water quality in henderson county volunteer water ... · water quality in henderson county...

Water Quality in Henderson County Volunteer Water Information Network

Year 22 Report

Years 2013-14

Technical Report No. 15-4 Published December 2015

Ann Marie Traylor

This page left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ 1 I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2 II. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 6

Chemical Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 6 Biological Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 6

III. Results and Discussion .............................................................................................. 7 A. Acidity (pH) and Alkalinity. ................................................................................................ 11 B. Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids ............................................................................. 14 C. Conductivity and Heavy Metals ........................................................................................ 14 D. Nutrients ............................................................................................................................. 18 E. Biological Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 21

IV. Summary .................................................................................................................... 23 A. Green River Watershed ..................................................................................................... 24 B. Mud Creek Watershed ....................................................................................................... 24 C. Mills River Watershed ........................................................................................................ 29 D. Cane Creek Watershed ...................................................................................................... 30 E. Etowah/Horseshoe Area .................................................................................................... 30 F. French Broad River ............................................................................................................ 31

V. References ................................................................................................................. 33 Appendix A: Chain of Custody form ............................................................................ 34 Appendix B: Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................. 35 Appendix C: Biological Monitoring Data Sheet (Invertebrate Identification) ........... 36 Appendix C: Biological Monitoring Data Sheet continued (Habitat Survey) ............ 37 Appendix D: Parameters and Ranges for Stream Quality Classifications ............... 38 Appendix E: 2014 Stream Ranking Index .................................................................... 40 Appendix F: Data Summary .......................................................................................... 44 Appendix G: Trends for Each Site Related to Flow .................................................... 50 Appendix H: Trends for Each Site Related to Time .................................................... 51 Appendix I: Number of Sites Exhibiting Seasonal Trends ......................................... 52 Appendix J. SMIE scores from 2013 and 2014 ............................................................ 53

1

Acknowledgments

MountainTrue (formerly the Environmental and Conservation Organization (ECO)) wishes to thank the Henderson County Board of Commissioners, the Chuck McGrady Family, private donors, and The Patagonia Foundation for their continued support of this work. Their support has enabled Henderson County to develop a comprehensive water quality database that will assist greatly with planning future development in the county. Continued monitoring will provide additional information on changes taking place as the county continues to grow. The Henderson County program also provides essential information to complete the multi-county assessment of water quality in the French Broad River and Broad River basins. It is important for residents and leaders of each watershed and county to understand their impact on the water quality downstream. Volunteers continue to be the key to the success of any VWIN program, keeping the monitoring from being prohibitively expensive. Volunteers who have been responsible for collecting samples monthly during 2013-14 include Dave and Betty Bucher, Peter & Beth Colburn, Richard and Brenda Cross, Paula and Ron Bakule, Richard Freudenberger, Lee Johnson, Bill Moore, Doreen Blue, Bill Rylands, Denise and Danny Sherrill, Betty Shevick, Jim and Sharon Spicer, Colette Summitt, J. R. Mason, Mary Beth Hayes, Don Cooper, Rick Burt, Kay Shurtleff, Tom Lucha, Jerry Aldridge, Roger Woolsey, Roberta Cart, and Alison Melnikova. All of the time and effort these volunteers put into this project are greatly appreciated. This volunteer force has been very reliable over the years and takes great care to deliver all of the samples and record detailed observations each month. Special thanks also go to Michele and Skip Skeele who has graciously allowed the program to use their porch as a kit storage area, and to Mr. Pete’s Market VIII, and Van Wingerden International for providing cold storage space for water monitoring kits. Thanks also to the county coordinators Jim and Sharon Spicer who make sure that all samples are collected and delivered to the lab with exceptional care and good humor. The Environmental Quality Institute (EQI) would specifically like to thank the many college students who have helped perform laboratory analyses on VWIN samples over the years. Steve Patch and John Lombardi were instrumental in developing the statistical groundwork. Much credit for the success of the VWIN program belongs to the many organizations, such as MountainTrue, that support the water monitoring and use the data to protect streams, rivers, and forests of the region. It continues to be a driving force in the prevention of water quality degradation in Henderson County. Recognition for proactive data collection also goes to the Town of Laurel Park who began VWIN monitoring in 2014.

2

I. Introduction VWIN's History EQI’s primary research project is the Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN), a volunteer-based, surface water monitoring program. The VWIN program was initiated in February of 1990, when volunteers began monthly sampling of 27 stream sites in Buncombe County. Over time, the program grew to current levels of approximately 160 stream and lake sites per month throughout WNC. UNC-Asheville hosted the EQI program until October of 2009, when the research laboratory was shuttered due to state budget cuts. Through the generosity of grantors, such as the Pigeon River Fund and the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, the organizational support of the Western North Carolina Alliance (now MountainTrue), and the partnership of the VWIN stakeholders, EQI reopened as a nonprofit laboratory in October of 2010. VWIN stakeholders include WNC municipalities and watershed advocacy groups, such as the Buncombe and Henderson County Commissioners, the Buncombe County Metropolitan Sewerage District, Buncombe and Madison County Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the City of Asheville's Stormwater Services Division, the Town of Lake Lure, Rumbling Bald Resort, Haywood Waterways Association, Mountain Valleys RC&D, Seven Lakes West Landowners Association, MountainTrue, the Friends of Lake Glenville, the Lake James Environmental Association, the Town of Lake Santeetlah, and Asheville GreenWorks. Volunteers venture out once per month to collect water samples from designated sites along streams, rivers, and lakes in the region. EQI provides laboratory analysis of water samples, statistical analysis of water quality results, and written interpretation of the data to stakeholders. VWIN data and technical reports are frequently used to support grant requests funding stream restoration, to evaluate the influences of point and nonpoint source pollution in surface waters, and to work for proper stream classifications. An accurate and ongoing water quality database, as provided by VWIN, is essential for good environmental planning. The data gathered by the volunteers provide an increasingly accurate picture of water quality conditions and changes in these conditions over time. Communities can use the data to identify streams of high water quality that need to be preserved, as well as streams that cannot support further development without significant water quality degradation. In addition, the information allows planners to assess the impacts of increased development and the success of pollution control measures. Thus, this program provides water quality data for evaluation of current management efforts and can help guide decisions affecting future management actions. The program also promotes volunteerism throughout WNC and educates citizens about the mountains’ natural resources.

3

The Henderson County VWIN Program In July of 1992, members of the Volunteer Water Information Network began monthly sampling of 18 selected streams in Henderson County in order to provide an accurate picture of water quality conditions. Since that time many other sites in the county have been established. Sample sites were chosen to cover a variety of watershed drainage areas. Some sites were chosen to monitor potential drinking water supplies. Several sites were selected as control sites to provide comparison between undeveloped and developed subwatersheds. Two new sites were added in 2014, when the Town of Laurel Park initiated monitoring of the inflow and outflow from their water treatment plant. The stream names associated with each site number are listed in Table 1. The approximate locations of the monitoring sites in Henderson County are shown in Figure 1. Under the administration of MountainTrue, this program has gathered over 22 years of water quality data. While EQI was closed from August 2009 through September 2010, MountainTrue had their samples tested at Environmental Testing Solutions, Inc. (ETS), a commercial laboratory in Asheville, NC. EQI resumed sample analysis in October 2010. This annual report represents statistical analyses and interpretation of data gathered from August 1992 through December 2014 for the currently monitored sites in the county.

4

Table 1: Location of Henderson Co. VWIN sites Site # Approximate Stream Location 1 French Broad River at Banner Farm Road in Horseshoe 2 French Broad River at Butler Bridge Road 3 Mud Creek at Erkwood Road 4 Mud Creek at North Rugby Road 5 Clear Creek at Nix Road 6 Crab Creek at Staton Road (discontinued) 7 North Fork of Mills River on LL Moore Road 8 South Fork of Mills River on South Mills River Road 9 Mills River at Hwy 191 (Davenport Bridge) 10 Mills River at Hooper Lane 11 Green River below Lake Summit 12 Green River at Terry’s Creek Road 13 Big Hungry River below dam 14 Boylston Creek at Ladson Road 15 Bat Fork Creek at Tabor Road 16 Cane Creek at Hoopers Creek/Howard Gap Road 17 Lower Cane Creek at Hwy 25 (discontinued) 18 Mud Creek at 7th Avenue East 19 Green River at Old Hwy 25 S 20 Clear Creek at Apple Valley Road 21 Mud Creek at Berea Church Road 22 Hoopers Creek at Jackson Road 23 Big Willow Creek at Patterson Road 24 Little Willow Creek at River Road 25 Gash Creek at Etowah School Road 26 Brittain Creek at Patton Park 27 Mill Pond Creek at South Rugby Road 28 Shaw Creek at Hunters Glen 29 Brandy Branch at Mills River Village on NC 191 30 Devil’s Fork at Dana Road 31 Wash Creek at West Allen Street 32 King Creek at Airport Road 33 Devil’s Fork at Howard Gap 34 Byers Creek at Howard Gap 35 Featherstone Creek at Howard Gap 36 Laurel Park inflow 37 Laurel Park outflow

5

Figure 1: Map of Henderson County VWIN Monitoring Sites

6

II. Methodology

Chemical Monitoring Volunteers are supplied with instructions about sample collection procedures prior to their first sample collection day. Instruction is provided through hands-on experience by a VWIN coordinator, and a training manual is given to each volunteer to read. Henderson County stream samples are collected on the third Saturday of each month. Collecting coincident samples from all the sites in the monitoring area greatly reduces meteorological variability between sites. Therefore, the volunteers are asked to collect samples from the assigned site as close to noon as possible. Water samples are collected in six 250 mL polyethylene bottles. In order to assure consistent sampling techniques, each bottle is labeled with the site number and the parameter for which the water from that particular bottle will be analyzed. Information is recorded by the volunteer on a chain-of-custody form, a copy of which can be found in Appendix A. After collection, the volunteer takes the samples and data sheet to a designated drop point where the samples are refrigerated. It is the job of the volunteer coordinator to pick up the samples from the drop point and deliver them to the EQI laboratory for analysis Monday morning. A description of the laboratory analysis methodology is contained in Appendix B. Standard operating procedures may have been slightly different at the ETS lab for results from August 2009 through September 2010. After analysis, the empty bottles are cleaned in the laboratory and then packed together with a blank data sheet for use the next month. Various statistical analyses are performed on the data and are intended to: 1) Characterize the water quality of each stream site relative to accepted or established water quality standards; 2) Compare water quality of each stream site relative to all other sites in the VWIN program; 3) Identify effects of precipitation, stream water level, and seasonality and temporal trends on water quality, after sufficient data has been collected.

Biological Monitoring In addition to the VWIN chemical monitoring, MountainTrue also coordinates biological monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates at many of the same sites. The Stream Monitoring Information Exchange (SMIE) protocol is used to standardize data across WNC. MountainTrue provides classroom instruction to volunteers in general stream ecology principles and the theory behind evaluating water quality. Instruction includes learning the identification and significance of the common groups of invertebrates listed

7

in the protocol. Classroom instruction is followed by on-site stream monitoring training. Volunteers sample monitoring sites each fall and spring. Riffles are the focus of sampling and are loosely defined as areas > 15 ft2 where water depth is relatively shallow (10 to 30 cm or 4 to 12 inches) and with visible current. A kick net (mesh size 500 µm) is used to collect macroinvertebrates in the riffle habitat. Sampling consists of overturning stones (by feet or hands) for one minute, within a 15 ft2 area upstream of the net. All organisms are picked from the net, identified, and recorded separately from the other collection methods. Leaf packs are collected in riffles at each site, which are washed down and poured through the net several times to collect the insects. These organisms are picked from the net, identified, and recorded separately from the other samples. A visual survey is also performed by someone with a working knowledge of different types of habitat and insects. This survey is performed in all habitats in the representative section of stream, including those outside the riffle area. The visual survey often yields taxa not collected in the other two samples and is important to providing a total estimate of taxa richness at a site. These organisms are identified and recorded separate from the kick net and leaf pack samples. A habitat survey is completed at each site to evaluate potential limiting factors to stream health. This survey assesses fish presence, riparian vegetation condition, and stream substrates. Several metrics are calculated from this summary, including an SMIE Biotic Index (BI) and taxa richness metrics. The SMIE BI calculates a score using the numbers of each taxa observed and a pollution tolerance value for each taxa. The BI score is used to assign a water quality rating for the site from Excellent to Poor. A sample data sheet is provided in Appendix C. More details about sampling and analysis can be found in the 2013 SMIE Report (Traylor 2014). III. Results and Discussion This discussion is based on 22 years of data gathered between August 1992 and December 2014. With each additional year of continuous stream monitoring, trends in water quality become more evident, and a clearer picture of actual conditions existing in various streams and watersheds is available. Continuing water quality data collection over time provides updated information on changing conditions. With this information, financial resources and policies can be focused on areas of greatest concern. A discussion of the stream sites relative to specific water quality parameters follows. To better understand the parameters, explanations, standards and sources of contamination, some definitions of units and terms have been provided. The amount of a substance in water is referred to in units of concentration. Parts per million (ppm) is equivalent to mg/L. This means that if a substance is reported to have a concentration of 1 ppm, then there is one milligram of the substance in each liter (1000 grams) of water. The parameter total suspended solids (TSS) illustrates the weight/volume concept of concentration. According to the statistical summary data for Henderson County (Appendix F), Site 1 had a median TSS concentration of 13.6 mg/L over the past

8

three years, which is equivalent to 13.6 ppm. Thus if you filter one liter of water from Site 1 on average you will collect sediments that have a dry weight of 13.6 mg. The same conversion applies for parts per billion (ppb), which is equivalent to micrograms per liter (μg/L). Concentrations of the VWIN parameters in water samples are compared to normal ambient levels. Ambient levels are estimates of the naturally occurring concentration ranges of a substance. For instance, the ambient level of copper in most streams is less than 1 μg/L (1 ppb). Ambient water quality standards, on the other hand, are used to judge acceptable concentrations (NCDENR-DWQ 2007). The ambient water quality standard for Ammonia-nitrogen to protect trout populations is 1.0 mg/L, but the normal ambient level for most trout waters is about 0.1 mg/L. This report shows site-specific classification grades for each parameter for the three-year period from January 2012 through December 2014 (Table 2). Using only the past three years of data allows streams to show the most current water quality status. Thus, streams that may show improved water quality as a result of newly implemented management practices will reflect improvement in their grade. Likewise, streams where water quality has been deteriorating will show lower grades than past years. The grades are designed to characterize the water quality at each site with regard to individual parameters. Water quality standards were used where applicable to assess the possible impacts these levels could have on human health and organisms in the aquatic environment. For example, the 1.0 mg/L water quality standard for ammonia was used to determine grades for the sites. A grade of "B" would be assigned to a site if, over the last three years, no samples had a concentration that exceeded this standard. In contrast, due to the detrimental effects decreases in pH can have on the organisms that live in streams, a site could receive an "A" if minimum pH value was never lower than 6.0. Appendix D describes the criteria used for the grading system for each parameter.

Appendix E is a list of all VWIN stream sites monitored in WNC indexed and ranked using the grading system previously discussed and shown in Table 2. This indexing system was developed to facilitate comparisons of specific problem areas such as sediment and nutrient pollution. Parameters were grouped into these three categories and number grades were assigned to each parameter (A=100, B=75, C=50, D=25). The numbers were added and the total divided by the number of parameters in the dimension. For example, a site with a B in turbidity, a C in total suspended solids, and a B in conductivity would receive a sediment index of (75 + 50 + 75)/3 = 66.7 (rounded to 67). Index ratings for sediment and nutrient groups were added and the total divided by 2 to determine the overall index rating for each site. A maximum score of 100 and a minimum of 25 are possible. This is different from prior reports when heavy metals were used to calculate the overall rating. Since 2010, only specific sites in Henderson County have been monitored monthly for lead, copper, and zinc, while other sites are tested quarterly or annually. Most other partner VWIN organizations have dropped metal analysis in recent years, making it more practical to eliminate metals in comparisons between regional sites. In order to allow conductivity to be used in the ratings, it is now grouped into the sediment category. It is important and useful to compare sites within the mountain area to understand how water quality from each stream ranks, not only within the county, but also within the

9

region. With this information, local governments, organizations, and individuals can compare areas with similar problems or successes, share, and develop regional plans. It is also helpful to note changes in ranking over time as stream water quality improves or deteriorates relative to the many other mountain streams tested in the VWIN program. Many factors, such as population density, industrial development, topography, and land use patterns can affect water quality. All of these factors must be taken into consideration when comparing stream water quality. Appendix F contains summarized statistical data collected over the course of this study. It is a list of minimum, maximum, and median concentrations or values over the past three years and also includes the median values for each site over the past ten years. With this expanded information, changes in median values over time can be seen. The data from 140 stream sites throughout WNC in the VWIN program are used in this report to compare water quality from the sites in Henderson County with water quality from the mountain region in general. The graphs in this discussion section include averages of median values for all sites analyzed throughout the region, or the "regional average medians". The averages for sites in mainly forested watersheds, or the "forested average medians", are included to show typical water quality in streams that are relatively unaffected by human disturbance. With most parameters, sites that show median values closer to the forested stream median levels exhibit better water quality. Most of the more pristine VWIN sites are currently located in the southern edge of the mountains and/or in relatively high elevation watersheds. Although there are always some sites in each county that are relatively unaffected by human activities, most VWIN sites are generally chosen to measure the effects of human activities on stream water quality. For this reason, forest streams are under-represented and the averages in all areas are weighted somewhat toward streams that experience various degrees of pollution. A statistical analysis of the effects of stream water level, temporal changes, and seasonality on the water quality parameters at individual sites has also been included in this discussion. This analysis is used to determine if changes in concentrations or levels of a parameter relate to changes in water levels, (i.e. flow), time (i.e. temporal change), the seasons in WNC (i.e. seasonality). Trends are considered significant if the p-value is less than 0.05. The p-value is the probability of obtaining as much trend as observed in the data if, in fact, there was no true underlying trend. Data from the past ten years were used, except those obtained from the ETS laboratory (from August 2009 to September 2010) which were excluded from the trend analyses. Due to potential differences in protocols and no values provided below the reporting limits, there were concerns about detecting spurious trends. Methodology and instrumentation has been kept the same at the EQI laboratory, so its data have remained consistent. Trends were not determined for sites monitored less than five years.

10

Table 2: Classification Grades Based on Parameters and Ranges from 2012-14

Site Description

pH

Alk

alin

ity

Turb

idity

TSS

Con

duct

ivity

Ort

ho P

Am

mon

ia-N

Nitr

ate/

nitr

ite-N

1 French Broad River/Banner Farm Rd A D C D A B A A2 French Broad River/Butler Br Rd A D C D A C A A3 Mud Creek/Erkwood Rd A C C B B B A A4 Mud Creek/N Rugby Rd A B C C C D A B5 Clear Creek/Nix Rd A B C B C C A B7 North Fork Mills River A D C A A A A A8 South Fork Mills River A D C B A A A A9 Mills River/Hwy 191 A D C B A A A A10 Mills River/Hooper Lane A D C B A A A A11 Green River/down L Summit A D A A A A A A12 Green River/Terry's Ck Rd A D A A A B A A13 Big Hungry River below dam A B A A B B A B14 Boylston Creek/Ladson Rd A C D D B B A B15 Bat Fork Creek/Tabor Rd A B B A C B A C16 Cane Creek/Howard Gap Rd A A C C C B A B18 Mud Creek/7th Ave A C C B B B A A19 Green River/Old 25 A D C A A B A A20 Clear Creek/Apple Valley Rd A C C B B B A B21 Mud Creek/Berea Church Rd A C C B B B A A22 Hoopers Creek/Jackson Rd A B C C C B A B23 Big Willow Creek/Patterson Rd A C C B B C A A24 Little Willow Creek A D C C A B A A25 Gash Creek/Etowah School Rd A A C B C C A B26 Brittain Creek/Patton Park A A A A C B C B27 Mill Pond Creek/S Rugby Rd A A C D D C A B28 Shaw Creek/Hunters Glen A B C B C B A B29 Brandy Branch/Mills R Village A C B B C B A C30 Devil's Fork/Dana Rd A A C B C C B C31 Wash Creek/West Allen St A A B A C C A B32 King Creek/Airport Rd A B B A C A A B33 Devil's Fork/Howard Gap A A B A C C A C34 Byers Creek at Howard Gap A A C B C C A B35 Featherstone Creek at Howard Gap A B C A B B A A

11

Trends related to flow are determined using flow measurements from nearby US Geological Survey gauging stations (USGS 2015). Although this method may also present some problems as gauging stations can only truly represent the streams on which they are located, the method has been found to be the most effective for the least cost. With this method the control for flow allows for more precise examination of the effects of other factors. The USGS gauging stations on the French Broad River at Blantyre (03443000) and on the Mills River (03446000) were utilized to estimate relative flow for the sites in Henderson County. Each site was matched to the gauge station nearest that site. The logarithm of the ratio of the measured flow to the long-term average flow for each date was used as the predictor variable for flow. Corresponding flow data were found for all sample collection dates from the beginning of the Henderson County monitoring program in 1992 to present. Appendix G is a summary of trends related to flow. Appendix H shows trends related to time and Appendix I shows trends related to season.

A. Acidity (pH) and Alkalinity: The pH is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. If the value of the measurement is less than 7.0, the solution is acidic. If the value is greater than 7.0, the solution is alkaline (more commonly referred to as basic). The ambient water quality standard is between 6.0 and 9.0. Natural pH in area streams should be in the range of 6.5 - 7.2. Values below 6.5 may indicate the effects of acid rain or other acidic inputs, and values above 7.5 may be indicative of an industrial discharge. Because organisms in aquatic environments have adapted to the pH conditions of natural waters, even small pH fluctuations can interfere with the reproduction of those organisms or can even kill them outright. The pH is an important water quality parameter because it has the potential to seriously affect aquatic ecosystems. It can also be a useful indicator of specific types of discharges. Alkalinity is the measure of the acid neutralizing capacity of a water or soil. Waters with high alkalinity are considered protected (well buffered) against acidic inputs. Streams that are supplied with a buffer are able to absorb and neutralize hydrogen ions introduced by acidic sources such as acid rain, decomposing organic matter and industrial effluent. For example, water can leach calcium carbonate (a natural buffer) from limestone soils or bedrock and then move into a stream, providing that stream with a buffer. As a result, pH levels in the stream are held constant despite acidic inputs. Unfortunately, natural buffering materials can become depleted due to excessive acidic precipitation over time. In that case, further acidic precipitation can cause severe decreases in stream pH. Potential future stream acidification problems can be anticipated by alkalinity measurement. There is no legal standard for alkalinity, but waters with an alkalinity below 30 mg/L are considered to have low alkalinity. WNC streams tend to have low alkalinity because of generally thin soils and because the underlying granitic bedrock does not contain many acid-neutralizing compounds such as calcium carbonate.

12

Figures 2 and 3 are box-and-whisker plots for pH and alkalinity over the past three years at each monitoring site. The horizontal bar in the middle of the “boxes” represents the median for each site, while the upper and lower edges of the box represent the 25th and 75th percentiles respectively. The “whiskers” show the range of the data, with outliers indicated by dots. Boxplots are helpful to identify samples with extreme characteristics, or a particular skew to the data. Outliers are often the most information-rich part of the dataset, as they may indicate ecological disturbances. The plots also show WNC regional average medians for comparison.

13

Figure 2: pH levels at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely undisturbed areas

Figure 3: Alkalinity levels at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely undisturbed areas

Gre

en R

-12

Gre

en R

-19

Gre

en R

-11

Big

Hun

gry-

13

Mud

C-2

1

Mud

C-3

Laur

el P

k In

-36

Laur

el P

k O

ut-3

7

Was

h C

-31

Kin

g C

-32

Bat

For

k-15

Mud

C-1

8

Dev

il's

Fork

-33

Dev

il's

Fork

-30

Cle

ar C

-20

Cle

ar C

-5

Brit

tain

C-2

6

Feat

hers

tone

C-3

5

Bye

rs C

-34

Mud

C-4

N M

ills

R-7

S M

ills

R-8

Mill

s R

-9

Mill

s R

-10

Bra

ndy

Br-

29

Hoo

pers

C-2

2

Can

e C

-16

Big

Will

ow-2

3

Littl

e W

illow

-24

Gas

h C

-25

Sha

w C

-28

Boy

lsto

n C

-14

Mill

Pon

d C

-27

FBR-1

FBR-2

6.5

7.0

7.5

pH

Blue dotted line - Regional average median = 7.1Red dashed line - Forested average median = 7.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

Gre

en R

-12

Gre

en R

-19

Gre

en R

-11

Big

Hun

gry-

13

Mud

C-2

1

Mud

C-3

Laur

el P

k In

-36

Laur

el P

k O

ut-3

7

Was

h C

-31

Kin

g C

-32

Bat

For

k-15

Mud

C-1

8

Dev

il's

Fork

-33

Dev

il's

Fork

-30

Cle

ar C

-20

Cle

ar C

-5

Brit

tain

C-2

6

Feat

hers

tone

C-3

5

Bye

rs C

-34

Mud

C-4

N M

ills

R-7

S M

ills

R-8

Mill

s R

-9

Mill

s R

-10

Bra

ndy

Br-

29

Hoo

pers

C-2

2

Can

e C

-16

Big

Will

ow-2

3

Littl

e W

illow

-24

Gas

h C

-25

Sha

w C

-28

Boy

lsto

n C

-14

Mill

Pon

d C

-27

FBR-1

FBR-2

10

20

30

40

50

60

Alk

alin

ity (m

g/L

CaC

O3)

Blue dotted line - Regional average median = 25.9 mg/LRed dashed line - Forested average median = 9.2 mg/L

10

20

30

40

50

60

!Green River Watershed

Mud Creek Watershed FBR

Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek

Mills River Watershed



Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


14

B. Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS): Turbidity is a measurement of the visual clarity of a water sample and indicates the presence of fine suspended particulate matter. The unit used to measure turbidity is NTU (nephelometric turbidity units), which measures the absorption and reflection of light when it is passed through a sample of water. Because particles can have a wide variety of sizes, shapes and densities, there is only an approximate relationship between the turbidity of a sample and the concentration (i.e. weight) of the particulate matter present. This is why there are separate tests for turbidity and suspended solids. Turbidity is an important parameter for assessing the viability of a stream for trout propagation. Trout eggs can withstand only small amounts of silt before hatching success is greatly reduced. Fish that are dependent on sight for locating food are also at a great disadvantage when water clarity declines. For this reason, the standard for trout-designated waters is 10 NTU while the standard to protect other aquatic life is 50 NTU. Mountain streams in undisturbed forested areas remain clear even after a moderately heavy rainfall event, but streams in areas with disturbed soil may become highly turbid after even a relatively light rainfall. Deposition of silt into a stream bottom can bury and destroy the complex bottom habitat. Consequently, the habitat for most species of aquatic insects, snails, and crustaceans is destroyed by stream siltation. The absence of these species reduces the diversity of the ecosystem. In addition, small amounts of bottom-deposited sediment can severely reduce the hatch rate of trout eggs. There is no legal standard for TSS, but values below 30.0 mg/L are generally considered low, and values above 100 mg/L are considered high. TSS quantifies solids by weight and is heavily influenced by the combination stream flow and land disturbing activities. A good measure of the upstream land use conditions is how much TSS rises after a heavy rainfall. Land use and degree of slope are important factors contributing to potential erosion and runoff. Cleared land on steep slopes will generally produce the greatest erosion rates. Henderson County has lower average slope than most other monitored counties in Western North Carolina, but it also has a high percentage of deforested land. Although the lower slopes result in lower erosion rates, some watersheds experience greater erosion rates because of extensive deforestation. Figures 4 and 5 are box-and-whisker plots for turbidity and TSS at the monitoring sites over the past three years. Note that extreme outliers for turbidity and TSS are shown at the top of the “a” plots, but are not to scale. The graphs are cropped in the “b” plots to show the distribution of the 0-75th percentile statistics, since the outliers dwarf the majority of the data. The plots also show WNC regional average medians for comparison.

C. Conductivity and Heavy Metals (Copper, Lead, and Zinc): Conductivity is measured in micromhos per centimeter (µmhos/cm) and is used to measure the ability of a water sample to conduct an electrical current. Pure water will not conduct an electrical current. However, samples containing dissolved solids and salts will form positively and negatively charged ions that will conduct an electrical current.

15

Figure 4a: Turbidity levels at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested areas

Figure 4b: Turbidity levels at each monitoring site, with values higher than 20 NTU cropped to show ranges

Gre

en R

-12

Gre

en R

-19

Gre

en R

-11

Big

Hun

gry-

13

Mud

C-2

1

Mud

C-3

Laur

el P

k In

-36

Laur

el P

k O

ut-3

7

Was

h C

-31

Kin

g C

-32

Bat

For

k-15

Mud

C-1

8

Dev

il's

Fork

-33

Dev

il's

Fork

-30

Cle

ar C

-20

Cle

ar C

-5

Brit

tain

C-2

6

Feat

hers

tone

C-3

5

Bye

rs C

-34

Mud

C-4

N M

ills

R-7

S M

ills

R-8

Mill

s R

-9

Mill

s R

-10

Bra

ndy

Br-

29

Hoo

pers

C-2

2

Can

e C

-16

Big

Will

ow-2

3

Littl

e W

illow

-24

Gas

h C

-25

Sha

w C

-28

Boy

lsto

n C

-14

Mill

Pon

d C

-27

FBR-1

FBR-2

0

50

100

150

200

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

Blue dotted line - Regional average median = 5.3 NTURed dashed line - Forested average median = 1.8 NTU

0

50

100

150

200*H27 Max=340*H21 Max=700,500

*H3 Max=330*H18 Max=260 *H7 Max=260

Gre

en R

-12

Gre

en R

-19

Gre

en R

-11

Big

Hun

gry-

13

Mud

C-2

1

Mud

C-3

Laur

el P

k In

-36

Laur

el P

k O

ut-3

7

Was

h C

-31

Kin

g C

-32

Bat

For

k-15

Mud

C-1

8

Dev

il's

Fork

-33

Dev

il's

Fork

-30

Cle

ar C

-20

Cle

ar C

-5

Brit

tain

C-2

6

Feat

hers

tone

C-3

5

Bye

rs C

-34

Mud

C-4

N M

ills

R-7

S M

ills

R-8

Mill

s R

-9

Mill

s R

-10

Bra

ndy

Br-

29

Hoo

pers

C-2

2

Can

e C

-16

Big

Will

ow-2

3

Littl

e W

illow

-24

Gas

h C

-25

Sha

w C

-28

Boy

lsto

n C

-14

Mill

Pon

d C

-27

FBR-1

FBR-2

0

5

10

15

20

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

Blue dotted line - Regional average median = 5.3 NTURed dashed line - Forested average median = 1.8 NTU

0

5

10

15

20!Green River Watershed


Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek




Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


16

Figure 5a: Total suspended solids concentrations at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested areas

Figure 5b: Total suspended solids concentrations at each monitoring site, with values higher than 40 NTU cropped to show ranges

Gre

en R

-12

Gre

en R

-19

Gre

en R

-11

Big

Hun

gry-

13

Mud

C-2

1

Mud

C-3

Laur

el P

k In

-36

Laur

el P

k O

ut-3

7

Was

h C

-31

Kin

g C

-32

Bat

For

k-15

Mud

C-1

8

Dev

il's

Fork

-33

Dev

il's

Fork

-30

Cle

ar C

-20

Cle

ar C

-5

Brit

tain

C-2

6

Feat

hers

tone

C-3

5

Bye

rs C

-34

Mud

C-4

N M

ills

R-7

S M

ills

R-8

Mill

s R

-9

Mill

s R

-10

Bra

ndy

Br-

29

Hoo

pers

C-2

2

Can

e C

-16

Big

Will

ow-2

3

Littl

e W

illow

-24

Gas

h C

-25

Sha

w C

-28

Boy

lsto

n C

-14

Mill

Pon

d C

-27

FBR-1

FBR-2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (m

g/L)


0

50

100

150

200

250

300*H21 Max=1474,474 *H14 Max=958,755

*H3 Max=616 *H27 Max=468,435,391*H18 Max=357

Gre

en R

-12

Gre

en R

-19

Gre

en R

-11

Big

Hun

gry-

13

Mud

C-2

1

Mud

C-3

Laur

el P

k In

-36

Laur

el P

k O

ut-3

7

Was

h C

-31

Kin

g C

-32

Bat

For

k-15

Mud

C-1

8

Dev

il's

Fork

-33

Dev

il's

Fork

-30

Cle

ar C

-20

Cle

ar C

-5

Brit

tain

C-2

6

Feat

hers

tone

C-3

5

Bye

rs C

-34

Mud

C-4

N M

ills

R-7

S M

ills

R-8

Mill

s R

-9

Mill

s R

-10

Bra

ndy

Br-

29

Hoo

pers

C-2

2

Can

e C

-16

Big

Will

ow-2

3

Littl

e W

illow

-24

Gas

h C

-25

Sha

w C

-28

Boy

lsto

n C

-14

Mill

Pon

d C

-27

FBR-1

FBR-2

0

10

20

30

40

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (m

g/L)


0

10

20

30

40

Green River Watershed


Etowah Horsesho

e

Cane Creek




Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek




Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


17

The concentration of dissolved ions in a sample determines conductivity. Inorganic dissolved solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum affect conductivity levels. Geology of an area can affect conductivity levels. Streams that run through areas with granitic bedrock tend to have lower conductivity because granitic rock is composed of materials that do not ionize in water. Streams that receive large amounts of runoff containing clay particles generally have higher conductivity because of the presence of materials in clay that ionize more readily in water. Metals are naturally occurring in surface waters in minute quantities as a result of chemical weathering and soil leaching. Concentrations of metals greater than those occurring naturally can be toxic to human and aquatic organisms. Elevated levels are often indicative of industrial pollution, wastewater discharge, and urban runoff, especially from areas with high concentrations of automobiles. Airborne contaminants from coal-fired power plants may also contribute metals to the atmosphere, which are then carried to land by precipitation and dry fallout. Because metals sorb readily to many sediment types, they may easily enter streams in areas with high sediment runoff. Another source of heavy metals can be runoff from agricultural fields using sewage sludge as fertilizer, which sometimes is permitted to contain up to 1500 mg metal/1 kg fertilizer. For copper, the standard of 7.0 μg/L has been established to protect aquatic life. In most areas, ambient levels are usually below 1.0 μg/L. Wear of brake linings has been shown to contribute concentrations of copper, lead, and zinc. Copper is also present in leaded, unleaded, and diesel fuel emissions. A standard of 25.0 μg/L has been established for lead to protect aquatic life, while the normal ambient level is usually below 1.0 μg/L. Lead may be present in industrial wastewater and was once common in road runoff from the use of leaded gasoline. Roadside soils still generally contain high lead levels, resulting in elevated stream concentrations if these soils are subject to erosion. The surface water standard for zinc is 50.0 μg/L. Typical ambient levels of zinc are approximately 5.0 μg/L. Zinc is a major metal component of tire rubber, brake linings, and galvanized crash barriers. Studies have been conducted linking this to zinc contamination from urban runoff. Because zinc is a by-product of the auto tire vulcanization process as well as the galvanization of iron, its presence in water may also result from industrial or domestic wastewater. Elevated levels of conductivity and heavy metals are most often seen in streams receiving industrial or domestic wastewater or urban runoff. These substances also occur naturally in soils and may show higher levels in streams where severe erosion and runoff are occurring. Figure 6 is a box-and-whisker plot for conductivity at the monitoring sites over the past three years. Note that extreme outliers are shown at the top of the plots, but are not to scale. The plots also show WNC regional average medians for comparison.

18

Figure 6: Conductivity levels at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested areas

D. Nutrients (Orthophosphate (PO43-), Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH4+/NH3), and

Nitrate/Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO3-/NO2

-): Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for aquatic plants and algae. It occurs naturally in water and is in fact, usually the limiting nutrient in most aquatic systems. In other words, plant growth is restricted by the availability of phosphorus in the system. Excessive phosphorus inputs stimulate the growth of algae and diatoms on rocks in a stream and cause periodic algal blooms in reservoirs downstream. Slippery green mats of algae in a stream, or blooms of algae in a lake are usually the result of an introduction of excessive phosphorus into the system that has caused algae or aquatic plants to grow at abnormally high rates. Eutrophication is the term used to describe this growth of algae due to an over abundance of a limiting nutrient. Sources of phosphorus include soil, disturbed land, wastewater treatment plants, failing septic systems, runoff from fertilized crops and lawns, and livestock waste storage areas. Phosphates have an attraction for soil particles, and phosphorus concentrations can increase greatly during rains where surface runoff is a problem. In this report orthophosphate is reported in the form of orthophosphate (PO4

3-). To isolate phosphorus (P) from the measurement, divide the reported amount by 3.07. Orthophosphate is a measure of the dissolved phosphorus that is immediately available to plants or algae. Orthophosphate is also referred to as phosphorus in solution. There is no legal water quality standard, but generally phosphorus (P) levels must be below 0.05 mg/L (0.15 mg/L of orthophosphate) to prevent downstream eutrophication. Ammonia-Nitrogen is contained in the remains of decaying wastes of plants and animals. Some species of bacteria and fungi decompose these wastes and ammonia is

Gre

en R

-12

Gre

en R

-19

Gre

en R

-11

Big

Hun

gry-

13

Mud

C-2

1

Mud

C-3

Laur

el P

k In

-36

Laur

el P

k O

ut-3

7

Was

h C

-31

Kin

g C

-32

Bat

For

k-15

Mud

C-1

8

Dev

il's

Fork

-33

Dev

il's

Fork

-30

Cle

ar C

-20

Cle

ar C

-5

Brit

tain

C-2

6

Feat

hers

tone

C-3

5

Bye

rs C

-34

Mud

C-4

N M

ills

R-7

S M

ills

R-8

Mill

s R

-9

Mill

s R

-10

Bra

ndy

Br-

29

Hoo

pers

C-2

2

Can

e C

-16

Big

Will

ow-2

3

Littl

e W

illow

-24

Gas

h C

-25

Sha

w C

-28

Boy

lsto

n C

-14

Mill

Pon

d C

-27

FBR-1

FBR-2

0

50

100

150

200

250

Con

duct

ivity

(um

hos/

cm)

Blue dotted line - Regional average median = 60.2 umhos/cmRed dashed line - Forested average median = 19.0 umhos/cm

0

50

100

150

200

250*H15 Max=977 *H26 Max=488



Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


19

formed. The normal ambient level is approximately 0.10 mg/L, and elevated levels of ammonia can be toxic to fish. Although the actual toxicity depends on the pH of the water, the proposed ambient standard to protect trout waters is 1.0 mg/L in summer and 2.0 mg/L in winter. The most probable sources of ammonia nitrogen are agricultural runoff, livestock farming, septic drainage, and sewage treatment plant discharges. In Western North Carolina, streams with extensive trout farming may also show elevated ammonia-nitrogen concentrations. Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen, like phosphorus, serves as an algal nutrient contributing to excessive stream and reservoir algal growth. In addition, nitrate is highly toxic to infants and the unborn causing inhibition of oxygen transfer in the blood stream at high doses. This condition is known as "blue-baby" disease. This is the basis for the 10 mg/L national drinking water standard. The ambient standard to protect aquatic ecosystems is 10 mg/L as well. The most probable sources are septic drainage and fertilizer runoff from agricultural land and domestic lawns. Nitrates from land sources end up in streams more quickly than other nutrients such as phosphorus because they dissolve in water more readily and can travel with ground water into streams. Consequently, nitrates are a good indicator of the possibility of sources of pollution from sewage or animal waste during dry weather. Figures 7, 8, and 9 are box-and-whisker plots for orthophosphate, ammonia-nitrogen, and nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen respectively at the Henderson County monitoring sites over the past three years. Extreme outliers are shown at the top of the plots, but are not to scale. The plots also show WNC regional average medians for comparison. Figure 7: Orthophosphate concentrations at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested areas

Gre

en R

-12

Gre

en R

-19

Gre

en R

-11

Big

Hun

gry-

13

Mud

C-2

1

Mud

C-3

Laur

el P

k In

-36

Laur

el P

k O

ut-3

7

Was

h C

-31

Kin

g C

-32

Bat

For

k-15

Mud

C-1

8

Dev

il's

Fork

-33

Dev

il's

Fork

-30

Cle

ar C

-20

Cle

ar C

-5

Brit

tain

C-2

6

Feat

hers

tone

C-3

5

Bye

rs C

-34

Mud

C-4

N M

ills

R-7

S M

ills

R-8

Mill

s R

-9

Mill

s R

-10

Bra

ndy

Br-

29

Hoo

pers

C-2

2

Can

e C

-16

Big

Will

ow-2

3

Littl

e W

illow

-24

Gas

h C

-25

Sha

w C

-28

Boy

lsto

n C

-14

Mill

Pon

d C

-27

FBR-1

FBR-2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Orth

opho

spha

te (m

g/L)


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

*H21 Max=1.40



Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


20

Figure 8: Ammonia-nitrogen concentrations at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested areas

Figure 9: Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen concentrations at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested areas

Gre

en R

-12

Gre

en R

-19

Gre

en R

-11

Big

Hun

gry-

13

Mud

C-2

1

Mud

C-3

Laur

el P

k In

-36

Laur

el P

k O

ut-3

7

Was

h C

-31

Kin

g C

-32

Bat

For

k-15

Mud

C-1

8

Dev

il's

Fork

-33

Dev

il's

Fork

-30

Cle

ar C

-20

Cle

ar C

-5

Brit

tain

C-2

6

Feat

hers

tone

C-3

5

Bye

rs C

-34

Mud

C-4

N M

ills

R-7

S M

ills

R-8

Mill

s R

-9

Mill

s R

-10

Bra

ndy

Br-

29

Hoo

pers

C-2

2

Can

e C

-16

Big

Will

ow-2

3

Littl

e W

illow

-24

Gas

h C

-25

Sha

w C

-28

Boy

lsto

n C

-14

Mill

Pon

d C

-27

FBR-1

FBR-2

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Am

mon

ia (m

g/L)


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

*H26 Max=1.60



Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek




Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


Gre

en R

-12

Gre

en R

-19

Gre

en R

-11

Big

Hun

gry-

13

Mud

C-2

1

Mud

C-3

Laur

el P

k In

-36

Laur

el P

k O

ut-3

7

Was

h C

-31

Kin

g C

-32

Bat

For

k-15

Mud

C-1

8

Dev

il's

Fork

-33

Dev

il's

Fork

-30

Cle

ar C

-20

Cle

ar C

-5

Brit

tain

C-2

6

Feat

hers

tone

C-3

5

Bye

rs C

-34

Mud

C-4

N M

ills

R-7

S M

ills

R-8

Mill

s R

-9

Mill

s R

-10

Bra

ndy

Br-

29

Hoo

pers

C-2

2

Can

e C

-16

Big

Will

ow-2

3

Littl

e W

illow

-24

Gas

h C

-25

Sha

w C

-28

Boy

lsto

n C

-14

Mill

Pon

d C

-27

FBR-1

FBR-2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Nitr

ate/

nitri

te-n

itrog

en (m

g/L)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

21

E. Biological Monitoring Due to the time constraints and high cost of laboratory testing for organic pollutants such as pesticides, biological monitoring is preferable. Aquatic insect communities are excellent indicators of toxic substances in streams, since they are in the water constantly and have specific tolerance levels to pollutants. If a stream has good chemical ratings, but poor biological scores, it could mean that unmeasured toxic substances are getting into the water periodically. MountainTrue has utilized the SMIE method of invertebrate sampling and analysis since 2009. A table of biomonitoring results for the sites sampled in April and October of 2013-14 are shown in Appendix J. SMIE Biotic Index scores are assigned ratings with <3.09 = Excellent, 3.10-3.56 = Good, 3.57-4.10 = Good-Fair, 4.11-5.21 = Fair, and >5.22 = Poor. Figure 10a shows the biological scores from 2013. Figure 10b shows the biological scores from 2014.

22

Figure 10a: SMIE biological scores for 2013 samples (high scores indicate poor quality)

0.0#

1.0#

2.0#

3.0#

4.0#

5.0#

6.0#

Uncle

's#Cr#

Green#R#at#Bob

s#Cr#R

d#

Rock#Cr#

Green#R#at#Terry's#Cr#Rd#

Big#H

ungry#R

#upstrm

#

Big#H

ungry#R

#dow

nstrm

#

LiFle#W

illow#Cr#

Shaw

#Cr#

Mill#Po

nd#Cr#

Boyls

ton#Cr#

North

#Fork#M

ills#R#

South#Fork#M

ills#R#

Brandy#Branch#

Mills

#R#at

#Hoo

per's#Ln

#

Mud

#Cr#a

t#Berea#Chu

rch#Rd

#

Mud

#Cr#a

t#7th#Ave#

BriFain

#Cr#

Clear#C

r#at#B

earw

allow

#Rd#

Clear#C

r#at#N

ix#Rd

#

Hoop

er's#Cr#

Cane

#Cr#a

t#How

ard#Ga

p#

SMIE%Bio)c%In

dex%S

cores%

Spring#2013#

Fall#2013#

Figure 10b: SMIE biological scores for 2014 samples (high scores indicate poor quality)

0.0#

1.0#

2.0#

3.0#

4.0#

5.0#

6.0#

Uncle

's#Cr#

Green#R#at#Bob

s#Cr#R

d#

Rock#Cr#

Green#R#at#Terry's#Cr#Rd#

Big#H

ungry#R

#upstrm

#

Big#H

ungry#R

#dow

nstrm

#

LiFle#W

illow#Cr#

Shaw

#Cr#

Mill#Po

nd#Cr#

Boyls

ton#Cr#

North

#Fork#M

ills#R#

South#Fork#M

ills#R#

Brandy#Branch#

Mills

#R#at

#Hoo

per's#Ln

#

Mud

#Cr#a

t#Berea#Chu

rch#Rd

#

Mud

#Cr#a

t#7th#Ave#

BriFain

#Cr#

Clear#C

r#at#B

earw

allow

#Rd#

Clear#C

r#at#N

ix#Rd

#

Hoop

er's#Cr#

Cane

#Cr#a

t#How

ard#Ga

p#

SMIE%Bio)c%In

dex%S

cores%

Spring#2014#

Fall#2014#

23

IV. Summary The majority of Henderson County streams are tributaries to the French Broad River Basin, except the Green River watershed that is located in the Broad River Basin. The valleys in this region provide suitable land for development and agriculture, bringing nonpoint sources of pollution in close proximity to the streams. These floodplains are prone to flooding during heavy or prolonged rainfall events, which can cause sanitary sewer overflows, substantial erosion, and property damage. Rainfall causes the most fluctuations in water pollution by flushing sediment and chemicals into the waterways, stirring up existing sediment on the streambeds, and causing erosion. Drought conditions also impact streams by reducing aquatic habitats, providing less water to dilute point source pollution, and reducing nonpoint source pollution between rainfall events. The area experienced an extreme drought that lasted approximately two years from 2007 to 2009. Since then, rainfall has mostly been normal, with higher than normal rainfall and flooding events in 2013 (Drought Management Advisory Council 2015, State Climate Office of North Carolina 2015). The data summaries and site ratings in this report focus on the past three years of data collection (2012-14). No pH values less than 6.3 standard units were observed, as had been reported by another lab in 2010. Alkalinity medians were greater than 30 mg/L CaCO3 and earned “D” letter grades at several sites. Although alkalinity is generally beneficial to help stream water resist changes in pH, values much greater than this level in WNC are often from unnatural disturbances. Alkalinity, turbidity, and TSS show seasonal trends with higher values in summer samples and lower values in the fall and winter. Most sites had median turbidity and TSS values less than 10 NTU and mg/L respectively, however both exhibited a wide range with many high values during rainfall events. Conductivity values were generally higher in the fall and lower in the spring. Metals were analyzed with different frequencies per site, so comparisons had to be made in light of the number of samples taken. Copper values exceeding the state’s regulatory limit of 7 μg/L were most prevalent for samples following heavy rainfall and sediment runoff. Nitrates and ammonia continue to show a decreasing trend over time for several sites. All sites had median values well below the state standards for these two parameters. Several sites from May and December of 2013 yielded samples with the highest levels of sediment due to heavy rains in the 24 hours prior to sampling. Tables 3a and 3B list VWIN water quality ratings (from 2013 and 2014 respectively) of Henderson County sites organized by watershed. The focus on specific areas and water quality issues permits comparison of problems such as stream sedimentation and nutrient loading. The Green River continued to hold the highest overall chemical rating in Henderson County, with few sediment issues. The Mills River watershed had the best nutrient scores in Henderson County. Sites in the Mud Creek and Cane Creek watersheds, as well as the Etowah/Horseshoe communities show much worse water quality. External sources have been used for the discussion of watersheds in this report, such as the 2013 SMIE report (Traylor 2014) and NC Department of Environment and Natural

24

Resources basinwide reports for the French Broad River and Broad River basins (NCDENR-DWQ-BPU 2011, NCDENR-DWQ-BPU 2008, NCDENR- DWQ-ESS 2008). The state stream impairment information is taken from the current 303(d) listing (NCDEQ-DWR 2014). Volunteer observations are also critical in documenting water quality issues at specific sites.

A. Green River Watershed The Green River flows through a mostly forested landscape with adjacent agricultural fields, and is heavily used by outdoor enthusiasts. The Green River is sampled upstream at Terry's Creek Road (#12), just upstream of Lake Summit (#19), and downstream of Lake Summit (#11). The Green River at Terry’s Creek Road had a water quality rating of Good in 2013 and Excellent in 2014. It also received Good to Fair SMIE biological ratings in 2013-14. The volunteer at this site repeatedly reported the presence of landscaping trash from a nearby nursery. In February of 2014, they noted “landowner says they have seen a septic tank truck dump waste into the creek 3-4 times this past year” and would follow up with MountainTrue. Site #19 just upstream of Lake Summit earned a Good rating in both years. The volunteer occasionally reported a “dark” or “murky” water color at this location, and it earned a “C” letter grade for turbidity instead of and “A” as the other river sites. The site below Lake Summit (#11) is dam controlled and had an Excellent rating in both years, with the best overall score (100 of a possible 100) of all Henderson County sites. Site #11 downstream of Lake Summit sees a lot of use from kayakers and commercial rafting companies, according to the site’s volunteer. Median values for the three Green River sites were below the regional average median for all parameters. Ammonia, conductivity, turbidity, and alkalinity values increased very slightly from upstream to downstream. The Big Hungry River joins the Green River just before it flows into Polk County. The monitoring site (#13) is sampled below the dam, where the VWIN rating was Average in 2013 and Good in 2014. While this site had higher pH, alkalinity, conductivity, and nitrate medians than any of the Green River sites, it was still below the regional average median for all parameters except nitrates and pH (still only 7.2 standard units). The Big Hungry River volunteer reported people fishing and swimming at this site frequently, with large rocks repeatedly rearranged in the streambed. Biomonitoring yielded Excellent ratings in both seasons of 2013, but only a Good rating in the spring and Fair in the fall of 2014.

B. Mud Creek Watershed Mud Creek is a tributary to the French Broad River that flows through Hendersonville. It has many subwatersheds that contribute to its water quality. Eight tributaries to Mud Creek have VWIN monitoring sites. From upstream to downstream, they include Wash Creek, King Creek, Bat Fork, Devil’s Fork, Clear Creek, Brittain Creek, Featherstone Creek, and Byers Creek. Land use in the Mud Creek watershed includes forest, pasture, orchard, cropland, and urban development. Stormwater runoff is a major source of sediment to the streams. Ongoing management efforts in the watershed include

25

Table 3a: 2013 Stream ranking index for Henderson County monitoring sites site # site name sediment nutrients overall chemical

VWIN - WNC Regional Average 63 81 72 ratingGreen River/Broad River Watershed

12 Green River at Terry's Creek Road 75 92 83 Good19 Green River upstream from Lake Summit 75 92 83 Good11 Green River downstream from Lake Summit 100 100 100 Excellent13 Big Hungry River downstream 75 83 79 Average

Average for this grouping 81 92 86percent sites below regional average 0% 0% 0%

Mud Creek Watershed21 Mud Creek at Berea Church Road 67 92 79 Average3 Mud Creek at Erkwood Road 67 92 79 Average31 Wash Creek/West Allen St 75 75 75 Average32 King Creek/Airport Rd 67 83 75 Average15 Bat Fork Creek 83 83 83 Good18 Mud Creek at 7th Avenue 67 92 79 Average33 Devil's Fork at Howard Gap 75 67 71 Average30 Devil's Fork at Dana Rd 58 75 67 Below Average20 Clear Creek at Bearwallow 67 83 75 Average5 Clear Creek at Nix Road 58 75 67 Below Average26 Brittain Creek 83 83 83 Good35 Featherstone Creek at Howard Gap 67 75 71 Average34 Byers Creek at Howard Gap 58 75 67 Below Average4 Mud Creek at N Rugby Rd 58 58 58 Poor


Mills River Watershed7 North Fork Mills River 75 100 88 Good8 South Fork Mills River 75 100 88 Good9 Mills River at Davenport Bridge 75 100 88 Good29 Brandy Branch 58 58 58 Poor10 Mills River at Hooper Lane 75 100 88 Good


Cane Creek watershed22 Hoopers Creek 58 75 67 Below Average16 Cane Creek at Howard Gap Rd 58 75 67 Below Average


Etowah/Horseshoe23 Big Willow Creek 67 83 75 Average24 Little Willow Creek 67 92 79 Average25 Gash Creek 58 75 67 Below Average28 Shaw Creek 58 83 71 Average27 Mill Pond Creek 33 75 54 Poor14 Boylston Creek 58 83 71 Average


French Broad River1 French Broad River/Horseshoe 58 92 75 Average2 French Broad River/Mt Home 67 83 75 Average


Overall County RatingAverage for All Sites 67 83 75 Averagepercent sites below regional average 36% 36% 39%

26

Table 3b: 2014 Stream ranking index for Henderson County monitoring sites site # site name sediment nutrients overall chemical

VWIN - WNC Regional Average 65 82 74 ratingGreen River/Broad River Watershed

12 Green River at Terry's Creek Road 100 92 96 Excellent19 Green River upstream from Lake Summit 83 92 88 Good11 Green River downstream from Lake Summit 100 100 100 Excellent13 Big Hungry River downstream 92 83 88 Good


Mud Creek Watershed21 Mud Creek at Berea Church Road 67 92 79 Average3 Mud Creek at Erkwood Road 67 92 79 Average31 Wash Creek/West Allen St 75 75 75 Average32 King Creek/Airport Rd 75 92 83 Good15 Bat Fork Creek 75 75 75 Average18 Mud Creek at 7th Avenue 67 92 79 Average33 Devil's Fork at Howard Gap 75 67 71 Average30 Devil's Fork at Dana Rd 58 58 58 Poor20 Clear Creek at Bearwallow 67 83 75 Average5 Clear Creek at Nix Road 58 75 67 Below Average26 Brittain Creek 83 67 75 Average35 Featherstone Creek at Howard Gap 75 92 83 Good34 Byers Creek at Howard Gap 58 75 67 Below Average4 Mud Creek at N Rugby Rd 50 67 58 Poor


Mills River Watershed7 North Fork Mills River 83 100 92 Excellent8 South Fork Mills River 75 100 88 Good9 Mills River at Davenport Bridge 75 100 88 Good29 Brandy Branch 67 75 71 Average10 Mills River at Hooper Lane 75 100 88 Good


Cane Creek watershed22 Hoopers Creek 50 83 67 Below Average16 Cane Creek at Howard Gap Rd 50 83 67 Below Average


Etowah/Horseshoe23 Big Willow Creek 67 83 75 Average24 Little Willow Creek 67 92 79 Average25 Gash Creek 58 75 67 Below Average28 Shaw Creek 58 83 71 Average27 Mill Pond Creek 33 75 54 Poor14 Boylston Creek 42 83 63 Below Average


French Broad River1 French Broad River/Horseshoe 58 92 75 Average2 French Broad River/Mt Home 58 83 71 Average


Overall County RatingAverage for All Sites 68 84 76 Averagepercent sites below regional average 36% 33% 39%

27

streambank restoration, conservation of wetlands, and installation of agricultural best management practices. Since several of these sites have only been monitored for four years (#31-35), ongoing analysis will help to clarify trends in water quality. Wash Creek at West Allen Street (#31) received an Average VWIN rating in 2013-14. The volunteer regularly reported that the water in this stream is clear but that there was trash in the area. New monitoring sites for the Town of Laurel Park inflow and outflow for the water treatment plant are in the Wash Creek subwatershed. These sites only had eight and seven samples respectively in 2014, but contaminant levels seem to be relatively low. King Creek (#32) earned an Average rating in 2013, but improved to Good in 2014 with better sediment and nutrient scores. The volunteer reported substantial sand deposition and sedimentation at this site. The Featherstone Creek subwatershed is partially forested and partially urbanized. Site #35 rose from Average in 2013 to Good in 2014. It contains three permitted dischargers but does not display concerning concentrations of nutrients or sediment. Byers Creek (#34) remained Below Average in both 2013 and 2014. This subwatershed has a mixture of forested, agricultural, and developed land with one permitted discharger. The volunteer reported construction upstream at Howard Gap Road from September of 2012 to September of 2013. King and Byers Creeks each had one of 36 samples that exceeded the state standard for lead. Featherstone exceeded the zinc standard once out of 36 samples. The Bat Fork subwatershed is affected by channelization, habitat loss, and cropland. It is impaired, with DEQ assigning Bat Fork a Poor rating for the fish community. Bat Fork (#15) went from Good in 2013 to Average in 2014 with both nutrient and sediment scores declining. One sample in February of 2013 had an extremely high conductivity reading of 977 µmhos/cm, which may have been from road salt during winter weather. The water quality of the Devil’s Fork subwatershed is affected by urban stormwater, agricultural runoff (cropland and orchard), and a wastewater treatment plant. The upstream VWIN site near Howard Gap (#33) had an Average rating in 2013-14, with one of the highest minimum and median nitrate values. The volunteer frequently noted lots of sediment, with signs of erosion and sedimentation under the bridge at this site. Downstream at Dana Road (#30) the chemical rating was Below Average in 2013 and Poor in 2014, with the worst nutrient score of all county sites. All parameters except pH and nitrates are higher at this downstream site. The volunteer commonly describes low flow and floating vegetation and trash due to a pipe or beam blocking water flow. Lower reaches of the stream are channelized and impaired for biological integrity due to a Poor benthos DEQ rating. Clear Creek is listed as impaired due to a Fair Fish rating and a Poor benthos rating. assigned by DEQ. Apple orchards, row crops, and urban runoff contribute pollutants to the stream. This creek also has four permitted dischargers along its length, including a wastewater treatment plant on Nix Road. Clear Creek is sampled upstream at Bearwallow Road (#20) and downstream at Nix Road (#5). Upstream, the chemical rating was Average in 2013-14, while the downstream site remained at Below Average. The medians of all parameters increased from upstream to downstream in Clear Creek. Both sites have earned Good-Fair to Poor biological SMIE ratings in 2013-

28

14. The volunteer at the upstream site noted bridge work being conducted during the summer of 2013. Downstream, the volunteer reported construction near the monitoring site on Howard Gap from September of 2013 to November of 2014, as well as a pump station breakdown in August of 2014. The Brittain Creek subwatershed is in an urban area with impervious surfaces, minimal shade, and some streambank erosion. Brittain Creek was Good in 2013, but lower nutrient scores brought it down to Average in 2014. In fact, turbidity and TSS earned “A” letter grades, indicating minimal sediment pollution. In February of 2014, this site exhibited very high ammonia (1.60 mg/L) and conductivity (488 µmhos/cm) readings. The volunteer noted that a snow plow had cleared the parking lot and created a large bank of snow next to the creek that was melting. This site’s spring biological rating was Poor in 2013 but Good in 2014 (although few individuals were collected), while the fall samples were Fair in both years. In April of 2014 a fish kill was caused by chlorinated cleaning water that was flushed into the creek from a nearby pool. Mud Creek itself is impaired for biological integrity, with a Fair benthos rating and a Poor fish rating by DEQ. Upper Mud Creek is influenced by channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, livestock access to streams, and agricultural practices for row crops like tomatoes. All Mud Creek sites, except the lowest one in the watershed, earned Average VWIN ratings in both 2013 and 2014. These sites include Berea Church Road (#21), Erkwood Road (#3), and 7th Avenue (#18). The lower site (#4) at North Rugby Road, closer to the confluence with the French Broad River, was Poor in both years. The Berea Church Road site is flanked by a tree farm and row crops. This site had the highest turbidity (700 NTU), TSS (1,474 mg/L), and orthophosphate (1.40 mg/L) values in Henderson County in December of 2013. The volunteer described "tons of sediment flowing into the creek from agricultural fields" during heavy rainfall on that occasion, and noted muddy or coffee-colored water during many other sampling events. This site had one of 12 samples exceed the state standard for copper, and two that exceeded the standards for lead and zinc. It had the second-highest copper and zinc values in the county from a sample collected in January of 2012. SMIE biomonitoring gave this site Good-Fair to Poor ratings from 2013-14. The next Mud Creek site at Erkwood Road was similar to the upstream site for most parameters except that it had a lower median pH. The volunteer for this location regularly noted heavy siltation and sedimentation on the streambed. For the December 2013 sample they described the stream as “pure mud.” Site #18 at 7th Avenue is located in downtown Hendersonville and receives substantial amounts of stormwater runoff. The volunteer reported filamentous algae on the rocks in the stream. Lead exceeded the state standard in one of 35 samples and copper exceeded the standard twice, with the site exhibiting the highest lead and copper values in the county. This site on Mud Creek received a Fair biological rating in both seasons of 2014. Downstream, Mud Creek is impacted by agricultural, golf course, and residential land use, in addition to runoff from the whole watershed. Three permitted dischargers also use Mud Creek as receiving waters, including the Hendersonville wastewater treatment plant near the confluence with Clear Creek. The lower Mud Creek site at North Rugby Road had much higher turbidity, TSS, alkalinity, conductivity, orthophosphate, ammonia, and nitrate medians than the upstream sites. It was the only

29

county site to earn a “D” letter grade for orthophosphate, and had one of the highest maximum nitrate values.

C. Mills River Watershed Drinking water for Hendersonville and part of Buncombe County is drawn from Mills River in northwestern Henderson County. The Hendersonville Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has intakes from the North Fork of Mills River and Bradley Creek in the Pisgah National Forest, as well as the mainstem of Mills River. The North and South Fork subwatersheds are mostly located on US Forest Service land, with agricultural land use increasing near their confluence. Data from monitoring sites on these streams are used to help calculate VWIN’s “Forested Average Medians” for chemical parameters due to their relatively pristine nature. The monitoring site on the North Fork (#7) had a Good VWIN rating in 2013 and an Excellent rating in 2014. The volunteer regularly reports clear water at this site. It had Excellent biomonitoring ratings in the spring samples of 2013-14, and Fair in the fall samples. The site on the South Fork (#8) earned Good VWIN ratings in both years. It had some of the lowest median values for all parameters (except pH), but some maximum values brought the overall scores down. The volunteer often notes “moss” (algae) on the stream rocks, and has twice mentioned a nearby farmer releasing animal waste into the stream. Nutrient levels continue to be very low however, and the samples have shown no evidence of contamination. The South Fork had Excellent biological ratings in the spring of 2013-14, but Good and Good-Fair rating in the fall samples. Both the North and South Forks show strong seasonal variation in the benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Turbidity has been higher for both sites in recent years. Agriculture more heavily influences the water quality of lower Mills River, with cattle and row crops prevalent. Downstream Mills River sites (#9 at Davenport Bridge and #10 at Hooper Lane) had Good ratings in both years. Land use near Mills River at Hoopers Lane includes fields of soybeans, sod, peppers, and corn. The volunteer regularly reported the presence of trash in and around the stream at this site. All four Mills River sites have medians near the forested average median for all parameters and the best nutrient scores in the county (along with the Green River downstream of Lake Summit). The biological ratings at the Hooper Lane site for all seasons of 2013-14 were Fair, which was much lower than the upstream sites in this watershed. Mills River supports populations of the endangered Appalachian Elktoe mussel. In 2014, DEQ listed this segment of the river as impaired for pH. Past exposures of excess pesticide and livestock waste runoff have impacted the biological communities. The Mills River Partnership is working to install agricultural best monitoring practices to mitigate water quality problems. The Hendersonville WTP is located on Brandy Branch (#29), which discharges into Mills River upstream of Hooper Lane. The rating at this monitoring site went from Poor in 2013 to Average in 2014. Brandy Branch had one of the highest median and maximum nitrate values of Henderson County sites. Medians of all parameters were higher on Brandy Branch than any of the Mills River sites. SMIE sampling was conducted in the

30

fall of 2014 for the first time and the site earned a Good biological rating. It was impaired for biological integrity due to a Fair benthos DEQ rating.

D. Cane Creek Watershed Cane Creek is a tributary to the French Broad River that originates in southeast Buncombe County and flows through north Henderson County. Pasture and agricultural land uses dominate this watershed. Two Cane Creek VWIN sites are monitored upstream in Buncombe County. Cane Creek at Hwy 74 in Fairview had an Average VWIN rating in 2014, while the site at Mills Gap Road rated Below Average. Lower Cane Creek at Howard Gap in Henderson County (#16) had a Below Average VWIN rating in 2013-14, the same as upstream at Mills Gap Road. Nearby land use includes a large town park, a golf course, and some agricultural fields. Two of 36 samples tested for metals exceeded the state standards for copper in December and May of 2013. Lower Cane Creek had a Fair biological rating in both seasons of 2013-14. Cane Creek is impaired, with a Poor benthos rating by DEQ. Hoopers Creek is a major tributary to Cane Creek in Henderson County. This watershed is largely forested, but is also affected by development and row crops. Site #22 on Hoopers Creek rated Below Average in 2013-14. While Hoopers Creek had a Good-Fair biological rating in the spring of 2014, it had Fair ratings for the three other samples in 2013-14.

E. Etowah/Horseshoe Area Several tributaries to the French Broad River are monitored in the Etowah/Horseshoe area. Big Willow Creek (#23) had an Average VWIN rating in both 2013 and 2014. Little Willow Creek's rating (#24) was also Average in 2013-14. Both Big Willow and Little Willow Creeks continue to have lower alkalinity, conductivity, ammonia, and nitrate medians than most of the other French Broad tributaries in this part of the county. Excessive sediment in Little Willow could be from a defunct development in this watershed. It received a Good and Excellent rating in the spring samples of 2013 and 2014 respectively, with Fair ratings in the fall samples. Gash Creek (#25) had Below Average VWIN ratings in both years, while Shaw Creek (#28) rated Average. Gash Creek has a mostly developed watershed and had the highest conductivity, alkalinity, orthophosphate, and ammonia medians in this area (except for Mill Pond Creek). The Shaw Creek watershed also has substantial development and one permitted discharger. It received a Good-Fair biological ratings in the spring samples of 2013-14, with Fair to Poor ratings in the fall samples. Boylston Creek rated Average in 2013 and Below Average in 2104. It lost trout stream designation by the state in 2011 and is characterized by urban development, row crops, and pastureland with minimal riparian vegetation. It was added to the 303(d) list by DEQ in 2014, with impairment due to a Fair benthos rating. Boylson Creek was the only site to earn a “D” letter grade for turbidity (in addition to TSS). The volunteer for this site has noted agricultural spraying and cows in the field next to the stream. It received Poor

31

biological rating for most samples in 2013-14, except in the spring of 2014 when it rated Fair, making it the worst scoring site in the county. Mill Pond Creek’s headwaters come from the closed Stoney Mountain Road Landfill Facility. There are also two permitted dischargers along its length and residential development. Site #27 is located near an agricultural field and earned Poor VWIN ratings in 2013-14. It has the lowest overall VWIN score in the county. The low sediment score was heavily influenced by the "D" conductivity score assigned since more than 10% of the samples (actually almost all of them) exceeded 100 µmhos/cm. The median conductivity at this site was more than twice the next highest median in the county. Mill Pond Creek also had the highest alkalinity median and maximum in Henderson County, and the highest nitrate median in the Etowah/ Horseshoe area. The volunteer regularly mentioned siltation and erosion at this site, including in March of 2013 when they noted a “chunk of bank broken off and in stream.” The biological ratings at this site were Good to Fair in 2013-14.

F. French Broad River The French Broad River originates in Transylvania County and flows through Henderson, Buncombe, and Madison counties in North Carolina before entering into Tennessee. Much of the headwaters are surrounded by national forest land. Throughout the French Broad River Basin, water quality is influenced by adjacent agricultural land, direct input from permitted dischargers, and nonpoint source pollution from the many tributaries. Segments within NC are listed as impaired for fecal coliform and a fair benthos rating by DEQ. There are eight VWIN monitoring sites on the river in Henderson, Buncombe, and Madison counties. The upstream French Broad River site in Henderson County at Horseshoe (#1) had Average VWIN ratings in 2013-14. Downstream at Butler Bridge Road (#2), the river's rating was also Average in both years. These sites had the highest turbidity and TSS medians in the county, which is expected for a larger river. Volunteers regularly mentioned that the water was turbid or muddy in appearance. Site #2 exceeded zinc regulatory limits once out of 36 samples, with the highest value in the county (346 μg/L). Table 4 shows the median levels of parameters at all VWIN sites on the French Broad River from 2012-14, including two sites in Henderson County, five sites in Buncombe County, and one site in Madison County. Madison County’s sample analysis was done mostly by students at Mars Hill College instead of EQI’s lab, and not all parameters were analyzed each month. Water quality in the French Broad River declined from Henderson to Buncombe County with a Below Average rating at Corcoran Park. Sites at Bent Creek and Jean Webb Park in Asheville's River District rose to Average. Downstream of Asheville, sites at Ledges and Walnut Island parks in Buncombe County and at Barnard Bridge in Madison County earned Poor ratings. Sediment slightly increased at the first site in Buncombe County at Corcoran Park, and again at Ledges Park downstream of Asheville. Conductivity and nitrates increased gradually in the river

32

from upstream to downstream. Orthophosphate and ammonia spiked at the Ledges Park monitoring site, downstream of the Metropolitan Sewerage District. Table 4: Median levels of parameters analyzed at all VWIN sites on the French Broad River from 2012-14 Site # Location Turbidity TSS Conductivity Ortho-P Ammonia-N Nitrate-N

NTU mg/L umhos/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L

H1 Horseshoe 9.2 13.6 22.0 0.06 0.09 0.2H2 Mountain Home 7.4 13.6 27.0 0.10 0.09 0.2B13 Corcoran Park 8.2 14.2 32.5 0.12 0.09 0.3B12B Bent Creek 5.9 8.4 32.9 0.10 0.07 0.3B23 Jean Webb Park 7.2 9.4 48.7 0.09 0.08 0.3B6A Ledges Park 8.6 10.2 49.9 0.25 0.32 0.5B32 Walnut Island Park 8.1 9.0 51.5 0.23 0.21 0.5M2 Barnard Bridge 7.2 16.6 51.4 0.20 0.20 0.5

33

V. References Drought Management Advisory Council. (2015). Drought Monitor Archive. US Drought Monitor of North Carolina. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncdrought.org/archive/. NCDENR, DWQ Basinwide Planning Unit (BPU). 2011. French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. NCDENR, DWQ Basinwide Planning Unit (BPU). 2008. Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. NCDENR, Environmental Sciences Section (ESS). 2008. French Broad River Basinwide Assessment Report. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. NCDENR, DWQ. 2007. “Redbook”: Surface Waters and Wetland Standards, NC Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B .0200. Raleigh, NC. NCDEQ, DWR. 2014. Category 5 Water Quality Assessments-303(d) List. North

Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC. State Climate Office of North Carolina. (2015). NC CRONOS Database. NC State University. [Online]. Available: http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/cronos. Traylor, A.M. 2014. Nine Years of Volunteer Biomonitoring in Western North Carolina Streams. The Environmental Quality Institute Technical Report #2014-1. 59 pp. US Geological Survey. 2015. USGS Real-Time Water Data for North Carolina. National Water Information System: Web Interface. [Online]. Available: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/rt.

34

Appendix A: Chain of Custody form Volunteer Water Information Network

Henderson County

1) Sample Site Number .

2) Sample Site Name .

3) Collection Date Day .

4) Time Collected .

5) Temperature at drop-off site (in cooler) .

6) Volunteer's Name .

7) Volunteer's Phone# &/or Email: .

(please provide current mailing address if there has been a change)

8) Water Flow Rate (please circle one) Very High High Normal Low

9) Type of Rain in past 3 days (please circle one) Heavy Medium Light Dry

10) General Observations (turbidity, waste matter, dead animals upstream, anything out of the

ordinary) .

.

.

Parameter Results (For Lab Use Only)

Parameter and Result Date of Analysis

NH3 mg/L .

NO3 mg/L .

Po mg/L .

Turb NTU .

TSS mg/L .

Cond µmhos/cm .

Alk mg/L .

pH .

35

Appendix B: Laboratory Analysis Samples are kept refrigerated until they are delivered to the EQI laboratory on the Monday morning following Saturday collections. Methods follow EPA or Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater-18th-20th Edition techniques and the EQI laboratory is certified by the State of North Carolina for water and wastewater analysis of orthophosphate, total phosphorus, ammonia-nitrogen, turbidity, total suspended solids, pH, conductivity, copper, lead, and zinc. All samples are kept refrigerated until the time of analysis. Shipped samples are sent on ice. Analysis for nitrogen, phosphorus, turbidity, and conductivity are completed within 48 hours of the collection time. As pH cannot be tested on site, the holding time for pH is exceeded. Samples are preserved by acidification when immediate analysis does not occur, such as for total phosphorus and heavy metals. Explanations about the procedures and instruments used in the EQI lab are quite technical in nature and will be omitted from this report. Detailed information is available on request. The reporting limits for each parameter have been provided for both EQI and ETS laboratories.

Approximate Analytical Reporting Limits (RL) for VWIN Water Quality Parameters

PARAMETER EQI RL ETS RL UNITS Ammonia Nitrogen 0.02 0.10 mg/L Nitrate/nitrite Nitrogen 0.1 0.1 mg/L Orthophosphate (as PO4

3-) 0.02 0.05 mg/L Alkalinity 1.0 1.0 mg/L Total Suspended Solids 4.0 8.2 mg/L Conductivity 10.0 14.9 µmhos/cm Turbidity 1.0 1.0 NTU Copper 2.0 10.0 μg/L Zinc 20.0 30.0 μg/L Lead 2.0 5.0 μg/L pH n/a n/a n/a

36

Appendix C: Biological Monitoring Data Sheet (Invertebrate Identification)

37

Appendix C: Biological Monitoring Data Sheet continued (Habitat Survey) Revised:(December(2012(

WATER&QUALITY&SURVEY&SHEET&(

County__________________(Date______________________(GPS&Coordinates_______________________&Weather&(last&24&hours)&_____________________________________________________&Sampling&Location&(Road&Name,&River/Stream&Name)(________________________________________________(Water&Quality&Volunteers&_________________________________________________________________(Time&Started:& ____________(((Time&Finished:&___________((Total&Hours:&___________(

!VWIN%and%SMIE!surveys!are!to!be!marked!for!the!site!only!with!the!most!common!choice!for!each!category.!!

Adopt0A0Stream!surveys!are!to!consider!the!full!length!of!the!waterway!observed!and!may!mark!more!than!one!choice.!( ( (

STREAM&CHARACTERISTICS&1.&&WATER&APPEARANCE%___(Clear(___(Oily((colored(sheen)(___(Tea=colored(but(clear(___(Muddy( ____Green(___(Foamy( ____(Milky(___(Black( ____(Grey(Other(_________________((2.&&STREAM&BOTTOM&(Check%most%common)%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%___(Gravel(or(cobblestone(___(Bedrock(or(boulders(___(Sand( (___(Clay(___(Algae(___(Woody(debris(&3.&RIFFLE&PRESENCE((___(None( ___(1(to(5(___(5(to(10( ___(Many(((4.&ALGAE&PRESENCE&___(None( ___(Spotty(___(Extensive((5.&ALGAE&COLOR/APPEARANCE&___(Light(green(___(Dark(green(___(Brown(coated(___(Matted(on(stream(bed(___(Hairy((6.&ODOR(___(None(((((((___(Rotten(eggs(___(Musky(((((___(Oil(___(Sewage(Other(________________(&7.&LEAF&PACKS%(for%SMIE%only)&___(None(found(___(Found(within(10(feet(or(less(___(Found(within(50(feet(___(Found(>(than(50(feet&

&RIPARIAN&ZONE(

8.&STREAMBANK&VEGETATION&___(Mostly(trees(and(shrubs(___(Grasses(and(vines(___(Eroding(stream(bank(___(Rip=rap(or(construction(fills(___(Exotic(plant(and(tree(species((___(Natural(rocks(or(boulders(Other(______________________((9.&LITTER&AND&TRASH((___(None(___(Only(in(water(___(Only(on(banks(___(In(water(and(on(banks(___(In(trees/brush(≤(1(ft.(above(((((((((water(surface(___(In(trees/brush(≥(1(ft(above((((((((water(surface((10.&RIFFLE&SAMPLING&EFFORT((___(Rocks(extremely(embedded(into(riffles*((___(Rocks(moderately(embedded(into(riffles^(___(Rocks(loose,(easy(to(move(&11.&STREAM&BANK&SHADE(___(None(___(Some,(but(very(little(___(Less(than(half(___(Half(or(more(___(Almost(Total(___(Full(shade((*(Very(difficult(or(impossible(to(disturb(because(sand(is(filling(the(spaces(between(rocks(^(Removed(with(effort(because(there(is(less(sand(in(spaces(

OTHER&OBSERVATIONS&12.&&FISH&PRESENCE&___(None(observed(___(1=10(((scattered(individuals((___(11=50(scattered(schools(___(51=100((((((((((((((((___(Minnows/small(fishes(___(Sunfish,(catfish,(or(sculpin((((((((((((((((((((((((___(Trout(or(bass&&13.&&BARRIERS&TO&FISH&MOVEMENT&___(None(___(Waterfall(s)(≥(1(ft.(___(Beaver(pond(or(lake((((((___(Culvert(or(pipe(___(Man=made(dam(Other(___________________(&14.&NEARBY&LAND&USE&(On%both%sides%of%streambanks)%___(Residential(___(Industrial(___(Agricultural(((((((((((((*Type!of!Ag.!_____________!___(Commercial(___(Open/green(space(___(Undeveloped(___(Parking(lot(s)(present(Other(________________________(&15.&NOTES&&&COMMENTS:&Indicate%current%and/or%potential%threats%to%stream%health,%possible%pollution%sources,%and%other%comments.%Also%note%any%other%wildlife%observed.&&&&&&&__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________(

TURN&OVER&TO&TAKE&MORE&NOTES&

38

Appendix D: Parameters and Ranges for Stream Quality Classifications pH -

Grade A= never less than 6.0 Grade B= below 6.0 in less than 10% of samples, never below 5.0 Grade C= never less than 5.0 Grade D= at least one sample was less 5.0.

Alkalinity -

Grade A= median greater than 30 mg/L (indicates little vulnerability to acidic inputs) Grade B= median 20-30 mg/L (indicates moderate vulnerability to acidic inputs) Grade C= median less than 20 mg/L (considered to be vulnerable to acidic inputs). Grade D= median less than 15 mg/L (very vulnerable to acidic inputs)

Turbidity -

Grade A= median less than 5 NTU and exceeded the standard for trout waters of 10 NTU in less than 10% of samples, but never exceeded 50 NTU Grade B= median less than 7.5 NTU and never exceeded the 50 NTU standard Grade C= median less than 10 NTU and exceeded 50 NTU in less than 10% of samples Grade D= median greater than 10 NTU or exceeded 50 NTU in more than 10% of

samples. Total Suspended Solids -

Grade A= median less than 5 mg/L and maximum less than 100 mg/L - not measurably disturbed by human activities

Grade B= median less than 7.5 mg/L and exceeded 100 mg/L in less than 10% of samples - low to moderate disturbance

Grade C= median less than 10 mg/L and exceeded 100 mg/L in less than 10% of samples - moderate to high disturbance.

Grade D= median greater than 10 mg/L or maximum exceeded 100 mg/L in more than 10% of samples - high level of land disturbance

Conductivity -

Grade A= median less than 30 µmhos/cm, never exceeded 100 µmhos/cm Grade B= median less than 50 µmhos/cm, exceeded 100 µmhos/cm in less than 10% of samples Grade C= median greater than 50 µmhos/cm, exceeded 100 µmhos/cm in less than 10% of samples Grade D= exceeded 100 µmhos/cm in more than 10% of samples.

Total Copper -

Grade A= never exceeded water quality standard of 7 μg/L Grade B= exceeded 7 μg/L in less than 10% of samples Grade C= exceeded 7 μg/L in 10 to 20% of samples Grade D= exceeded 7 μg/L in more than 20% of samples

39

Appendix D (continued) Total Lead -

Grade A= never exceeded water quality standard of 10 μg/L Grade B= exceeded 10 μg/L in less than 10% of samples Grade C= exceeded 10 μg/L in 10 to 20% of samples Grade D= exceeded 10 μg/L in more than 20% of samples

Total Zinc -

Grade A= median less than 5 μg/L, never exceeded water quality standard of 50 ppb Grade B= median less than 10 μg/L, exceeded 50 ppb in less than 10% of samples Grade C= median less than 10 μg/L, exceeded 50 ppb in 10 - 20% of samples. Grade D= Median greater than 10 μg/L or concentration exceeded 50 ppb in more than

20% of samples Total Phosphorous (as P)-

Grade A= median not above 0.03 mg/L Grade B= median greater than 0.03 mg/L but less than 0.07 mg/L. Grade C= median greater than 0.07 mg/L but less than 0.10 mg/L Grade D= median greater then 0.10 mg/L

Orthophosphate (as PO4

3-) - Grade A= median less than ambient level of 0.05 mg/L Grade B= median between 0.05 mg/L but less than 0.10 mg/L Grade C= median greater than 0.10 mg/L but less than 0.20 mg/L Grade D= median greater then 0.20 mg/L.

Ammonia Nitrogen -

Grade A= never exceeded 0.50 mg/L Grade B= never exceeded the proposed ambient standard for trout waters in the summer of 1 mg/L Grade C= exceeded 1 mg/L in less than 10% of samples, but never exceeded 2 mg/L Grade D= exceeded 1 mg/L in more than 10% of samples, or at least one sample had a

concentration greater than the proposed ambient standard for trout waters in the winter of 2.0 mg/L. Nitrate Nitrogen -

Grade A= median does not exceed 0.3 mg/L, no sample exceeded 1.0 mg/L Grade B= less than 10% of samples exceeded 1.0 mg/L, none exceeded 5 mg/L Grade C= no samples exceeded 5 mg/L Grade D= at least one sample exceeded 5 mg/L

40

Appendix E: 2014 Stream Ranking Index Excellent Median and maximum pollutant levels in all parameters show little effect from human disturbances Good One or more parameters show minor or only occasional increases in pollutant levels from

human disturbances Average Exhibits constant low levels of one or more pollutants or sudden significant, but short

term increases Below Ave Median pollutant levels are abnormally high in one or more parameters, or exhibits very

high pollutant levels during certain weather conditions Poor Pollutant levels are consistently higher than average in several parameters and/or show extreme levels during certain weather conditions B = Buncombe County H = Henderson County Y = Haywood County J = Jackson/Lake Glenville LJ = Lake James LL = Lake Lure M = Madison County

site site description Excellent1 B22 Ivy Creek at Dillingham Road 1002 H11 Green River at down L Summit 1003 J1 Hurricane Creek at Norton Rd bridge 1004 J5 Cedar Creek at Bee Tree Rd bridge 1005 Y33 Pigeon River above Canton 1006 B12A Bent Creek at SR 191 (at French Broad River) 967 H12 Green River at Terry's Ck Rd 968 J2 Norton Creek at N. Norton Rd bridge 969 J3 Mill Creek downstream from N. Norton br 9610 LL6 Pool Creek at Hwy 64/74/9 9611 B9A Bee Tree Creek above Owen Lake 9212 LL9 Buffalo Creek at Lake Lure 9213 Y27 Jonathan Creek in Maggie Valley 9214 B24 Swannanoa River at confluence with North Fork 9215 H7 North Fork Mills River 9216 Y13 Allens Creek 92

41

Appendix E: Stream Ranking Index - continued

site site description Good17 B10 Bull Creek at Swannanoa River 8818 B17A Swannanoa River at NC81 below S. Tunnel Rd 8819 B20 Ivy Creek at Buckner Branch Road 8820 B33 North Fork Swannanoa River at Grovestone Quarry 8821 B5B Reem's Creek at Ox Creek 8822 B9B Swannanoa River at Bee Tree Creek 8823 H10 Mills River at Hooper Lane 8824 H8 South Fork Mills River 8825 H9 Mills River at Hwy 191 8826 H13 Big Hungry River below dam 8827 H19 Green River at Old 25 8828 J4 Pine Creek at Pine Creek Rd bridge 8829 LJ5 Linville River at Hwy 126 8830 LL10 Fairfield Mountains Crk at Lake Lure 8831 B31 Swannanoa River at Grassy Branch Confluence 8332 B38 Swannanoa River at Bull Creek 8333 H32 King Creek/Airport Rd 8334 H35 Featherstone Creek at Howard Gap 8335 LJ3 North Fork of Catawba River at SR 1552 8336 LL8 Cane Creek 1/4 mile above Tryon Bay 8337 Y10 Richland Creek at West Waynesville 83

site site description Average38 B1A Big Ivy at Forks of Ivy 7939 B5A Ox Creek at Reem's Creek 7940 H3 Mud Creek at Erkwood Rd 7941 H18 Mud Creek at 7th Ave 7942 H21 Mud Creek at Berea Church Rd 7943 H24 Little Willow Creek 7944 LJ2 Catawba River at US-221A 7945 LL4 Rocky Broad River at Chimney Rock 7946 B49 Dingle Creek at Ramble Way 7947 B8 Beaverdam Creek at Beaver Lake 7948 LL15 Buffalo Creek at Bald Mt Lake 7949 LL2 Hickory Crk at Hwy 74 (Bat Cave) 7950 LL3 Broad River at Hwy 9 (Bat Cave) 7951 B15A Cane Creek at Hwy 74 7552 B23 French Broad River at Jean Webb Park 7553 B52 Buttermilk Creek 7554 B6B Reem's Creek at US 25/70 7555 H1 French Broad River at Banner Farm Rd 7556 H15 Bat Fork Creek at Tabor Rd 7557 H20 Clear Creek at Apple Valley Rd 7558 H23 Big Willow Creek at Patterson Rd 7559 H26 Brittain Creek at Patton Park 7560 H31 Wash Creek/West Allen St 75

42


61 J6 Glenville Creek at Tator Knob Rd 7562 LL1 Reedypatch Crk at Hwy 64 (Bat Cave) 7563 LL5 Rocky Broad River at Lake Lure 7564 LL7 Public Golf Course Crk at Hwy 64/74 7565 Y12 Jonathan Creek downstream 7566 Y9 Plott Creek 7567 B21 Paint Fork at Ivy Creek confluence in Barnardsville 7168 B26 North Turkey Creek at North Turkey Creek Rd. 7169 B55 Lower Reed Creek 7170 H29 Brandy Branch at Mills R Village 7171 H33 Howard Gap past Dana 7172 Y32 Beaverdam Crk at Long Branch Rd 7173 Y4 Pigeon River downstream of Canton 7174 B12B French Broad River at Bent Creek 7175 H2 French Broad River at Butler Br Rd 7176 H28 Shaw Creek at Hunters Glen 7177 Y11 Richland Creek at Lake Junaluska 7178 Y26 Crabtree Creek 71

site site description Below Average79 B15B Ashworth Creek at Cane Creek 6780 B16A Cane Creek at Mills Gap Rd. 6781 B2 Lower Sandymush Creek 6782 B30 Grassy Branch 6783 B47 Glenn Creek at entrance to UNCA 6784 B50 Dingle Creek at Overlook Rd. 6785 B53 Moore Branch 6786 B54 Town Branch (Nasty Branch) 6787 B7A Glenn Creek at UNC-A Botanical Gardens 6788 B7B Reed Creek at Reed Creek Confluence 6789 H5 Clear Creek at Nix Rd 6790 H25 Gash Creek at Etowah School Rd 6791 H34 Byers Creek at Howard Gap 6792 Y31 Beaverdam Crk dnstrm I-40 6793 B13 French Broad River at Corcoran Park 6794 B34 Lower Hominy Creek at SR 191 6795 B40 Ross Creek at Lower Chunn's Cove Rd bridge 6796 H16 Cane Creek at Howard Gap Rd 6797 H22 Hoopers Creek at Jackson Rd 6798 LJ13 North Fork/Catawba River at Old Linville Rd 6799 Y8 Eaglenest Creek 67100 B27 Flat Creek at US 19/23 63101 B41 Ross Creek at Tunnel Rd 63102 B42 Ross Creek at Upper Chunn's Cove 63103 B43 Ross Creek at Swannanoa River 63104 H14 Boylston Creek at Ladson Rd 63105 Y25 Raccoon Creek downstream 63106 Y7 Fines Creek downstream 63

43


site site description Poor107 M12 Grapevine Creek 59108 B17B Haw Creek at Swannanoa River 58109 B32 French Broad River at Walnut Island Park 58110 B35 Smith Mill Creek at Louisiana Blvd. 58111 B51 Input into pond at South Creek 58112 B6A French Broad River at Ledges Park 58113 H4 Mud Creek at N Rugby Rd 58114 H30 Devil's Fork at Dana Rd 58115 Y24 Raccoon Creek upstream 58116 Y6 Rush Fork at Crabtree 58117 B1B Little Ivy at Forks of Ivy 58118 Y19 Fines Creek upstream 58119 Y21 Hyatt Creek upstream 58120 M1 Ivy River at 25/70 58121 M14 Middle Fork Creek 55122 M4 East Fork of Bull Creek 55123 B25 South Turkey Creek 54124 B36 Newfound Creek at Dark Cove Road 54125 B39 South Creek at Beaver Lake 54126 B3B Sandymush at Willow Creek 54127 H27 Mill Pond Creek at S Rugby Rd 54128 Y14 Rush Fork upstream 54129 Y15 Fines Creek midstream 54130 Y20 Cove Creek 54131 Y23 Ratcliff Cove Branch 54132 Y5 Pigeon River at Hepco Bridge 54133 M15 Paint Fork Creek 54134 M11 Bull Creek 50135 M17 Gabriel's Creek 50136 M13 California Creek 46137 B4 Lower Newfound Creek 46138 Y22 Hyatt Creek downstream 46139 M2 French Broad River at Barnard Br 46140 B37 Newfound Creek at Leicester Hwy 42

44

Appendix F: Data Summary

site:n:low:median:high:RL: reporting limit

site n low median high n median site n low median high n median1 36 6.3 6.7 7.0 120 6.7 1 36 6.0 12.0 19.0 120 12.02 36 6.3 6.7 7.1 120 6.7 2 36 9.0 14.0 21.0 120 13.03 36 6.4 6.7 7.0 119 6.7 3 36 10.0 16.0 27.0 120 16.04 36 6.6 6.8 7.3 120 6.9 4 36 17.0 26.5 42.0 120 25.15 36 6.6 6.9 7.2 120 6.9 5 36 14.0 25.0 49.0 120 23.07 36 6.6 6.8 7.1 120 6.8 7 36 5.0 8.0 11.0 120 8.08 36 6.4 6.8 7.0 120 6.7 8 36 4.0 7.0 14.0 120 7.09 36 6.4 6.7 7.0 120 6.7 9 36 5.0 8.0 14.0 120 8.0

10 36 6.4 6.7 6.9 120 6.7 10 36 5.0 8.0 15.0 120 9.011 36 6.3 6.6 7.0 120 6.6 11 36 8.0 13.0 22.0 120 13.012 36 6.4 6.8 6.9 120 6.7 12 36 7.0 10.5 19.0 120 11.013 35 6.9 7.2 7.4 119 7.1 13 35 13.0 20.0 34.0 119 19.014 36 6.7 7.0 7.3 120 7.0 14 36 10.0 19.5 38.0 120 19.015 36 6.4 6.6 6.9 120 6.6 15 36 9.0 21.0 37.0 120 20.016 36 6.8 7.1 7.6 118 7.1 16 36 11.0 31.0 60.0 118 27.318 35 6.6 6.9 7.7 117 6.9 18 35 11.0 19.0 32.0 117 19.019 36 6.6 6.8 7.1 120 6.8 19 36 7.0 12.0 21.0 120 12.020 36 6.6 6.9 7.0 119 6.8 20 36 8.0 18.0 29.0 119 17.021 36 6.6 6.8 7.0 119 6.8 21 36 11.0 17.0 26.0 119 16.022 36 6.6 6.9 7.1 119 6.9 22 36 15.0 25.0 45.0 119 25.023 36 6.5 6.8 7.0 119 6.8 23 36 10.0 16.0 27.0 119 15.024 36 6.4 6.7 7.8 76 6.7 24 36 7.0 14.0 23.0 76 13.025 36 6.4 6.8 7.0 119 6.8 25 36 17.0 33.5 57.0 119 31.026 36 6.7 6.9 7.2 119 6.9 26 36 18.0 32.0 46.0 119 27.027 36 6.8 7.1 7.4 118 7.1 27 36 15.0 40.5 66.0 118 36.528 36 6.6 7.0 7.2 118 7.0 28 36 14.0 26.0 44.0 118 25.029 36 6.5 6.9 7.2 119 6.9 29 36 11.0 18.0 35.0 119 15.030 36 6.6 6.8 7.3 119 6.8 30 36 19.0 32.5 51.0 119 30.031 36 6.7 7.1 7.2 48 7.1 31 36 19.0 33.5 53.0 48 32.032 36 6.6 6.9 7.1 48 6.9 32 36 12.0 22.0 35.0 48 21.533 36 6.7 7.0 7.4 48 7.0 33 36 17.2 30.5 51.0 48 30.034 36 6.8 7.1 7.4 48 7.1 34 36 18.0 33.0 59.0 48 33.035 36 6.7 7.0 7.1 48 7.0 35 36 14.0 22.0 38.0 48 22.036 8 6.9 7.0 7.3 8 7.0 36 8 12.0 16.0 20.0 8 16.037 7 6.8 7.0 7.2 7 7.0 37 7 18.0 21.0 28.0 7 21.0

the number assigned to the VWIN sitethe number of samples collected for each parameterminimum value of any sample(s)median value for each site for last 3 years and then for all years monitoredmaximum value of any sample(s)

Last 10 YearspH - Last 3 Years Last 10 Years Alkalinity (mg/L) - Last 3 Years, RL 1 mg/L

45

Appendix F: Data Summary – continued

site n low median high n median site n low median high n median1 36 1.4 9.2 35.0 120 7.6 1 36 <4 13.6 57.2 120 8.82 36 1.9 7.4 88.0 120 7.1 2 36 <4 13.6 147.6 120 8.83 36 1.3 5.5 330.0 120 5.5 3 36 <4 6.2 615.7 120 5.44 36 1.6 8.1 160.0 120 7.7 4 36 <4 9.2 167.5 120 7.85 36 1.5 5.8 85.0 120 5.1 5 36 <4 5.2 130.4 120 4.17 36 <1 2.0 260.0 120 2.2 7 36 <4 3.0 74.4 120 2.48 36 <1 1.8 67.0 120 2.2 8 36 <4 2.2 115.2 120 2.09 36 <1 2.2 140.0 120 2.8 9 36 <4 3.2 216.4 120 2.810 36 <1 2.7 110.0 120 2.9 10 36 <4 4.2 249.6 120 3.211 36 1.4 3.4 12.0 120 3.2 11 36 <4 2.4 12.4 120 2.212 36 <1 2.8 35.0 120 3.0 12 36 <4 3.0 55.6 120 2.413 35 <1 3.6 28.0 119 3.5 13 35 <4 4.4 91.2 119 3.614 36 2.3 7.6 190.0 120 6.5 14 36 <4 13.2 958.0 120 7.215 36 1.3 3.6 20.0 120 4.8 15 36 <4 2.4 18.0 120 2.816 36 1.0 5.6 160.0 118 5.4 16 36 <4 7.8 254.0 118 4.118 35 1.6 6.1 260.0 117 6.3 18 35 <4 6.4 356.8 117 6.419 36 1.0 3.1 90.0 120 3.6 19 36 <4 3.6 34.0 120 3.420 36 1.0 3.3 160.0 119 4.1 20 36 <4 3.8 200.8 119 4.121 36 1.9 5.1 700.0 119 4.7 21 36 <4 7.2 1473.5 119 5.622 36 1.5 4.5 180.0 119 4.7 22 36 <4 7.6 263.6 119 4.823 36 <1 3.0 140.0 119 4.1 23 36 <4 4.2 238.8 119 4.424 36 1.1 4.8 180.0 76 4.7 24 36 <4 9.0 271.1 76 8.025 36 2.8 5.5 100.0 119 7.9 25 36 <4 4.2 159.6 119 4.126 36 <1 1.9 13.0 119 2.8 26 36 <4 1.6 13.6 119 2.027 36 <1 3.7 340.0 118 4.4 27 36 <4 10.4 467.9 118 4.128 36 <1 2.6 65.0 118 2.9 28 36 <4 4.0 126.4 118 3.229 36 1.0 4.4 40.0 119 4.1 29 36 <4 6.0 25.6 119 4.430 36 1.8 4.3 75.0 119 6.0 30 36 <4 3.4 232.7 119 4.031 36 1.0 2.8 45.0 48 2.7 31 36 <4 3.0 77.6 48 2.432 36 1.2 3.1 32.0 48 2.9 32 36 <4 2.2 58.4 48 2.033 36 1.0 4.1 29.0 48 3.9 33 36 <4 2.8 47.6 48 2.434 36 <1 3.0 70.0 48 2.5 34 36 <4 3.0 184.0 48 1.835 36 1.0 3.2 70.0 48 2.9 35 36 <4 3.2 55.6 48 2.436 8 <1 4.4 6.4 8 4.4 36 8 <4 6.4 7.2 8 6.437 7 1.5 3.8 18.0 7 3.8 37 7 <4 2.0 27.6 7 2.0

Last 10 YearsTurbidity (NTU) - Last 3 Years, RL 1 NTU TSS (mg/L) - Last 3 Years, RL 4 mg/L Last 10 Years

46


site sample # low median high sample # median site n low median high sample # median1 36 17.0 22.0 27.8 120 25.5 1 36 0.02 0.06 0.18 120 0.062 36 21.6 27.0 41.4 120 30.0 2 36 0.02 0.10 0.20 120 0.093 36 26.5 34.4 46.5 120 37.7 3 36 0.02 0.08 0.64 120 0.044 36 52.2 65.1 167.7 120 70.9 4 36 0.09 0.24 0.78 120 0.285 36 43.1 54.7 68.1 120 57.9 5 36 0.02 0.10 0.20 120 0.087 36 10.9 13.3 18.2 120 14.8 7 36 <0.02 0.03 0.34 120 0.038 36 <10 11.3 14.0 120 13.0 8 36 <0.02 0.04 0.29 120 0.039 36 11.8 14.2 17.8 120 15.2 9 36 <0.02 0.04 0.28 120 0.03

10 36 13.1 15.5 20.4 120 16.9 10 36 <0.02 0.05 0.14 120 0.0311 36 18.8 24.2 56.8 120 27.4 11 36 <0.02 0.05 0.17 120 0.0312 36 15.6 19.8 24.6 120 21.6 12 36 <0.02 0.06 0.19 120 0.0313 35 30.3 41.6 49.7 119 44.7 13 35 <0.02 0.06 0.19 119 0.0514 36 29.6 37.9 45.7 120 41.2 14 36 0.03 0.06 0.41 120 0.0515 36 20.6 57.7 977.0 120 64.9 15 36 <0.02 0.06 0.16 120 0.0516 36 51.8 62.1 116.4 118 64.7 16 36 0.02 0.10 0.39 118 0.0718 35 32.0 44.4 68.0 117 47.9 18 35 <0.02 0.07 0.36 117 0.0519 36 17.1 22.1 27.4 120 24.1 19 36 <0.02 0.07 0.17 120 0.0420 36 29.7 37.7 45.7 119 40.0 20 36 0.03 0.09 0.25 119 0.0721 36 27.0 35.9 46.6 119 39.3 21 36 0.04 0.09 1.40 119 0.0622 36 39.6 51.9 72.6 119 56.0 22 36 0.04 0.10 0.50 119 0.0823 36 24.6 30.7 37.5 119 32.6 23 36 0.03 0.11 0.31 119 0.0624 36 18.7 24.9 28.6 76 25.8 24 36 0.02 0.07 0.19 76 0.0725 36 56.3 67.0 86.2 119 73.7 25 36 0.04 0.13 0.48 119 0.1526 36 51.9 73.7 488.0 119 76.0 26 36 0.03 0.09 0.34 119 0.0627 36 65.4 182.6 246.4 118 196.5 27 36 0.02 0.14 0.31 118 0.1128 36 44.8 60.0 70.2 118 62.9 28 36 <0.02 0.07 0.27 118 0.0629 36 43.6 60.2 165.2 119 60.2 29 36 0.03 0.07 0.28 119 0.0630 36 65.6 81.5 117.5 119 83.1 30 36 0.02 0.11 0.38 119 0.0831 36 38.1 79.9 188.5 48 80.3 31 36 0.05 0.11 0.23 48 0.1132 36 41.1 51.9 98.9 48 54.9 32 36 <0.02 0.05 0.13 48 0.0533 36 58.8 74.0 84.9 48 75.4 33 36 0.03 0.10 0.27 48 0.1034 36 53.4 68.6 138.6 48 71.1 34 36 0.06 0.11 0.23 48 0.1135 36 36.8 49.2 63.2 48 51.2 35 36 <0.02 0.10 0.20 48 0.1036 8 55.0 60.1 67.8 8 60.1 36 8 <0.02 0.07 0.14 8 0.0737 7 53.3 59.8 70.5 7 59.8 37 7 <0.02 0.02 0.06 7 0.02

Last 10 YearsOrthophosphate (mg/L) - Last 3 Years, RL 0.02 mg/LConductivity (umhos/cm) - Last 3 Years, RL 10 umhos/cm Last 10 Years

47


site n low median high n median site n low median high n median1 36 0.05 0.09 0.21 120 0.11 1 36 <0.1 0.2 0.3 120 0.22 36 0.05 0.09 0.35 120 0.10 2 36 0.1 0.2 0.4 120 0.33 36 0.04 0.09 0.24 120 0.09 3 36 0.1 0.3 0.5 120 0.44 36 0.07 0.14 0.25 120 0.14 4 36 0.2 0.7 1.6 120 0.95 36 0.04 0.08 0.17 120 0.09 5 36 0.4 0.7 1.0 120 0.87 36 <0.02 0.04 0.12 120 0.04 7 36 <0.1 0.1 0.3 120 0.18 36 <0.02 0.04 0.19 120 0.05 8 36 <0.1 0.1 0.2 120 0.19 36 0.02 0.04 0.16 120 0.05 9 36 <0.1 0.1 0.3 120 0.110 36 0.02 0.04 0.15 120 0.05 10 36 0.1 0.2 0.3 120 0.211 36 0.04 0.08 0.30 120 0.08 11 36 <0.1 0.1 0.8 120 0.212 36 0.02 0.04 0.15 120 0.05 12 36 0.1 0.2 0.3 120 0.213 35 0.02 0.05 0.14 119 0.05 13 35 0.3 0.4 0.7 119 0.514 36 0.05 0.08 0.47 120 0.08 14 36 <0.1 0.4 0.6 120 0.515 36 0.06 0.10 0.49 120 0.10 15 36 <0.1 0.8 1.3 120 1.016 36 0.04 0.07 0.20 118 0.08 16 36 0.1 0.4 0.6 118 0.418 35 0.05 0.10 0.22 117 0.11 18 35 0.2 0.3 0.6 117 0.419 36 0.02 0.04 0.14 120 0.05 19 36 <0.1 0.2 0.3 120 0.220 36 0.03 0.06 0.19 119 0.06 20 36 0.3 0.5 0.8 119 0.621 36 0.03 0.08 0.30 119 0.07 21 36 0.1 0.3 0.5 119 0.422 36 0.04 0.08 0.24 119 0.08 22 36 <0.1 0.4 0.5 119 0.423 36 0.03 0.06 0.14 119 0.06 23 36 <0.1 0.3 0.4 119 0.324 36 0.03 0.06 0.14 76 0.06 24 36 <0.1 0.2 0.7 76 0.225 36 0.08 0.14 0.36 119 0.17 25 36 0.2 0.4 0.7 119 0.526 36 0.03 0.06 1.60 119 0.06 26 36 0.2 0.6 0.9 119 0.727 36 0.03 0.10 0.22 118 0.10 27 36 0.3 0.7 1.2 118 0.828 36 0.03 0.05 0.19 118 0.05 28 36 0.3 0.5 0.7 118 0.529 36 0.03 0.07 0.25 119 0.07 29 36 0.2 1.0 1.6 119 1.030 36 0.06 0.14 0.55 119 0.14 30 36 0.1 0.9 1.2 119 0.931 36 0.03 0.06 0.24 48 0.06 31 36 0.3 0.6 1.1 48 0.632 36 0.07 0.12 0.24 48 0.11 32 36 0.2 0.4 0.6 48 0.433 36 0.04 0.08 0.18 48 0.08 33 36 0.6 1.0 1.3 48 1.034 36 0.03 0.06 0.15 48 0.05 34 36 0.2 0.4 0.6 48 0.435 36 0.04 0.08 0.20 48 0.08 35 36 <0.1 0.3 0.5 48 0.436 8 <0.02 0.04 0.07 8 0.04 36 8 0.5 0.7 0.9 8 0.737 7 0.06 0.11 0.17 7 0.11 37 7 <0.1 0.1 0.6 7 0.1

Last 10 YearsAmmonia-nitrogen (mg/L) - Last 3 Years, RL 0.02 mg/L Last 10 Years Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen (mg/L) - Last 3 Years, RL 0.1 mg/L

48


site n low median high n median site n low median high n median1 36 <2 0.5 2.5 139 0.7 1 36 <20 5.2 36.8 139 4.62 36 <2 0.9 2.9 143 0.9 2 36 <20 7.0 346.5 144 5.63 12 <2 0.4 <2 104 0.4 3 12 <20 3.1 <20 104 2.14 12 <2 1.1 2.5 104 0.9 4 12 <20 10.3 26.0 104 7.35 12 <2 0.6 8.9 102 0.6 5 12 <20 4.5 <20 102 4.67 3 <2 0.0 <2 89 0.2 7 3 <20 3.5 <20 89 0.98 3 <2 0.1 <2 89 0.1 8 3 <20 0.0 <20 89 0.19 3 <2 0.0 <2 89 0.2 9 3 <20 2.4 <20 89 0.110 3 <2 0.3 <2 89 0.3 10 3 <20 3.8 <20 89 2.011 3 <2 0.0 <2 86 0.1 11 3 <20 0.9 <20 86 0.412 3 <2 0.1 <2 88 0.2 12 3 <20 4.7 31.4 88 2.013 3 <2 0.4 <2 88 0.3 13 3 <20 2.2 <20 88 1.314 3 <2 1.2 3.4 89 0.4 14 3 <20 7.1 <20 89 2.315 6 <2 0.0 <2 91 0.3 15 6 <20 2.9 <20 91 4.216 36 <2 0.5 5.0 141 0.5 16 36 <20 6.1 41.9 141 4.118 35 <2 0.6 14.5 138 0.6 18 35 <20 5.0 46.8 138 4.919 12 <2 0.7 <2 102 0.4 19 12 <20 6.2 <20 102 2.720 6 <2 0.4 <2 89 0.5 20 6 <20 2.5 <20 89 3.521 12 <2 0.2 11.1 101 0.4 21 12 <20 3.8 68.2 101 2.422 3 <2 0.3 <2 88 0.6 22 3 <20 2.0 <20 88 3.323 12 <2 0.7 2.6 98 0.4 23 12 <20 6.4 <20 98 2.624 12 <2 0.9 6.4 56 0.6 24 12 <20 4.7 <20 56 2.825 36 <2 0.6 9.0 143 0.6 25 36 <20 10.0 33.8 143 9.026 19 <2 0.0 <2 108 0.2 26 19 <20 5.0 <20 108 4.727 12 <2 0.8 5.1 102 0.3 27 12 <20 9.2 45.4 102 5.128 3 <2 0.1 <2 87 0.2 28 3 <20 6.0 <20 87 2.129 12 <2 0.2 <2 103 1.6 29 12 <20 8.8 24.9 103 4.030 12 <2 0.4 <2 103 0.8 30 12 <20 6.9 23.6 103 6.531 36 <2 0.4 5.2 49 0.4 31 36 <20 8.1 40.1 49 7.332 36 <2 0.4 12.6 48 0.4 32 36 <20 5.7 34.1 48 4.633 36 <2 0.2 <2 48 0.2 33 36 <20 4.9 20.3 48 3.034 36 <2 0.0 11.1 48 0.0 34 36 <20 3.6 <20 48 3.035 36 <2 0.2 5.4 48 0.1 35 36 <20 6.50 53.30 48 4.5536 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 36 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a37 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 37 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Lead (ug/L) - Last 3 Years, RL 2 ug/L Last 10 Years Zinc (ug/L) - Last 3 Years, RL 20 ug/L Last 10 Years

49


site sample # low median high sample # median1 36 <2 0.9 2.5 139 1.02 36 <2 2.0 4.9 144 1.73 12 <2 0.8 5.4 104 0.84 12 <2 2.2 3.0 104 1.65 12 <2 1.1 2.1 102 0.87 3 <2 0.7 <2 89 0.48 3 <2 0.4 3.5 89 0.39 3 <2 0.8 <2 89 0.2

10 3 <2 1.0 <2 89 0.511 3 <2 0.5 <2 86 0.412 3 <2 0.4 <2 88 0.213 3 <2 0.8 <2 88 0.514 3 <2 0.6 4.9 89 0.515 6 <2 0.6 2.2 91 0.716 36 <2 1.5 8.4 141 1.018 35 <2 1.7 25.4 138 1.319 12 <2 0.6 <2 102 0.420 6 <2 0.4 <2 89 0.621 12 <2 0.6 15.5 101 0.422 3 <2 1.2 2.3 88 0.923 12 <2 1.3 2.9 98 0.424 12 <2 0.9 <2 56 0.825 36 <2 1.5 5.4 143 1.026 19 <2 0.6 2.6 108 0.727 12 <2 1.1 4.7 102 0.728 3 <2 1.2 <2 87 0.329 12 <2 1.3 2.3 103 0.630 12 <2 1.9 3.0 103 0.231 36 <2 1.1 4.9 49 0.932 36 <2 1.2 4.7 48 1.033 36 <2 0.7 3.8 48 0.534 36 <2 0.3 <2 48 0.235 36 <2 0.7 5.4 48 0.636 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a37 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Copper (ug/L) - Last 3 Years, RL 2 ug/L Last 10 Years

50

Appendix G: Trends for Each Site Related to Flow

site # site name

pHA

lkal

inity

Turb

idity

TSS

Con

duct

ivity

Ort

ho-p

hos

Am

mon

ia-N

Nitr

ate-

N

pHA

lkal

inity

Turb

idity

TSS

Con

duct

ivity

Ort

ho-p

hos

Am

mon

ia-N

Nitr

ate-

N

Green/Broad River watershed12 Green River upstream X X X X X X X19 Green River above L Summit X X X X X11 Green River below L Summit X X X13 Big Hungry River X X X X X

Mud Creek watershed21 Mud Creek at Berea Ch Rd X X X X X3 Mud Creek at Erkwood Road X X X X X X

18 Mud Creek at 7th Ave X X X X X X15 Bat Fork Creek X X X30 Devil's Fork X X X X X X26 Brittain Creek X X X20 Clear Creek upstream X X X X X X5 Clear Creak downstream X X X X X X4 Mud Creek at N Rugby Rd X X X X X X X X

Mills River watershed7 North Fork Mills River X X X X8 South Fork Mills River X X X X X9 Mills River at 191/280 X X X X X X

29 Brandy Branch X X X X X X10 Mills River at Hooper Ln X X X X X X

Cane Creek watershed22 Hooper's Creek X X X X X X16 Cane Creek at Howard Gap Rd X X X X X X X

Etowah/Horseshoe23 Big Willow Creek X X X24 Little Willow Creek X X X X X25 Gash Creek X X X X X X X28 Shaw Creek X X X X X X27 Mill Pond Creek X X X X X X X14 Boylston Creek X X X X X X

French Broad River1 French Broad River at Horseshoe X X X X X X X2 French Broad River at Mtn Home X X X X X X

increases as flow increases decreases as flow increases

51

Appendix H: Trends for Each Site Related to Time

site # site name

pHA

lkal

inity

Turb

idity

TSS

Con

duct

ivity

Ort

ho-p

hos

Am

mon

ia-N

Nitr

ate-

N

pHA

lkal

inity

Turb

idity

TSS

Con

duct

ivity

Ort

ho-p

hos

Am

mon

ia-N

Nitr

ate-

N

Green/Broad River watershed12 Green River upstream X X X X19 Green River above L Summit X X X X11 Green River below L Summit X X13 Big Hungry River X X

Mud Creek watershed21 Mud Creek at Berea Ch Rd X X X X X3 Mud Creek at Erkwood Road X X X X X X

18 Mud Creek at 7th Ave X X X X X15 Bat Fork Creek X X X X30 Devil's Fork X X X X26 Brittain Creek X X X X20 Clear Creek upstream X X X X X5 Clear Creak downstream X X X4 Mud Creek at N Rugby Rd X X X X

Mills River watershed7 North Fork Mills River X X X X X8 South Fork Mills River X X X X9 Mills River at 191/280 X X X X

29 Brandy Branch X X X10 Mills River at Hooper Ln X X X X X X

Cane Creek watershed22 Hooper's Creek X X X X16 Cane Creek at Howard Gap Rd X X X

Etowah/Horseshoe23 Big Willow Creek X X X X X24 Little Willow Creek X X25 Gash Creek X X X X28 Shaw Creek X X X X27 Mill Pond Creek X X X14 Boylston Creek X X X

French Broad River1 French Broad River at Horseshoe X X X X X2 French Broad River atMtn Home X X X X

increasing over time decreasing over time

52

Appendix I: Number of Sites Exhibiting Seasonal Trends Totals for Henderson County Sitesnumber of sites examined for trends = 28

high high high high low low low low % sitesparameter winter spring summer fall winter spring summer fall trend sites showing trend

pH 5 3 7 1 8 28.6%

alkalinity 8 13 20 1 21 75.0%

turbidity 1 22 8 15 23 82.1%

total susp sol 1 20 10 11 21 75.0%

conductivity 1 24 4 20 1 25 89.3%

orthophos. 6 3 3 6 21.4%

ammonia-N 1 13 5 16 1 1 1 19 67.9%

nitrate-N 9 1 1 3 4 4 11 39.3%

53

Appendix J. SMIE scores from 2013 and 2014

Site Season Taxa RichnessTotal Number

CollectedNumber of EPT Taxa

SMIE BI Score SMIE Rating

Uncle's Creek Spring 2013 19 120 9 3.00 ExcellentFall 2013 15 115 8 2.35 Excellent

Spring 2014 16 205 10 3.34 GoodFall 2014 13 101 7 2.74 Excellent

Green River at Bobs Creek Road Spring 2013 17 295 11 2.72 ExcellentFall 2013 18 184 12 2.71 Excellent

Spring 2014 18 193 9 3.10 GoodFall 2014 19 334 10 4.05 Good-Fair

Rock Creek Spring 2013 19 321 12 2.92 ExcellentFall 2013 18 92 8 3.64 Good-Fair

Spring 2014 12 290 8 2.82 ExcellentFall 2014 17 301 8 3.12 Good

Green River at Terry's Creek Road Spring 2013 17 127 11 3.64 Good-FairFall 2013 16 126 8 4.34 Fair

Spring 2014 17 103 10 3.47 GoodFall 2014 14 71 7 4.27 Fair

Big Hungry River upstream Spring 2013 16 146 10 3.45 GoodFall 2013 14 118 9 3.00 Excellent

Spring 2014 19 254 13 2.66 ExcellentFall 2014 16 69 10 3.58 Good-Fair

Big Hungry River downstream Spring 2013 20 229 11 3.07 ExcellentFall 2013 16 70 11 2.56 Excellent


Little Willow Spring 2013 5 55 4 3.30 GoodFall 2013 12 84 8 4.17 Fair

Spring 2014 15 216 10 2.91 ExcellentFall 2014 13 114 7 5.10 Fair

Shaw Creek Spring 2013 10 82 7 3.95 Good-FairFall 2013 15 74 10 5.20 Fair

Spring 2014 18 284 9 4.00 Good-FairFall 2014 17 125 7 5.60 Poor

Mill Pond Creek Spring 2013 12 139 5 5.13 FairFall 2013 9 149 5 3.31 Good

Spring 2014 9 126 5 4.83 FairFall 2014 10 128 4 3.97 Good-Fair

Boylston Creek Spring 2013 8 28 2 5.96 PoorFall 2013 11 32 5 5.34 Poor

Spring 2014 9 46 6 4.55 FairFall 2014 5 10 3 5.54 Poor

North Fork Mills River Spring 2013 16 105 11 2.58 ExcellentFall 2013 9 241 5 5.00 Fair

Spring 2014 15 197 10 2.92 ExcellentFall 2014 15 178 7 4.77 Fair

South Fork Mills River Spring 2013 14 98 9 2.00 ExcellentFall 2013 11 32 5 3.41 Good

Spring 2014 13 154 8 2.71 ExcellentFall 2014 19 180 10 3.88 Good-Fair

Brandy Branch Spring 2014 not sampledFall 2014 12 214 6 3.41 Good

Mills River at Hooper's Lane Spring 2013 17 141 8 4.12 FairFall 2013 12 138 6 5.05 Fair

Spring 2014 13 504 6 4.14 FairFall 2014 11 310 6 4.44 Fair

54

Appendix J. SMIE scores from 2013 and 2014 - continued

Site Season Taxa RichnessTotal Number

CollectedNumber of EPT Taxa

SMIE BI Score SMIE Rating

Mud Creek at Berea Church Road Spring 2013 10 123 6 4.26 FairFall 2013 10 165 5 5.98 Poor

Spring 2014 8 139 5 4.00 Good-FairFall 2014 6 81 2 4.94 Fair

Mud Creek at 7th Avenue Spring 2013 13 114 7 3.94 Good-FairFall 2013 9 84 4 5.13 Fair


Brittain Creek Spring 2013 9 65 2 5.40 PoorFall 2013 9 167 2 5.09 Fair


Clear Creek at Bearwallow Road Spring 2013 13 414 7 3.69 Good-FairFall 2013 9 74 4 5.88 Poor


Clear Creek at Nix Road Spring 2013 14 136 6 4.03 Good-FairFall 2013 8 201 3 5.47 Poor


Hooper's Creek Spring 2013 14 170 8 4.18 FairFall 2013 13 163 8 5.17 Fair


Cane Creek at Howard Gap Spring 2013 8 42 5 4.62 FairFall 2013 7 41 4 4.92 Fair


water quality in henderson county volunteer water ... · water quality in henderson county...

Documents