New River Proposed Water Intake Plant

 Is it Necessary?
 What Would the Effects Be?
 What Other Options are Available?
 How Are These Decisions Being Made?

Boone NC is proposing to build a water intake plant on the New River on the Watauga County/Ashe
County line near Todd, taking up to 4 + million gallons of water a day from the historic American
Heritage River for Boone's burgeoning water needs, replacing it with their treated waste water
(including untreated waste pharmaceuticals). Questions have been raised about the environmental,
economic, recreational, historic and cultural impact of the proposal. Many in Ashe County, Boone
and surrounding areas, including points downstream in VA are opposed to the proposal. Petitions
with hundreds of signatures have been gathered. The issue is attracting widespread attention,
including reporting by statewide Cable Channel 14 and other media outlets.

Twelve Position Papers raising key facts, issues and arguments about the proposed plant
follow:

1. Boone's Water Needs

2. Water Flow and Quantity
3. Pharmaceuticals in Surface Waters
4. Historical and Cultural Aspects
5. Economic Impact on Ashe County
6. Is Boone's Growth Smart?
7. How Transparent Has Boone's Process Been?
8. Alternative Options
9. Other Riparian Owner Rights
10. Public Trust Issues
11. Riparian Damage Due to Decreased Water Levels
12. Hellbender Salamander. An Indicator Species

“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation
which…possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic,
cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they…shall be
protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.”
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968)

After signing the bill designating the New River a Wild and Scenic River, President Ford declared: “When
a decision has to be made between energy production and environmental protection … you must ask
what is the will of the people involved … It is clear in this case [that] the people wanted the New River
like it is.”

For more information: http://newriverstewards.blogspot.com/

 1. Boone's Water Needs
The need for a new intake is based in part on the projected near doubling of population by the
year 2060 from 15,953 projected in 2010 to 29,555 in 2060, and the number of residences,
businesses and other user’s of Boone’s water system doubling over the next 50 years from
11,143 in 2010 to 27,722 in 2060. This is per the Town Manager of Boone, Mr. Greg Young,
who states that this is “calculated by W.K. Dickson using methodology approved by N.C. Office
of State Budget and Management.”

According to Boone’s town web site: “The Town of Boone Water Treatment Facility was
originally constructed in 1982 with the capacity to treat 3.0 MGD (million gallons per day).
The 2007 maximum daily demand (MDD) average was 2.13 MGD 71% of design capacity
and the average daily demand (ADD) was 1.85 MGD, 62% of design capacity.

As they near 80% of capacity the town says they are mandated by the state to have new
source plans or they will be forced to restrict development and growth.

Boone’s permit request is for 4 MGD from the New River, although again according to Mr.
Greg Young, “initially we plan to withdraw 1.5 Million gallons per day.” From a purely
water needs basis, why the need for a permit for 4 MGD? It would appear that with the 3
MGD current design capacity that 1.5 MGD would meet Boone’s water needs well into the
future if not for the doubling of population, especially since as Mr. Young stated in a letter
that in 2004 “the town of Boone began an aggressive water conservation program, asking
people to voluntarily conserve water.”

An additional point raising questions about Boone’s water needs and the need for 4 MGD
capacity in the new intake is the fact that in June of 2008, the town of Blowing Rock was
granted a $2.2 million grant to inter-connect with Boone’s water system in order to supply
Blowing Rock with water in case of emergencies.

Questions and Points of Interest Which Need Further Investigation:

What has been the results of the aggressive conservation effort by Boone? How much have
the conservation efforts reduced the increase of water usage indexed to population growth?

Could more aggressive conservation remove the need for a new intake or make other
options a better choice?

In the statement above by Mr. Young, what are the “other user’s of Boone’s water system:
which will contribute to the doubling of all water users in the next 50 years?

How will Boone’s inter-connection of its water system to Blowing Rock’s water system
impact Boone’s need for water?

What plans does Boone have for expansion outside of its existing town limits where it would
be required to provide and sell water, for example in the Deep gap area?

Why the need for a permit for 4 MGD when even with a doubling of population, if
conservation efforts are in place, the need should be for no more that 4-4.5 MGD ( in 50
years )? They have current capacity for 3 MGD of that need.

Is this truly about Boone’s water needs or Boone’s desire for growth, a growth at the
expense of an historic American Heritage River?
Addendum

In the environmental review Process, several key government agencies have questioned the
need for such a large additional water intake for Boone. They claim its documented need is not
that great and that other water sources are open to Boone: sharing with Appalachian State
University (ASU) and Blowing Rock, and implementing a reuse process for water for
consumptive purposes.

 The NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) states in the Nov. 21, 2008
memo (part of the environmental review process):

"The [Boone's] document should discuss the need for a new 4 mgd [millions gallons a day]
intake for a total, cumulative withdrawal capacity of 7 mgd in light of an anticipated 2030
average day demand of 2.75 mgd…It should be noted that due to the difficulty of predicting
future events, the installation of an over-sized intake in anticipation of future demand does
not necessarily guarantee that the use of this future installed withdrawal capacity will be
unconditional."

They question the rationale for an "over-sized intake in anticipation of future demand": such a
large capacity intake is not necessary based on current demand and future demands are
conjecture.

 The NC Wildlife Resources Commission memo of Nov. 24, 2008 (part of the
environmental review) states:

"Avoidance of a South Fork New River intake should be fully evaluated. Alternative water
sharing and coordination with…ASU should be thoroughly evaluated as surplus water may be
available closer to Boone. According to an Environmental Assessment for a proposed Blowing
Rock to Boone Water System Interconnection…,ASU obtains water from the Watauga River
and has a 360 million gallon water reservoir. Boone's highest demand period is indicated to
be ASU's lowest demand time. Accordingly, coordinating current water supply capabilities
may negate the need to place an intake on the South Fork New River."

They are claiming that by coordinating with Blowing Rock and ASU who have other water
supplies, Boone may have sufficient water for future needs without tapping the New River.
They also state:

"The direct reuse and recycling of treated waters for consumptive purposes would be
evaluated and implemented to the extent practicable to minimize impacts to the river
ecosystem. With a reuse process, only make up water would need to be withdrawn from the
river. This process could potentially avoid the need for additional intake facilities."
 2. Water Flow and Quantity

The Town of Boone has consistently maintained that "The proposed site has sufficient water
flow from which to withdraw water and still meet state and environmental requirements." They
state:
"The Watauga Democrat reported that on Aug. 12, 2008 a monitoring station on the South Fork
of the New River recorded a flow of 96 cubic feet per second. That equals 62 million gallons of
water a day. The article reported the all-time-lowest recorded flow on Sept. 5, 1925 was 65
cubic feet per second, just over 42 million gallons a day." (http://townofboone.net)

This is raises a number of questions:

 To cite a local newspaper as the main source for scientific data is unusual. Local
newspapers are not scientific authorities.
 Why does Boone cite the water flow of one particular day (Aug. 12, 2008)? What is
needed is average flows, highs and lows, over periods of time (weeks, months, years).
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in their review states
that Boone's scoping document should provide the following data: "flow statistics, e.g.
7Q10, median flow, flow frequency curve; and the supporting analysis and description
of data used to determine the flow statistics." Why is this data absent?
 It appears that there is only one monitoring station on the South Fork of the New River,
the US Geological Survey gauge at the Route 16/88 bridge in Jefferson. This station is
over 40 miles from the proposed intake site in Brownwood, with several named creeks
and countless drainages between the two locations (see map below). The flow at the
intake site is in all likelihood substantially different (less) from the flow at the
monitoring station where the data is coming from.
 What is the water flow at the location of the proposed intake? Clear data of water flow
from the actual proposed site at Brownwood is absent and needs to be provided. This
would be necessary due diligence for a proposal of this scope and magnitude.
 According to DENR:
o the "7Q10" statistic (the lowest 7 day period flow over a 10 year period) for the
South Fork of the New River is 6.13 millions of gallons a day (mgd).
o The "30Q2" statistic (a reading over 30 consecutive days, with a 50%
likelihood that this level of flow will recur in any one year) is 13.1 mgd
o The average flow is 38.1 mgd.
These are substantially below Boone's stated flow claims of 62 and 42 mgd.
 In addition, the flow rates at the proposed Brownwood site are, according to some
experts, well below (probably around half) the flow rates just stated, taken from the
USGS gauge site. If we estimate the Brownwood flow to be half the flow at the site of
the USGS gauge, the flows would be:
7Q10: 3.065 mgd
30 Q 2: 6.55 mgd
average flow: 19.05 mgd.
 If Boone's plan is to remove 4 + mgd from the Brownwood site, the effect would be
dramatic: actually removing more water than is available (based on the 7Q10
statistic), removing close to all the water available (based on the 30 Q 2 statistic), and
removing around 20 percent of available water (based on the average flow statistic).
 These lower readings are much more consistent with actual observed water levels and
flow than Boone's stated data.
 This is the only flow rate data cited on Boone's website. Public requests have been made
for more complete documentation but have not been answered.
 Boone's presentation of the New River flow statistics data is at best confusing and
misleading. They need to present their flow data to the public clearly and definitively,
based on accurate data from the site of the proposed intake plant, and detail clearly
their methodology for obtaining that data.
 Boone's presentation of data does not inspire confidence. Based on this incomplete,
unclear, possibly misleading and inaccurate presentation, how much credibility should
be give to their claims about the percentage of treated water which will be returned to
the river, as well as many other details of their proposed plans?
 3. Municipal wastewater contaminants in surface waters of the United States:
relevance to the South Fork New River and proposed new water intake station

Synopsis
Many household items, cleaning and sterilizing solutions, cosmetics, and drugs contribute to
the increasingly complex “soup” of compounds we are all exposed to as modern humans. As
our bodies absorb and then eliminate these compounds into the common waste stream, they
often elude removal or breakdown and end up being released from sewage plants into streams
and rivers in their active forms – in hopes that the mainstream paradigm of “the solution to
pollution is dilution” is actually true. Today we have evidence that a new paradigm has been
formed – “what you throw away will eventually come back to hit you” or the boomerang
paradigm. Recently these compounds are becoming easier to identify and quantify at much
lower concentrations by new chemistry techniques and instrumentation. As curious scientists
begin to look for these compounds in our surface, ground, and even drinking water – our worst
fears have been brought to light: these compounds are there too. Many of these compounds
have been shown to have adverse effects on humans and aquatic wildlife. Although scientists
have very little information on the long term exposure of humans and the environment to low
levels of these compounds (alone or in combination), the possibility of cancer, systemic
immune, and reproductive effects are real possibilities. This new area of toxicology is especially
important to keep in mind as we plan and build the water infrastructure that will sustain Boone
and surrounding communities for decades to come.

The Issue
The continued exponential growth in human population has created a corresponding increase
in the demand for the Earth’s limited supply of freshwater. Thus, protecting the integrity of our
water resources is one of the most essential environmental issues of the 21st century. Of
current concern are the effects of tons of emerging environmental contaminants
(http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc/) which consist of pharmaceuticals, industrial waste
products, fire-retardants, and antibiotics that are released into surface and ground waters
(Science of the Total Environment, 2008, Vol. 402, pp 192-200) and eventually make their way
into drinking water supplies. Pharmaceuticals for human use can enter the environment by
excretion following therapeutic use, discharge of treated wastewater from manufacturing
facilities, or disposal of unused medicines by the consumer. Patient excretion following therapy
is widely considered to be the primary pathway to the environment. A March 2008 report from
the Associated Press indicated that many of these compounds were found in drinking water
across the United States (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-10-drugs-tap-
water_N.htm). These pharmaceuticals include a wide range of compounds including
antidepressants, estrogens, pain killers, anti-seizure, and heart medications just to name a few
and they are not removed by current US municipal waste water treatment plant (WWTP)
requirements.
Municipal wastewater from WWTPs has been widely-documented to contain compounds which
are introduced to aquatic systems and can significantly impact biota. A recent US Geological
Survey project (published in 2002 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 36,
pp. 1202-1211) provided the first nationwide reconnaissance of the occurrence of
pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants (OWCs) in water
resources. They used five newly developed analytical methods to measure concentrations of 95
OWCs in water samples from a network of 139 streams across 30 states during 1999 and 2000.
The selection of sampling sites was biased toward streams susceptible to contamination (i.e.
downstream of intense urbanization and livestock production). OWCs were prevalent during
this study, being found in 80% of the streams sampled.

The most frequently detected compounds were coprostanol (fecal steroid), cholesterol (plant
and animal steroid), N,N-diethyltoluamide (insect repellant), caffeine (stimulant), triclosan
(antimicrobial disinfectant), tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (fire retardant), and 4-nonylphenol
(nonionic detergent metabolite). Measured concentrations for this study were generally low
and rarely exceeded drinking-water guidelines, drinking-water health advisories, or aquatic-life
criteria. Many compounds, however, do not have such guidelines established. The detection of
multiple OWCs was common for this study, with a median of seven and as many as 38 OWCs
being found in a single sample of water. Little is known about the potential interactive effects
(such as synergistic or antagonistic toxicity) that may occur from complex mixtures of OWCs in
the environment. In addition, results of this study demonstrate the importance of obtaining
data on metabolites to fully understand not only the fate and transport of OWCs in the river but
also their ultimate overall effect on human health and the environment. The South Fork has an
average flow rate of 6.12 million gallons/day; based on the WWTP effluent release flow,
effluent comprises no more than 25-40% of the downstream flow.

To our knowledge, no extensive testing of pharmaceuticals or other OWCs has ever been
conducted in the South Fork of the New River. However, ASU Biology and Chemistry faculty
have conducted environmental tests to determine the effects of pharmaceutical estrogens
(birth control and estrogen supplements) from the Boone WWTP on male fish populations in
the South Fork. The test looks for the presence of female specific egg proteins, called
vitellogenins, in the blood of the male fish. The results indicated that 60-66% of male hognose
and white suckers immediately below the WWTP effluent are being feminized; tests with
rainbow trout have yet to be conducted. Although preliminary tests have shown that
pharmaceutical estrogens in the river just below the WWTP are right at levels known to cause
feminization (> 0.1 parts per trillion = ng/L), it is unlikely that these levels persist very far
downstream due to dilution, adsorption to organic matter, and breakdown by microbes and
sunlight.

Although the release of some of these compounds from every WWTPs is undeniable, the long
distance persistence in the water downstream, and thus their possible adverse effect, is in
question. Results of several studies on the persistence of OWCs in rivers have indicated that
natural degradation by microbial action and photolysis can result in significant decreases in
concentrations of wastewater-derived contaminants in rivers (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2006, Vol.
40, pp 7257–7262). Since the proposed drinking water intake site on the South Fork has not
been evaluated for the levels of any of the pharmaceuticals or OWCs released from the Boone
WWTP or other sources, we have no data on possible human exposure levels by way of
incorporation into future drinking water supplies. If determined, these levels would serve as the
basis of human health risk assessment (for better or worse) and provide guidance to
appropriate water treatment for adequate removal of these compounds if needed. What we
can predict at this point is that low river flow levels in the future combined with increased
effluent releases will likely increase the distance the compounds are carried downstream. Given
the weight of evidence from the last ten years on the prevalence of OWCs in surface, ground
and drinking water, the environmentally sustainable Boone I want to live in owes it to itself to
be cautious and forward thinking in its approach to this water intake project.

Dr. Shea Tuberty, PhD

Biology Department
Appalachian State University
828.262.6857
tubertysr@appstate.edu
 4. Historical and Cultural Aspects

 In additional to concerns about the environmental and economic impact of Boone's

proposed water intake plant on the New River, the river's unique historic and cultural
status must be addressed.
 The New River is not just "another river." It's an American Heritage River, one of only 14
originally so designated by President Clinton in 1997. He signed Executive Order 13061
on its banks, recognizing its national, even world-class, status. The river was previously
nationally designated a "Wild and Scenic River." Both designations acknowledge the
distinctive, valuable nature of the river and confer on it a protected status.
 The New River is millions of years old. It is the remaining vestige of the prehistoric
Teays River system, the largest river system in the ancient land that eventually
became North America. It existed millions of years before the "recent" ice ages. It
distinctively flows northward, cutting across the Appalachian Chain.
 The source of the South Fork of the New River is two miles from Blowing Rock. It flows
northward through VA and WV, merging with the Ohio River, the Mississippi and
eventually the Gulf of Mexico. Boone's proposed plant would tap this historic treasure
very near its source, replacing millions of gallons a day of its natural waters with their
treated waste water. This would substantially alter the river for all points downstream
for thousands of miles.
 Just as we confer recognition on valuable historic buildings and landmarks, protecting
them from changes in structure or materials, so too the historic New River requires our
protection from unnecessary human intervention. We carefully preserve valuable
natural historic wonders, such as the Grand Canyon.
 Families and communities have treasured their river for generations, celebrating it in
poems, songs and stories. Large festivals have been held commemorating the New
River. In this rural area, people are deeply attached to the land. The land is their wealth.
It helps shape their identity. They are emotionally bonded to it. Corrupting the river is
an assault on their native homeland.
 We are the stewards of an ancient treasure. Usurping its integrity for the proposed
economic benefit of a 200 year old town is not wise. Even from a purely economic
viewpoint, such a plan devalues the region's worth. From a quality of life standpoint, the
proposal diminishes one of the most treasured natural assets of the area. From the
broadest perspective, the results of such an intervention are devastating. An ancient
treasure, millions of years in the making, can be in a short span of time unalterably
damaged. According to an Native America custom, in all important decisions, the elders
considered the effects for seven generations to come. We do not own the New River.
We have inherited it as a blessing from the Earth, from our ancestors. As mindful
stewards, we should celebrate our good fortune, preserving and protecting this gift for
many future generations.
 5. Economic Impact on Ashe County
Effects on Tourism, Property and Land Values

 The New River is the jewel of Ashe County, one of its prime natural resources,
enhancing land and property values, tourism and recreation. Replacing up to 4.5 million
gallons of water a day with Boone's treated waste water, including untreated waste
pharmaceuticals, would have a negative economic impact on Ashe County real estate
and local industries.
 People come to the area to "Canoe the New", to enjoy kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
fishing in the river, picnicing on its banks, exploring the river's parks (New River State
Park, NC, others in VA and WV). They appreciate the scenic qualities of the river, as well
as its distinctive historical and cultural status.
 Canoeing the natural water of this ancient and beautiful river very near its source is
not the same as canoeing Boone's treated waste water.
 Drought conditions have impacted the New River, which is already displaying such low
levels in areas that kayaking and canoeing are restricted. In the Brownwood area, the
site of the proposed plant, water levels are so low that kayakers must lift their vessels
and wade to where the river is navigable. Taking any additional water from the river, as
well as replacing its waters with modified water, including waste pharmaceuticals,
would further restrict recreational activities, having a negative economic impact.
 Many area businesses are based on the New River, such as river outfitters, restaurants,
inns and stores on its banks (including those in Todd, e.g. the historic Todd General
Store), parks, etc. Replacing large quantities of the New River's "wild and scenic" waters
with treated waste water would negatively impact all these area industries.
 Ashe County has recently been experiencing a large housing boom. People are drawn to
the area for first and second homes and to retire. The New River's scenic, recreational,
historic and cultural qualities add value. Many new homes have been built to take
advantage of the river's assets, including a new upscale development on its banks at
Brownwood, the site of the projected intake plant. Many area real estate companies,
recognizing the negative impact the proposed plant would have on Ashe County land
and property values, are opposed to the plant and have signed petitions opposing it.
 Boone's proposal would draw water from the New River just as it leaves Watauga
County and enters Ashe County. Ashe County would be the first recipient of Boone's
treated waste water, which would also affect all points downstream for thousands of
miles. There is no upside to the proposal for Ashe County. Boone's projected economic
gain would be Ashe County's economic loss.
 It's a fairness issue. If Boone proceeds with their proposed plan, which would damage
Ashe County economically, Ashe County should be compensated by Boone for their loss.
Boone claims it chose the Brownwood site on the New River because this was the
closest and cheapest source of water for them. However, considering this negative
economic impact on Ashe County and subsequent compensation as part of the cost of
their plan and not an "externality" may make other options for Boone's water supply
more viable.
 6. Is Boone’s Growth Smart?
 Boone has always been a destination for those seeking a break from life “off the
mountain.” With the increasing popularity of Appalachian State University and rising
global temperatures, this is unlikely to change. The town predicts it will double its
population from 15,000 to over 30,000 in the next 50 years, and the university also has
growth goals not, as yet, set by the town. The goal of Smart Growth is to answer the
question: “What is our carrying capacity in regard to water, ecosystem services, and cost
of public infrastructure?”
 In 2007, after commissioning an audit of local development, Boone created the Unified
Development Ordinance that established a rubric for determining whether new growth
would fit the character the town wishes to keep in place. This matrix includes
categories that define land-use, building design, walkability, and transportation. The
new Smart Growth matrix does not include water availability as a category for
determining development viability. In fact, the audit only seems to acknowledge the
importance of water as storm drainage. This omission gravely underestimates the
importance that water has become in determining how much growth Boone can
actually support.
 The Smart Growth audit also notes the importance of “stakeholder collaboration,”
ensuring that those who are affected by Boone’s growth play an active role in shaping
the future of their community. Citizens have a right to determine the course their
communities take. This includes more forceful implementation of “growth threshold
standards” designed to both monitor the impact of growth on a community and limit
the kinds of growth that citizens do not want. The largest block of community
stakeholders listed in the audit are developers. Those outside the town limits, including
residents of Watauga and neighboring counties, were not included among the “Smart
Growth” audit stakeholders. By ignoring the voices of people who live outside the town
limits, it appears decision-makers could insert a water-intake in the county without
consequence. By privileging the voices of developers, Boone allows those most vested
in such an intake to think only of their profits.
 The audit notes that “implementing programs and ordinances provide primarily for an
automobile-oriented, suburban style of future development, although the Town is
making an on-going and concerted effort to change this trend” (Smart Growth Audit, 7).
Unfortunately, the town has not made a concerted effort to curb the kind of sprawl that
would extend Boone toward Wilkes County on the 421S corridor. Given the existing
terrain and current development trends, the town is already beginning to grow south
east along this highway. This is the clearest indication that the New River intake is being
strategically placed to maximize the ability of the town to eventually reach Deep Gap.
 With regard to the question: “What is our carrying capacity in regard to water,
ecosystem services, and cost of public infrastructure?”, Boone has not made a fair and
transparent attempt at informing High Country citizens of their future plans, “smart” or
otherwise. High Country citizens deserve to be included in these decisions, not simply
bystanders of the whims of economic developers.
 7. How Transparent has Boone's Process Been?
 The Boone Town Council introduced a bond referendum for the proposed water intake
plant on the New River less than three months before the general election (Nov. 2008).
While there were two opportunities for voters to attend meetings and view the Boone
Town Council Powerpoint presentation, those meetings hardly provided enough
information for citizens to make clear, well-informed decisions. Residents understand
there is a water shortage and Boone needs more water to meet their demands.
However little information has been made available about conservation and no
information has been made public regarding communications between Appalachian
State University, the Town of Boone and the Town of Blowing Rock. Boone Town
Council members claim to have had an open and public process. However, most of the
“18 different governmental agencies…[who would] review the proposed site, including
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and DENR” did not turn in their reports until late
November/December 2008, long after the bond referendum had been put to a vote.
How could Boone's residents make an informed opinion and vote on the bond issue
when the environmental review statements evaluating the proposal were not yet
available?
 The Town of Boone's voters overwhelmingly approved the loan for $25 million to create
a better water system for Boone, but this does not grant Boone permission to build on
the New River’s South Fork. By condoning Boone's water needs for the future, citizens
may have been led to believe South Fork project is a "done deal" when, in fact, the
referendum is for a new water supply--somewhere.
 Appalachian State University certainly has the power to buy property to suit their
growth needs. However it is time for Watauga and other High Country residents to hold
the university and the Town of Boone accountable for their lack of communication. The
public must be fully engaged in decisions affecting their future. The decision-making
process must be transparent. Residents, Boone Town Council members, ASU students,
staff and faculty need to participate in an open dialogue around how best to share our
abundant resources.
 In addition, Ashe County has had virtually no representation in the decision-making
process about the proposed plant up to this point. The voice of Ashe County has not
been heard in a decision that directly impacts them. The proposed plant is in
Brownwood, on the Watauga County/Ashe County line. Boone would be taking millions
of gallons a day from the New River just as it enters Ashe County, replacing it with their
treated waste water, including waste pharmaceuticals. This would have a direct
environmental and economic impact on Ashe County.
 The Ashe County Commissioners have, up to this point, not been actively engaged or
even informed in this decision-making process. As late as the Summer of 2008, when an
option to purchase had already been secured on the land for the proposed site and
Environmental Assessments were underway, the Ashe County Commissioners had not
even been officially informed by the Boone Town Council about the proposed plant. In
addition, State Senator Steve Goss and State Representative Cullie Tarleton, who are
supposed to represent the constituents of Ashe as well as Watauga counties, have not
 been supporting Ashe County's interests. Many people in Ashe County--including West
Jefferson business owners, real estate agents, environmental groups and others--are
strongly opposed to the plant. Petitions with hundreds of signatures in opposition have
already been signed. Yet Sen. Goss and Rep. Tarleton helped secure state funding to
purchase the property at the site. Rep. Tarleton was appointed Chair of the newly
formed Water Resources Committee in the State House, and shepherded House Bill 972
through, paving the legal way for the proposed plant for Boone.
 The lack of transparency in the decision-making process about the proposed water plant
up to this point as well as the lack of representation of key interests that would be
affected, including Ashe County residents, casts doubt on the legitimacy of the process.
The public forum on June 23, 2009 is the first opportunity for Ashe County's residents'
opinions to be heard. It's the first public meeting of Ashe County and Boone
governments on this issue and the first time the Ashe County Commissioners have been
publicly involved in the project. Though long overdue, it's a step in the right direction.
 8. Alternative Options
 The Town of Boone has consistently maintained that “26 other options were explored
[for the proposed water intake plant on the New River near Todd] including the Yadkin
River and Watauga Lake….” However, this vague statement does not specify what the
other options are. There has been little public information about what they are or other
alternatives might be. Was the Appalachian State University 360 million gallon
reservoir considered? According to the N.C Wildlife Resources Commission report
from Nov. 24, 2008, “Avoidance of a South Fork New River intake should be fully
evaluated. Alternative water sharing and coordinating with Appalachian State
University (ASU) should be thoroughly evaluated as surplus water may be available
closer to Boone. According to an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a proposed
Blowing Rock to Boone Water System Interconnection (OLIA #09-0113), ASU obtains
water from the Watauga River and maintains a 360 million gallon water reservoir.
Boone’s highest demand period is indicated to be ASU’s lowest demand time.
Accordingly, coordinating current water supply capabilities may negate the need to
place an intake on the South Fork of the New River.”
 The Commission's report also notes “Watauga County environmental protection
measures are not indicated in the present scope submittal.” Has the option of intensive
conservation on the part of local residents been considered? What if every home had
rain barrels for watering their gardens and lawns or washing the car? What if every
Watauga home was equipped with shower and toilet conservation gadgets? Has
anyone considered conservation as part of the $25 million dollars? If there are
presently 30,000 homes in Watauga County, every one could be supplied with
conservation utilities for less than $5 million.
 All residents should be informed of all the various options, rather than merely being
informed that W.K. Dickson, the company researching the various options, has found
"the best one," one which also furthers the company's interests as the future contractor
for the proposed project.
 9. Other Riparian Owner Rights
Boone’s proposed new raw water intake is to be built on land in Watauga County that borders
the South Fork of the New River. At this point on the river, it forms the boundary between
Ashe and Watauga counties. Shortly below the proposed intake, the river flows into Ashe
county which would be most impacted by the water withdrawal.

According to N.C. Water Law in an article prepared by Allain C. Andry, IV, Applied Resource
Economics and Policy Group Agricultural and Resource Economics, “Riparian Rights are the
rights of landowners to use water that is on or adjacent to their property…The guiding principle
of riparian rights in North Carolina (and most other eastern states) is “reasonable use.” Owners
of property adjacent to a natural body of water have the right to make reasonable use of the
water…”Reasonable use” means that each riparian owner can take, use, and discharge surface
water so long as that use does not excessively diminish the quality or quantity of the water that
flows to other riparian owners. All riparian landowners have equal riparian rights, and no one
owner can unreasonably interfere with the reasonable uses of the others. A riparian owner
who uses so much water that it impairs the reasonable uses of the other owners or who
pollutes the water can be sued by the adversely affected owners for damages and an injunction
to stop the infringing.”

The proposed new water intake would be the second Boone intake on this river and located at
a point where the major impacts would be on citizens of Ashe County and beyond, not Boone.
According to Boone’s Town Manager in a letter, “Since almost 99% of the withdrawn water will
be returned to the river, water flows should be very close to their current levels.” In that same
letter, Mr. Young, in reference to pharmaceutical waste in the discharged wastewater, stated
that, “We have publicly expressed our concern about possible effects of pharmaceuticals and
our commitment to stay on top of the most recent developments, making every effort to
minimize any effects of pharmaceuticals. However, neither the federal nor state government
has any standards or regulations at this time regarding levels of pharmaceuticals in water being
discharged from a waste water treatment facility.”

Questions and Points of Interest That Need Further Investigation:

With water levels of the river at near record lows, is returning “almost 99% of the withdrawn
water” so that “water flows should be very close to their current level” enough to avoid
negatively impacting the riparian rights of all other river property owners as well as the “public
use rights” of the water from a quantity standpoint?

How will the pharmaceuticals in the treated waste water which is to be discharged back into
the river impact the quality of the river water and what impact might this have on the ecology
and environmental status of the river? Is this not a potential negative impact on all riparian
owners? What does “staying on top of these developments” and “making every effort to
minimize any effects of pharmaceuticals” mean? What, if any, specific action plan is in place to
ensure this does not become a riparian rights issue in the future based on river quality? What is
Boone’s fall back plan should this indeed become a worst case scenario from either a quantity
or quality riparian rights standpoint?
 10. Submerged Land and Public Trust Issues
HB 972: Earlier this year Boone asked State Rep. Cullie Tarleton to introduce this bill granting
the Town of Boone “the right to construct and maintain a water intake system in the waters
and submerged land of the South Fork of the New River notwithstanding any public trust
rights.” According to a letter from the Boone Town Manager, Mr. Greg Young, “Representative
Tarleton agreed to introduce HB 972 in order for us to secure permission to lay piping along the
riverbed of the New River…With the piping under the river, tubers and boaters would float over
without knowing the piping was there.” According to Rep. Tarleton in another letter, “I
introduced the bill at the request of the town of Boone. We’re not sure they need legislative
permission for their proposed water intake but they wanted to be on the safe side.” Rep.
Tarleton has never visited the site of the proposed intake.

In follow-up correspondence, Rep. Tarleton advised that this had to do with the interpretation
of a 1995 N.C. Supreme Court ruling (No. 74PA94- New Hanover Supreme Court of North
Carolina 32 N.C. 287; 464 S.E.2d 674). This ruling deals with a land dispute in sound waters in
eastern N.C. but addresses somewhat the issues of who owns submerged lands as well as the
State’s public trust rights to those lands. According to an interpretation of N.C. Water law,
“under N.C. law, all land under saltwater bodies, lands subject to the ebb and flow of the tide,
and land under water that is subject to the influx of saltwater is owned by the state “in trust”
for the public. The same rule of State ownership applies to land underlying fresh water bodies
that have an outlet to the ocean and would be potentially by historical sea vessels…When the
State owns submerged lands, the owner of land adjacent to the water body still has riparian
rights of access to and use of the water and bottoms…Submerged lands that do not fall into the
above categories, which would include most land under streams, smaller rivers, and lakes can
be privately owned.”

The 1995 N.C. Supreme Court ruling gave some attention to defining navigable waters,
although it still appears to be vague and at issue is whether the South Fork of the New River
would meet that criteria and the State owning the submerged land in public trust. However,
that public trust seems to be in place so that no land owner can use that body of water or the
submerged lands to hinder reasonable public use of the water.

This becomes a key issue with Boone’s proposed intake since the property they wish to build on
is a stretch of the river that forms the boundary between Ashe and Watauga counties of N.C.,
as well as the fact that most of the downstream flow to be affected by the river will be in Ashe
County. This is especially true with their proposal to lay piping along the riverbed and under the
water, especially since the location of the proposed intake and piping is at an area where
current river levels are near record lows and in many places less than one foot deep, and in
most 2-3 feet.

Questions and Points of Interest Which Need Further Investigation:

How does Boone propose to lay piping along the riverbed and under the water (in a river at
near record lows) in such a way that it will not impact the reasonable public use of the
river and thus come in conflict with the public trust issue?
Does the Boone plan involve any disruption of the riverbed in order to lay this piping? If so,
what impact studies have been done to see how this alteration of the riverbed would impact
the ecological aspects of the river?

How does Boone plan to lay this piping in an area of the river where it is a common
boundary and not affect the private property rights of the many citizens/property owners
who have not signed off on this plan?

Why if there is any uncertainty as to the need for legislative permission, would the
legislation be proposed and the project would proceed before all of the legal ramifications
have been cleared?

Is the South Fork of the New River a navigable river and does it meet all the criteria that
the submerged land is held in public trust by the state?

Where and when was the public discussion of the need for HB 972 and the impact of laying
the piping under the river?
 11. Riparian Damage Due to Decreased Water Levels
 Background information
In general, riparian buffer zones can be defined as green zones along streams, rivers, and lakes.
These riparian buffer zones have a diverse selection of vegetation that provide numerous
benefits to the streams they border, as well as to the selection of wildlife that find shelter in
their unique environment. The destruction of these zones has created numerous problems,
resulting in the destruction of the immediate stream habitat, as well as destruction of the
vitality of area downstream. Positive effects of riparian zones include the prevention of
nutrient and sediment pollution, the stabilization of fish habitat, the perpetuation of the
microbial food loop and the control of flooding.
 Water Flow is the Life blood of New River
Any decrease of water flow in the New River is the loss of the life blood of the River. Any
cumulative long term significant decline of water flow may unravel the ecological stability of
the New River by:
 Affecting the root depths of plants and thereby changing the vegetation of the buffering
riparian zone
o Healthy wetland riparian zones consist of a very diverse variety of plant life.
 Trees and shrubs with longer root systems help to stabilize the soil,
create water cooling shade and a rich wildlife habitat along the river
banks
 Unhealthy riparian zones consist of fewer plant species with shallow
roots such as grasses and wildflowers.
 Healthy vegetation along the riparian zone protects the river from several types of
pollution that otherwise could directly affect the aquatic wildlife in the New River,
including temperature, pH, sediment and oxygen.
o Aquatic wildlife need cool water temperatures to aid them in breathing dissolved
oxygen. Cooler water holds more dissolved oxygen than warmer water. If trees
and shrubs are lost along the river, the water becomes warmer.
o Vegetation with shorter roots cannot adequately hold on to riverbank soil. Grass
is not a good riparian plant. Sediment entering the river also works to suffocate
aquatic species by covering their gills used in breathing.
o Additional soil in the lower level of water contained by the New River would
work to change the pH balance of the water making it inhabitable to many
aquatic species.
We must protect the New River against any additional pressures to its ecological health. A
decline in tourism could result when people realize that the fishing is no longer the same, when
pristine meadow streams become unable to support the diverse wildlife locals and tourists
have come to enjoy. Birding, fishing, canoeing, wildlife viewing, hiking and camping are all at
risk. Ashe County claims the New River's Wild and Scenic River and American Heritage River
status as "bragging rights". Both could become false advertising if the New River is not
protected.
 Sources Sited and references
Streamway Corridors: The Importance of Riparian Buffer Zones, Jessica Hayes-Conroy
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/hayesconroyj2.html#9#9
 12. Hellbender Salamander, an Indicator Species
The eastern Hellbender is a unique and special native resident to the southern Appalachians.
In NC this completely aquatic, harmless salamander is only found in the New and the
Watauga river basins. It is one of the largest salamanders in the world, growing to more
than two feet in length. It lives to be up to 30 years of age. Searching for Hellbenders,
biologists usually find older adults and not immature hellbenders. At one time, the eastern
hellbender lived throughout the Appalachian mountains and across the mid-western United
States. Today, however, it exists in small pockets of habitat (including the New River) and is
restricted to mountainous areas with little human settlement. (http://www.hellbenders.org/)

Why is the Hellbender disappearing?

Hellbenders need a specific balance of habitat; cool, fast-flowing, unpolluted streams and
rivers with many large rocks and logs for cover and nesting. The Hellbender faces many
threats associated with human activity; agricultural practices, housing developments, poor
forestry practices and road and dam building. The latest threat to the survival of the Eastern
hellbender is the non-regulation and non-filtering of household disposal of pharmaceutical
and endocrine disrupting wastes. This threat is gaining recognition by biologists not only
across the US but around the world. (See position paper 3.)
.
The effects of Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products
on Aquatic Wildlife including the Eastern Hellbender
 Hellbender populations, along with habitat destruction and changes in water quality,
including chemical containing estrogenic properties, may explain the observed lack of
recruitment of young animals. Search studies find adult Hellbenders but not young
hellbenders.( M. E. Solı, C. C. Liu, P. Nam, D. K. Niyogi, J. M. Bandeff, Y.W. Huang)
 In North Carolina, it is illegal to kill a Hellbender or any species of Special Concern. If
pharmaceutical waste is linked to the disruption and the hindrance of the
Hellbender’s natural rate of reproduction, we would ask the municipalities to be held
to the same standard as the public and not allowed to endanger the population of the
Eastern Hellbender or any of the other species that could be affected. (Listed below;
NC Natural Heritage inventory list of all animal species threatened for extinction in
Ashe County)
 The Hellbender's status of Species of Special Concern (both NC State and Federal)
does not grant its habitat the same legal protection as if it were designated as a
threatened or endangered species. It does, however give it protection from the
outright killing of a Hellbender. The designation also puts it on the list of animals that
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and other state agencies are concerned about
and therefore are monitoring its population. Its numbers are in a sharp decline
across its original habitat range. (http://www.hellbenders.org/)
 As with other amphibians, biologists use the Hellbender as an Indicator Species.
Breathing through its skin, it is sensitive to pollutants and therefore can indicate to
the public the health of the New River.
 The decline of the population is a warning that something is wrong with the health of
the New River. Accumulated pressures on the New River including housing
developments, improper forestry techniques and loss of aquatic vegetative buffers
are steadily increasing. If the population continues to decline, it would likely prompt
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission to change its status to threatened or
endangered. If that takes place, very tight restrictions to the river would be
established. This would affect all citizens of the New River watershed.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Animal Listings and Status.
CODE. E=Endangered, T=Threatened, SC=Special Concern, SR= Significantly Rare, EX=Extirpated
Invertebrate Animal ASHE COUNTY

Major State Federal State GlobalCounty - Map -

Scientific Name Common Name
Group Status Status Rank Rank Status Habitat
Invertebrate Ashe -
Elliptio dilatata Spike SC None S1 G5 Link
Animal Current
Invertebrate Ashe -
Lasmigona subviridis Green Floater E FSC S1 G3 Link
Animal Current
Invertebrate Ashe -
Leptoxis dilatata Seep Mudalia T None S1 G3 Link
Animal Current
Invertebrate Ashe -
Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy Snaketail SR FSC S1S2 G3 Link
Animal Current
Invertebrate Appalachian Checkered- Ashe -
Pyrgus wyandot SR FSC S1 G1G2Q Link
Animal Skipper Current
Invertebrate Ashe -
Speyeria idalia Regal Fritillary SR FSC SH G3 Link
Animal Historical
Invertebrate Gammon's Stenelmis Ashe -
Stenelmis gammoni SR FSC SH G1G3 Link
Animal Riffle Beetle Historical
Invertebrate Ashe -
Tritogonia verrucosa Pistolgrip EX None SX G4G5 Link
Animal Historical

Vertebrate Animal ASHE COUNTY

Major State Federal State Global County - Map -

Scientific Name Common Name
Group Status Status Rank Rank Status Habitat
Vertebrate Ashe -
Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake SC None S3 G4 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Ashe -
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender SC FSC S3 G3G4 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Ashe -
Desmognathus wrighti Pigmy Salamander SR FSC S3 G3G4 Link
Animal Historical
Vertebrate Ashe -
Exoglossum maxillingua Cutlip Minnow SC None S1 G5 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Ashe -
Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle T T S2 G3 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Southern Appalachian Ashe -
Loxia curvirostra pop. 1 SC FSC S3B,S3N G5TNR Link
Animal Red Crossbill Current
Vertebrate Ashe -
Necturus maculosus Common Mudpuppy SC None S1 G5 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Ashe -
Neotoma magister Appalachian Woodrat SC FSC S2 G3G4 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Ashe -
Percina caprodes Logperch T None S1 G5 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Ashe -
Percina oxyrhynchus Sharpnose Darter SC None S1 G4 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Ashe -
Phenacobius teretulus Kanawha Minnow SC FSC S2 G3G4 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Ashe -
Plethodon welleri Weller's Salamander SC None S2 G3 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Ashe -
Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow SC None S2B,S2N G5 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Ashe -
Sylvilagus obscurus Appalachian Cottontail SR FSC S3 G4 Link
Animal Current
Vertebrate Appalachian Bewick's Ashe -
Thryomanes bewickii altus E FSC SHB G5T2Q Link
Animal Wren Historical
Vertebrate Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler SC FSC S3B G4 Ashe - Link