Volunteer Water Information Network, 2012 Report

Water Quality in the Mountains:

Henderson County Volunteer Water

Information Network Year Nineteen

Report

Year 2012

Technical Report No. 2013-3

Published November 2013

Ann Marie Traylor

This page left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ 1

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2

Location of Henderson Co. VWIN sites .......................................................................... 4

Map of Henderson County VWIN Monitoring Sites ...................................................... 5

II. Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 6

III. Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................... 7

Classification Grades Based on Parameters and Ranges ........................................ 9

A. Acidity (pH) and Alkalinity ............................................................................................... 11

B. Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ............................................................. 13

C. Conductivity and Heavy Metals ...................................................................................... 13

D. Nutrients ............................................................................................................................... 17

E. Biological Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 20

IV. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 21

A. Green River Watershed .................................................................................................... 21

B. Mud Creek Watershed ...................................................................................................... 22

C. Mills River Watershed ....................................................................................................... 25

D. Cane Creek Watershed ..................................................................................................... 26

E. Etowah/Horseshoe Area................................................................................................... 27

F. French Broad River ............................................................................................................ 27

V. References ............................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix A: Chain of Custody form ...................................................................................... 30

Appendix B: Laboratory Analysis ........................................................................................... 31

Appendix C: Biological Monitoring Data Sheet .................................................................. 32

Appendix D: Parameters and Ranges for Stream Quality Classifications .................. 34

Appendix E: Stream Ranking Index ....................................................................................... 36

Appendix F: Data Summary ..................................................................................................... 41

Appendix G: Trends for Each Site Related to Flow ........................................................... 47

Appendix H: Trends for Each Site Related to Time ........................................................... 48

Appendix I: Number of Sites Exhibiting Seasonal Trends .............................................. 49

Appendix J: 2012 SMIE Scores ............................................................................................... 50

1

Acknowledgments We wish to thank the Henderson County Board of Commissioners, the Chuck

McGrady Family, private donors, The Patagonia Foundation, and the Town of Lake Lure 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 assessment of water quality in the French Broad River and Broad River watersheds. Every county in these watersheds should be clearly aware of the part they play in the overall water quality of the region.

Volunteers continue to be the key to the success of any VWIN program. Without volunteers, a water monitoring program would be prohibitively expensive. Volunteers who have been responsible for collecting samples monthly over the past year include Dick Black, Dave and Betty Bucher, Peter Colburn, Richard and Brenda Cross, Karen and Phil Cutright, Paula and Ron Bakule, Richard Freudenberger, Beth and Dave Harris, 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, John Avery, Rick Burt, Will Moyer, Kay Shurtleff, and Marilyn Westphal. All of the time and effort these volunteers put into this project are greatly appreciated. They are making an important contribution to the preservation of clean water in Henderson County. Special thanks also go to Michele Skeele who has graciously allowed the program to use her porch as a kit storage area, and to the county coordinators Jim and Sharon Spicer who have consistently ensured that all samples were collected each month. Thanks also to Mr. Pete’s Market VIII, and Van Wingerden International for providing cold storage space for water monitoring kits. The Environmental Quality Institute (EQI) would specifically like to thank the many college students who have performed laboratory analyses on VWIN samples over the years. John Lombardi and Steve Patch were instrumental in developing the statistical groundwork. Recognition also goes to Marilyn Westphal for writing previous iterations of the Henderson County VWIN reports, as well as to Isarna Pacher for updating the map. Much credit for the success of the VWIN program belongs to the many organizations, such as ECO, that support the water monitoring and work to protect streams, rivers, and forests of the region. ECO continues to be a driving force in the prevention of water quality degradation in Henderson County.

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 sample more than 200 sites per month throughout WNC. UNC-Asheville hosted the 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, and the partnership of the VWIN stakeholders, EQI reopened as a nonprofit laboratory in October of 2010.

The network currently tests approximately 150 stream and lake sites in 11 western North Carolina (WNC) counties. 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, Seven Lakes West Landowners Association, the Environmental and Conservation Organization, the Friends of Lake Glenville, the Lake James Environmental Association, the Town of Lake Santeetlah, and the Toe River Valley Watch. 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. 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

3

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. 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. 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.

Under the administration of ECO, this program has gathered over 19 years of water quality data. While EQI was closed from August 2009 through September 2010, ECO 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 2012 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

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, ECO also coordinates biological monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates at many of the same sites. The Stream Monitoring Information Exchange (SMIE) program 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 insects listed 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 ft

2 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 m) is used to collect macroinvertebrates in the riffle habitat.

7

Sampling consists of overturning stones (by feet or hands) for one minute, within a 15 ft

2 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 Izaak Walton League (IWL) rating, Virginia Save Our Streams (VASOS) multi-metric index and taxa richness metrics. A sample data sheet is provided in Appendix C. More details about sampling and analysis can be found in the 2012 SMIE Report (Traylor 2013).

III. Results and Discussion This discussion is based on 19 years of data gathered between August 1992 and

December 2012. With each additional year of continuous stream monitoring, trends in water quality become more evident, and a clearer picture of actual conditions existing in various streams and watersheds is available. Continuing water quality data collection over time provides updated information on changing conditions. 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 7.4 mg/L over the past three years, which is equivalent to 7.4 ppm. Thus if you filter one liter of water from Site #1 on average you will collect sediments that weigh 7.4 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 2010 through December 2012 (Table 2). Using only the

8

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 7 ppb water quality standard for copper was used to determine grades for the sites. A grade of "A" 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 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 entire period of the study. With this expanded information, changes in median values over time can be seen.

9

Table 2: Classification Grades Based on Parameters and Ranges

Site Description

pH

Alk

alin

ity

Turb

idity

TS

S

Conductivity

Ort

ho P

Am

monia

-N

Nitra

te/n

itrite

-N

1 French Broad River/Banner Farm Rd B D C B B B A A

2 French Broad River/Butler Br Rd B D C B A B A A

3 Mud Creek/Erkwood Rd B C C B B B A A

4 Mud Creek/N Rugby Rd B B C B C D A C

5 Clear Creek/Nix Rd B B C B C C A B

7 North Fork Mills River B D C B A A A A

8 South Fork Mills River B D C B A B A A

9 Mills River/Hwy 191 B D C B A A A A

10 Mills River/Hooper Lane B D C B A B A A

11 Green River/down L Summit B D A A A B A A

12 Green River/Terry's Ck Rd B D C B A B A A

13 Big Hungry River below dam B C C B B B A B

14 Boylston Creek/Ladson Rd B C C C B B A B

15 Bat Fork Creek/Tabor Rd B C A A C B A C

16 Cane Creek/Howard Gap Rd A B C B C B A B

18 Mud Creek/7th Ave B C B B B B A B

19 Green River/Old 25 B D C B A B A A

20 Clear Creek/Apple Valley Rd B C A A B B A B

21 Mud Creek/Berea Church Rd B C C B B B A B

22 Hoopers Creek/Jackson Rd B B C B C C A B

23 Big Willow Creek/Patterson Rd B D A A B C A A

24 Little Willow Creek B D C C A B A A

25 Gash Creek/Etowah School Rd B B C A C C A B

26 Brittain Creek/Patton Park B B A A C B A B

27 Mill Pond Creek/S Rugby Rd A A C B D C A B

28 Shaw Creek/Hunters Glen A B C B C B A B

29 Brandy Branch/Mills R Village A C C B C B C C

30 Devil's Fork/Dana Rd A B C B C C A C

31 Wash Creek/West Allen St A A A A C C A B

32 King Creek/Airport Rd A B C A C B A B

33 Devil's Fork/Howard Gap A B B A C C A C

34 Byers Creek at Howard Gap A A B B C C A B

35 Featherstone Creek at Howard Gap A B C A C C A B

* H31-35 have only been sampled for two years

10

The data from 184 sites throughout WNC in the VWIN program are used in this report to compare water quality from the stream sites in Henderson County with water quality from the mountain region in general. Some of 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. In the case of pH and alkalinity, however, the differences may be also related to elevation and rainfall because streams in lower elevation watersheds and those receiving less rainfall naturally exhibit higher pH and alkalinity. Most of the more pristine VWIN sites are currently located in the southern edge of the mountains and/or in relatively high elevation watersheds.

It should be noted that, 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), increases or decreases over time (i.e. temporal change), and changes of 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.

Trends related to flow are determined using flow measurements from nearby US Geological Survey gauging stations (USGS 2013). 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.

11

A. Acidity (pH) and Alkalinity: pH is used to measure acidity. The pH is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. If the value of the measurement is less than 7.0, the solution is acidic. If the value is greater than 7.0, the solution is alkaline (more commonly referred to as basic). The ambient water quality standard is between 6.0 and 9.0. Natural pH in area streams should be in the range of 6.5 - 7.2. Values below 6.5 may indicate the effects of acid rain or other acidic inputs, and values above 7.5 may be indicative of an industrial discharge.

Because organisms in aquatic environments have adapted to the pH conditions of natural waters, even small pH fluctuations can interfere with the reproduction of those organisms or can even kill them outright. The pH is an important water quality parameter because it has the potential to seriously affect aquatic ecosystems. It can also be a useful indicator of specific types of discharges.

Alkalinity is the measure of the acid neutralizing capacity of a water or soil. Waters with high alkalinity are considered protected (well buffered) against acidic inputs. Streams that are supplied with a buffer are able to absorb and neutralize hydrogen ions introduced by acidic sources such as acid rain, decomposing organic matter and industrial effluent. For example, water can leach calcium carbonate (a natural buffer) from limestone soils or bedrock and then move into a stream, providing that stream with a buffer. As a result, pH levels in the stream are held constant despite acidic inputs. 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. 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 25

th and 75

th 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.

12

Figure 2: pH levels at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average

median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely undisturbed areas

Figure 3: Alkalinity levels at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional average

median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely undisturbed areas

Green River Watershed

Mud Creek Watershed FBR

Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek

Mills River Watershed



Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


13

B. Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS): Turbidity is a measurement of the visual clarity of a water sample and indicates the presence of fine suspended particulate matter. The unit used to measure turbidity is NTU (nephelometric turbidity units), which measures the absorption and reflection of light when it is passed through a sample of water. Because particles can have a wide variety of sizes, shapes and densities, there is only an approximate relationship between the turbidity of a sample and the concentration (i.e. weight) of the particulate matter present. This is why there are separate tests for turbidity and suspended solids.

Turbidity is an important parameter for assessing the viability of a stream for trout propagation. Trout eggs can withstand only small amounts of silt before hatching success is greatly reduced. Fish that are dependent on sight for locating food are also at a great disadvantage when water clarity declines. For this reason, the standard for trout-designated waters is 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 0-75

th 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.

14

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



Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek




Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


15

Figure 5: Total suspended solids concentrations at each monitoring site compared to the

VWIN regional average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested

areas

Figure 5: Total suspended solids concentrations at each monitoring site, with values

higher than 40 NTU cropped to show ranges



Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek




Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek




Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


16

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 has a relatively high content in brake linings. 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.

17

Figure 6: Conductivity levels at each monitoring site compared to the VWIN regional

average median for WNC and to the median for sites in largely forested area

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.



Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


18

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 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.

Like phosphorus, nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen serves as an algal nutrient contributing to excessive stream and reservoir algal growth. In addition, nitrate is highly toxic to infants and the unborn causing inhibition of oxygen transfer in the blood stream at high doses. This condition is known as "blue-baby" disease. This is the basis for the 10 mg/L national drinking water standard. The ambient standard to protect aquatic ecosystems is 10 mg/L as well. The most probable sources are septic drainage and fertilizer runoff from agricultural land and domestic lawns. Nitrates from land sources end up in streams more quickly than other nutrients such as phosphorus because they dissolve in water more readily and can travel with ground water into streams. Consequently, nitrates are a good indicator of the possibility of sources of pollution from sewage or animal waste during dry weather. Figures 7, 8, and 9 are box-and-whisker plots for orthophosphate, ammonia-nitrogen, and nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen 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



Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


19

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



Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek




Etowah Horseshoe

Cane Creek


20

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. ECO has carried out 10 years of biological sampling in Henderson County. This protocol utilizes the SMIE method of collection and analysis but reflects scores using the Izaak Walton League (IWL) method of analysis. Details can be obtained from ECO, and the blank data sheet is shown in Appendix C. A spreadsheet providing detailed data and observations collected at each of the biological monitoring sites is available through ECO. Biomonitoring results for the sites sampled in April and October of 2012 are shown in Appendix I. IWL scores are assigned ratings with >22= Excellent, 17 to 22 = Good, 11 to 16 = Fair, and <11 = Poor. As described earlier, the IWL score is a measure of the diversity and pollution sensitivity of organisms found at a site. Figure 10 shows the spring biological ratings from 2012.

Figure 10: SMIE biological scores for 2012 samples

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Gre

en R

iver

- B

ob

s C

r R

d

Ro

ck C

reek

Gre

en R

iver

- T

erry

's C

r R

d

Big

Hu

ng

ry R

iver

up

strm

Big

Hu

ng

ry R

iver

dn

strm

Lit

tle

Wil

low

Sh

aw C

reek

Mil

l P

on

d C

reek

Bo

yls

ton

Cre

ek

No

rth

Fo

rk M

ills

Riv

er

So

uth

Fo

rk M

ills

Riv

er

Mil

ls R

iver

- H

oo

per

's L

n

Mu

d C

reek

- B

erea

Ch

urc

h R

d

Mu

d C

reek

- 7

th A

ve

Bri

ttai

n C

reek

Cle

ar C

reek

- B

earw

allo

w R

d

Cle

ar C

reek

- N

ix R

d

Ho

op

er's

Cre

ek

Can

e C

reek

- H

ow

ard

Gap

Un

cle'

s C

reek

Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Iza

ak

Wa

lto

n L

eag

ue

Sco

re

Henderson County

21

IV. Summary The majority of Henderson County streams are tributaries in the French Broad River Basin. The Green River in the southern part of the county is located in the Broad River Basin. Henderson and Buncombe Counties have experienced more rapid population growth than surrounding areas in western North Carolina. The valleys along with the Upper French Broad River have provided suitable land for development and agriculture throughout the region, bringing nonpoint sources of pollution in close proximity to the streams. Drought conditions can have severe impacts on streams, by reducing aquatic habitats, providing less water to dilute point source pollution, and reducing nonpoint source pollution between rainfall events. The area experienced an extreme drought that lasted approximately two years from 2007 to 2009. Since then, rainfall has mostly been normal, with some abnormally dry conditions during the parts of 2010 and 2011 (Drought Management Advisory Council 2013). There were many sites that had low pH values, ranging down to 5.3 standard units, mostly from January of 2010. All pH values less than 6.1 were results from the ETS lab, so it may have been due to a difference in lab protocols instead of actual acidic inputs. All alkalinity medians were <30 mg/L CaCO3, except Wash Creek, Byers Creeks, and Mill Pond Creek, which is typical of the region. All 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. Metals were analyzed with different frequencies per site, so comparisons had to be made in light of the number of samples taken. Nitrates showed a decreasing trend over time for several sites, with ammonia decreasing for many sites. All sites had median values well below the state standards for these two parameters. Several sites from April of 2011 and January of 2012 yielded samples with highest levels of contaminants (TSS, turbidity, ammonia, orthophosphate, metals) due to heavy rains in the 24 hours prior to sampling. April of 2011 was particularly notable with eight sites with TSS >200 mg/L and 10 sites with >100 NTU. Table 3 is a summary of Henderson County site ranked by water quality issues and by watershed. The focus on specific areas and water quality issues permits comparison of problems such as stream sedimentation, urban runoff of chemicals, and nutrient loading. The Green River continued to hold the highest overall chemical rating in Henderson County. External sources have been used for the discussion of watersheds in this report, such as the 2012 SMIE report (Traylor 2013) and NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources basinwide reports for the French Broad River and Broad River basins (NCDENR-DWQ-BPU 2011, NCDENR-DWQ-BPU 2008, NCDENR- DWQ-ESS 2008). Volunteer observations were also useful in documenting water quality at specific sites.

A. Green River Watershed The Green River watershed is a mostly forested landscape with a considerable amount of agriculture along its upper reaches. VWIN samples the Green River upstream at Terry's Creek Road (Site #12), and just upstream (Site #19) and downstream (Site #11) of Lake Summit. The two sites upstream of Lake Summit had a water quality rating of Good, while the downstream site had the only Excellent rating in Henderson County. All Green River sites had low nitrate concentrations near the forested median average. Site #12 received a Fair biological rating in both seasons of

22

2012, and the volunteer noted an irrigation pipe present in the fall. The sediment scores improved from upstream to downstream, since the sediment has time to settle out in the lake, but also perhaps due to agricultural fields, developments, and silviculture in the river's headwaters. Ammonia concentrations increased slightly from upstream to downstream. According to the volunteer, heavy rainfall prior to the April 2011 sampling caused flooding at Terry's Creek Road and Old Hwy 25 S. At Site #19, turbidity exceeded 100 NTU during that sampling occasion. The volunteer also noted severe stream bank erosion in February of 2011, and exposed sandy areas in the river that had been previously covered with water in November of 2012. Site #11 downstream of Lake Summit is a popular area for kayakers and commercial rafting companies, according to the volunteer. The median pH at this site was equal to the forested median average, and this site did not exhibit the occasional high turbidity or TSS value that the upstream sites did, likely because of the dam. The Big Hungry River flows into the Green River just above “The Narrows”, before the Green River flows into Polk County. The monitoring site (Site #13) is sampled below the dam, and the VWIN rating was Average. This had a higher pH, alkalinity, conductivity, and nitrate medians than any of the Green River sites. The sediment score declined since 2011 and turbidity reached 150 NTU in May of 2010. The Big Hungry River volunteer reported people fishing and swimming at this site frequently, with large rocks repeatedly rearranged in the streambed. Biomonitoring yielded a Good rating in the spring of 2012, and Excellent in the fall.

B. Mud Creek Watershed The Mud Creek watershed runs through the heart of Hendersonville and discharges into the French Broad River. It has many subwatersheds which contribute to its water quality. Mud Creek suffers from habitat degradation and pollution from point and nonpoint sources. Land use mostly includes forest, pasture, orchard, cropland, and urban development. Active construction, eroding unpaved roads, and stormwater runoff contribute sediment to the creek. Management efforts in the watershed include streambank restoration, conservation of wetlands, and installation of agricultural best management practices. Eight tributaries to Mud Creek are monitored for water chemistry. From upstream to downstream, they include Wash Creek, King Creek, Bat Fork, Devil’s Fork, Clear Creek, Brittain Creek, Featherstone Creek, and Byers Creek. Wash Creek at West Allen Street (Site #31), King Creek at Airport Road (Site #32), Featherstone Creek at Howard Gap (Site #35), and Byers Creek at Howard Gap (Site #34) all had Average ratings in only two years of sampling. The Wash Creek subwatershed is known to sustain some of the highest soil loss in the whole watershed, but VWIN results have not supported this. The volunteer regularly reported that the water in this stream is clear, but there was trash in the area. One of 24 Wash Creek samples tested for metals had a lead concentration higher than the state standard of 25 μg/L. King Creek has one of the highest ammonia values in the county. The volunteer reported sand deposition and sedimentation at this site. The Featherstone Creek subwatershed is partially forested and partially urbanized. It contains three permitted dischargers, but does not display concerning concentrations of nutrients or sediment. The Byers Creek subwatershed has a mixture of forested, agricultural, and developed land with one permitted discharger. Byers Creek had one copper concentration out of 24 samples higher than the state standard of 7.0 μg/L. Its orthophosphate median exceeded the recommended 0.15 mg/L to prevent downstream eutrophication.

23

Table 3: Stream ranking index for Henderson County monitoring sites

site # site name sediment nutrients overall chemical

VWIN - WNC Regional Average 70 80 75 rating

Green River/Broad River Watershed

12 Green River at Terry's Creek Road 75 92 83 Good

19 Green River upstream from Lake Summit 75 92 83 Good

11 Green River downstream from Lake Summit 100 92 96 Excellent

13 Big Hungry River downstream 67 83 75 Average

Average for this grouping 79 90 84

percent sites below regional average 25% 0% 0%

Mud Creek Watershed

21 Mud Creek at Berea Church Road 67 83 75 Average

3 Mud Creek at Erkwood Road 67 92 79 Average

31* Wash Creek/West Allen St 83 75 79 Average

32* King Creek/Airport Rd 67 83 75 Average

15 Bat Fork Creek 83 75 79 Average

18 Mud Creek at 7th Avenue 75 83 79 Average

33* Devil's Fork 75 67 71 Average

30 Devil's Fork 58 67 63 Below Average

20 Clear Creek at Bearwallow 92 83 88 Good

5 Clear Creek at Nix Road 58 75 67 Below Average

26 Brittain Creek 83 83 83 Good

35* Featherstone Creek at Howard Gap 67 75 71 Average

34* Byers Creek at Howard Gap 67 75 71 Average

4 Mud Creek at N Rugby Rd 58 58 58 Poor




7 North Fork Mills River 75 100 88 Good

8 South Fork Mills River 75 92 83 Good

9 Mills River at Davenport Bridge 75 100 88 Good

29 Brandy Branch 58 58 58 Poor

10 Mills River at Hooper Lane 75 92 83 Good



Cane Creek watershed

22 Hoopers Creek 58 75 67 Below Average

16 Cane Creek at Howard Gap Rd 58 83 71 Average



Etowah/Horseshoe

23 Big Willow Creek 92 83 88 Good

24 Little Willow Creek 67 92 79 Average

25 Gash Creek 67 75 71 Average

28 Shaw Creek 58 83 71 Average

27 Mill Pond Creek 50 75 63 Below Average

14 Boylston Creek 58 83 71 Average



French Broad River

1 French Broad River/Horseshoe 67 92 79 Average

2 French Broad River/Mt Home 75 92 83 Good



Overall County Rating

Average for All Sites 70 82 76


* H31-35 have only been sampled for two years

24

The volunteer reported construction upstream at Howard Gap Road from September to December of 2012. Wash Creek and Byers Creek had two of the highest pH and alkalinity medians in Henderson County. King Creek, Devil's Fork upstream, Featherstone Creek, and Byers Creek had some of the lowest TSS medians in the county.

The Bat Fork subwatershed has many water quality issues, including channelization, habitat loss, and cropland. DWQ has never assigned Bat Fork a biological rating greater than Fair. Site #15 near the General Electric plant had an

Average rating. In May of 2011, the volunteer reported that the riparian zone had been clear cut on one side of the creek, and in January of 2012 the water had a noticeable odor. This site had one of the highest ammonia medians in the county, which has increased over time. Devil’s Fork has cropland and orchards in its subwatershed, and water quality is influenced by both urban and agricultural runoff, and a wastewater treatment plant. The upstream VWIN site, (Site #33) had an Average rating. The volunteer frequently noted lots of sediment, with signs of erosion and sedimentation under the bridge at this site. Downstream at Site #30 the chemical rating was Below Average. One of 12 samples tested for metals exceeded the copper standard of 7.0 μg/L and the zinc standard of 50 μg/L. In April of 2011, this site had a turbidity value of 190 NTU, with the volunteer reporting that the stream was twice the normal width and looked muddy. The volunteer also regularly reported low flow, debris blocking water flow, turbidity, and surface scum at this site. Both Devil's Fork sites had the same nutrient scores, but the downstream site had lower sediment scores due to increased turbidity, TSS, and conductivity. Upper Devil's Fork also had one of the highest pH and nitrate medians in Henderson County, but it decreased downstream. Lower reaches of the stream are channelized, and impaired for biological integrity due to a Poor rating. Clear Creek is an impaired waterway, due to Fair to Poor biological ratings by DWQ. Apple orchards, row crops, and urban runoff contribute pesticides and heavy metals into 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 (Site #20) and downstream at Nix Road (Site #5). Upstream, the chemical rating was Good, while the downstream site declined to Below Average. Site #20 had a Fair biological rating in the spring of 2012, and Excellent in the fall. However, the fall also earned an Unacceptable VASOS rating, largely due to the presence of pollution-tolerant taxa. Downstream at Site #5, the turbidity reached 150 NTU in April of 2011. The pH, alkalinity, conductivity, orthophosphate, ammonia, and nitrate medians were higher here than at the upstream site. The volunteer reported smelling effluent from the package plant at this site. This site on Clear Creek had a Good biological rating for both seasons of 2012, but had an Unacceptable VASOS rating in the spring. The Brittain Creek subwatershed is highly urbanized with a substantial amount of impervious surfaces and little shade. The VWIN site at Patton Park (Site #26) improved from Average in 2011 to Good in 2012 due to lower nutrient levels. In July of 2011 the volunteer reported some bank washout around recently placed rocks and fill. Brittain Creek received a Poor biological rating in the spring of 2012, and Fair in the fall. Mud Creek itself is impaired for biological integrity. Upper Mud Creek is known to be influenced by channelization, removal of riparian vegetation, cattle access to streams, and toxicity due to tomato pesticides. The furthest upstream monitoring site at Berea Church Road (Site #21) has declined from Good in 2011 to Average in 2012. The sediment score has gone down, however turbidity and TSS showing a decreasing

25

trend with time. This site had the highest turbidity (500 NTU) and TSS (474 mg/L) values in Henderson County in January of 2012. The volunteer described "tons of sediment flowing into the creek from agricultural fields" during heavy rainfall on that occasion. From August to October of 2011, the volunteer also noted a large blue irrigation tube from the nearby tomato field. This site had one of 12 samples that exceeded the state standards for copper and zinc. Biomonitoring gave this site a Fair rating for the spring of 2012, and Poor in the fall, along with an Unacceptable VASOS rating in the fall. The next Mud Creek site at Erkwood Road (Site #3) remained Average. It had a turbidity value of 100 NTU in the April of 2011 sample, and the volunteer reported extreme turbidity with water over the streambanks. This site had a lower median pH than at Berea Church Road. Site #18 at 7th Avenue is located downtown in the City of Hendersonville and receives sediment via stormwater runoff. It improved from Below Average to Average, with the sediment score increasing from 2011 to 2012. Lead exceeded the state standard in one of 33 samples. This site on Mud Creek received a Poor biological rating in both seasons of 2012, with one of the lowest IWL scores. The lower portions of the stream are impacted by toxicity from agricultural, golf course, and residential pesticides, as well as the overall regional land use. 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 (Site #4) rated Poor, and had one of the lowest chemical ratings in Henderson County. It had five of the highest orthophosphate concentrations of all Henderson County sites in August and September of 2011, and June, September, and November of 2012. This site was the only one to receive a "D" grade for orthophosphate, with the median of 0.30 mg/L. April 2011 rainfall caused a turbidity reading of 160 NTU, with the volunteer reporting creek flooding. In December of 2011, the volunteer also noted a logjam about 100 yards upstream. Alkalinity, turbidity, conductivity, orthophosphate, ammonia, and nitrate medians were higher downstream in Mud Creek than upstream sites. In fact, the ammonia median for the Rugby Road site was twice as high as the 7th Avenue site, and the orthophosphate median was five times higher.

C. Mills River Watershed Mills River is the source for drinking water by the City of Hendersonville Water Treatment Plant (WTP), which has intakes from the North Fork of Mills River and Bradley Branch in the Pisgah National Forest, and the mainstem of Mills River. The North and South Fork subwatersheds in the western part of Henderson County are mostly forested, with agriculture increasing near their confluence. Monitoring sites along these stretches are used to calculate VWIN’s “Forested Average Medians” for chemical parameters due to their relatively pristine nature. Agriculture continues to influence the water quality along its length, with cattle, pepper, corn, and tomato farms prevalent. Monitoring sites on the North and South Forks (Site #7 and #8 respectively) have a Good VWIN rating. The North Fork has one of the best grades for orthophosphate, with nutrients generally very low at this site. It had a Good biomonitoring rating in the spring of 2012, and a rated Excellent in the fall. The South Fork had a poor biological rating in the spring of 2012, but an Excellent rating in the fall. Downstream Mills River VWIN sites (#9 at Davenport Bridge and #10 at Hoopers Lane) also had Good ratings. Site #9 did show some evidence sediment issues, having a turbidity of 100 NTU in April of 2011 following heavy rains. One of three samples

26

tested for metals had a zinc concentration higher than the state standard. However, it had one of the best orthophosphate grades and nutrient scores, which indicated little nutrient pollution. Land use near Mills River at Hoopers Lane is primarily agriculture (soybeans, sod, peppers, and corn). Site #10 had a high turbidity value of 120 NTU in April of 2011, along with one of the highest TSS scores (approaching 300 mg/L). Copper exceeded the state standard in one of three samples. The biological ratings for both seasons of 2012 were Fair. The volunteer regularly reported the presence of trash in and around the stream at this site. Median pH values slightly decreased from upstream to downstream on Mills River. All of the four sites had low alkalinity, turbidity, conductivity, orthophosphate, ammonia, and nitrate medians, near the forested average median. The river supports populations of the endangered Appalachian Elktoe mussel, and has been troubled in the past by excess pesticide and livestock waste runoff that impact the biological communities. Ongoing efforts by the Mills River Partnership focus on installing agricultural best monitoring practices to avert these problems. Brandy Branch (Site #29) discharges into Mills River upstream of Hooper Lane, and is the location of the Hendersonville WTP. The rating at this monitoring site has gone from Below Average in 2011 to Poor in 2012, and was one of the lowest rated sites in Henderson County. The sediment score at this site has declined since 2011. In April of 2011, Brandy Branch had the highest orthophosphate concentrations in Henderson County by a factor of two (2.02 mg/L), and the highest ammonia concentration by a factor of 2.5 (1.35 mg/L). Brandy Branch also had the highest nitrate median of any site in Henderson County. Alkalinity, pH, turbidity, TSS, conductivity, orthophosphate, ammonia, and nitrate medians were higher on Brandy Branch than any of the Mills River sites. Conductivity appears to be increasing with time. One of 12 samples tested for metals exceeded the state copper standard of 7.0 μg/L. This site had a Good chemical rating in 2009, and the water quality appears to be steadily declining. It was impaired for biological integrity due to a Fair DWQ rating.

D. Cane Creek Watershed Cane Creek runs through southeast Buncombe County and north Henderson County before its confluence with the French Broad River. Agriculture and pasture are the primary land uses in the watershed. Two Cane Creek sites are monitored upstream in Buncombe County. Cane Creek at Hwy 74 in Fairview had a Good VWIN rating, while the site at Mills Gap Road rated Below Average. Lower Cane Creek in Henderson

County at Howard Gap (Site #16) had an Average chemical rating, an improvement from upstream at Mills Gap Road. Nearby land use includes a large town park, a golf course, and some agriculture. In April of 2011, this site had the second-highest turbidity and TSS values in Henderson County (260 NTU and 369 mg/L respectively). Two of 35 samples tested for copper and zinc exceeded the state standards. This site also had the highest median pH. Lower Cane Creek had a Fair biological rating in both seasons of 2012. Hoopers Creek is a major tributary to Cane Creek. This watershed is largely forested, with substantial agriculture (row crops) and development. Site #22 on Hoopers Creek declined from Average in 2011 to Below Average in 2012, returning to its 2009 rating. That was mostly due to nutrient pollution. It also had a very high TSS concentration nearing 250 mg/L. Both Cane Creek and Hoopers Creek showed increasing conductivity values with time. Hoopers Creek had a Good biological rating in the spring of 2012, and a Poor rating in the fall.

27

E. Etowah/Horseshoe Area Several additional tributaries in the Etowah/Horseshoe area are monitored that discharge directly into the French Broad River. Big Willow Creek (Site #23) had a Good chemical rating, with the highest (best) sediment score in Henderson County. Turbidity and TSS showed a decreasing trend with time at this site. One of 12 samples exceeded the state standard for copper. Little Willow Creek's rating (Site #24) declined from Good

in 2011 to Average in 2012 due to a declining sediment score. Turbidity reached 120 NTU at this site in April of 2011. Excessive sediment was likely caused by a defunct development in this watershed. This site was sampled for invertebrates in the spring of 2012 and received a Poor rating, with one of the lowest IWL scores. Both Big Willow and Little Willow Creeks had lower alkalinity, conductivity, ammonia, and nitrate medians than the other French Broad tributaries in this part of the county. Gash, Shaw, and Boylston Creeks (Sites #25, 28, and 14 respectively) all received an Average VWIN rating. Little Willow, Gash Creek, and Boylston Creek had the highest turbidity medians in the Etowah/Horseshoe area, and Little Willow and Boylston Creeks had the highest median TSS. All sites except Gash Creek showed increasing conductivity values over time. Gash Creek has a mostly developed watershed and had the highest turbidity, orthophosphate, and ammonia medians in this area. Its orthophosphate median was one of the few to exceed the recommended 0.15 mg/L concentration. The Shaw Creek watershed also has substantial development and one permitted discharger. It had the lowest turbidity, TSS, and ammonia medians in the Etowah/Horseshoe area. Site #28 received a Poor biological rating in the spring of 2012 with one of the lowest IWL scores, and Fair in the fall. Boylston Creek was originally classified by the NC DENR as a trout stream, but the classification was overturned by the state legislature in 2011. It is characterized by urban and agricultural land use (row crops and pasture) with minimal riparian vegetation. Turbidity reached 110 NTU in January of 2012, and TSS was above 250 mg/L. Boylston Creek received a Fair biological rating in the spring of 2012, and Poor in the fall. The volunteer for this site has noted spraying, fertilizer application, and cows in the nearby field next to the stream. Mill Pond Creek has two permitted dischargers along its length, extensive development, and its headwaters originate in the landfill. Site #27 is located near an agricultural field and received a Below Average rating, with the lowest sediment score in Henderson County. The low sediment score is heavily influenced by the "D" conductivity score assigned since more than 10% of the samples (almost all of them) exceeded 100 µmhos/cm. Conductivity rose as high as 450 µmhos/cm at this site. TSS was increasing over time at this site. Streamwater at this site also reached 100 NTU for turbidity in January of 2012. It exceeded the state standard for copper in one of 12 samples. Mill Pond Creek had some of the highest pH, alkalinity, and conductivity medians in Henderson County, and the highest nitrate median in the Etowah/ Horseshoe area. The volunteer regularly mentioned siltation in the stream. The biological ratings were Fair in both seasons of 2012, with an Unacceptable VASOS rating in the spring.

F. French Broad River The French Broad River originates in Transylvania County and flows through Henderson, Buncombe, and Madison Counties in NC before entering into Tennessee. The upper reaches of the river are surrounded by national forest land. Through parts of

28

Transylvania and Henderson Counties there is much adjacent agricultural land. The water quality is also influenced by direct input from wastewater treatment plants and the many tributaries, many previously mentioned in this report. In 2008 a logjam formed in the river near Penrose in Transylvania County and was scheduled to be removed in the spring of 2012. During that time, it grew large enough for the river to reroute itself through farmland, taking thousands of tons of soil with it. The French Broad River site in Henderson County upstream at Horseshoe (Site #1) had an Average VWIN rating. One of the highest orthophosphate concentrations in Henderson County occurred at this site in October of 2010. It had the highest median turbidity value, exceeding the regional average median. Copper and lead exceeded the state standard in one of 36 samples. Downstream (Site #2), the river's rating improved from Average in 2011 to Good in 2012. The sediment score improved in 2012, although turbidity exceeded 100 NTU in April of 2011 after heavy rainfall. This site also had low nitrate concentrations, with the median near the forested median average. Copper exceeded the state standard twice out of 36 samples. Both Henderson County VWIN sites had a median TSS concentration above the regional average median. Table 4 shows the median levels of parameters at all VWIN sites on the French Broad River, including two sites in Henderson County, five sites in Buncombe County, and one site in Madison County. There were some analysis differences between counties, for example Buncombe and Madison counties no longer test for metals. Buncombe County did not have samples tested elsewhere while EQI was closed. Madison County had most of their testing done by students at Mars Hill College instead of using EQI’s lab. With that said, water quality in the French Broad River declined from Henderson to Buncombe County, and all sites downstream of Henderson County (except at Jean Webb Park in Asheville's River District) had a Poor rating. Sediment increased at the first site in Buncombe County at Corcoran Park, and again at Ledges Park downstream of Asheville. Conductivity increased continuously in the river 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 each site on the French Broad River

from Horseshoe in Henderson County to Barnard Bridge in Madison County

Site # Location Turbidity TSS Conductivity Ortho-P Ammonia-N Nitrate-N

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

H1 Horseshoe 5.5 7.4 24.3 0.10 0.08 0.2

H2 Mountain Home 5.0 6.6 28.0 0.10 0.07 0.3

B13 Corcoran Park 9.3 12.0 34.6 0.14 0.10 0.4

B12B Bent Creek 7.0 7.6 34.3 0.13 0.08 0.3

B23 Jean Webb Park 6.5 7.0 58.2 0.10 0.10 0.3

B6A Ledges Park 8.7 11.6 54.2 0.30 0.30 0.5

B32 Walnut Island Park 9.6 8.8 58.6 0.28 0.20 0.5

M2 Barnard Bridge 10.6 30.0 60.1 0.18 0.16 0.6

29

V. References

Drought Management Advisory Council. (2013). Drought Monitor Archive. US Drought Monitor of North Carolina. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncdrought.org/archive/. NCDENR, DWQ Basinwide Planning Unit (BPU). 2011. French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. NCDENR, DWQ Basinwide Planning Unit (BPU). 2008. Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. NCDENR, DWQ 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. State Climate Office of North Carolina. (2013). NC CRONOS Database. NC State University. [Online]. Available: http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/cronos. Traylor, A.M. 2013. Eight Years of Volunteer Biomonitoring in Western North Carolina Streams. The Environmental Quality Institute Technical Report #2013-2. 53 pp.

US Geological Survey. 2013. USGS Real-Time Water Data for North Carolina. National Water Information System: Web Interface. [Online]. Available: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/rt.

http://www.ncdrought.org/archive/

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/rt

30

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 .

31

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-18

th-20

th 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

32

Appendix C: Biological Monitoring Data Sheet (Invertebrate Identification)

33

Appendix C: Biological Monitoring Data Sheet (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.

Adopt-A-Stream 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

34

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

35

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

36

Appendix E: Stream Ranking Index

Excellent Median and maximum pollutant levels in all parameters show little effect from human disturbances

Good One or more parameters show minor or only occasional increases in pollutant levels from human disturbances

Average Exhibits constant low levels of one or more pollutants or sudden significant, but short term increases

Below Ave Median pollutant levels are abnormally high in one or more parameters, or exhibits very high pollutant levels during certain weather conditions

Poor Pollutant levels are consistently higher than average in several parameters and/or show extreme levels during certain weather conditions B = Buncombe County

H = Henderson County Hi = Hiawassee River Watershed Y = Haywood County J = Jackson/Lake Glenville LJ = Lake James LL = Lake Lure M = Madison County Not=Nottely River Watershed P = Polk County T = Toe River Watershed Tu = Tuckasegee River watershed

site site desc Excellent

1 Hi1 Upper Hiawassee River 100

2 Hi11 Hog Creek 100

3 Hi2 Martin's Creek 100

4 Hi3 Hightower Creek 100

5 Hi6 Eagle Fork Creek 100

6 Hi8 Lower Shooting Creek 100

7 J1 Hurricane Creek at Norton Rd bridge 100

8 J2 Norton Creek at N. Norton Rd bridge 100

9 J5 Cedar Creek at Bee Tree Rd bridge 100

10 J7 Norton Creek above Grassy Camp 100

11 LL6 Pool Creek at Hwy 64/74/9 100

12 Not1 Nottely River upstream 100

13 Not5 Coosa Creek 100

14 T3 South Toe River 100

15 Tu1 East Fork of Tuckasegee River 100

16 Tu14 Deep Creek 100

17 Tu3 Caney Fork 100

18 Tu5 Tuckasegee R above Scott's Crk 100

19 Y1 West Fork Pigeon River/Bethel 100

20 Y3 East Fork Pigeon River/Cruso 100

21 Y2 East Fork Pigeon River/Bethel 96

22 Y33 Pigeon River above Canton 96

37

Appendix E: Stream Ranking Index - continued

23 H11 Green River at down L Summit 96

24 Hi7 Upper Shooting Creek 96

25 J3 Mill Creek downstream from N. Norton Br 96

26 J4 Pine Creek at Pine Creek Rd bridge 96

27 LJ5 Linville River at Hwy 126 96

28 Not3 Nottely River 96

29 Not7 Young Cane Creek 96

30 Not8 Ivy Log Creek 96

31 Tu11 Conley Creek 96

32 Tu12 Tuckasegee R below Bryson City 96

33 Tu15 Oconaluftee River 96

34 Tu18 Alarka Creek 96

35 Tu2 West Fork of Tuckasegee River 96

36 Tu4 Cullowhee Creek 96

37 Tu9 Tuckasegee R above Barkers Cr 96

38 Y27 Jonathan Creek in Maggie Valley 92

39 B9A Bee Tree Creek above Owen Lake 92

40 Hi9 Upper Bell Creek 92

41 J6 Glenville Creek at Tator Knob Rd 92

42 LL10 Fairfield Mountains Crk at Lake Lure 92

43 LL9 Buffalo Creek at Lake Lure 92

44 B22 Ivy Creek at Dillingham Road 92

45 Hi4 Scataway Creek 92

Good

46 B12A Bent Creek at SR 191 (at French Broad River) 88

47 B15A Cane Creek at Hwy 74 88

48 B24 Swannanoa River at confluence with North Fork 88

49 B5B Reem's Creek at Ox Creek 88

50 H20 Clear Creek at Apple Valley Rd 88

51 H23 Big Willow Creek at Patterson Rd 88

52 H7 North Fork Mills River 88

53 H9 Mills River at Hwy 191 88

54 Hi12 Woods Creek 88

55 LL7 Public Golf Course Crk at Hwy 64/74 88

56 Tu10 Barker's Creek 88

57 Tu17 Wayehutta Creek 88

58 Y13 Allens Creek 88

59 Y10 Richland Creek at West Waynesville 84

60 B20 Ivy Creek at Buckner Branch Road 83

61 B31 Swannanoa River at Grassy Branch Confluence 83

62 H10 Mills River at Hooper Lane 83

63 H12 Green River at Terry's Ck Rd 83

64 H19 Green River at Old 25 83

65 H2 French Broad River at Butler Br Rd 83

66 H8 South Fork Mills River 83

38


67 LL5 Rocky Broad River at Lake Lure 83

68 T5 Cane River at MH High Sch 83

69 Tu7 Savannah Creek 83

70 Tu8 Green's Creek 83

71 H26 Brittain Creek at Patton Park 83

72 LL1 Reedypatch Crk at Hwy 64 (Bat Cave) 83

73 LL15 Buffalo Creek at Bald Mt Lake 83

74 LL8 Cane Creek 1/4 mile above Tryon Bay 83

75 Y9 Plott Creek 83

Average

76 B33 North Fork Swannanoa River at Grovestone Quarry 79

77 B9B Swannanoa River at Bee Tree Creek 79

78 H1 French Broad River at Banner Farm Rd 79

79 H24 Little Willow Creek 79

80 H3 Mud Creek at Erkwood Rd 79

81 LJ2 Catawba River at US-221A 79

82 LL3 Broad River at Hwy 9 (Bat Cave) 79

83 LL4 Rocky Broad River at Chimney Rock 79

84 Tu13 Kirkland Creek 79

85 B10 Bull Creek at Swannanoa River 79

86 H15 Bat Fork Creek at Tabor Rd 79

87 H18 Mud Creek at 7th Ave 79

88 H31 Wash Creek at West Allen St 79

89 LL2 Hickory Crk at Hwy 74 (Bat Cave) 79

90 Not2 Arkaqua Creek 79

91 B15B Ashworth Creek at Cane Creek 75

92 B17A Swannanoa River at NC81 below S. Tunnel Rd 75

93 B1A Big Ivy at Forks of Ivy 75

94 B23 French Broad River at Jean Webb Park 75

95 B30 Grassy Branch 75

96 B38 Swannanoa River at Bull Creek 75

97 B49 Dingle Creek at Ramble Way 75

98 B50 Dingle Creek at Overlook Rd. 75

99 H13 Big Hungry River below dam 75

100 H21 Mud Creek at Berea Church Rd 75

101 H32 King Creek at Airport Rd 75

102 LJ3 North Fork of Catawba River at SR 1552 75

103 T4 North Toe River at Red Hill 75

104 Tu6 Scott's Creek 75

105 Y12 Jonathan Creek downstream 75

106 Y8 Eaglenest Creek 75

107 Y11 Richland Creek at Lake Junaluska 74

108 T7 Jack's Creek at Smith Johnson Rd 71

109 Y25 Raccoon Creek downstream 71

39


110 Y26 Crabtree Creek 71

111 Y4 Pigeon River downstream of Canton 71

112 B35 Smith Mill Creek at Louisiana Blvd. 71

113 B8 Beaverdam Creek at Beaver Lake 71

114 H25 Gash Creek at Etowah School Rd 71

115 H33 Howard Gap past Dana 71

116 H34 Byers Creek at Howard Gap 71

117 H35 Featherstone Creek at Howard Gap 71

118 B21 Paint Fork at Ivy Creek confluence in Barnardsville 71

119 B25 South Turkey Creek 71

120 H14 Boylston Creek at Ladson Rd 71

121 H16 Cane Creek at Howard Gap Rd 71

122 H28 Shaw Creek at Hunters Glen 71

123 LJ13 North Fork/Catawba River at Old Linville Rd 71

124 T1 Cane Creek at Bakersville 71

125 T2 Cane Creek at Loafer's Glory 71

Below

Average

126 Y24 Raccoon Creek upstream 67

127 B16A Cane Creek at Mills Gap Rd. 67

128 B34 Lower Hominy Creek at SR 191 67

129 H22 Hoopers Creek at Jackson Rd 67

130 H5 Clear Creek at Nix Rd 67

131 Not4 Butternut Creek 67

132 B43 Ross Creek at Swannanoa River 67

133 B5A Ox Creek at Reem's Creek 67

134 B6B Reem's Creek at US 25/70 67

135 Y31 Beaverdam Crk dnstrm I-40 67

136 Y7 Fines Creek downstream 67

137 B40 Ross Creek at Lower Chunn's Cove Rd bridge 63

138 B42 Ross Creek at Upper Chunn's Cove 63

139 B47 Glenn Creek at entrance to UNCA 63

140 B48 South Creek retention pond 63

141 B7A Glenn Creek at UNC-A Botanical Gardens 63

142 H27 Mill Pond Creek at S Rugby Rd 63

143 H30 Devil's Fork at Dana Rd 63

144 Y14 Rush Fork upstream 63

145 Y19 Fines Creek upstream 63

146 Y32 Beaverdam Crk at Long Branch Rd 63

Poor

147 T6 Bald Creek at Bald Crk Elem 59

148 Y15 Fines Creek midstream 59

149 Y23 Ratcliff Cove Branch 59

150 B12B French Broad River at Bent Creek 58

151 B17B Haw Creek at Swannanoa River 58

40


152 B1B Little Ivy at Forks of Ivy 58

153 B2 Lower Sandymush Creek 58

154 B27 Flat Creek at US 19/23 58

155 B39 South Creek at Beaver Lake 58

156 B41 Ross Creek at Tunnel Rd 58

157 H29 Brandy Branch at Mills R Village 58

158 H4 Mud Creek at N Rugby Rd 58

159 B7B Reed Creek at Reed Creek Confluence 58

160 Y21 Hyatt Creek upstream 55

161 Y5 Pigeon River at Hepco Bridge 55

162 Y6 Rush Fork at Crabtree 55

163 B26 North Turkey Creek at North Turkey Creek Rd. 54

164 B32 French Broad River at Walnut Island Park 54

165 B6A French Broad River at Ledges Park 54

166 Y28 Hyatt Creek left branch 54

167 Y29 Hyatt Creek Owl Ridge Branch 54

168 B36 Newfound Creek at Dark Cove Road 50

169 B4 Lower Newfound Creek 50

170 Y20 Cove Creek 50

171 B13 French Broad River at Corcoran Park 46

172 B37 Newfound Creek at Leicester Hwy 46

173 Y22 Hyatt Creek downstream 46

174 B3B Sandymush at Willow Creek 42

175 M2 French Broad River at Barnard Br 33

176 M4 East Fork of Bull Creek 33

177 Y30 Hyatt Creek Green Valley Branch 33

178 M1 Ivy River at 25/70 25

179 M11 Bull Creek 25

180 M12 Grapevine Creek 25

181 M13 California Creek 25

182 M14 Middle Fork Creek 25

183 M15 Paint Fork Creek 25

184 M17 Gabriel's Creek 25

41

Appendix F: Data Summary site:

n:

low:

median:

high:

site n low median high n median site n low median high n median

1 36 5.7 6.7 7.2 125 6.7 1 36 5.3 11.0 27.0 125 12.0

2 36 5.6 6.7 7.0 130 6.7 2 36 6.5 11.0 22.0 130 14.0

3 36 5.6 6.7 6.9 130 6.7 3 36 7.4 15.0 30.0 131 16.0

4 36 5.8 6.9 7.3 131 6.9 4 36 12.0 22.5 46.0 131 24.0

5 36 5.8 7.0 7.2 130 6.9 5 36 13.0 22.5 43.0 130 22.0

7 36 5.6 6.8 7.0 131 6.8 7 36 4.0 7.2 15.0 131 8.0

8 36 5.4 6.8 7.0 132 6.7 8 36 1.1 6.0 11.0 132 8.0

9 36 5.4 6.7 7.4 130 6.7 9 36 3.2 8.0 14.0 131 8.6

10 36 5.3 6.7 6.9 131 6.7 10 36 3.2 7.8 13.0 131 9.0

11 36 5.4 6.6 7.0 126 6.6 11 36 6.4 11.0 22.0 126 13.0

12 36 5.4 6.7 7.0 131 6.7 12 36 3.2 10.0 20.0 131 11.0

13 36 5.7 7.2 7.4 129 7.1 13 36 11.0 18.0 37.0 129 19.0

14 36 5.8 7.0 7.3 130 7.0 14 36 11.0 18.0 30.0 130 18.1

15 36 5.7 6.6 6.8 131 6.7 15 36 2.2 19.5 39.0 131 19.0

16 36 6.0 7.2 7.6 129 7.1 16 36 11.0 27.5 54.0 129 26.4

18 35 5.7 6.9 7.7 124 6.9 18 35 7.4 19.0 34.0 126 19.0

19 36 5.6 6.8 7.1 130 6.8 19 36 6.0 10.0 22.0 130 12.0

20 36 5.7 6.9 7.0 127 6.8 20 36 9.5 16.0 30.0 127 16.0

21 36 5.7 6.9 7.1 129 6.8 21 36 7.4 16.0 30.0 129 17.0

22 36 5.7 6.9 7.2 131 6.9 22 36 12.0 26.0 50.5 131 24.0

23 36 5.8 6.8 7.0 126 6.8 23 36 7.4 14.0 25.0 126 15.3

24 36 5.6 6.7 6.9 82 6.7 24 36 5.3 12.5 23.0 82 12.5

25 36 5.8 6.8 7.0 129 6.8 25 36 17.0 30.0 57.0 129 31.0

26 36 5.9 6.9 7.2 128 6.9 26 36 18.0 26.0 46.0 128 27.0

27 36 6.2 7.1 7.3 129 7.1 27 36 14.0 36.0 71.0 129 35.0

28 36 6.0 7.0 7.2 130 7.0 28 36 13.0 23.5 46.0 130 24.0

29 36 6.0 6.9 7.2 129 6.8 29 36 10.0 15.0 44.0 130 15.0

30 36 6.0 6.8 7.3 131 6.8 30 36 16.0 29.5 56.0 131 29.0

31 24 6.8 7.1 7.2 24 7.1 31 24 24.0 31.5 53.0 24 31.5

32 24 6.6 6.9 7.1 24 6.9 32 24 13.0 21.5 34.0 24 21.5

33 24 6.7 7.1 7.4 24 7.1 33 24 20.0 29.0 51.0 24 29.0

34 24 6.8 7.1 7.4 24 7.1 34 24 19.0 34.5 66.0 24 34.5

35 24 6.7 7.0 7.2 24 7.0 35 24 14.0 24.0 44.5 24 24.0

pH - Last 3 Years All Results Alkalinity - Last 3 Years/rept. limit 1 mg/L All Results

the number assigned to the VWIN site

the number of samples collected for each parameter

minimum value of any sample(s)

median value for each site for last 3 years and then for all years monitored

maximum value of any sample(s)

42

Appendix F: Data Summary – continued


1 36 1.7 5.5 95.0 125 8.1 1 36 <4 7.4 146.8 125 9.3

2 36 1.5 5.0 120.0 130 7.8 2 36 <4 6.6 154.8 130 8.6

3 36 1.3 3.8 100.0 131 5.7 3 36 <4 5.6 119.6 131 6.0

4 36 1.7 4.6 160.0 131 7.9 4 36 <4 5.4 172.4 131 8.4

5 36 1.5 3.7 150.0 130 5.1 5 36 <4 4.0 202.2 130 4.1

7 36 <1 1.5 80.0 131 2.4 7 36 <4 2.8 209.6 131 2.4

8 36 <1 1.4 60.0 132 2.5 8 36 <4 2.4 208.4 132 2.4

9 36 <1 1.7 100.0 131 3.0 9 36 <4 3.0 142.8 131 2.4

10 36 <1 2.3 120.0 131 3.3 10 36 <4 3.8 280.0 131 3.2

11 36 1.3 2.6 12.0 126 3.2 11 36 <4 3.2 7.2 126 2.0

12 36 <1 2.3 90.0 131 3.1 12 36 <4 3.2 133.2 131 2.0

13 36 <1 2.3 150.0 129 3.5 13 36 <4 3.2 140.0 129 3.6

14 36 2.1 4.8 110.0 130 6.7 14 36 <4 7.8 276.0 130 6.8

15 36 1.3 4.5 14.0 131 4.8 15 36 <4 3.2 29.0 131 2.8

16 36 1.0 2.8 260.0 129 5.5 16 36 <4 3.2 369.2 129 4.1

18 35 1.3 3.8 50.0 126 6.3 18 35 <4 5.2 150.0 126 6.4

19 36 1.0 2.7 130.0 130 3.8 19 36 <4 3.4 158.4 130 3.2

20 36 <1 3.2 35.0 127 4.5 20 36 <4 4.1 48.0 127 4.1

21 36 1.4 2.6 500.0 129 5.4 21 36 <4 4.1 474.3 129 7.2

22 36 1.1 3.4 90.0 131 4.7 22 36 <4 4.1 248.0 131 4.8

23 36 <1 3.0 29.0 126 4.5 23 36 <4 4.1 100.0 126 4.8

24 36 1.1 4.6 120.0 82 5.6 24 36 <4 8.6 210.8 82 7.4

25 36 2.1 5.0 55.0 129 8.7 25 36 <4 4.1 57.2 129 4.8

26 36 <1 2.1 27.0 128 3.3 26 36 <4 2.4 38.8 128 2.4

27 36 <1 3.5 100.0 129 4.7 27 36 <4 4.6 160.0 129 4.0

28 36 <1 1.9 70.0 130 3.0 28 36 <4 3.0 170.4 130 3.2

29 36 1.3 3.2 95.0 130 4.4 29 36 <4 5.0 90.7 130 4.4

30 36 1.8 3.9 190.0 131 6.0 30 36 <4 3.2 166.2 131 4.0

31 24 1.0 2.8 28.0 24 2.8 31 24 <4 3.2 19.6 24 3.2

32 24 1.3 2.6 60.0 24 2.6 32 24 <4 1.4 48.0 24 1.4

33 24 1.0 3.1 25.0 24 3.1 33 24 <4 1.6 14.4 24 1.6

34 24 <1 2.4 46.0 24 2.4 34 24 <4 1.2 184.0 24 1.2

35 24 1.0 2.4 70.0 24 2.4 35 24 <4 1.8 34.8 24 1.8

All ResultsAll Results TSS (mg/L) - Last 3 Years/rept. limit 4 mg/LTurbidity (NTU) - Last 3 Years/rept. limit 1 NTU

43


site sample # low median high sample # median site n low median high sample # median

1 36 18.5 24.3 104.0 125 26.3 1 36 0.03 0.10 0.66 125 0.06

2 36 23.7 28.0 35.4 130 32.1 2 36 0.03 0.10 0.20 130 0.10

3 36 26.9 38.3 60.0 131 38.4 3 36 0.02 0.07 0.30 131 0.04

4 36 29.9 73.5 101.0 131 72.3 4 36 0.03 0.30 0.93 131 0.33

5 36 50.0 60.0 68.1 130 58.3 5 36 0.03 0.12 0.38 130 0.08

7 36 <10 15.7 24.0 131 15.1 7 36 0.02 0.05 0.18 131 0.03

8 36 <10 12.5 17.0 132 13.9 8 36 <0.02 0.05 0.29 132 0.03

9 36 <10 15.7 43.0 131 15.5 9 36 0.02 0.04 0.28 131 0.03

10 36 14.2 17.8 39.0 131 17.3 10 36 0.02 0.06 0.22 131 0.03

11 36 20.0 28.9 63.0 126 27.8 11 36 0.02 0.06 0.24 126 0.03

12 36 15.6 21.6 38.0 131 22.1 12 36 0.02 0.06 0.19 131 0.03

13 36 17.0 45.9 54.2 129 44.7 13 36 0.02 0.07 0.32 129 0.04

14 36 34.0 42.3 119.0 130 42.5 14 36 0.03 0.06 0.19 130 0.05

15 36 46.6 65.4 100.0 131 67.0 15 36 0.03 0.07 0.16 131 0.05

16 36 50.7 67.6 86.4 129 65.5 16 36 <0.02 0.09 0.22 129 0.06

18 35 40.0 48.4 58.0 126 48.5 18 35 0.03 0.06 0.32 126 0.04

19 36 16.3 24.0 33.7 130 24.9 19 36 <0.02 0.06 0.16 130 0.04

20 36 23.0 42.0 55.0 127 40.2 20 36 0.03 0.09 0.20 127 0.08

21 36 29.4 39.2 50.0 129 40.9 21 36 0.03 0.08 0.44 129 0.07

22 36 28.0 58.8 73.0 131 56.2 22 36 0.03 0.12 0.50 131 0.09

23 36 27.7 33.3 43.0 126 33.2 23 36 0.03 0.10 0.31 126 0.06

24 36 21.7 26.6 32.0 82 26.5 24 36 0.03 0.08 0.19 82 0.08

25 36 49.7 74.0 86.2 129 74.5 25 36 0.03 0.19 0.47 129 0.14

26 36 58.9 77.1 190.2 128 76.1 26 36 <0.02 0.08 0.34 128 0.05

27 36 37.4 209.2 450.0 129 196.4 27 36 0.03 0.14 0.42 129 0.11

28 36 27.0 64.6 74.0 130 63.0 28 36 0.03 0.09 0.27 130 0.07

29 36 51.9 64.2 127.3 130 62.0 29 36 0.03 0.07 2.02 130 0.07

30 36 49.7 85.0 91.2 131 83.0 30 36 0.03 0.12 0.32 131 0.08

31 24 31.7 80.8 106.2 24 80.8 31 24 0.05 0.12 0.23 24 0.12

32 24 39.8 57.8 76.8 24 57.8 32 24 <0.02 0.07 0.13 24 0.07

33 24 63.8 77.6 86.2 24 77.6 33 24 0.04 0.13 0.27 24 0.13

34 24 58.1 78.7 91.7 24 78.7 34 24 0.06 0.15 0.29 24 0.15

35 24 45.2 56.6 71.7 24 56.6 35 24 0.04 0.11 0.20 24 0.11

All ResultsConductivity - Last 3 Years/rept. limit 10 umhos/cm All Results Orthophosphate (mg/L as PO4)-Last 3 Yrs/rept. lim. 0.02 mg/L

44



1 36 0.05 0.08 0.22 125 0.12 1 36 <0.1 0.2 0.9 125 0.3

2 36 0.05 0.07 0.30 130 0.12 2 36 0.1 0.3 0.4 130 0.4

3 36 0.04 0.07 0.29 131 0.10 3 36 <0.1 0.3 0.5 131 0.4

4 36 0.05 0.11 0.36 131 0.15 4 36 0.2 0.8 1.6 131 0.9

5 36 0.04 0.07 0.47 130 0.10 5 36 0.4 0.7 1.1 130 0.8

7 36 0.02 0.04 0.20 131 0.04 7 36 0.1 0.2 0.2 131 0.1

8 36 0.02 0.05 0.27 132 0.05 8 36 0.1 0.1 0.2 132 0.1

9 36 0.02 0.05 0.26 131 0.05 9 36 0.1 0.2 0.2 131 0.1

10 36 0.02 0.05 0.31 131 0.05 10 36 0.1 0.2 0.2 131 0.2

11 36 0.02 0.06 0.23 126 0.07 11 36 0.1 0.2 0.6 126 0.2

12 36 <0.02 0.04 0.21 131 0.05 12 36 0.1 0.2 0.4 131 0.2

13 36 0.02 0.05 0.21 129 0.05 13 36 0.2 0.5 0.9 129 0.5

14 36 0.05 0.08 0.24 130 0.09 14 36 0.2 0.4 0.7 130 0.5

15 36 0.05 0.11 0.49 131 0.10 15 36 0.4 0.8 1.4 131 1.1

16 36 <0.02 0.07 0.26 129 0.09 16 36 0.1 0.4 0.8 129 0.5

18 35 0.05 0.08 0.22 126 0.11 18 35 0.2 0.4 0.7 126 0.5

19 36 0.02 0.05 0.26 130 0.06 19 36 0.1 0.2 0.3 130 0.2

20 36 0.03 0.05 0.17 127 0.07 20 36 0.4 0.6 0.8 127 0.6

21 36 0.03 0.06 0.30 129 0.08 21 36 0.2 0.3 0.5 129 0.5

22 36 0.04 0.06 0.21 131 0.09 22 36 0.1 0.4 0.6 131 0.5

23 36 0.03 0.05 0.16 126 0.07 23 36 0.2 0.3 0.5 126 0.3

24 36 0.03 0.05 0.15 82 0.08 24 36 0.1 0.2 0.7 82 0.2

25 36 0.05 0.12 0.39 129 0.19 25 36 0.2 0.5 0.9 129 0.6

26 36 0.02 0.05 0.23 128 0.07 26 36 0.1 0.7 1.1 128 0.8

27 36 0.03 0.09 0.33 129 0.09 27 36 0.4 0.7 1.1 129 0.7

28 36 <0.02 0.05 0.15 130 0.06 28 36 0.2 0.5 0.9 130 0.6

29 36 0.04 0.06 1.35 130 0.08 29 36 0.2 1.1 1.6 130 1.0

30 36 0.05 0.09 0.48 131 0.15 30 36 0.3 0.9 1.7 131 1.0

31 24 0.03 0.06 0.23 24 0.06 31 24 0.3 0.6 0.7 24 0.6

32 24 0.07 0.11 0.25 24 0.11 32 24 0.2 0.4 0.6 24 0.4

33 24 0.04 0.08 0.17 24 0.08 33 24 0.6 1.0 1.4 24 1.0

34 24 0.02 0.05 0.19 24 0.05 34 24 0.2 0.4 0.6 24 0.4

35 24 0.04 0.07 0.22 24 0.07 35 24 <0.1 0.4 0.5 24 0.4

Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen (mg/L)- Last 3 Years/rept. limit 0.1 mg/L All ResultsAmmonia-nitrogen (mg/L) - Last 3 Years/rept. lim. 0.02 mg/L All Results

45


All Results


1 36 <2 1.0 25.0 125 10.0 1 36 <20 4.8 17.6 125 5.3

2 36 <2 0.9 5.9 129 13.0 2 36 <20 5.4 32.4 130 7.6

3 12 <2 0.9 8.0 107 5.0 3 12 <20 2.7 27.2 107 2.5

4 12 <2 1.5 8.3 107 11.0 4 12 <20 8.0 31.2 107 7.5

5 12 <2 0.7 8.8 106 7.0 5 12 <20 3.5 28.8 106 5.4

7 3 <2 0.2 2.5 98 4.0 7 3 <20 0.0 <20 98 1.4

8 3 <2 0.6 2.5 99 3.0 8 3 <20 0.0 <20 99 0.8

9 3 <2 0.0 2.5 98 3.0 9 3 <20 0.0 <20 98 0.5

10 3 <2 1.5 2.5 98 4.0 10 3 <20 15.0 119.0 98 2.6

11 3 <2 0.2 2.5 93 3.0 11 3 <20 0.0 <20 93 0.6

12 3 <2 1.3 2.5 98 3.5 12 3 <20 15.0 31.4 98 2.2

13 3 <2 0.7 2.5 96 4.5 13 3 <20 0.0 <20 96 1.5

14 3 2.3 2.5 3.4 97 6.0 14 3 <20 12.2 <20 97 2.7

15 3 <2 0.2 2.5 98 5.0 15 3 <20 0.0 <20 98 5.0

16 35 <2 0.9 11.2 128 8.0 16 35 <20 4.9 56.0 128 4.9

18 33 <2 1.1 27.2 123 9.0 18 33 <20 5.3 43.8 123 6.1

19 12 <2 1.0 9.5 106 6.0 19 12 <20 6.3 34.1 106 3.7

20 3 <2 0.5 2.5 94 6.0 20 3 <20 0.2 <20 94 3.9

21 12 <2 0.6 11.1 105 5.0 21 12 <20 3.0 68.2 105 2.8

22 3 <2 2.0 2.5 98 8.0 22 3 <20 0.6 <20 98 4.0

23 12 <2 0.7 15.0 102 4.0 23 12 <20 2.1 <20 102 2.9

24 12 <2 2.5 7.6 58 11.0 24 12 <20 2.8 26.3 58 6.7

25 36 <2 1.6 13.0 129 9.0 25 36 <20 10.4 23.8 129 10.5

26 12 <2 1.0 2.6 104 5.0 26 12 <20 6.6 30.0 104 5.3

27 12 <2 1.1 7.8 105 4.0 27 12 <20 3.9 41.0 105 5.4

28 3 <2 1.1 2.5 97 3.0 28 3 <20 5.0 <20 97 2.5

29 12 <2 0.4 3.2 105 3.0 29 12 <20 7.0 31.2 105 5.4

30 12 <2 1.1 12.3 107 9.0 30 12 <20 4.2 310.0 107 6.9

31 24 <2 0.5 28.6 24 6.0 31 24 <20 5.3 23.5 24 5.3

32 24 <2 0.6 12.6 24 7.0 32 24 <20 3.6 <20 24 3.6

33 24 <2 0.2 <2 24 3.0 33 24 <20 1.0 <20 24 1.0

34 24 <2 0.1 11.1 24 1.5 34 24 <20 1.6 <20 24 1.6

35 24 <2 0.0 3.8 24 1.0 35 24 <20 0.4 24.0 24 0.4

Lead (ppb) - Last 3 Years/rept. limit 2 ppb All Results Zinc - Last 3 Years/rept. limit 20 ppb

46


site sample # low median high sample # median

1 36 <2 1.1 40.0 125 1.3

2 36 <2 2.3 40.0 130 2.0

3 12 <2 1.5 5.0 106 0.9

4 12 <2 2.4 6.0 107 1.7

5 12 <2 1.3 5.6 105 1.0

7 3 <2 1.8 5.0 97 0.6

8 3 <2 3.5 5.0 98 0.3

9 3 <2 0.7 5.0 97 0.3

10 3 <2 5.0 15.7 97 0.7

11 3 <2 0.9 5.0 92 0.4

12 3 <2 1.6 5.0 97 0.3

13 3 <2 1.1 5.0 95 0.6

14 3 <2 4.9 5.0 97 0.7

15 3 <2 1.6 5.0 97 0.8

16 35 <2 2.3 17.0 127 1.4

18 33 <2 1.7 6.2 122 1.7

19 12 <2 1.7 6.2 105 0.6

20 3 <2 2.4 5.0 93 0.8

21 12 <2 0.9 15.5 104 0.6

22 3 <2 2.3 5.0 97 1.0

23 12 <2 1.6 20.0 101 0.5

24 12 <2 1.3 5.0 57 1.2

25 36 <2 2.2 5.0 128 1.3

26 12 <2 1.9 5.5 103 0.8

27 12 <2 1.1 40.0 105 0.8

28 3 <2 1.6 5.0 96 0.4

29 12 <2 1.1 40.0 105 0.8

30 12 <2 2.0 9.0 106 1.7

31 24 <2 0.9 3.0 24 0.9

32 24 <2 1.0 3.5 24 1.0

33 24 <2 0.3 2.5 24 0.3

34 24 <2 0.3 14.0 24 0.3

35 24 <2 0.6 2.3 24 0.6

Copper (ppb) - Last 3 Years/rept. limit 2 ppb All Results

47

Appendix G: Trends for Each Site Related to Flow

site # site name

pH

Alk

ali

nit

y

Tu

rbid

ity

TS

S

Co

nd

uc

tiv

ity

Ort

ho

-ph

os

Am

mo

nia

-N

Nit

rate

-N

pH

Alk

ali

nit

y

Tu

rbid

ity

TS

S

Co

nd

uc

tiv

ity

Ort

ho

-ph

os

Am

mo

nia

-N

Nit

rate

-N

Green/Broad River watershed

12 Green River upstream X X X X

19 Green River above L Summit X X X X X

11 Green River below L Summit X X X X X

13 Big Hungry River X X X X X

Mud Creek watershed

21 Mud Creek at Berea Ch Rd X X X X X X

3 Mud Creek at Erkwood Road X X X X X X X

18 Mud Creek at 7th Ave/H'ville X X X X X

15 Bat Fork Creek X X X X X

30 Devil's Fork X X X X X

26 Brittain Creek X X X X

20 Clear Creek upstream X X X X X

5 Clear Creak downstream X X X X X X

4 Mud Creek at N Rugby Rd X X X X X X X X

Mills River watershed

7 North Fork Mills River X X X X X

8 South Fork Mills River X X X X X

9 Mills River at 191/280 X X X X X

29 Brandy Branch X X X X X X

10 Mills River at Hooper Ln X X X X X


22 Hooper's Creek X X X X X X

16 Cane Creek/Howard Gap Rd X X X X X X X

Etowah/Horseshoe

23 Big Willow Creek X

24 Little Willow Creek X X X

25 Gash Creek X X X X X

28 Shaw Creek X X X X X X

27 Mill Pond Creek X X X X X X X

14 Boylston Creek X X X X X X

French Broad River

1 French Broad River/Horseshoe X X X X X

2 French Broad River/Mt Home X X X X X

increases as flow increases decreases as flow increases

48

Appendix H: Trends for Each Site Related to Time

site # site name

pH

Alk

ali

nit

y

Tu

rbid

ity

TS

S

Co

nd

uc

tiv

ity

Ort

ho

-ph

os

Am

mo

nia

-N

Nit

rate

-N

pH

Alk

ali

nit

y

Tu

rbid

ity

TS

S

Co

nd

uc

tiv

ity

Ort

ho

-ph

os

Am

mo

nia

-N

Nit

rate

-N

Green/Broad River watershed

12 Green River upstream X X

19 Green River above L Summit X

11 Green River below L Summit X X

13 Big Hungry River X X

Mud Creek watershed

21 Mud Creek at Berea Ch Rd X X X X X

3 Mud Creek at Erkwood Road X X

18 Mud Creek at 7th Ave/H'ville X X X

15 Bat Fork Creek X X X X X

30 Devil's Fork X X X X X

26 Brittain Creek X X

20 Clear Creek upstream

5 Clear Creak downstream X X X

4 Mud Creek at N Rugby Rd X

Mills River watershed

7 North Fork Mills River X X

8 South Fork Mills River X X X

9 Mills River at 191/280 X

29 Brandy Branch X

10 Mills River at Hooper Ln X X


22 Hooper's Creek X X X

16 Cane Creek/Howard Gap Rd X X X X X

Etowah/Horseshoe

23 Big Willow Creek X X X X X

24 Little Willow Creek X X

25 Gash Creek X X X X

28 Shaw Creek X X X X

27 Mill Pond Creek X X X

14 Boylston Creek X X X X

French Broad River

1 French Broad River/Horseshoe X X X X X

2 French Broad River/Mt Home X

increasing over time decreasing over time

49

Appendix I: Number of Sites Exhibiting Seasonal Trends Seasons include the following months:

winter = December, January, February

spring = March, April, May

summer = June, July, August

fall = September, October, November

Totals for Henderson County Sites

number of sites examined for trends = 28

high high high high low low low low % sites

parameter winter spring summer fall winter spring summer fall trend sites showing trend

pH 4 1 3 1 1 5 17.9%

alkalinity 13 6 16 3 19 67.9%

turbidity 2 4 19 2 23 25 89.3%

total susp sol 3 19 1 12 11 23 82.1%

conductivity 1 5 18 3 21 24 85.7%

orthophos. 2 1 2 1 3 10.7%

ammonia-N 1 1 9 5 13 1 2 16 57.1%

nitrate-N 14 1 4 9 14 50.0%

Totals for All VWIN Sites Examined for Trends

number of sites examined for trends = 183

high high high high low low low low % sites

parameter winter spring summer fall winter spring summer fall trend sites showing trend

pH 0 1 79 32 93 16 0 3 112 60.9%

alkalinity 0 0 56 85 71 70 0 0 141 76.6%

turbidity 4 32 99 0 60 1 0 74 135 73.4%

total susp sol 0 40 102 1 87 0 0 56 143 77.7%

conductivity 9 4 49 80 24 111 3 4 142 77.2%

orthophos. 0 8 64 6 58 16 0 4 78 42.4%

ammonia-N 2 6 93 11 93 6 2 11 112 60.9%

nitrate-N 79 10 36 0 11 7 21 86 125 67.9%

50

Appendix J. 2012 SMIE Scores

Site Season Taxa Richness

Total Number

Collected

Number of

EPT Taxa

VASOS

Score VASOS Rating

Izaak

Walton

League

Score

Izaak

Walton

League

Rating

Uncle's Creek Spring Not sampled - - - - - -

Fall 13 52 8 12 Acceptable 19 Good

Green River at Bobs Creek Road Spring 21 311 11 10 Acceptable 24 Excellent

Fall 19 132 11 9 Acceptable 27 Excellent

Rock Creek Spring 20 294 11 10 Acceptable 26 Excellent


Green River at Terry's Creek Road Spring 14 62 6 9 Acceptable 14 Fair

Fall 13 58 5 9 Acceptable 12 Fair

Big Hungry River upstream Spring 20 190 13 11 Acceptable 26 Excellent


Big Hungry River downstream Spring 15 120 10 12 Acceptable 20 Good


Little Willow Spring 6 197 4 10 Acceptable 6 Poor

Fall Not sampled - - - - - -

Shaw Creek Spring 5 35 3 10 Acceptable 6 Poor


Mill Pond Creek Spring 13 47 5 6 Unacceptable 11 Fair


Boylston Creek Spring 8 26 5 10 Acceptable 12 Fair

Fall 7 13 3 9 Acceptable 8 Poor

North Fork Mills River Spring 21 207 15 10 Acceptable 17 Good


South Fork Mills River Spring 15 138 9 10 Acceptable 10 Poor


Mills River at Hooper's Lane Spring 13 219 9 10 Acceptable 13 Fair


Mud Creek at Berea Church Road Spring 9 47 5 11 Acceptable 14 Fair

Fall 9 45 2 6 Unacceptable 9 Poor

Mud Creek at 7th Avenue Spring 9 54 3 10 Acceptable 6 Poor


Brittain Creek Spring 6 46 2 9 Acceptable 10 Poor


Clear Creek at Bearwallow Road Spring 15 202 7 10 Acceptable 16 Fair

Fall 22 144 11 6 Unacceptable 24 Excellent

Clear Creek at Nix Road Spring 16 202 8 6 Unacceptable 18 Good

Fall 12 268 5 9 Acceptable 21 Good

Hooper's Creek Spring 13 230 6 10 Acceptable 21 Good


Cane Creek at Howard Gap Spring 11 117 6 9 Acceptable 11 Fair


Documents

Volunteer Water Information Network, 2012 Report