested/Wetland Drainage Area(mi2) Sample ID 10544 8 digitHUC 9227 7716 clear 05050001 10 4.4 SR 1334 17.9 Location 8.0 61 15 12 18 47 --- 0 0 2 4 2 4 4 36.533056 Latitude ST ------Substrate Urban 90 Elevation (ft) 2940 -81.577778 Longitude EPT Station ID 38 33 35 KB63 mix ofcobble,boulder,gravel,sand;somesilt Agriculture Stream Width(m) AU Number 10-2-21-8 0 NPDES Number BI ------Site Photograph 2 --- 08/21/08 Date Southern CrystallineRidgesandMountains EPT BI 3.03 2.92 3.62 Level IVEcoregion Other (describe) Isogenoides hansoni Stream Depth(m) Volume (MGD) 0 Bioclassification Bioclassification Excellent 0.2 --- Excellent Good Good was 1-B.19
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Excellent Excellent Excellent --- 0.3 Excellent Bioclassification Bioclassification 0 Volume (MGD) Stream Depth (m) Other (describe) New River Plateau New River Level IV Ecoregion 3.14 3.12 2.93 EPT BI Date 08/20/08 --- 8 Site Photograph ------BI 10-2-27 NPDES Number 0 AU Number Stream Width (m) was uncollected in August 2008 in spite of ample leafpacks Agriculture mostly boulder, cobble; some gravel, sand (rare in the sample) in 1998, reflecting the paucity of root mats at the KB25 37 40 37 Station ID EPT Tallaperla Longitude -81.422222 2575 Setodes Elevation (ft) 10 Urban Substrate ------ST Latitude 36.535000 5 6 7 7 5 0 5 69 19 14 14 82 8.6 5.9 Location 16.0 SR 1536 44 90 05050001 clear 7718 9220 8 digit HUC 10538 Sample ID Drainage Area (mi2) Forested/Wetland 2 Subbasin , which was abundant in 2003, was uncollected in both 1998 and 2008. Otherwise the EPT portion of the benthic community was Waterbody C;Tr:+ 08/18/98 08/18/03 08/20/08 HELTON CR HELTON Sample Date ASHE Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) (>1MGD or <1MGD and within Upstream NPDES Dischargers County Glossosoma Visible Landuse (%) Stream Classification BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE MACROINVERTEBRATE BENTHIC site. theThere has been little change in the benthic community among the three summer sampling events, suggesting stable conditions at site since 1998. Data Analysis The site is 8.4 miles NNE of Jefferson, and 1.7 stream-miles from the confluence with North Fork New River. similar among the three summer sampling events at the site, primarily with taxa rare at the site dropping in and out. Taxonomic Analysis Though abundant and common in the sample in 1998 and 2003 respectively, for habitat. The only leptocerid collected during summer sampling was none Water Quality Parameters Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Specific Conductance (µS/cm) pH (s.u.) Water Clarity Habitat Assessment Scores (max) Channel Modification (5) Instream Habitat (20) Bottom Substrate (15) Pool Variety (10) Riffle Habitat (16) Left Bank Stability (7) Right Bank Stability (7) Light Penetration (10) Left Riparian Score (5) Right Riparian Score (5) Total Habitat Score (100) 1-B.20
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices HabitatAssessment Scores (max) fishery is managed by NCWRC as Delayed Harvest Waters, within the reach, eight 230-389 mm TL stocked Brook Trout and Rainbow Trout were collected.RainbowwereTroutandstockedTrout Brook TL Delayed Harvestreach,230-389 eightmmWaters,NCWRCaswithinthe managed fisheryby is representedwerefish/speciesMountain1998;species2008timesmore2-4absentRedbellyin 1998;and10collectedthan by were2008 Dace in in 581);(1,388vs.1998 in than 2008collectednonindigenous fishin thetimesmore Kanawha Darterand Bass;2.4Saffron Shiner,Rock Rainbow Trout,and evaluation2009.pendingRatedan inNotcommunity is MountainRedbelly Dace,Bluehead Chub,andCentral Stoneroller; Mountain Redbelly Dacewereextremely abundant along thestream margins; stabilitybankdeclined.poolsappearedhavequality88;andoftowas river. the with confluence creek's the from miles 2 ~ is Watershed DataAnalysis Most Abundant Species Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile) 1 within and <1MGD or (>1MGD Dischargers NPDES Upstream TotalHabitat Score (100) RightRiparian Score(5) LeftRiparian Score(5) LightPenetration (10) (7) Stability Bank Right (7) Stability Bank Left RiffleHabitat(16) PoolVariety (10) (15) Substrate Bottom (20) Habitat Instream ChannelModification (5) (s.u.) pH (µS/cm) Conductance Specific DissolvedOxygen (mg/L) Temperature(°C) WaterQuality Parameters SpeciesChange SinceLast Cycle Water Clarity Water StreamClassification VisibleLanduse(%) FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLE COMMUNITY FISH County ASHE HELTONCR SampleDate 06/30/98 05/08/08 C;Tr,+ -- drainssouthernRiver,--northernsiteGraysonmunicipalitiesNew andCounty; County,Asheno VA watershed;Fk withinthe N tributary the to Waterbody Subbasin 2 DrainageArea (mi2) Forested/Wetland MountainRedbelly Dace 8 digit HUCdigit8 05050001 Clear 43.7 95 None Trout, and Rock Bass. Rock and Trout, Gains Sample ID Sample 2008-34 14.9 98-58 7.4 9.7 57 13 18 15 80 5 4 6 3 5 7 4 --Kanawha Minnow, Mottled Sculpin, andKanawha Darter. SR 1536 SR Location 36.53472222 Habitat Latitude 19982008& RuralResidential Elevation(ft) -- runs,riffles,--shallow1998 uniformright;pools,totalscorein narrowthe riparian on zone Substrate 2580 5 -- 18 speciessite,18includingknownthe-- from endemic the Kanawha Minnow and 2008 -81.42138889 Longitude SpeciesTotal -- Rock Bass+Smallmouth Bass+Trout absent; ~ 60% of the fish were were fish the of 60% ~ absent; Bass+Trout Bass+Smallmouth Rock -- Exotic Species Exotic Cobble,boulder, gravel, anddetritus 05/08/08 15 15 Stream Width (m) Width Stream Date 10 Agriculture AUNumber 0 10-2-27 Station ID Station NPDES Number NPDES KF5 Site Photograph Site --- SaffronShiner NCIBI --- 52 AverageDepth (m) Losses -- Bluntnose Minnow, Rainbow 0.4 Level IV Ecoregion IV Level Bioclassification Other(describe) NewRiver Plateau Not Rated Not Bioclassification Volume (MGD) Volume 0 NotRated ReferenceSite Good --- Yes 1-B.21
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices 1-B.22
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices K7500000 S t a t i o n ID North Fork New R. New Fork North W A a t erb m o bien dy S A t 10-2-(12) a t AU# t ppe
M i o n o SR 1573 at Crumpler at 1573 SR D ni n to L dix a o ca t rin t a i o n S 1- g h S ee Fecal Coliform (20%) Coliform Fecal (B C ys y t P I m ara s paired t m e e t
m er ) s
Turbidity (7%) Turbidity (B y P I m pac ara t m ed e t
er ) 1-C.1
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices 1-C.2
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices Field Latitude: Station #: Location: Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence %Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform) Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level # ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non-detect) # result: number of observations Key: Fecal ColiformScreening(#/100mL) (ug/L)Metals Other Agency: Time period: WaterTemperature (°C) Mercury,(Hg) total Lead,(Pb) total Iron,(Fe) total (Cu) total Copper, total (Cd) Cadmium, (As)Arsenic, total totalAluminum, (Al) TSS (mg/L) 25°C) at (umhos/cm conductance Spec. (SU) pH D.O.(mg/L) Zinc, total(Zn) Zinc, Nickel,total(Ni) (NTU)Turbidity Chromium, total (Cr) Chromium, # results: # 55 K7500000 N FORK NEW RIV AT SR AT CRUMPLER1573 NCAMBNT 36.50403 Geomean: 02/01/2005 73.7 results 56 57 57 18 57 57 57 57 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 # # to Longitude: # >400: # ND 12/17/2009 # # 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 8 0 7 8 6 4 8 8 8 Ambient Monitoring System Summaries Station AmbientMonitoring 11 >0.012 >1000 N/A N/A N/A >29 >25 >10 >50 >88 >50 >50 EL
>9 <5 >7 >2 <6 <4 NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Water of Division NCDENR, %> 400: Basinwide Assessment Report BasinwideAssessment 20 -81.39004 Resultsnot meetingEL # # 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %Conf: % 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %Conf Hydrologic Unit Code: NC stream index: Min 260 0.8 6.8 0.2 6.8 82 54 10 10 10 10 5 6 7 2 1 1 7 Stream class: 10th 260 6.2 3.6 7.1 0.2 1.5 7.1 82 58 10 10 10 10 5 8 2 1 8 25th 262 478 8.6 6.2 7.2 7.4 0.2 3.1 1.2 7.4 8.6 61 10 10 10 14 5 2 Percentiles 50th 05050001 10-2-(12) C + 11.5 14.3 330 575 9.9 7.6 0.2 6.3 7.6 9.9 66 10 10 10 25 5 2 2 75th 11.4 13.5 22.2 20.8 11.4 518 922 0.2 72 10 10 10 25 5 8 2 8 2 90th 262.6 1000 13.4 28.2 24.2 13.4 610 8.2 0.2 8.2 79 10 33 10 25 5 2 2 Max 1000 14.3 25.6 14.3 100 610 330 268 8.6 0.2 8.6 10 33 10 25 5 2 2 1-C.3
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices 1-C.4
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices S A ubwa ppe 12-D t ers n dix h i g ed i 1- t
M
D aps 1-D.1
New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices ¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³
¡³ ¡³
S u g a r S T t a re e g g B B r C i a r g n e L ch e a k #0 u ( re S l C C u ver r g w Ri ee o a Ne k p r h For k Littl e B Nort e l L a a ra u n n re d ch l C re C ) e re k e k Rou nd G a r b a ou k t yb C e e r e KB86 r e a e C k l k B n r a a b n y c a l h C C ab KB30KB30 ba KB120 ¡[)"à ge Creek ")à R o ck P (S KB31 i n t o e n KB134 M e KB23 o ) u C ")à n re ta e Thin ree Top Ck reek Subwatershed B ra n c (050500010101) KF23 h ¡[ KB32
k k o Cree or al *# h F f Bru s KB138 f KB119 ")à u )"à ¡[ B T #0 h #0 re e Creek T olen W o en B p B ils #0 o C n re e B k ra n ch KB26 Legend ")à W 12-Digit HUCs KB141 a llace ")à Bra ch Counnty Boundary ch ran Municipalities B B h ig B s ra Conservation Land u nch R ver H ea C osk r k B re iMn aFjor Roads ek Hydrology D o 2010 Use Suepport B
r k Supportinag e n e O r c ASHE No or Inconclusive Data l h C d e F Impaired p uth B ie o eaver S o S Cre n ch ld ek nch y n H ( ra d Bra C L e r g a Monitoring Stations B r k n th e e u o A ¢¡ o e s Random AmbiSent Stations L he k ) ¡¢ Ambient M anch in Br e ¡[ Fish Community B e r
n a "à i WATAUGA ) Benthos n a c
h (! USGS Gages M k e e Permits r C C *# k a NPDES Discharge (Minor) l l l C E M re XY NPDES Discharge (Major) P il e i l ® k n C (W #0 NPDES Non-Discharge (Minor) e re e O e NC Division of Water Quality st 0 r 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 k P ¡³ Animal Operation (Cattle) c ( r h G Basinwide Planning Unit o a r n r Miles a g E Stormwater d s s January 2011 O C y l
r 1-D.2 d ee C F k r i ee e k ld ) C re New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices e KB22 k )"à KB129 ) k ")à C e R ouc e hes r C C C L r IL e le e t M k it L T U
N o rr
i s
F
o rk w R Fork Ne iver th u o S KB21 reek n C pe ek olf re W C C p es r a n a Jo Br G M n le an eat Ca itt c mp b L h Cre e e r k r y
C
r
e
e k
#0#0 Hors Big e C r ee k (H ors e C re Ripsh h ek in Branc ) L Big Laurel Creek Subwatershed ig o B Hor s se t B Cr ra ee n ch (050500010102) k Lit tle H o le W r Litt in nch KB137 se d fall Bra Cr e J ek e
r d B ra Bi n g W ch D ind i f x all KB122
o B ra n n c O C h( r W l e in d e d F k f i a e ll l C d C M re B u idd e r t le Fork KB63 k a L K Little ) n a i Ho ")à c u lb rs h Legend r y e Creek e C ( l KB121 G C r r e r e à a e ") 12-Digit HUCs e s k k s S B County Boundary ou r th a Fo n rk c Branch Lit h Municipalities rd tle ) oda H Wo ors Greer Br e C Conservation Land rk a reek o nc F h g n ri Major Roads a h o nc R ra rk R B Hydrology h o oaring c F n R a t M r s i i c ll B a C h 2010 Use Support t re ¡³ E e f k i H
w i l Supporting S h l anc C Long Br r No or Inconclusive Data e e k
Impaired h c S n u a r g KF1 a Monitoring Stations B r S KB33KB27 g T t i r a ¢¡ e g B Random Ambient Stations e g Soup Bean B B B C ¡¢ ranch r Ambient i a r g n e ch e #0 ¡[ L k Fish Community au (S r C u ver el g Ri )"à C o a New Benthos r p r h For k Littl e e B Nort e e l L k a a ra (! n USGS Gages u n re d ch l C re C ) e re k e Permits k *# Rou NPDES Discharge (Minor) nd ab ou k XY t e NPDES Discharge (Major) C G e r r r KB86 ® e #0 e a C NPDES Non-Discharge (Minor) k yb ")à k n e NC Division of Water Quality a ¡³ a b Animal Operation (Cattle) l y 1-D.3 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 KF22 a B Basinwide Planning Unit l C r C E a Stormwater a KB30 b Milen s KB30 January 2011 ba ch KB120 ¡[")à ge Creek ")à KF 22 R o ck P (S KB31 i n t New River Basin: North Fork New River o Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices e n KF 21KB134 M e KB23 o ) u C ")à n re ta e in k B ra n c KF23 h ¡[ KB32
o Creek ork al h F f Bru s KB138 f KB119 u KF10 B T h #0 r #0 e e reek T olen C o en B W p B ilso C #0 n re e B k ra n ch KB26
W KB141 a llace Bra nch ch ran B B h ig B s ra u nch R Bi g W D ind i f x all
o B ra n n c O C h ( l r W d e in e d F k f i a e ll l C d C M re B u idd e r t le Fork KB63 k a L K Little ) n a i H c u lb ors h r y e Creek e C ( l KB121 G C r r e r e a e e s k k s S B ou r th a Fo n rk c Branch Lit h rd tle ) ooda Ho W G rse reer Br Cr rk an eek o c F h g n ri a h o nc R ra rk R B h o oaring c F n R a t M r s i i c ll a C B h t re E e ¡³ f k i H
w i l S l nch C ong Bra r L e e k
h c S n u a r g KF1 a B r S KB33 g T t i a re B g e g Soup B B ean Branch B r C a r ig n e c e L h k #0 au (S r C u er e g Riv l C o a New Headwaters North Fork New River SubwatershedLit r p r rth For k tl e e B No e e l L k a a ra u n n re d c l C h re C ) (050500010103) e re k e k Roun da bo ut k C e e KB86 r re e C k )"à k n a b y KF22 a l C KB30 C ab KB3K0F 22 ba KB120 ¡[)"à ge Creek ")à R o ck P (S KB31 i F n t th o o r e r n o k KF 21KB134 M e N o ) New R u C iv )"à KB23 n re e ta e r in k B ra n c KF23 Legend h ¡[
12-Digit HUCs k k lo Cree or a h F f Bru s KB138 f County Boundary u à ")à B KB119 ") ¡[ T Municipalities h #0 r #0 KF10 e e reek T olen C o en B Conservation Land W p B il so C #0 n re e B k Major Roads ra n ch Hydrology ")à W a llace KB26 2010 Use Support Bra nch ")à KB141 ch ran Supporting B B h ig B A s ran No or Inconclusive Data S u ch H R er Ho W E av C sk or k A r e r Impaired in F T e B ee AU i v k G R A w e 8 D Monitoring Stations 8 o N - e C k N B ¢¡ r Random Ambient Stations r k
a o e n e O
F r ¡¢ c ASHE
Ambient h C l
h d
t
r e F
p o th B
ie ou eaver o C ¡[ N S re Fish Community ld ek nch H ( ra C L g a B r k n )"à th e e Benthos u o A o e s S L he k ) (! USGS Gages ranch M B in e e
n B i WATAUGA Permits r a a
n *# M NPDES Discharge (Minor) c
h k e e XY r NPDES Discharge (Major) C C k ® a l ll #0 E C NPDES Non-Discharge (Minor) M re P il e i l k n NC Division of Water QuCality (W ¡³ Animal Operation (Cattle) e re e 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 O e st r Basinwide Planning Uknit P c ( r E h G o Stormwater a n Miles ra g rd January 2011 s C s O r y ld ee C 1-D.4 F k r i ee e k ld ) C re e KB22 k New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices KB129 ) k ")à à Co e ")R uch e es r C C C L r IL e le e t M k it L T U
N o rr
i s
F
o rk ew Riv Fork N er th u o S KB21
ek re C C p es r a on B KF24 a G J r M n a C eat Ca ttle n o m b i c bb p L C C e h re re e e r k k r k G e y ra Cre KB130KB140 s s y C
ch r n e etz Bra KB20KB20
Mor e k
ch P ran in ett B e iv B r r T a n c
h
#0#0 ors Big H e C r ee k (H
ors h e C c re n
e a Rips h Little Horse Creek Suk bwatershed r hin Branc ) L ig o B
B H y ors st
e p (050500010104) C B
r p
r a i
ee n c h
k h S
L
o
n le W h g Litt in anc KB137 L d fall Br ittle B )"à H r a J
e n e l t c r o d h n B C ra ¡³ B n re ig ch e W k D ind KB136 i f x all KB122 ")à ¡³ o B ra )"à n n c O C h ( l r W d e L in e it d F k t f i le a e l l H l Legd end o C C M rs re B ¡³ u idd e e r 12-Digit HUCs t le Fork KB63 C k a L K Little re ) n a i Ho ")à e cCounty Boundary u lb rs k h r y e Creek KF5 e C ( ¡³ l MGunicipalities C r r e ")à r e a e e KB121 Cos nservation Land k k s S MajBor Roads ¡³ ou r th a Fo Hydrnology rk c Branch Lit h S Old Fie rd tle ) oda H 2010 Use Support ila ld Wo ors s C ¡³ Greer B e C Supporting C r k ra re re e r n ek e o c e F h No or Inconclusive Data k k g in Impaired L r P i a t o i t h n l R c e k R n Monitoring Stations e r ra P h o oaring B ¢¡ y c F Random Ambient Stations C in n R a t M ¢¡ r e r s i i Ambient e y c ll B a C e h C t re k ¡³ f E e ¡[ i k Fish Community r H e w e i l )"à Benthos k S l nch C ong Bra r L (!*# USGS Gages e e ¡³ k Permits ¡³ h *# c S NPDES Discharge (Minor) n u a ®r g XY NPDES DisKcFha1rge (Major) a B r S #0 ¡[ KB33KB27 g T t NPDES Non-Discharge (Minor) i r a ")à )"à NC Division of Water Quality e g B e ¡³ 1-D.5 0 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.1 g 2.8 Animal Operation (Cattle) B Soup Be Basinwide Planning Unit F an Branch B r C E Miles Stormwater o i January 2011 a r g n e s ch e #* t L k E0 e r a (S u S r C u er e g Riv p l w KB125 r C o a Ne i r New River Basin: Northp Fork New River Wratershed (HUC 0505000101) hAFppendicesor k n Littl e e B Nort g e e l L k a s a ra u n n B r r el d ch a C n r C ) e r c e e h k e k Roun OENIX CRKB118 da L PH bo UT ut k KB117KB117 C e e r KB86 r e e C k k n a b y k KF22 a e l re C C KB30 KF 22 Litt ix C ab KB30 le P oen ba KB120 h ge Creek R o ck P (S KB31 i r n t Fo k o th e r N E n KF 21 o e zr M e N w a o ) River F u C o n re r ta e k in k B ra n c h
#0 #0
#0 Big Horse Creek Subwatershed
(050500010105)
h
c n
Ripshin Branch
a r L B
ig o B y Ho st rs B p
e r p C an i
r ch h e S e
k L o G n r g a KB137 L s ittle B s H r y ")à a C W J le h e n r tt c e Li in n l eek d Bra t c fall r o d h n B C ra KB126 Legend B n re ¡³ ig ch e W k D ind KB136 i f 12x -Digit HUCs all ¡³ o B )"à ra ")à n nc KB122 CoCunty Boundary h( r W e L in e it d k tle fa Municipalities H ll o C C rs re ¡³ u Midd e e t Conservation Land le Fork KB63 C k L K Littl re ) KB25KB25
a i e Ho e ")à 4
u lby rse k KB25 r Creek 9 KF5)"à C [ e ¡ H
l Major Roads 1 ¡³
C r - e
e KF5 r C l e t e ")à KB121 e o k k Hydrology N n S C ou re ¡³ t ek h F 2010 Use Support ork Branch Li S Old Fie rd ttle i l oda Ho la d SWuopporting rs s C ¡³ Greer B e C C r k ra re re e r n ek e No or Inconclusive Data o c e F h k k g in L Impaired r P i a t o i t h n l R c e k R n e r ra P h o oaring B y c i Monitoring Stations F C n n R a t M r e r s i i e y c ll ¢¡ B a C e h C KB135 Rant dom Ambient Stations re k GS ¡³ f E e IN i k r H e R ¡¢ w e P i Ambient l k S h S l ch n c C g Bra G Lon Lansing IN n r *# L ¡[ Fish Community e A a e E r ¡³ k H B d ¡³
")à h T Benthos n c
Su U o n p a ll r g KB33 i !( USGS Gages a KF1 B r S M T ¡[ KB27 KB123 g t i re a g )"à à B )" ")à L e g o PSeormits Bra n up Bean Branch B C F g o S i r h #* e s NPDES Dischargge (Minor) n oa ch e t l L k E#*0 e s C a (Su r ree XY u S k NPDES Discharge (Mrajor) C er e g Riv ® p l w KB125 r C o a Ne i #0 r p r th For k n NPDESLNittloen-Discharge (Meinor) e Bra Nor ")à g Long e l s La k a B u n n NC Division of Water Quality B r 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 a ¡³ re d ch ra Animal Operatioln (Cattle) n C C n r ) Basinwide Planning Unit c e c e r h e Miles h N E Stormwater k e k January 2011 at ha Rou OENIX CRKB118 n ek n 1-D.6 s re da L PH C bo UT )"à ut k KB117KB117 C e e r KB86 r ")à e e C k ")à k New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendicesn a b y k KF22 a e l re C C KB30 KF 22 Litt ix C*# ab KB30 le P oen ba KB120 h ge Creek ¡[")à ")à Silas Branch R o Do ck g C P r (S KB31 eek i h F n t t o r o e o r E n k KF 21KB134 z M e N ra o ) New R F u C i KB23 o n re v r ta e k in k e r B r a n P c KF23 o h tt er KB32 B ra n c k h k lo Cree Na or a ke h F KF10 f d KB138 f Bru s KB119 C r u r KF14KB139 B ee ve k i T R h #0 KB8 r #0 w e KF20KB7 e e ee N en Cr k R T en Bol o W k o B a r p n ilso C #0 C re o ek n re
F e Bra k k
n h e
ch t r e r
o C N L ittle Nak e d
h
c n
Ripshin Branch
a r L B
ig o B y Ho st rs B p
e r p C an i
r ch h e S e
k L o G n r g a KB137 Li s ttle B s H r y a C W J e le h n r (Nor tt c e e r t Li in n l ek ve h d Bra t c i fall r o R C d h w ar n olina Portion) B e C ra KB126 N B n re ¡³ ig ch e W k D ind KB136 i f x all ¡³ o B ra ")à n nc KB122 C h( r W e L in e it d k tle fa H ll o C C rs re ¡³ u Midd e e t le Fork KB63 C k L K Littl re )
a i e Ho e KB25KB25 ")à 4
u lby rse k KB25 r Creek 9 KF5")à C ¡[ e H
l 1 ¡³
C r - e
e KF5 r C l e t e ")à KB121 e o
k k N n S C ou re ¡³ t ek h F ork Branch Li S Old Fie rd ttle i l oda Ho la d Wo Upper North Fork New Rirvs er Subwatershed s C ¡³ Greer B e C C r k ra re re e r ek e o nc e F h k k g in L r P i a (050500010106) t o i t h n l R c e k R n e r ra y P h o oaring B c F C in n R a t r e r s i e y c B a e h C KB135 t k GS ¡³ f E IN i H M re R w e i il P l l k S h S l C ch r n c C ee g Bra G k Lon Lansing IN n r *# L e A a e E r ¡³ k H B d ¡³ h T n c r Su ive U o n w R p a Ne ll r g KB33 or k i a KF1 rth F B r S No M T ¡[ KB27 KB123 g t i re a g )"à à B )" ")à L e g o So Bra n up Bean Branch B C F g r o S i e h g n s oa ch e t ls L k E#*0 e C a (Su r ree u S k r C e g p l o a KB125 r C in r p r er 4 Littl e e Bra New Riv 9 ")à g Long e e l k -1 L k a s a r C B u n n o N B r r a e d ch F ra l n C C n r ) c e h c r h e e t h k e r N k at Legend o h o NIX CR an R un N NC-88 OE KB118 s reek da L PH C bo 12-Digit HUCs UT )"à ut KB117KB117 C KB86 r ")à e e County Boundary k ")à
Municipalities k k KF22 e e re C KB30 e L C r itt ix *# *# ab Conservation Land le P oen b C h
age KB120 ¡[")à Creek KB3K0F 22 k
")à ranc
Major Roads n Silas B h R a
o D b o ck g C P r (S Hydrology ee y k i n t o )"à a E e KB31 E n z l ra M e C o ) 2010 Use Support KB134 ¡[à KF 21 F C ")à KB23 )" u o n re r ta e Supporting k in k B Little r B E a No or Inconclusive Data n u P c KF23 f o h f tt Impaired ¡[ a E E er l KB32 B o ra C ")à n k r c Monitoring Stations ree ee N h k lo C k a F or ffa ke sh KB119 KF10 ¢¡ KB138 *# d *# Bru Random Ambient Stations u C r r KF14KB139 )"à B ")à e¢¡ eek ¡[ iv Ambient ¡[")à T ek R h XY#0 KB8 re w ¡[ r #*0 KF20KB7 C e Fish Community e West ")à k e reek R a N T len C ¡[ e o en Bo o Little P W k )"à p B Jefferson a r Benthos n ilso C #0 Creek n o re Bra F (! e *# USGS Gages k k
n h N e
ch t C r e - r 1
o Permits 9 C 4 )"à N L d h i W *# ttle Nak e h ¢¡ KB3 a KB26 NPDES Discharge (Minor) c nc llace ")à n ra (!)"à Br h a B a nc r ey XY NPDES Discharge (Major) B as KB141 ch e e ran ol r B ® C #0 Bi C NhPDES Non-Discharge (Minor) g s Bra B u n e ¡³ ch a AR nimal Operation (Cattle) er NC Division of Water Quality r Ho av C C s k 1-D.7 e r k in For B e re E E e Basinwide Planning Unit e Stormwater 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 k k January 2011 D Miles o e B r k a e n e O r c ASHE l h C New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUCd 0505000101) Appendices e F p th B ie ou eaver o S Cre ld ek nch H ( ra C L g a B r k n th e e u o A o e sh *# S L e k ) KB5 )"à ranch M B in e S e o n B u i WATAUGA th r a B a ea n KF13 M ve KB6
c r
h k C e re e e r k C (L C a k a k l ll e E M C A re s P il e h i l k e n C (W ) e re e O e s k t P rc ( r h G o a r n r a g d s C s O O r y ld e C F bi ek r i d ee e s k ld C ) C re r e e k e KB22 k KB129 ) k Co e R uc e hes KB108 r C C C L r IL e le e t M k it L T U
#0#0
h c
n
a
r L B ig o
B y Ho st rs B p
e r p C an i r ch h
e S e k L o G n r g a KB137 L s ittle B s )"à H r y a C W J e tle h n r r (Nor t e t Li in nc l eek ve h ra t c i d l B r R fal o C d h w ar n olina Portion) B e C ra KB126 N ¡³ Bi n re g W ch e )"à in KB136 k KF16 dfa ll B ")à ¡[ ¡³ ra )"à k nc KB122 e h re (W Middle North Fork New River Subwatershed C L in y itt d e le fa KB127 P in H ll (050500010107) o C E )"à rs re ¡³ e KB63 e k Cr ) ee KB25KB25 k KF5)"à¡[KB25
4 H ¡³ 9
e 1
- KF5 l C t KB121 o
N n C So re ¡³ ut e h F k or Fie k L Old l ittl S d e H ila C or s re ¡³ se C C e ree re k k e k
L P i t i t n l e e P y N
i C C n - r e 1 e y 6 Legend e k C GS KB135 ¡³ IN 12-Digit HUCs re R ")ࢡ e P ch k S h County Boundary g Bran G c n Lansing N n Lo *# LI A a N E r Municipalities KF15 ¡³ B o H ¡³ r d ¡[
t T h n Conservation Land
S U F o u lp g KB33 o il Major Roads a KF1 r r S ¡[ k KB123 M T t N Hydrology r a ")à e g ")à e )"à L e w o g KB27 n B F r C R g 2010 Use Support o S a r i h v s n e e oa ch e # t l Supporting k E#*0 r e s C ( r ree No or Inconclusive Data S S k u g p KB125 r Impaired a i r 4 n ave River 9 ")à g n e r B ew 1 Lo g KB10KB10 B B r - s E ra a N C Monitoring StaBtions ")ࢡ n n N B r c k a h ch r ra ¢¡ n o n Random Ambient Stations KF2 ) c F c h h h N ¡¢ Ambient ¡[ t a r th o ¡[ enix Cr an kFish Community N NC-88 Pho s Cree UT L )"à ")à Benthos k KB118 e KB117 e !( r ")à USGS Gages C k KB15 n Permits a ")à b #* y k NPDES Discharge (Minor) a e l re C XY NPDES Discharge (Major) ® Li x C*# E E*# t tle eni P ho #0 NPDES Non-Discharge (Minor) NC Division of Water Quality n Si¡³las BAranimchal Operation (Cattle) Basinwide Planning Unit 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 Do E Stormwater January 2011 g C Miles reek )"à E 1-D.8 KB31 Ez ra KB134 )"¡[à KF 21 F New River Basin: No rth Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices k r ee k Peak Cr Little B u f f P KB14 a o l t ")à o te r KB13 C KB32 B r )"à e ra e ")à n k c KB11 k N h lo Cree N ak a C e f d - f 1 C 9 u 4 r KF14 B eek KB139 k #0 KB8 ee #0 KF20KB7 Cr West k h R a c Little P e n Jefferson o a an r #0 C reek B f l
o
k e W e r C ) L i d k h ttle Nak e h KB3 e c c e n r n ra C a B r ey y s r B a r le re e o lb C C u (M k e re C y r r e b n a r C Helton Creek Subwatershed (050500010108)
H e l L t ig o o B Ho s n rs t B C e ra r C n ch ee re k e
k L o G n r g a KB137 Lit s tle B Legend sy )"à H r a C W J e le h n r (Nor tt c e 4 e r t Li in n l 12-Digit HUCs ek ve h d Bra 9 t c i l r R fal -1 o C d h w ar C n olina Portion) B N County Boundary e C ra KB126 N ¡³ Bi n re g W ch e Municipalities ")à in KB136 k KF16 df all ")à 6 Conservation Land ¡[ ¡³ B 1 ra ")à - k n C e c KB122 N h Major Roads re (W C L in Hydrology y itt d n e le fa KB127 P i H ll o C 2010EUse Support )"à r re ¡³ Mid s e dle For KB63 e k Supporting k Li Cr ) ttle ee KB25 Hor k No or Inconclusive Data se Creek ")à¡[ KF5 4 H ¡³
9 Impaired
e 1
- l
KB121 C t
o N n Monitoring Stations C So r ¢¡ Random Ambient Stations ¡³ ut ee h F k ¢¡ or Fie Ambient k L Old l ittl S d ¡[ e H ila C Fish Community or s re ¡³ Greer se C e Br C k )"à Benthos a ree re n k e ch k !( USGS Gages
L P i t i t h n l Permits c e n e #* R a P r N NPDES Discharge (Minor) oaring B y C in C - r e 1 XY NPDES Discharge (Major) ® e y 6 e k C #0S KB135 ¡³ ING NPDES Non-Discharge (Minor) re R ")ࢡ M NC Division of Water Quality e P il 1-D.9 ¡³ l C ch k S h Animal Operation (Cattle) r n c ee gBBasrainwide Planning Unit 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 G n Lansing En k Lo *# LIN Stormwater January 2011 A Miles a N E r KF15 ¡³ B o H ¡³ r d
t T h n
S U F o u lp g New RiverKB3 B3 asin: North Fork New Rivero Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendicesil a KF1 r r S ¡[ k KB123 M T t N r a ")à e g ")à e )"à L e w o g KB27 n B F r C R g o S a r i h v s n e e oa ch e # t l k #*0 r e s C ( r ree S S k C u g p KB125 r o a i p r 4 n aver e B w River 9 g Long KB10KB10 Be B l e -1 s r a ra N C B a n ¢¡ n n N B r c k a h d ch r ra n C o n KF2 ) c F c r h e h h N e t a k r th o enix Cr an k N NC-88 Pho s Cree UT L k KB118 e KB117 e r C k KB15 n a b y k a e l re C L C ittl ix e P hoen
#0 #0
#0 L o G n Lower North Fork New River Subwatershed r g a KB137 Lit s tle B sy H r (050500010109) a C e n r e r (Nort 4 l ek ve h c i 9 t R 1 o C - h w ar C n olina Porti ) N e on C KB126 N ¡³ re e )"à P k KF16 o KB136 t a ¡³ 6 ¡[ t 1 o - k C C e N e r r e C e y k P in e KB127 )"à E ¡³ KB25 ")à¡[ KF5 H Legend ¡³ e l t o 12-Digit HUCs n County Boundary C r ¡³ re e e v k i Municipalities ld Fie R S O ld Conservation Land ila C w s re e ¡³ e C N Major Roads re k e k Hydrology k r ork o b F L F ra P C i 2010 Use Support t h i t n l t e r e Supporting o y P N No or Inconclusive Data C in r e e y Impaired e KB135 k C ¡³ re ")ࢡ Monitoring Stations e k h K7500000 ¢¡ Random Ambient Stations
c
n ¡¢ Ambient
a r K¡[F15Fish Community ¡³ B ¡³ d ¡[ ")à n Benthos o lp !( USGS Gages KB33 il KB123 M rs C N Permits e re )"à C #* th L - NPDES Discharge (Minor) a e 1 r o P k KB27 n 6 F g XY NPDES Discharge (Major)
® o Sh s oa #0 #0 t ls NPDES Non-Discharge (Minor) NC Division of We ater Quality C r ree ¡³ Animal Operation (Cattle) Basinwide PlanniSng Unit k 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 p E Stormwater JanuarKyB2102151 r Miles in ave )"à g Lon e r g KB10KB10 B B 1-D.10 s r E B ")ࢡ K4500000 an B r c a h ra n n KF2 c c New River Basin: North Fork New River Watershed (HUC 0505000101) Appendices h h N ¡[ a th enix Cr an k Pho s Cree UT L ")à k KB118 e KB117 e r C k KB15 n a b y k a e l re C L C h ittl ix P Branc e P hoen i ney ranc Silas B h M D ap og le Cre B ek ra n Ez c ra h
F o k r ee k Peak Cr
#0 #0
#0