NCS000515_15Appendix C_20200921

Appendix
C

m
m
m

Yadkin -Pee Dee
Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan
Foreword and Executive Summary
May 1998
Prepared by the:
NC Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
Planning Branch
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
[phone]
Lake TiLery
Stanly County, NC
This document was approved and endorsed by the NC Environmental Management Commission on May 14, 1998 to be used
as a guide by the NC Division of Water Quality in carrying out its Water Quality Program duties and responsibilities on the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
Foreword
Executive Summary
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Overview
• Assessment Of Water Quality In Tie Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
• Major Water Quality Concerns and Priority Issues
• Recommended Management Strategies For Restoring Impaired Waters And Protecting Threatened Waters
• Potential _Reclassification To High Quality Waters Or Outstanding Resource Waters
• Future Initiatives In The Yadkin --Pee Dee River Basin
FOREWORD
Most water users in the basin, including industry, agriculture, tourists, and residents, rely on water for
basic needs. These needs include water supply and/or disposal of treated wastewater. In addition, many
businesses and residents of the basin rely directly or indirectly on the waters of the basin to meet their
recreational needs and supply an economic base through tourism. The lakes of the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River basin are well known for recreation activities including fishing, boating and swimming. To these
groups and the public they serve, it is important that the basin's waters support viable fisheries, that the
waters be relatively safe (low risk of contracting water-bome disease) and that they be aesthetically

desirable (free of objectionable colors, odors and smells). Yet maintaining clean water becomes
increasingly difficult and more expensive as the population grows, as land is developed and as
competition for resources heighten.
The majority of the waters in the basin are supporting their designated uses, based on Division of Water
Quality monitoring data. The Use -Support assessment methodology used by DWQ found about 9
percent of stream miles to be impaired. However, there are reasons to be concerned about the quality of
the large number of support threatened waters in the basin. In addition, many streams have not been
monitored by DWQ, so there are potentially other streams with water quality problems.
Some areas of the basin have experienced significant population growth between 1970 and 1990. This
growth rate is expected to continue. The construction of roads, driveways, commercial and recreational
areas and homes must be undertaken with proper care to prevent sediments from reaching surface
waters. In addition, timber harvesting and agricultural activities should use best management practices to
avoid erosion and the resulting sedimentation to streams.
Preserving and enhancing the quality of water in the basin is beyond the capabilities of any one agency
or group. State and federal government regulatory programs will play an important part, but much of the
responsibility will be at the local level. Those who live, work and recreate in the basin have the most at
stake.
This document provides a summary of the causes and sources of water pollution in the basin, the status
of the basin's water quality, a summary of water quality rules and statutes that apply to water quality
protection in the basin, and recommended strategies to protect and enhance the quality of the surface
waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin. The Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan will be used a guide by the NC Division of Water Quality (formerly Division of
Environmental Management) in carrying out its water quality program responsibilities in the basin.
Beyond that, it is hoped that the plan will provide a framework for cooperative efforts between the
various stakeholders in the basin toward a common goal of improving and protecting the basin's water
resources while accommodating reasonable economic growth.
Top 5f Pogs W
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTH CAROLINA'S SASINWIDE APPROACH TO WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT -
PURPOSE OF YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN PLAN
Basinwide management is a watershed -based water quality management initiative being implemented by
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (previously Division of Environmental Management). The
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan is the sixteenth basinwide water
quality management plan prepared by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in a series of plans being
prepared for all seventeen of the state's major river basins. DWQ uses the plans as guides in carrying out
its water quality programs in each river basin.
The basinwide water quality management plans are not new regulatory documents. They are planning

documents used to communicate the State's rationale, approaches and long-term water quality
management strategies to policymakers, the regulated community and the general public. Each plan is
completed and approved prior to the scheduled date for basinwide discharge permit renewals. The plans
are then evaluated, based on follow-up water quality monitoring, and updated at five year intervals.
DWQ uses this approach as a means to report to the public on the current status of water quality in the
basin, major water quality concerns and issues, projected trends in development and water quality, the
long-range water quality goals for the basin, and recommended point and nonpoint source management
options.
The Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan will be updated in 2002.
Basinwide NPDES permitting in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin is scheduled to begin in July, 1998.
GOALS OF THE BASINWIDE APPROACH
The primary goals of DWQ's basinwide program are:
1. to identify and restore full use to impaired waters,
2. to identify and protect highly valued resource waters and biological communities of special
importance, and
3. to manage the causes and sources of pollution so as to ensure the protection of those waters
currently supporting their uses while allowing for reasonable economic growth.
In addition, DWQ uses this approach as a means to better identify water quality problems, develop
appropriate management strategies, maintain and protect water quality and aquatic habitat, assure
equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity for dischargers, and improve public awareness and
involvement in the management of the state's surface waters.
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
Upper Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Workshops
The Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments, in conjunction with Centralina Council of
Governments was awarded a 205j grant to assist DWQ with the preparation and coordination of public
input for the Yadkin -Pee Dee workshops for the upper portion of the basin. A series of four meetings
were held in Jonesville (March 15, 1996), Salisbury (March 22, 1996), Winston-Salem (May 17, 1996)
and Salisbury (August 22, 1997). Details on these meetings can be found in Chapter 6 and Appendix IV.
The initial meeting allowed people to select a breakout group from a choice of areas of concern for the
basin. These were eventually conbsolidated into four groups which included: Water Quality (Point
Source), Economic Development, Future Growth and Development and Water Quality (Nonpoint
Source). Planning sessions were held in which the information from the workshops was summarized for
presentation at the May meetings. Follow-up meetings, held in May, were intended to disseminate the
summaries compiled at the planning sessions and to give attendees the opportunity to provide comments
and suggestions. A summary of the subcommittees goals and recommended action plans is presented in
Appendix IV.
Each subcommittee developed: 1) a goal, 2) a series of recommendations, 3) a list of agencies that could
implement the recommendation, 4) suggested potential funding sources for implementation of the
recommendation, and 5) a timetable for completion of the recommendation.

Lower Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Workshops
Two workshops were held for the lower Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin in Albemarle on August 22, 1996.
The workshops were conducted to provide an overview of the basin schedule and information specific to
the lower portion of the basin. After presentations, the group broke out into small discussion groups.
Each group was asked to respond to three questions: 1) What are the priority water quality related issues
in the basin?; 2) Are there any specific waterbodies in the basin that are experiencing water quality
problems?; 3) What efforts have been undertaken to improve water quality?
Lower Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin workshop participants identified the following categories as the
primary areas of concern to the basin (Table 1). An effort has been made to address these issues in the
development of the plan. Several issues identified by workshop participants that were not addressed in
the plan were listed in Chapter 7 for future activities. A full summary of the workshops can be found in
Chapter 6 and Appendix IV.
I aide i Primary Areas of Concern for Participants of the Loi. er
Yadkin -Yee Dee River Basin Workshops
• Equity between Point Source and
Nonpoint Source Issues
• Agriculture BMPs and Waste
Mgt.
• Policy Issues
• NPS Pollution/Sedimentation
• Forestry Practices and BMPs
• Water Supplies
Research and Monitoring Needs
(See Chp 7, Section 7.3.7))
• Urban Development
• Recreation Impacts
• Point Source Pollution
• Loss of Riparian Zones
• Lake Management
Tap of Pngc �
YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN OVERVIEW
The Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin is the second largest river basin in the state, covering 7,213 square
miles. It includes eighty-three municipalities and all or part of twenty-four counties. The basin is
primarily located within the piedmont physiographic region of the state (Figure 1), but also drains the
mountain and coastal plain regions. Streams within each region are affected by the soils, geology and
topography characteristic of that region.
The basin originates on the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Caldwell, Wilkes and Surry
Counties (Figure 1). A small portion of the Yadkin River headwaters originates in Virginia. It flows
northeasterly for about 100 miles, then flows to the southeast until it joins the Uwharrie River to form
the Pee Dee River. The Pee Dee River continues flowing southeasterly through South Carolina to the
Atlantic Ocean. The North Carolina portion of the basin contains approximately 5,991 miles of
freshwater streams and rivers.
To aid in locating the streams and lakes within the basin, this plan presents the basin as the upper
Yadkin River basin (Figure 2.3) and the lower Yadkin River basin (Figure 2.4). The upper Yadkin River

basin contains subbasins 03-07-01 through 03-07-07, which drain to High Rock Lake. The lower Yadkin
River basin contains subbasins 03-07-08 through 03-07-17 which drain to the remaining chain lakes and
the Pee Dee River.
Forest land, covers approximately 49 percent of the basin. Agriculture (including cultivated and
uncultivated cropland and pastureland) covers approximately 30 percent of the land area. The urban and
built-up category comprises roughly I 1 percent and exhibited the most dramatic change between 1982
and 1992 (38 percent increase). Other categories that showed substantial changes during this period
were pasturelands (19 percent increase) and the "Other" category, which includes rural transportation
(26 percent increase). Both cultivated and uncultivated cropland decreased by a total of 46 percent in the
basin between 1982 and 1992. It is likely that some of this cropland was converted to pastureland and to
urban and built-up areas. Major land use activities in the basin include agriculture (crops and swine,
poultry and cattle operations) and construction activities related to growth. Iredell County has the largest
dairy cattle population in the state.
There are a number of High Quality and Outstanding Resource Waters in the basin and many state and
federally listed threatened and endangered species. The Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin contains a high
number of lakes, including a series of "chain" lakes on the mainstem of the river, which attract many
tourists to the area.
Based on 1990 census data, the population of the basin was 1.2 million people. The most populated
areas are in and near Winston-Salem and Charlotte. The overall population density is 163 persons per
square mile versus a statewide average of 123 persons per square mile. While much of the basin contains
rural areas surrounding small towns, many of the small to large cities have high density areas. The
percent population growth over the ten year period between 1980 to 1990 was 10 percent.
_Tap of page
ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY IN THE YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
An assessment of water quality information collected by DWQ and other agencies indicate that 82% of
the waters within the basin are supporting their designated uses. However, the uses of half of these
waters (41%) are threatened. In addition, 9% of the waters are considered impaired. Of the 29 lakes
monitored by DWQ, the majority are supporting their designated uses but are nutrient -enriched
(eutrophic or mesotrophic). Below is a summary of monitoring data reflective of water quality in the
basin. More details on this information can be found in Chapter 4.
Summary of DWQ Monitoring Data
Benthic Macroinvertebrates - These are primarily bottom -dwelling aquatic insect larvae such as
species of mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies that are used as biological indicators of water quality.
Measurements of the number and diversity of these organisms at strategic sampling sites is an important
means of assessing water quality.

Gencrai biap of the Yadkin River Basin
— Ytsctti_t_a
CA_NWA L
W CtAhrm
Legend
-----• ccanrfsa,�r
--- S o 132%A G-w7
XVW CmGI Ekyadw
S�ba:ta 5a�hCary
U4-HYG'013►9?hV
IAAft
��J1tD`a
Yadkn Wret Bash
D E N R
Figure 1 General Map of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
During the 1996 Yadkin basin sampling, macroinvertebrates were collected at 105 sites. The 1996 basin
sampling targeted mainstem sites and major tributaries in all the subbasins and gave a good
representation of present water quality in the basin. Of the 105 basin samples, 11 were Excellent (10%),
30 were Good (29%), 46 were Good -Fair (44%), 14 were Fair (13%), and 4 sites were rated as Poor
(4%).
Fish Community Sampling - During the spring of 1996, 55 fish community sites, representing at least
one site per subbasm, were sampled and evaluated using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
(NCIBI). These 55 sites were rated as: Good-Excellent-6 (I I%), Good-23 (42%), Fair-Good-6 (I I%),
Fair-13 (24%), Poor-Fair-2 (4%), Poor-1 (2%), and Not Rated-4 (7%).
Fish Tissue Analysis - Sample collections were performed at nine sites within the drainage in 1996.
DWQ confirmed extensive mercury contamination of the Abbotts Creek embayment of High Rock Lake
in 1981, but followup remedial actions have brought mercury concentrations back down to background
levels.

Lakes Assessments - Twenty-nine lakes were sampled in the Yadkin River Basin. The majority of these
lakes were sampled in 1994 or 1995. Twenty six lakes were fully supporting their designated uses. Two
lakes were rated partially supporting their uses (Rockingham City Lake and Hamlet City Lake). Long
Lake was listed as not supporting because it was drained in 1995 to facilitate sediment removal from the
Jake's basin.
Ambient Monitoring - Water quality data collected at 45 sites in the Yadkin River basin were evaluated
for the period 1992-1996. Yadkin River mainstem water quality indicates highest total phosphorus and
nitrogen concentrations at the Yadkin College site. Water quality at tributary ambient sites showed
patterns of low dissolved oxygen levels and pH at some sites. Elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels are
commonly found throughout the basin.
Use -Support Ratings
Use -support ratings are a method to analyze water quality information and to determine whether the
quality is sufficient to support the uses for which the waterbody has been classified by the State. The
word uses refers to activities such as swimming, fishing and water supply. All surface waters in the state
have been assigned a classification.
DWQ has collected chemical and biological water quality monitoring data throughout the basin, some of
which are summarized above. Available data for a particular stream segment has been assessed to
determine the overall use support rating; that is, whether the waters are fully supporting, support -
threatened, partially supporting, or not supporting their uses. Fully supporting and support -threatened
streams are not considered impaired. Streams referred to as impaired are those rated as either partially
supporting or not supporting their uses.
Although the majority of the streams have good to excellent bioclassifications and few standards were
violated at the ambient stations, nonpoint source effects such as increased sedimentation, were evident at
many of the sampling sites. There are also some point source discharges that pose water quality
concerns in the portion of the basin draining into High Rock Lake. Those waters considered Impaired,
and some select support threatened waters based on monitoring data, are discussed below by subbasin.
Use support ratings in the Yadkin River basin, described more fully in Chapter 4, are summarized
below. Of the 5,991 miles of freshwater streams and rivers in the Yadkin -Pee Dee basin, use support
ratings were determined for 91 % or 5,408 miles with the following breakdown:
Miles Percent of Total
SUPPORTING
4930
82%
• Fully supporting:
(2436)
(41%)
• Support -threatened:
(2494)
(410/6)
IMPAIRED
478
9%
• Partially supporting:
(383)
(7%)
• Not supporting:
(95)
(2%)
NOT EVALUATED:
584
9%

MAJOR WATER QUALITY CONCERNS AND PRIORITY ISSUES
The primary water quality issues discussed in this basin plan relate to concerns presented to DWQ as
priority issues, or those that have been identified as causing water quality impacts or impairment.
Discussion on these categories follows.
Growth Management - Proactive planning efforts at the local level are needed to assure that
development is done in a manner that maintains the good water quality that is presently attracting people
to the area. These planning efforts will need to find a balance between water quality protection, natural
resource management and economic growth. Growth management requires planning for the needs of
future population increases as well as developing a strong tourism base. These actions are critical to
water quality management and the quality of life for the residents of the basin. Urban and residential
impacts on water quality and trends in the basin are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2. Some local
initiatives are presented in Chapter 5, Section 5.6.3. Refer to Section 6.5 for recommended management
strategies relating to planning for growth and development.
Urban Stormwater - Surface waters can be significantly impacted by urban stormwater runoff. The
impacts of urban and residential runoff on water quality in the basin are discussed in Chapter 3, Section
3.4.2. Some local initiatives are presented in Chapter 5, Section 5.6.3. Refer to Section 6.5 for
recommended management strategies relating to controlling potential water quality problems related to
urban stormwater runoff.
Sedimentation - Erosion, and the resulting sedimentation, are prevalent throughout the basin. Workshop
participants (Section 6.2.2) and Nonpoint Source Team members (Section 6.2.3) have expressed the
view that the priority issue for the basin is sedimentation. Many waters in the basin are thought to be
impacted or impaired, at least in part, by sedimentation (Chapter 4, Section 4.5). The sources of
sedimentation are discussed in detail in Chapter 3, programs to address erosion and sedimentation are
discussed in Chapter 5, some of the actions being taken at the local level are discussed in Chapter 5,
Section 5.6. General management strategies for controlling sedimentation are presented in Section 6.5.
Nutrients - Eutrophication of High Rock Lake is the primary focus of nutrient strategies in this basin
plan. Nutrients are discussed in Chapter 3. Water quality on each monitored lake is presented in Chapter
4. Management strategies pertaining to High Rock Lake are presented in Section 6.3. General
management strategies for controlling nutrients from urban and industrial stormwater are presented in
Section 6.5.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria - Ambient monitoring stations throughout the basin have identified
waterbodies with elevated fecal coliform bacteria (Chapter 4). Fecal coliform bacteria sources are
discussed in Chapter 3. General management strategies to address nonpoint sources of fecal coliform
bacteria are presented in Section 6.5.
Oxygen Consuming Wastes - Many streams within the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin are low or zero
flow streams. Regulations currently exist for streams with 7Q10 and/or 30Q2 equal to zero cubic feet
per second (cfs). These regulations were developed to prohibit new or expanded discharges of oxygen -
consuming wastes to zero flow streams. Existing facilities were evaluated for alternatives to discharge.
Many facilities found alternatives and some chose to build new tertiary treatment facilities (which are
allowed to discharge under the regulations). General management strategies for oxygen -consuming
wastes and management strategies for specific streams within the basin are presented in Section 6.5.7.
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution - Agriculture can contribute to degraded water quality

through contributions of excess nutrients, fecal coliform bacteria, toxic chemicals and erosion problems
from runoff. Chapter 3, Section 3.2 discusses these causes of impairment and Section 3.4 provides a
discussion on agricultural contributions to water quality impacts. Chapter 6, Section 6.5.2 presents some
suggested management strategies to reduce the negative impacts agricultural activites can have on water
quality.
TOP Of P!F_�,)
RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR RESTORING AND
PROTECTING IMPAIRED WATERS AND SELECT "THREATENED" WATERS
Those waters in the basin that are considered impaired based on DWQ monitoring data are presented in
Table 2. A summary of the management strategy developed for this waterbody is also presented. Some
additional streams with known water quality problems which have not led to impairment but for which a
management strategy has been developed are presented in summary in Table 3. For more details on
water quality problems or management strategies for these waters, refer to Chapter 6, Section 6.3.
These waterbodies are impaired, at least in part, due to nonpoint sources of pollution. The tasks of
identifying nonpoint sources of pollution and developing management strategies for these impaired
waterbodies, is very resource -intensive. Accomplishing these tasks is overwhelming, given the current
limited resources of DWQ, other agencies (e.g.-Division of Land Resources, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation, Cooperative Extension Service, etc.) and local governments. Therefore, only limited
progress towards restoring those NPS impaired waterbodies can be expected during this five-year cycle
unless substantial resources are put towards solving NPS problems. Due to these restraints, this plan has
no NPS management strategies for most of the streams with NPS problems.
DWQ plans to further evaluate the impaired waterbodies in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin in
conjunction with other NPS agencies and develop management strategies for a portion of these impaired
waterbodies for the second Yadkin River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan, in accordance the
requirements of Section 303(d).
Table 2 Partially Supporting or Not Supporting Monitored Waters
in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin*
Subbasin
Waterbodti
LSe
Support
Potential
Sources
Recommended MO. Straterj *
Rating
030703
Ararat R.
PS
NP,P
Actions by local governments and
below Mt Airy
agencies are needed to reduce NPS
pollution. The Division will
continue to evaluate instream data
submitted by the City of Mount
Airy.*
030703
Lovills Cr. at
PS
NP
Further investigation is necessary
SR 1371
to determine actions needed.*
030703
Heatherly Cr.
PS &
NP,P
Continued monitoring will quantify
NS
improvements with the removal of
the Pilot Mountain WWTP
discharge.*

030704
Reynolds Cr.
PS
NP,P
Sequoia WWTP should submit an
engineering alternatives analysis.*
030704
Salem Cr. -
PS
NP
Action by Forsyth County and the
Middle Fork
City of Winston Salem are needed
to improve water quality. DWQ
will reevaluate the model to
determine if wasteload allocation
should be revised.*
030704
Grants Cr.
PS
P,NP
DWQ will monitor for
improvement after the City of
Salisbury's discharges are
eliminated. If the creek is still
impaired after the Salisbury
discharge is removed, DWQ will
identify other point sources of
pollution and the options for these
sources.*
030706
Fourth Cr.
PS
NP
Pollutant sources must be
below
identified, along with methods to
Statesville
reduce nutrient loading.*
030707
Brushy Fork at
PS
NP
Additional activity by local
SR1810
governments and agencies and the
Nonpoint Source Team are
needed.*
030707
Hamby Cr. at I-
NS
NP,P
No new dischargers of oxygen-
85, SR2031
consuming wastes should be
(Abbotts Cr.
permitted. Thomasville and
watershed)
Lexington should serve as regional
WWTPs for future wastewater
needs.*
030708
Lick Cr. at
PS
P,NP
New dischargers, including the
SR2351, NC8
Town of Denton's proposed
outfall, should receive advanced
tertiary limits for oxygen -
consuming wastes.*
030708
Little Mtn Cr.
PS
NP,P
New or expanding discharges
should receive advanced tertiary
limits for oxygen -consuming
wastes under the current zero flow
regulations. Low dissolved oxygen
levels will be evaluated and
appropriate actions pursued during
FERC relicensing.*
030710
Pee Dee R.
PS
NP
New or expanding discharges to
below Lake
the Pee Dee River below Lake
Tillery
Tillery should meet limits no less
stringent than 15 mg/l BODS, 4
mg/l NH3N and 5 mg/1 DO.
Appropriate mitigative actions will
be pursued during FERC
relicensing.*
030710
Brown Cr. at
PS
NP
No new discharges should be
SR1627
permitted in this watershed.*
030711
upper Rocky
NS - a
NP
New or expanding dischargers above
River
portion is
Mallard Creek should receive limits
rated

support
of 5 mg/l BOD and 2 mg/l NH3N.
threat-
ened
arg New or expandingdisches below
Mallard Creek will receive total
BODu limits 32 mg/l. Model results
will be used to evaluate specific
scenarios for future allocations in the
river.
The City of Charlotte and Cabarrus
and Mecklenburg Counties should
investigate pollution sources and
develop mitigation plans to protect
the river from further degradation.*
030711
Coddle Cr. at
PS
NP
The NC Division of Water
NC49
Resources has requested a
minimum streamflow, intended to
maintain downstream habitat, from
the Coddle Creek impoundment
(Chp 2, Sect 2.9). This minimum
flow may or may not improve water
quality at the DWQ downstream
sampling site. DWQ will continue
to monitor for improved effects.
The Town of Concord is
encouraged to take steps to reduce
nonpoint source runoff to Coddle
Creek.*
030712
Goose Cr.
NS
NP,P
A field -calibrated QUAL2E model
will be developed to evaluate
assimilative capacity of the creek.*
030712
N. & S. Fork
PS
P,NP
DWQ recommends that no
Crooked Cr.
additional oxygen -consuming
wastes be permitted in N. Fork
Crooked Creek until data are
available to evaluate the impact of
existing loading. No additional
loading of oxygen -consuming
wastes will be permitted in S. Fork
Crooked Creek.*
030713
Long Lake
NS
NP
Long Lake is drained and under a
local restoration project.
030714
Richardson Cr.
PS
NP,P
No new discharges of oxygen -
below Monroe
consuming wastes should be
permitted above Monroe's WWTP.*
030714
Lanes Cr.
NS &
NP
Every alternative to discharge
PS
should be thoroughly examined
before a new outfall is considered.*
030716
Cartledge Cr.
PS
NP
Additional activity by local
at SR 1142
governments and agencies are
needed to develop a plan to reduce
nonpoint source pollution.*
030716
Hitchcock Cr.
NS
NP
No additional loads of oxygen -
at SR 1109
consuming wastes within 4 miles of
mouth of creek should be
permitted.*

030716
Rockingham
City Lake
PS
NP
Local restoration actions will need
to be taken.*
030716
Hamlet City
PS
NP
Local restoration actions are
Lake
planned.*
030717
N. Fork Jones
PS
NP
Before any new outfalls are
Cr. at SR 1121
permitted, it is recommended that
and S. Fork
additional data be collected to aid in
Jones Cr.,
assessing assimilative capacity.
Anson Cnty
Additional investigation is
necessary to identify specific
nonpoint sources of
contamination.*
Notes:
NS = Not Supporting PS = Partially Supporting
NP = Nonpoint Sources P = Point Sources
* - Only limited progress towards developing and implementing NPS
strategies for these impaired waters can be expected without additional
resources.
Table 3 Recommended TMDLs and Management Strategies for
Addressing Oxygen -Consuming Wastes with Reference to
Subbasin Summaries.
Ref.
Sub-
Recc iA tug
'Vix,ia2enlent Strateav
p
6
basin
Stream
-
Sect.
1
030704
Grants Creek
If DO violations continue after
6.3.4-
Salisbury has relocated, other
E
sources of pollution will need to be
identified.
2
030704
Salem Creek
Reevaluate QUAL2E model to
6.3.4-
& Muddy
determine if the wasteload
E
Creek
allocation for the Archie Elledge
Plant should be revised.
3
030705
Cedar Creek
To aid in assessing the assimilative
6.3.4-
capacity, additional water quality
F
data should be collected before
permitting new dischargers.
4
030706
Second
Field calibrated model should be
6.3.4-
Creek
considered for assessing the
G
(North)
potential impact of new or
expanding dischargers.
5
030707
Rich Fork
No additional loadings of oxygen-
6.3.4-
consuming wastes should be
H
permitted.
6
030707
Abbotts
No new dischargers of oxygen-
6.3.4-
Creek
consuming wastes should be
H
watershed
permitted. Thomasville and
Lexington should serve as regional
WWTPs for future wastewater
needs.

7
030708
Mountain Cr.
Low dissolved oxygen levels in the
63.4-
arm of Lake
Mountain Cr. arm of Lake Tillery
I
Tillery
will be evaluated. Appropriate
actions will be pursued during
FERC relicensing.
8
030708
Upper Lake
Low dissolved oxygen levels in the
63.4-
Tillery
upper reaches of Lake Tillery will
I
be evaluated. Appropriate actions
will be pursued during FERC
relicensing.
9
030708
Clarks Creek
Further evaluation and updated
6.3.4-
flow information should be
I
obtained if the Mt. Gilead discharge
remains, or new discharges locate
to this creek.
10
030708
Yadkin River
Low dissolved oxygen levels below
6.3.4-
High Rock Lake dam will be
I
evaluated and appropriate actions
pursued during FERC relicensing.
11
030710
Pee Dee
New or expanding discharges to the
6.3.4-
River
Pee Dee River below Lake Tillery
K
should meet limits no less stringent
than 15 mg/1 BOD5, 4 mg/1 NH3N
and 5 mg/1 DO. Appropriate
mitigative actions will be pursued
during FERC relicensing.
12
030710
Brown Creek
No new discharges should be
6.3.4-
permitted in this watershed.
K
13
030711
Mallard Cr &
New or expanding discharges, if
6.3.4-
Rocky R.
permitted, should receive limits of
L
watershed
5 mg/I BOD and 2 mg/l NH3N.
upstrm of
Mallard Cr
14
030711
Rocky River
New or expanding discharges are to
6.3.4-
below
receive BODu limits equal to 32
L
Mallard
mg/l.
Creek
15
030712
Goose Creek
Field calibrated model will be
6.3.4-
developed to evaluate assimilative
M
capacity of the creek.
16
030712
Crooked
Before any new outfalls are
6.3.4-
Creek
permitted, it is recommended that
M
additional chemical/physical data
be collected to aid in assessing the
assimilative capacity of the
proposed receiving stream.
17
030712
South Fork
No additional loads of oxygen-
6.3.4-
Crooked
consuming wastes will be
M
Creek
permitted.
18
030712
North Fork
No additional loads of oxygen-
6.3.4-
Crooked
consuming wastes until data has been
M
Creek
collected on the creek to determine
impacts from existing facility.
19
030712
Rocky River
New or expanding dischargers to the
t6j-34-

river between the Rocky River Regional
M
WWTP and the confluence with Muddy
Creek will receive total BODu limits of
approx. 32 mg/l. In addition, DWQ is
planning to request USGS to develop a
low flow profile for the river so that the
QUAL2E model can be extended to the
mouth of the river.
20
030713
Long Creek
The City of Albemarle should optimize
6.3.4-
treatment processes. More stringent
N
BOD5 limits will be considered.
21
030714
Richardson
No new discharges of oxygen-
6.3.4-
Creek
consuming wastes should be permitted
O
above Monroe's WWTP.
22
030716
Hitchcock
No additional loads of oxygen-
6.3.4-
Creek
consuming wastes within 4 miles of
Q
mouth of creek should be permitted.
030716
Marks Creek
Additional loadings of oxygen-
6.3.4-
consuming wastes are not recommended.
Q
If future expansions are to be
reconsidered, it is recommended that
DWQ analyze the feasibility of
developing a field calibrated model in
order to assess the assimilative capacity
of the stream.
030716
Pee Dee
Low dissolved oxygen levels below
6.3.4-
River
Blewett Falls Lake dam will be
Q
evaluated and appropriate actions
pursued during FERC relicensing.
030717
Jones Creek
Before any new outfalls are permitted, it
6.3.4-
and Deadfall
is recommended that additional
R
Creek
chemical/physical data be collected to
catchments
aid in assessing the assimilative capacity
of the proposed receiving stream.
Top of Page
POTENTIAL RECLASSIFICATION TO HIGH QUALITY WATERS OR OUTSTANDING
RESOURCE WATERS
Based on DWQ monitoring, there are several waterbodies that may be considered eligible for
reclassification to HQW or ORW (Table 4).
Table 4 Potential HQW/ORW Waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River Basin
Suhl)asin t�,aterl)odies
030701 Buffalo Creek, Stoney Fork, Mulberry Creek, Roaring River and
Middle Prong Roaring River
030706 1 upper South Yadkin River, Hunting Creek, North Little Hunting

Creek and Rocky Creek
1030710 1 Mountain Creek
1030714 1 West Fork Little River I
1030716 1 Beaverdam Creek, Bones Fork Creek and Rocky Fork Creek
Top of Pngc-,)
FUTURE INITIATIVES IN THE YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
Nonpoint Source Control Strategies and Priorities/Nutrient Reduction Efforts
Improving knowledge of and controlling nonpoint source pollution will be a high priority over the next
five years. Nonpoint source pollution is primarily responsible for the impaired and threatened waters in
the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin. The following two initiatives are underway to address the protection of
surface waters from nonpoint sources of pollution.
. Establishment of nonpoint source basin teams in each basin. DWQ has begun to establish a
nonpoint source team in each of the state's 17 major river basins. Two nonpoint source teams have
been established for the upper and the lower Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin. Refer to Chapter 7,
Section 7.2.2 for further description.
. Interagency Water Quality Monitoring. DWQ has begun the process of coordinating with other
natural resource agencies on the idea of interagency water quality monitoring across the state.
Refer to Chapter 7, Section 7.2.3 nor more information.
Efforts to Improve NC's Sedimentation and Erosion Control Program
Recently, there has been an initiative in the Division of Land Resources to address sediment and
turbidity water quality problems across the state. The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Commission
recognized the need to evaluate the implementation of the existing programs. A Technical Advisory
Committee was established to develop recommendations for the Commission. The Commission
supported the recommendations and instructed staff to implement the ones which can be implemented
without rule or statute changes and establish a schedule to implement the others. The changes are
expected to result in program implementation improvements and reduction in sediment losses to our
streams.
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) was established by the General Assembly
in 1996. The purpose of the NCWRP is to protect and improve water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
wildlife and plant habitats, and recreational opportunities through the protection and restoration of
wetlands and riparian areas. The NCWRP will accomplish this purpose by implementing projects that
will restore wetland and riparian area functions and values throughout North Carolina.
Beginning July 1, 1997, comprehensive Basinwide Restoration Plans will be developed for each river
basin in conjunction with the Basinwide Water Quality Management Plans. GIS-based mapping

methodologies will be used to assess the status of existing wetlands and riparian area resources within
each basin and to identify degraded wetlands and riparian areas. Potential restoration sites will be
prioritized based on the ability of the restored sites to address problems that have been identified in the
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plans. The Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Restoration Plan
will be one of the first plans developed. See Chapter 7, Section 7.3.2 for more details
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
In the next five years, efforts will be continued to:
• improve compliance with permitted limits;
. improve pretreatment of industrial wastes to municipal wastewater treatment plants so as to
maintain reduced toxicity in effluent wastes;
• encourage pollution prevention at industrial facilities in order to reduce the need for pollution
control;
. require dechlorination of chlorinated effluents or the use of alternative disinfectants for new or
expanding facilities;
. require multiple treatment trains at wastewater facilities; and
. require plants to begin plans for expansion well before they reach capacity.
Longer -term objectives will include refinement of overall management strategies. Long-term point
source control efforts will stress reduction of wastes entering wastewater treatment plants, seeking more
efficient and creative ways of recycling byproducts of the treatment process (including reuse of
nonpotable treated wastewater), and keeping abreast of and recommending the most advanced
wastewater treatment technologies.
Use of Discharger Self -Monitoring Data
DWQ will continue to make greater use of discharger self -monitoring data to augment the data it
collects through the programs described in Chapter 4. Quality assurance, timing and consistency of data
from plant to plant will be issues of importance. Also, a system will need to be developed to enter the
data into a computerized database for later analysis.
In an effort to improve the qualtiy and consistency of self -monitoring data, DWQ is working with a
coalition of dischargers in the Yadkin -Pee Dee river basin to develop a strategic monitoring plan that is
similar, and in compliment to, DWQ's ambient monitoring system. Similar programs are effectively
used in the lower Neuse and Cape Fear River basins. See Chapter 7, Section 7.3.4.
Promotion of Non -Discharge Alternatives/Regionalization
DWQ requires all new and expanding dischargers to submit an alternatives analysis as part of its
NPDES permit application. Non -discharge alternatives, including connection to an existing WWTP or
land -applying wastes are preferred from an environmental standpoint. If the Division determines that
there is an economically reasonable alternative to a discharge, DWQ may recommend denial of the
NPDES permit.

Coordinating Basinwide Management with Other Programs
The basinwide planning process helps to identify and prioritize waterbodies in need of protection or
restoration efforts and provides a means of disseminating this information to other water quality
protection programs. The potential exists to identify wastewater treatment plants in need of funding for
improvements through DWQ's Construction Grants and Loan Program. The plans can also assist in
identifying projects and waterbodies applicable to the goals of the Clean Water Management Trust
Fund, Wetlands Restoration Program, or Section 319 grants program. Finalized basin plans are provided
to these program offices for their use and to other state and federal agencies.
Improved Data Management and Expanded Use of Geographic Information System (GIS)
Computer Capabilities
DWQ is in the process of centralizing and improving its computer data management systems. Most of its
water quality program data including permitted dischargers, effluent limits, compliance information,
water quality data and stream classifications, will be put in a central data center which will be made
accessible to most staff at desktop computer stations. Much of this information is also being entered into
the state's GIS computer system. As all this information is made available to the GIS system, including
land use data from satellite or air photo interpretation, and as the system becomes more user friendly, the
potential to graphically display the results of water quality data analysis will be tremendous.
Improved Monitoring and Assessment of Erosion Impacts
Sedimentation is perceived by the workshop participants and the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin NPS
Teams as one of the highest priorities in the basin. Many streams are impacted or impaired, at least in
part, due to sedimentation. Erosion is evident throughout the basin. The fact that sedimentation is visible
and aesthetically unpleasant helps make it a higher profile issue. The extent of sedimentation problems
can be difficult to diagnose with the monitoring methods historically used by DWQ and many other
state water quality agencies. Suspended solids sampling conducted on a scheduled monthly basis is
likely to miss most of the high -flow periods during which the majority of sediment is transported.
Benthic monitoring techniques may not always identify the effects of sedimentation, which can impact
aquatic organisms by reducing and altering available habitat.
Some of the actions that DWQ and others will take towards improving monitoring and assessment of
erosion impacts are:
. DWQ currently does not have adequate means of quantifying the effects of sedimentation on
water quality. DWQ recognizes the need to improve its targeting and monitoring capabilities in
order to further identify sediment problems as well as to facilitate and support efforts to restore
degraded areas. This points to the need for targeted management efforts coupled with a
monitoring strategy which effectively measures sediment transport under both average and
extreme conditions. DWQ will work toward developing interagency resources for enhancing the
ability to measure and model erosion and sediment levels, to identify sediment source areas, and
to recommend appropriate management practices. DWQ will initiate discussions among staff and
other agencies to determine how these issues can best be addressed given current resource
constraints. DWQ will also try to determine what, if any, programmatic changes can be made to
gain better knowledge on sedimentation.
• Locally -based watershed improvement efforts represent an important mechanism for restoring
streams and watersheds degraded by sedimentation. The Division is working with several such

projects in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin and will continue to do so. Funding for such efforts
can come from a number of sources (See Appendix VI), including the Agricultural Cost Share
Program, Section 319 grants and the Clean Water Management Trust Fund. The Division's role in
such projects can include assistance with problem identification and targeting, monitoring and
other technical assistance.
DWQ is currently working with the Division of Land Resources, Division of Forest Resources
and Division of Soil and Water Conservation to develop a Memorandum of Agreement for
Turbidity. Turbidity is an indicator of sedimentation in a waterbody. The intent of the agreement
is to establish a relationship between the agencies that better defines each agency's responsibility
for activities related to turbidity. The turbidity standard is not being changed under this
agreement.
Additional Research and Monitoring Needs
DWQ staff has identified some additional research and monitoring needs that would be useful for
assessing and, ultimately, protecting and restoring the water quality of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin.
The following list is not inclusive. Rather, it is meant to stimulate ideas for obtaining more information
to better address water quality problems in the basin. With the newly available funding programs (Clean
Water Management Trust Fund and Wetlands Restoration Program) and the existing Section 319 grant
program, it may be desirable for grant applicants to focus proposals on the following issues:
• More resources are needed to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Identifying nonpoint sources
of pollution and developing management strategies for impaired waterbodies, given the current
limited resources available, is an overwhelming task. Therefore, only limited progress towards
restoring NPS impaired waterbodies can be expected unless substantial resources are put towards
solving NPS problems.
• Long-range water supply planning for the upper portion of the basin is needed. The proposed
water withdrawal by the City of Winston-Salem has the potential to reduce low flow conditions in
the mainstem of the Yadkin River enough to affect the River's waste assimilative capacity.
Growth management/urban stormwater planning (specifically for the Rocky River drainage out of
Charlotte and in the Winston -Salim area) are needed. Increased population in these areas will
demand more water and generate more wastewater. In addition, conversion of land from forests
and farms will increase impervious surfaces and produce higher than natural streamflows and
cause erosion. Streams in these areas will likely become impaired unless this growth is planned
for and managed properly.
• Need to update the sediment studies of the 1970's to the 1990's. This information would be used
to predict future trends and to assess the effectiveness of major sediment control efforts (e.g.- the
Farm Bill).
• There is a lack of data on impacts of summer low -flow conditions on aquatic life. The lack of
flowing water during summer months can severely reduce the diversity of aquatic fauna. This
problem has not been investigated in North Carolina and further research will be required to
determine the effect of water withdrawals (e.g.- for irrigation) on stream life.
• Determining sedimentation rates and volumes in the Chain Lakes would be very useful.

. Document the impact of animal wastes in areas of high cattle (e.g.-Iredell County) and poultry
(e.g.-Union County) production. There is a need for separating out the impact from organic
loading, nutrient loading and other nonpoint sources.
. Need improved monitoring of small streams. These streams are currently ignored because of their
size, but they are a source of pollution and this source will increase as growth occurs.
The following comments and questions, as presented by the participants of the Lower Yadkin -Pee Dee
River basin workshop, require attention:
1. More data are needed to determine what percentage of water quality problems are due to
agriculture.
2. There needs to be a better understanding of, and more education on, color impacts from
wastewater discharges.
Need to identify both NPS and point source pollution contributions/contributors. What data do we
have? Is it based on good science?
4. Need better identification of the causes and sources of pollution in impaired streams. More
resources should be put into determining why stream miles are impaired- "what is the source of
poor water quality?" This is needed to develop appropriate management strategies.
5. Identify problems before establishing regulations.
6. Need more research on urban BMPs.
7. We need education for farmers and better access to research.
[ 1998 Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan ]
[ 1998 Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan Executive Summary j
[ Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Map ] [ Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Statistics ]
[ Home ] [ Basinwide Water Quality Plans ] [ Water Quality Plan Executive Summaries ] [ Basin Maps ]
[ River Basin Quiz ] [ Basinwide Statistics ] [ Meetings and Events ] [ What is Basinwide Planning? J
[ Which Basin Are You In? ] [ Basinwide Contact Information ]

Section s Chapter 4
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04
Includes Muddy Creek, Grants Creek and High Rock Lake
4.1 Water Quality Overview
i - - _TM�Z — ._ _ -•
Subbasin 03-07-04 at a Glance
Land and Water
Total area: 730 m12
Stream miles: 438.0
Lake acres: 11,137.3
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 325,945 people
Pop. Density: 461 persons/n&
Land Cover (%
Forest/Wetland: 55.9
Surface Water: 3.6
Urban: 6.0
Cultivated Crop: 2.8
This subbasin is located entirely within the piedmont
portion of the state. Muddy Creek is the largest tributary
of the Yadkin River within this subbasin and its watershed
drains the Winston-Salem area. Grants Creek, in the
southwestern part of the subbasin, flows through Salisbury,
Spencer and East Spencer. Dutchman Creek (subbasin 03-
07-05) and the South Yadkin River (subbasin 03-07-06)
enter the Yadkin River above High Rock Lake in this
subbasin. Abbotts Creek (discussed in subbasin 03-07-07)
is a tributary to High Rock Lake. The subbasin contains
all or part of more than 15 different municipalities and five
counties. The Yadkin River and High Rock Lake serve as
the county boundary between Davie and Davidson and
Rowan and Davidson counties.
Pasture/ A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and
Managed Herbaceous: 31.7 iwater quality monitoring stations is presented in Figure B-
-„�" 4. Table B-7 contains a summary of monitoring data
typ6s, locations and results. Use support ratings for waters in this subbasin are summarized in
Table B-8. Appendix I provides a key to discharge identification numbers. Refer to Appendix
III for a complete listing of monitored waters and more information about use support ratings.
This subbasin is one of only a few in which more than 5 percent of land is described as urban.
The northern portion of the subbasin includes Winston-Salem, Rural Hall, Tobaccoville and parts
of King, Lewisville, Clemmons and Kernersville and is ahnost completely developed.
Approximately 56 percent of the land is forested and nearly 35 percent is in agriculture. More
than 3 percent is surface water reflecting a large portion of the 15,750-acre High Rock Lake.
This subbasin contains more than one quarter (27 percent) of the total basin population, and the
population density in 1990 was the highest of any other subbasin. Population is expected to
increase 32 percent in Rowan, 26 percent in Forsyth and 25 percent in Davidson counties
between 2000 and 2020. The subbasin contains 40 NPDES permitted discharges and eight
registered animal operations. Facilities with compliance or toxicity problems are discussed in
following sections.
The majority of waters within this subbasin exhibit some level of impacts to water quality. Many
streams are Impaired by a combination of nonpoint and point source pollution. There are no
High Quality Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters within the subbasin.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 146
0

Figure B-4 Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04
SCIRRY King ri+Y ST4fCES I
bbaccoville �e
272,. Iv
U. Rur Hal( FORSYTH
2� Be i"a�
a"Ikertown I
Winstongs -'_251 A -
-S:
� ;at Salem �• � =
NW �}7 �,Nr4 . K ersville
its �,•vj =/ r t. a:..:
SS -1 ' :q25- `f 31. .. 235.
x;• �r
Lewlsvme "4 S :; si 1'22-7 I
-2 " i�219
^ JClemlmons14 Q25D000 ti
¢� t
! a, NG801 , = '' 215 ••c1� r_—_—r
�2600 00 _ b7
t
DAWE
n 1971195 j
y
{ �! ,67f_-J175!`
c�3 185 J' DAI/f )SONS �.
r�r I
,R 810000
168
ems-1 r—ti+'`ca°�p
159: �OXingtOn } jy
ROWAN �,� �-� � j_ ; f55 ,0 157 i ,ti .
!_ J f 151 I
-150
Q4660
? 0 �14 t. M-
143 4 14g !
4600000 1264�, I
110 112/$
�• Sall Urv;:: 9000 •t O Subbesfn Boundary
. _/0. . ;%" Nab s..`! ® mbwd. moriftinsmtlan
Q53600
106 . _ r` :aemmostanm
105 f111 i High Lake Rock
r,�` .; .. Fish c«mrnxs� seam
SSB-4 Al.� ® Fish 7ismm Stawn
101 i .A,100 ""1 -;� E' Q6120000, WDESDtrdharaes
;_r A Malmo
WON
Faith 1 ', Roc 'elf,
t I,
=.x.5 +rc- t� Uae Support fmBng
Landis Grove l ! { 'ter s
upporft
. t. impaired
- f ..—.. ..—..—.. —..— e
_..._..—.�.�__..—..�If --.. !1\Yj No Data
NCMM
CABARRUS SiANlLY ` ✓ county Bound"
Planning Branch ! '�+ ' � PftaryPoeds
Basiawide Planning Program Unit 5 0 5 10 Miles ° MuNdpaRy
March 21, 2003
2

Table B-7 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(1998-2002) for Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04
Site
Stream
County
Road
Bioclassification o=
Noted Parameter
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring
B-1
Muddy Creek'
Forsyth
SR 1898
Good -Fair
B-2
Muddy Creek
Forsyth
SR 2995
Good -Fair
SSB-1
Reynolds Creek'
Forsyth
Above Sequioa
VVVJTP
Not Rated
SSB-2
Reynolds Creek
Forsyth
Below Sequioa
WWTP
Not Rated
B-3
Salem Creek'
Forsyth
SR 2657
Not Rated "
B-4
Salem Creek
Forsyth
SR 2902
Fair
B-5
Salem Creek
Forsyth
SR 2991
Fair
B-6
South Fork Muddy Cr'
Forsyth
SR 2902
Good -Fair
B-7
Yadkin River'
Davidson
SR 1447
Good
B-8
Grants Creek'
Rowan
SR 1914
Fair
SSB-4
UT Grants Creek'
Rowan
SR 1500
Not Impaired
SSB-3
Town Creek'
Rowan
I-85
Fair
Fish Community Monitoring
F-1
Muddy Creek
Forsyth
SR 1891
Fair
F-2
Silas Creek
Forsyth
SR 1137
Fair
F-2
Silas Creek (2002)
Forsyth
SR 1137
Good -Fair
F-3
Salem Creek
Forsyth
SR 1120
Poor
F-4
South Fork Muddy Cr
Forsyth
SR 2902
Good -Fair
F-5
Grants Creek
Rowan
SR 2202
Good -Fair
Ambient Monitoring
Q2510000
Salem Creek
Forsyth
At Elledge W WTP
Fecal coliform
Q2600000
Muddy Creek
Forsyth
SR 2995
Nutrients,
Fecal coliform
Q2810000
Yadkin River
Davie/
Davidson
US 64
Turbidity
Q4600000
Grants Creek
Rowan
Near mouth
Turbidity, Nutrients,
Fecal coliform
Q4660000
Yadkin River
Rowan/
Davidson
NC 150
Turbidity
Fecal coliform
Q5970000
Abbotts Creek Arm of
High Rock Lake
Davidson
NC 47
Turbidity, Iron,
Dissolved oxygen
P�,_�High
Abbotts Creek Arm of
Rock Lake
Davidson
SR 2295
Turbidity,
Dissolved oxygen
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 148

Q5360000
Town Creek Arm of
High Rock Lake
Rowan
I
SR 2168
I I
Turbidity, Iron,
Dissolved oxygen
Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Association Monitoring
Q2291000
Muddy Creek
Forsyth
I-40
Fecal coliform
Q2479455
Salem Creek
Forsyth
SR 2740
None
Q2540000
Salem Creek
Forsyth
SR 1120
None
Q2570000
Salem Creek
Forsyth
SR 2991
Fecal colifomz
Q2720000
Muddy Creek
Forsyth
SR 1485
Turbidity
Q2810000
Yadkin River'
Davie/
Davidson
US 64
Turbidity
Q4540000
Grants Creek
Rowan
30D St. Extension
Fecal coliform,
Turbidity
Q4600000
Grants Creek'
Rowan
Near mouth
None
Q4660000
Yadkin Rivera
Rowan/
Davidson
NC 150
Turbidity
Q5240000
Town Creek
Rowan
1-85
None
Q5980000
Abbotts Creek Arm of
High Rock Lake
Davidson
NC 47
None
Lakes Assessment
—
Winston Lake
Forsyth
1 station
None
—
Salem Lake
Forsyth
3 stations
None
—
High Rock Lake
Rowan/
Davidson
8 stations
% DO saturation,
Turbidity, Nutrients,
Chlorophyll a, pH
—
Lake Wright
Rowan
1 station
None
—
Lake Corriher
Rowan
1 station
None
Historical data of this type are available for this waterbody; refer to Appendix IL Sites may vary.
Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in more than 10 percent of samples collected within the
assessment period (9/1996-8/2001).
This site duplicates a DWQ ambient monitoring station.
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basimvide Assessment Report - Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin (NCDENR-DWQ, June 2002),
available from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at htm_/fwww.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by
calling [phone]_
Section B_ Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 149

Table B-8 Use Support Ratings Summary (2002) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) and Lakes (acres) in Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04
Use Support Category
Units
Supporting
Impaired
Not Rated
No Data
Total'
Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation
miles
acres
69.3
275.3
48.2
10,449.7
3.3
71.0
317.2
.341.3
438.0
11,137.3
Fish Consumption'
miles
acres
352.7
301.8
85.3
10,835.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
438.0
11,137.3
Primary Recreation
miles
acres
0.0
4,880.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
359.5
3.0
5,240.4
Water Supply
miles
acres
76.9
I1,084.5
j 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
76.9
11,084.5
' Total stream miles/acres assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not additive because some stream
miles are assigned to more than one category.
' These waters are impaired based on fish consumption advice issued for three species of freshwater fish due to mercury
contamination. Refer to page 104 of Section A for details.
4.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1998 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each water. The 1998 Yadkin -Pee Dee
River basin plan identified portions of Reynolds Creek, Salem Creek and Grants Creek as
Impaired. These waters are discussed in further detail below.
4.2.1 Reynolds Creek (3.3 miles from source to Muddy Creek)
1998 Recommendations
Biological surveys conducted in 1994 revealed that Reynolds Creek was Impaired downstream of
the Sequoia WWTP. This facility was a package WWTP serving a residential community.
DWQ recommended that an engineering alternatives analysis be conducted to determine the
feasibility of eliminating this discharge and connecting to the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County
collection system. Recommendations were also made for reducing nonpoint source pollution.
Current Status
Benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Reynolds Creek were sampled again at two locations
in 2000. Due to reduced flow, the stream was too small for bioclassifications to be assigned.
Upstream of the discharge, DWQ biologists found that there had been a slight decline over the
six -year period, which is likely due to increased development in Lewisville. Downstream,
significant problems still existed that were attributed primarily to the WWTP. Areas of sludge
deposition were observed that were contributing to water quality problems. The Sequoia WWTP
discharge was removed in July 2001.
2002 Recommendations
Although Reynolds Creek is currently Not Rated due to its small size, significant water quality
problems still exist. DWQ will continue to monitor this stream to evaluate any improvement
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 150

following the removal of the Sequioa WWTP discharge. However, local actions are needed to
reduce the effects of nonpoint source pollution, particularly from stormwater runoff, and to
restore habitat in the lower portion of the watershed. It is likely that Forsyth County and
Lewisville will be required by DWQ to obtain an NPDES permit for municipal stormwater
systems under the federal Phase II stormwater rules.
4.2.2 Salem Creek (12.0 miles from dam at Salem Lake to Muddy Creek)
1998 Recommendations
Recommendations for the Salem Creek watershed include support for the City of Winston-
Salem's stormwater program and call for further action by the city and Forsyth County to help
maintain and improve water quality in the face of continuing development. DWQ planned to
reevaluate the computer model used to determine the wasteload allocation for the Archie Elledge
WWTP and adjust the NPDES permit accordingly, based on the outcome.
Current Status
The Salem Creek watershed continues to develop, particularly in the headwaters near
Kernersville, but also on the lower end. Some habitat degradation was observed above Salem
Lake, but the majority of water quality problems exist below the confluence with Brushy Fork.
Biological surveys were conducted by DWQ at three sites below Salem Lake, and water
chemistry samples were also collected at three sites. Although a small percentage of samples
downstream of the Archie Elledge WWTP contained dissolved oxygen concentrations less than
5.0 mg/l, the WWTP does not seem to be adversely impacting the stream. Benthic
macroinvertebrate communities were very similar above and below the WWTP. Significant
habitat degradation was observed throughout the lower watershed, including severe bank erosion,
a lack of riparian vegetation, and sedimentation leading to a very uniform sand/silt substate (i.e.,
lack of pool and riffle habitat). Additionally, the fish community site, which received a Poor
bioclassification, is located upstream of the VVWTP discharge. Salem Creek, from the dam at
Salem Lake to the confluence with Muddy Creek, remains Impaired.
The geometric means of fecal coliform samples collected from three stations between 1998 and
2001 and one station between 1996 and 2001 from Salem Creek (307, 327, 368 and 773
colonies/100ml) indicate that the stream may not be suitable for primary recreation. In addition,
fecal coliform concentrations were greater than 400 colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of
samples from each site. Salem Creek is not currently classified for primary recreation (Class B).
However, the stream was historically placed on the 303(d) list for fecal coliform and a TMDL is
being developed by DWQ.
2002 Recommendations
Further investigation into the causes and sources of biological impacts to Salem Creek is needed
before specific recommendations to improve water quality can be made. Local actions are
needed to reduce sedimentation, turbidity and fecal coliform contamination and to promote the
production of instream habitat by restoring riparian vegetation throughout the watershed. DWQ
will develop a TMDL for fecal coliform and work with local agencies to implement it over the
next five-year basinwide planning cycle. Many of the BMPs employed to reduce fecal coliform
contamination will likely help reduce habitat degradation in the watershed also. In addition,
Forsyth County and Kernersville are required to obtain NPDES permits for municipal
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 151

stormwater systems under the Phase 11 stormwater rules. Refer to page 37 of Section A, Chapter
2 for details.
Water Quality Improvement Proiects
The Salem Creek watershed, including Peters Creek and Brushy Fork (03040101 170060), is one
of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin that has been identified by the NC Wetlands
Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and
wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given higher priority than a nontargeted
watershed for the implementation of NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 278 in Section
C for details.
4.2.3 Grants Creek (1.2 miles from SR 1910 to Yadkin River)
1998 Recommendations
The 1998 basin plan discussed water quality impacts from the Salisbury Grants Creek WWTP
and Spencer Sowers Ferry Road WWTP discharges and Salisbury's plans to relocate the Grants
Creek WWTP discharge to the Yadkin River. Recommendations were for DWQ to monitor the
stream following the removal of this discharge and for local action to reduce nonpoint source
pollution.
Current Status
Biological data were collected from two sites, and water chemistry data were collected from
three sites along Grants Creek over the previous basinwide planning cycle: Although the
uppermost site (above the WWTP discharges) received a Good -Fair bioclassification, biological
surveys indicated severe habitat degradation as well as nutrient enrichment. Further downstream,
Grants Creek is impaired by a combination of historical point source problems and current
nonpoint source problems.
At two water chemistry sites (above and below the WWTPs), turbidity concentrations were in
excess of state standards in more than 10 percent of samples. The geometric means of fecal
coliform samples collected from two stations between 1998 and 2001 and one station between
1996 and 2001 from Grants Creek (292, 231 and 291 colonies/100ml) indicate that the stream
may not be suitable for primary recreation. In addition, fecal coliform concentrations were
greater than 400 colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of samples from each site. Grants
Creek is not currently classified for primary recreation (Class B). However, the stream was
historically placed on the 303(d) list for fecal coliform and a TMDL has already been developed
by DWQ.
The City of Salisbury relocated the Grants Creek WWTP discharge to the Yadkin River in 1998.
The City of Spencer's Sowers Ferry Road WWTP continued to have significant and chronic
problems with BOD as well as chronic problems with dissolved oxygen and total suspended
solids over the most recent assessment period (1998-2001). However, in November 2000, the
City of Salisbury purchased the Sowers Ferry Road WWTP. Salisbury worked throughout 2001
and 2002 to divert all flows into the Grants Creek WWTP and the Sowers Ferry Road WWTP
discharge was eliminated by the end of 2002.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 152

2002 Recommendations
Although Grants Creek above the City of Salisbury is not Impaired, impacts are evident. Further
investigation into the causes and sources of biological impacts in the lower portion of Grants
Creek is needed before specific recommendations to improve water quality can be made. DWQ
expects to see some improvement below the old Sowers Ferry Road WWTP during the next
basinwide planning cycle due to Salisbury's elimination of this discharge. However, local
actions will continue to be needed throughout the watershed to reduce sedimentation and
turbidity and to promote the production of instream habitat by restoring riparian vegetation.
DWQ's fecal coliform TMDL for Grants Creek was approved by the EPA in 2002. The study
revealed that the sources of fecal coliform in the Grants Creek watershed are urban sources in the
Landis, China Grove and Salisbury areas, livestock grazing and manure application on
agricultural lands and pasturelands, and wildlife in the forested areas of the watershed. The
Coliform Routing and Allocation Program was utilized to simulate instream fecal concentrations
and to allocate the fecal coliform loads to the various sources. In order for water quality
standards for fecal coliform to be met in Grants Creek, a nonpoint source load reduction of 33-60
percent under dry weather conditions and 85-97 under wet weather conditions must be met. The
model estimates that WWTP discharges contribute an insignificant percentage of the fecal
coliform loading in the watershed. In addition, both major discharges have now been removed
from Grants Creek_ Therefore, the reduction allocation focuses on the fecal coliform loading
from urban sources in the Landis, China Grove and Salisbury areas and livestock grazing and
manure application on agricultural lands.
These calculations are the first step in reducing fecal coliform concentrations in the watershed.
Many of the BMPs employed to implement the TMDL will likely help reduce habitat
degradation in the watershed as well. In addition, Landis, China Grove and Salisbury are
required to obtain an NPDES permit for municipal stormwater systems under the federal Phase II
stormwater rules. Refer to Section A, page 37 for details.
Water Quality Improvement Projects
The Grants Creek watershed (03040103 010010) is one of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River basin that has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an
area with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This
watershed will be given higher priority than a nontargeted watershed for the implementation of
NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 278 in Section C for details.
4.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
Town Creek, a portion of Muddy Creek and High Rock Lake are rated Impaired based on recent
DWQ monitoring (1996-2001). This section outlines the potential causes and sources of
impairment and provides recommendations for improving water quality.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 153

4.3.1 Muddy Creek (15.2 miles from Mill Creek #3 to SR 2995)
Current Status
The headwaters of Muddy Creek flow from Stokes County, and the stream is currently the
western boundary of the City of Winston-Salem. The watershed continues to develop,
particularly in the headwaters near King, Tobbccoville and Rural Hall, but also on the lower end
where Clemmons and Winston-Salem meet. Some habitat degradation was observed above the
confluence with Mill Creek, but the majority of water quality problems exist below this point.
On the low end, the stream exhibits some recovery below the confluence with South Fork Muddy
Creek; however, impacts are evident in this portion of stream as well. The middle portion of
Muddy Creek is Impaired based primarily on fish community data collected in 1996 and 2001.
Benthic macroinvertebrate communities in this middle reach of stream have also received
bioclassifications that indicate impairment, although these communities were not sampled at this
location over the most recent assessment period.
Water chemistry is collected at three locations along Muddy Creek. Elevated nutrients, turbidity
and fecal coliform were observed over the five-year period (1996-2001). The geometric means
of fecal coliform samples collected from two stations between 1998 and 2001 and one station
between 1996 and 2001 from Muddy Creek (265, 255 and 488 colonies/100m1) indicate that the
stream may not be suitable for primary recreation. Fecal coliform concentrations were greater
than 400 colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of samples from each site as well. Current
methodology requires additional bacteriological sampling for streams with a geometric mean
greater than 200 colonies/100m1 or when concentrations exceed 400 col/100ml in more than 20
percent of samples. However, these additional assessments are prioritized such that, as
monitoring resources become available, the highest priority is given to those streams where the
likelihood of full -body contact recreation is greatest. Muddy Creek is not currently classified for
primary, recreation (Class B).
The impairment of Muddy Creek is primarily attributed to nonpoint source pollution from
stormwater runoff from construction sites and developed areas. The input of heavily developed
and/or Impaired tributaries also contributes: Mill, Silas, Reynolds and Salem Creeks.
2002 Recommendations
Further investigation into the actual causes and sources of biological impacts to Muddy Creek is
needed before specific recommendations to improve water quality can be made; however, the
potential for water quality improvement for this stream is still strong. Local actions are needed
to reduce sedimentation, turbidity and fecal coliform contamination and to promote the
production of instream habitat by restoring riparian vegetation throughout the watershed. In
addition, Forsyth County as well as King, Tobbacoville, Rural Hall, Lewisville and Clemmons
are required by DWQ to obtain an NPDES permit for municipal stormwater systems under the
Phase H stormwater rules. Refer to Section A, page 37 for details. Section A, Chapter 4 contains
more recommendations for reducing habitat degradation from stormwater runoff.
Water Quality Improvement Projects
Although Muddy Creek is not one of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin that has
been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the greatest
need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts, several of its tributary
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 154

watersheds have been selected. The Mill Creek, Silas Creek and South Fork Muddy Creek
watersheds have been targeted. These watersheds will be given higher priority than nontargeted
watersheds for the implementation of NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 278 in Section
C for details.
4.3.2 Town Creek (15.4 miles from source to Crane Creek)
Current Status
Town Creek begins just east of Kannapolis and flows through Salisbury and East Spencer before
reaching High Rock Lake. The City of Salisbury historically had a discharge from a WWTP on
Town Creek. Significant improvement has been observed since the discharge was removed in
1990. However, both fish and benthic communities are Impaired in Town Creek. Habitat
degradation was noted along with a few occurrences of low dissolved oxygen and elevated
turbidity. The lower half of the watershed is heavily developed, and stormwater runoff is likely a
major contributor to the impairment. There is one minor discharge in the headwaters which
continues to be compliant with its NPDES permit.
2002 Recommendations
DWQ plans to conduct further investigation into the causes and sources of the biological
impairment of Town Creek during this basinwide planning cycle. DWQ will notify local
agencies of water quality concerns regarding these waters and work with them to conduct further
monitoring and to locate sources of water quality protection funding. In addition, Rowan County
and Salisbury are required to obtain an NPDES permit for municipal stormwater systems under
the Phase II stormwater rules. Refer to Section A, page 37 for details.
Water Quality Improvement Projects
The Town Creek watershed (03040103 010020) is one of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River basin that has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an
area with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This
watershed will be given higher priority than a nontargeted watershed for the implementation of
NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 278 in Section C for details.
4.3.3 High Rock Lake (15,750 acres)
1998 Recommendations
High Rock Lake was not rated Impaired during the assessment period leading up to the 1998
Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin plan. However, the lake was rated support threatened and is
extensively discussed in the plan, indicating impacts to water quality that could lead to
impairment. The plan focuses on problems with excessive algal growths related to high nutrient
levels in the arms of the lake. Although nutrients were also high in the main body of the lake,
designated uses seemed to be supported. Recommendations are for DWQ to investigate the
feasibility of developing a nutrient strategy for the watershed and consider reclassifying the lake _
as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. DWQ also planned to require phosphorus limits for major
discharges into the arms and urged all major dischargers in the watershed to identify ways to
optimize phosphorus removal using existing capabilities.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 155

Current Status
Eight stations on High Rock Lake were monitored by DWQ in 1999, 2000 and 2001. This
increased monitoring of High Rock Lake over the most recent assessment period has allowed
DWQ to determine that the lake is Impaired. The decision is based on high levels of nutrients,
combined with chlorophyll a, turbidity and percent dissolved oxygen saturation in excess of state
standards. Low dissolved oxygen and high turbidity in the Abbotts Creek and Town Creek Arms
are also contributing to aquatic life impairment. An extensive discussion of water quality data
collected from High Rock Lake is found in Section A, Chapter 4 beginning on page 107.
2002 Recommendations
The High Rock Lake watershed (map on page 279) comprises slightly more than half of the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin. Recommendations for improving water quality in the lake are
detailed in Section A, Chapter 4: Recommendations for Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple
Subbasins in the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin. The High Rock Lake part of the discussion begins
on page 107.
4.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
Currently, portions of six waters in this subbasin are listed on the state's draft 2002 303(d) list
for biological impairment: Reynolds Creek, Salem Creek, Grants Creek, Town Creek and two
small unnamed tnbutaries. Grants Creek and a portion of Salem Creek are also listed for fecal
coliform and turbidity. A fecal coliform TMDL for Grants Creek has been developed by DWQ,
and one for Salem Creek will likely be developed during this basinwide planning cycle. Refer to
Appendix IV for more information on the state's 303(d) list and listing requirements.
4.5 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Notable Impacts
Based on DWQ's most recent use support assessment, the surface waters discussed below are not
Impaired. However, notable water quality impacts were documented. While these waters are not
considered Impaired, attention and resources should be, focused on them over the next basinwide
planning cycle to prevent additional degradation or facilitate water quality improvement. A
discussion of how impairment is determined can be found in Appendix III.
Although no action is required for these streams, voluntary implementation of BMPs is
encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. DWQ will notify local agencies and
others of water quality concerns discussed below and work with them to conduct further
monitoring and to locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally, education on
local water quality issues is always a useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to
promote restoration efforts. Nonpoint source agency contacts are listed in Appendix Vl.
4.5.1 Mill Creek
Silas Creek
Mill and Silas Creeks parallel Salem Creek in the Muddy Creek watershed. These streams are
likely being impacted by stormwater runoff from the City of Winston-Salem. Mill Creek has not
been sampled by DWQ, but the lower two-thirds of the watershed contain moderate road
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 156

coverage indicating large amounts of developed area, similar to the watershed of Silas Creek.
The fish community of Silas Creek was sampled by DWQ for the first time in 2001. Severe
habitat degradation was observed and the data indicated impairment. However, the stream was
resampled in 2002 and received a Good -Fair bioclassification. This score is likely due to the
reduction in nonpoint source pollution that accompanies an extended drought. Refer to Section
A, Chapter 4 for recommendations and management strategies for reducing impacts of runoff
from developed areas.
The Mill Creek and Silas Creek watersheds (03040101 170020 and 170040) are two of 55
watersheds in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin that have been identified by the Wetlands
Restoration Program as areas with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland
restoration efforts. These watersheds will be given higher priority than nontargeted watersheds
for the implementation of NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 278 in Section C for
details.
4.5.2 Salem Lake
Kerners Mill Creek
Although the most severe water quality problems in the Salem Creek watershed occur
downstream of Salem Lake, habitat degradation has been observed in Kemers Mill Creek above
the lake. In addition, this water supply lake exhibits signs of nutrient enrichment and a diverse
assemblage of algae. The Lowery Creek arm exhibits slightly lower dissolved oxygen compared
with the other two stations on Salem Lake. Local actions are needed to reduce the effects of
nonpoint source pollution in the Salem Lake watershed, particularly from stormwater runoff
from construction sites and developed areas. Kernersville is required to obtain an NPDES permit
for municipal stormwater systems under the Phase 11 stormwater rules. Refer to page 37 of
Section A, Chapter 2 for details.
The Salem Creek watershed (03040101 170060) is one of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River basin that has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an
area with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This
watershed will be given higher priority than a nontargeted watershed for the implementation of
NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 278 in Section C for details.
4.5.3 South Fork Muddy Creek
South Fork Muddy Creek borders the City of Winston-Salem on the southeastern side. The
watershed contains a mix of residential and agricultural land uses. Most of the new development
is occurring in the Fiddlers Creek watershed. Substantial habitat degradation was observed
during biological surveys of South Fork Muddy Creek below the confluence of Fiddlers Creek.
The Good -Fair bioclassification could be due to the reduction in nonpoint source pollution that
accompanies an extended drought. Local actions are needed to reduce the effects of nonpoint
source pollution, particularly from stormwater runoff from construction sites and developed areas
in Fiddlers Creek, but also from agricultural activities in other parts of the watershed.
The South Fork Muddy Creek watershed (03040101 170070) is one of 55 watersheds in the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin that has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River- Subbasin 03-07-04 157

(NCWRP) as an area with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration
efforts. This watershed will be given higher priority than a nontargeted watershed for the
implementation of NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 278 in Section C for details.
4.5.4 Noah Potts Creek
South Potts Creek
North and South Potts Creeks flow south in Davidson County near Lexington into the upper
reaches of High Rock Lake. The South Potts Creek watershed (larger of the two) is mostly in
agriculture, with the exception of the I-85 corridor and a large rail yard on the lower end. Some
historic channelization is evident, and residential development is increasing along US 29/70
between Lexington and Spencer. One NPDES permitted discharge (Davidson County
Churchland Elementary) is in significant noncompliance for ammonia in the headwaters.
There is already more developed area in the North Potts Creek watershed and major
channelization has occurred. Two NPDES permitted discharges (Davidson County Tyro Junior
High and West Davidson High) are in significant noncompliance for BOD, ammonia and
chlorine. DWQ sampled North Potts Creek in 1988, but there is no recent data for either stream.
DWQ will attempt to conduct a special study of these streams during the next basinwide
planning cycle to determine: 1) the level of impacts associated with these land uses and
discharges; and 2) the contribution of this watershed to the impairment of High Rock Lake. In
addition, local actions are needed to reduce the effects of nonpoint source pollution, particularly
from stormwater runoff.
4.6 Additional Water Quality Issues with Subbasin 03-07-04
The previous parts discussed water quality concerns for specific stream segments. This section
discusses water quality issues related to multiple watersheds within the subbasin. Information
found in this section may be related to concerns about things that threaten water quality or about
plans and actions to improve water quality.
4.6.1 NPDES Discharges
Twenty-two of the 40 NPDES discharges had a few permit violations over the two-year review
period (September 1999 - August 2001). Nine facilities are in significant noncompliance; six are
Davidson County schools. Almost every school in Davidson County is in significant
noncompliance for at least one parameter. Because the facilities are scattered throughout several
subbasins, these problems and the plans to correct them are discussed on page 113 of Section A,
Chapter 4. Color/Tex Finishing had significant problems meeting COD, pH and total suspended
solids limits in 2000. The Sowers Ferry Road WWTP (originally owned by Spencer, then
bought by Salisbury) was in significant noncompliance over the entire period of review for
problems meeting BOD, dissolved oxygen and total suspended solids limits. This discharge was
eliminated in 2002. The Hilltop Living Center had problems meeting BOD limits over the two-
year review period.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 158

Fifteen facilities are required to monitor effluent toxicity; three have had significant compliance
problems over the previous basinwide planning cycle. The Lucent Technologies groundwater
remediation facility failed four consecutive chronic toxicity tests during the period from March
to June of 1999- Facility staff replaced the system's carbon filter media and optimized
application of treatment chemicals to address the problem. No failures have occurred since June
1999. Noncompliances in 1999 and 2000 at the City of Salisbury's Sowers Road WWTP seemed
to be associated with operational problems at the WWTP. There were no WET test failures
between September 2000 and 2002 when the discharge was eliminated. The Scarlett Acres
Mobile Home Park WWTP has produced sporadic failures since it began operation in 1990. Its
most recent noncompliances in 2001 have been attributed to poor operation and numerous power
outages.
4.6.2 Projected Population Growth
The population of Rowan County is projected to increase 32 percent, Davidson County — 25
percent, and Forsyth County — 26 percent between 2000 and 2020. Much of this development is
likely to occur along highway corridors (I-40, I-85, US 64 and US 29/70) and in smaller
suburban municipalities like King, Kernersville, Lewisville and Clemmons. Figure B-5 presents
population increases between 1990 and 2000 for selected municipalities this subbasin.
8000
7000
6000
w 5000
S
o. 4000
0
z 3000
2000
1000
,114'�~ �1 a, °a�� °�5°q Oaf S°�G
c°
v
Figure B-5 Population Increases for Selected Subbasin 03-07-04 Municipalities (1990-2000)
Growth management within the next five years will be imperative in order to improve or
maintain water quality in this subbasin.. Growth management can be defined as the application of
strategies and practices that help achieve sustainable development in harmony with the
conservation of environmental qualities and features of an area. On a local level, growth
management often involves planning and development review requirements that are designed to
maintain or improve water quality. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for more information about
minimizing impacts to water quality from development.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 159

4.6.3 The South Yadkin/Yadidn River Corridor Conservation Plan
The LandTrust for Central NC (LTCNC) received $7,500 from the Conservation Trust for North
Carolina and the Clean Water Management Trust Fund to develop a report evaluating the
conservation needs and opportunities along 24 miles of the lower South Yadkin River and a 26-
mile section of the Yadkin River above High Rock Lake. This corridor incidentally included a
portion of lower Grants Creek as well.
The South Yadkin/Yadkin River Corridor Conservation Plan was completed in December 2001.
The highest priorities for conservation identified by the plan are land between Fourth Creek and
the South Yadkin River, above and including the confluence of the two streams; and land
between the South Yadkin River and the Yadkin River, above and including the confluence of
the two rivers. There are large tracts of land (owned by Duke Power -Progress Energy) along the
Yadkin River which are in close proximity to lands that are already by LTCNC. There are also
large amounts of riparian land (owned by ALCOA) along both the South Yadkin and Yadkin
Rivers. These Duke Power and ALCOA lands also received high priority for protection (Merrill,
December 2001).
The conservation plan has been integrated into the daily efforts of LTCNC while pursuing
conservation opportunities in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin. Page 294 of Section C contains
more information about The LandTrust for Central NC. You may also visit the website for
details about the many lands which LTCNC helped place in conservation ownership at
httii://%vww.landtrustcnc.org/vboutiandtrust.html.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-04 160

Section B. Chapter 12
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12
Includes a portion of the Rocky River, Dutch Buffalo, Irish Buffalo,
Goose and Crooked Creeks
�'�a`'a•�_�_..,.
r"::.f.;Y,+'y•3i_`-`.:.•_.�: �.,._ u"`-'•�f'd�=,. ..
_
12.1 Water Quality Overview
Subbasin 03-07-12 at a Glance
Land and Water
Total area:
435 miz
Stream miles:
317.1
Lake acres:
722.1
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.:
125,021 people
Pop. Density:
288 persons/mi'
The middle section of the Rocky River flows east, then
south, then east again dividing this subbasin almost in half.
Tributaries in the upper half include Irish Buffalo and
Dutch Buffalo Creeks flowing generally south. Smaller
tributaries in the lower half include Clear, Goose and
Crooked Creeks flowing generally northeast. The majority
of the subbasin lies within Cabarrus County, but portions
of Mecklenburg, Union and Stanly counties are also
encompassed. Municipalities include Kannapolis,
Concord, Locust, Mint Hill, Indian Trail, Lake Park and
Unionville.
I Land Cover (%) I
Forest/Wetland: 53.6
Surface Water: 0.6 A map including the locations of NPDES discharges and
Urban: 5.0 A. water quality monitoring stations is presented in Figure B-
Cultivated Crop: 8.8 13. Table B-24 contains a summary of monitoring data
Pasture/ types, locations and results. Use support ratings for waters
Managed Herbaceous: 32.0 in this subbasin are summarized in Table B-25. Appendix
� I provides a key to discharge identification numbers. Refer
to Appendix III for a complete listing of monitored waters and more information about use
support ratings.
This subbasin is rapidly urbanizing, and land cover and population information become outdated
quickly. Land cover information compiled between 1993 and 1995 describes approximately 50
percent of the land as forested, more than 40 percent in agricultural uses, and approximately 5
percent as urban. The population in 1990 was estimated to be just over 125,000 people.
Estimates of subbasin population have not yet been made for the 2000 census data; however, it is
likely that population increased substantially over the ten-year period. Population is projected to
increase 57 percent in Mecklenburg County, 53 percent in Cabarrus County, and 70 percent in
Union County between 2000 and 2020. There are 17 NPDES permitted discharges and seven
registered animal operations within this subbasin. Facilities with compliance or toxicity
problems are discussed in following sections.
Water quality varies substantially across this subbasin, although most waters contain some water
quality impacts. The headwaters of Dutch Buffalo Creek are classified WS-II and High Quality
Waters.
Section B_ Chapter 12 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12 224

Figure B-13 Yadidn-Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12
1 Diver k
N
S
. ki
IREDELL
Kannapolis
t—�zLF�a
All
Concord
96
China
Grove
Landis
AIF
CABARRUS
F -2
73
72
mouni
. B-3 Y Pleasant / ;
58
ROWAN
1CHill
Gold
/�;H i I I
STAIDLY
MECKLENBURG
A42
Stanfield
C.,
31
�N7
Miht
32
Legend
Hill
✓29
Subbasin Boundary
22 a
S
-'Rrver
QD Ambient Monitoring Station
., NS 8-
SSB-9
Benthic Station
SSB 3
S6121-2
B-5
Fish Community Station
Matthews 94B
SSB-5
14, -4—tE�G
136
Fish Tissue Station
Q83.6 000
23/
XPDES Disdrarges
A major
SSB-12
Ta
Minor
SSB43 16
UNION
Use Support Rating
Stalling
f6nionville
/V. supportiry
I -Z
Impaired
Indian Trail
Not Rated
is
A/ No Data
SAM&A
NCDENR
Monroe
V County Boundary
Planning Branch
4/",,r primary Roads
Basinwide Planning Program Unit
5
0
5 Miles
municiparity
March 21. 2003
19�

Table B-24 DWQ Monitoring Locations, Bioclassifications and Notable Chemical Parameters
(1998-2002) for Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12
Site
Stream
County
Road
Biodassification or
Noted Parameter'
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Monitoring
B-1
Rocky River'
Cabarrus
US 601
Fair
B-2
Irish Buffalo Creek'
Cabarrus
SR 1132
Good -Fair
B-3
Coldwater Creek`
Cabarrus
NC 49
Good -Fair
B-4
Dutch Buffalo Creek'
Cabarrus
NC 200
Good -Fair
SSB-11
Clear Creek
Mecklenburg
SR 3181
Good -Fair
SSB-3
Goose Creek
Mecklenburg
SR 1004
Good Fair
SSB-4
Goose Creek
Union
Glamorgan Rd.
Good
SSB-5
Goose Creek
Union
SR 1524
Good -Fair
SSB-6
Goose Creek
Union
Below Fairfield
Fair
SSB-7
Goose Creek
Union
SR 1525
Poor
SSB-8
Goose Creek
Union
SR 1533
Fair
B-5
Goose Creek'
Union
US 601
Poor
SSB-9
Goose Creek
Union
SR 1547
Fair
SSB-1
Stevens Creek
Mecklenburg
Maple Hollow Rd.
Good
SSB-2
UT Stevens Creek
Mecklenburg
Thompson Rd.
Not Impaired
SSB-10
Duck Creek
Union
US 601
Fair
B-6
Crooked Creek'
Union
SR 1547
Good -Fair
SSB-12
N. Fork Crooked Cr'
Union
SR 1520
Fair
SSB-13
N. Fork Crooked Cr
Union
SR 1514
Fair
Fish Community Monitoring
F-1
Irish Buffalo Creek'
Cabarrus
SR 1132
Good
F-2
Coldwater Creek'
Cabarrus
NC 73
Good -Fair
F-3
Dutch Buffalo Creek'
Cabarrus
SR 2622
Good
Ambient Monitoring
Q8090000
Irish Buffalo Creek
Cabarrus
SR 1132
Turbidity,
Fecal coliform
Q8210000
Rocky River
Cabarrus
US 601
Fecal coliform
Q8360000
Goose Creek
Union
SR 1524
Fecal coliform
Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Association Monitoring
Q8200000
Coldwater Creek
Cabarrus
SR 1132
Fecal coliform
Q8210000
Rocky River'
Cabarrus
US 601
None
Q8340000
UT Clear Creek
Mecklenburg
SR 3104
Dissolved oxygen,
Fecal coliform
Section B_ Chapter 12 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12 226

Q8342000
Clear Creek
Union
US 601
Dissolved oxygen,
Fecal coliform
Q8355000
Rocky River
Cabarrus
SR 1114
None
Q8359000
Goose Creek
Union
SR 4228
Fecal coliform
Q8360000
Goose Creek'
Union
SR 1524
Dissolved oxygen,
Fecal coliform
Q8385000
Rocky River
Union
SR 1606
Turbidity
Q8386000
N. Fork Crooked Cr
Union
SR 1520
Dissolved oxygen,
Turbidity,
Fecal coliform
Q8386200
N. Fork Crooked Cr
Union
SR 1514
Dissolved oxygen,
Turbidity,
Fecal coliform
Q8388000
Crooked Creek
Union
NC 218
Turbidity
Q8388900
Crooked Creek
Union
SR 1601
Turbidity,
Fecal coliform
Lakes Assessment
-
Kannapolis Lake
Rowan
2 sites
None
-
Lake Fisher
Rowan/Cabarrus
3 sites
None
-
Lake Concord
Cabamis
3 sites
Turbidity
Historical data of this type are available for this waterbody; refer to Appendix II. Sites may vary.
Parameters are noted if in excess of state standards in more than 10 percent of samples collected within the
assessment period (9/1996-8/2001).
This site duplicates a DWQ ambient monitoring station.
For more detailed information on sampling and assessment of streams in this subbasin, refer to
the Basinwide Assessment Report - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin (NCDENR-DWQ, June 2002),
available from DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch at hqp://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by
calling [phone].
Table B-25 Use Support Ratings Summary (2002) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) and Lakes (acres) in Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12
Use Support Category
Units
Supporting
Impaired
Not Rated
No Data
Total`
Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation
miles
acres
94.8
0.0
33.6
0.0
1.3
697.0
187.4
25.1
317.1
722.1
Fish Consumption'
miles
acres
0.0
0.0
317.1
722.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
317.1
722.1
Primary Recreation
miles
acres
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Water Supply
miles
acres
38.6
234.8
j 0.0
0.0
j 0.0
0.0
j 0.0
0.0
38.6
234.8
' Total stream miles/acres assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not additive because some stream
miles are assigned to more than one category.
= These waters are impaired based on fish consumption advice issued for three species of freshwater fish due to mercury
contamination. Refer to page 104 of Section A for details.
Section B: Chapter 12 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12 227

12.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1998 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each water. The 1998 Yadkin -Pee Dee
River basin plan identified four Impaired streams in this subbasin. Goose Creek, Crooked Creek,
and the North and South Forks of Crooked Creek are discussed below.
12.2.1 Goose Creek (17.0 miles from source to Rocky River)
1998 Recommendations
Growth pressures, problems with wastewater discharges and infrastructure, and impacts from
agricultural activities are discussed in the 1998 basin for the Goose Creek watershed.
Recommendations are for DWQ to conducting modeling to evaluate the assimilative capacity of
Goose Creek. DWQ planned to pursue enforcement action with some NPDES permit holders for
past violations of discharge permits, and chlorine limits are recommended for existing
discharges. In addition, the plan recommends local actions to reduce the effects of nonpoint
source pollution, particularly from stormwater runoff, and to restore riparian habitat throughout
the watershed.
Status of Progress
In 1998, the benthic macroinvertebrate community was sampled by DWQ at 11 sites in the
watershed: 1 site on Duck Creek; 2 sites on Stevens Creek; and 8 sites on Goose Creek
including the regular basinwide monitoring site at US Highway 601. Five sites (63 percent)
received Fair or Poor bioclassification, indicating impairment. Three sites (37 percent) received
Good -Fair or Good bioclassification, indicating the community is not Impaired. Stevens Creek
received one Good bioclassification near the mouth and the other site was too small to assign a
bioclassification to, but it was found to be not Impaired. Duck Creek received a Fair
bioclassification near US Highway 601 in the lower portion of the watershed, indicating
impairment.
In 2001, only the US Highway 601 site was sampled by DWQ. This site is at the lower end of
the watershed, but above the confluence with Duck Creek. The site contained fairly good
instream habitat and riparian vegetation overall, but the streambanks were extremely unstable in
places and there were few deep pools. The benthic macroinvertebrate community received a
Poor bioclassification, as it had in 1998 and 1996. The specific conductance was high and there
were many indicators of organic enrichment. No fish community samples were conducted.
The Goose Creek watershed contains one ambient monitoring station at SR 1524 near Mint Hill
(fairly high up in the watershed). A -summary of water chemistry monitoring over a five-year
period ending in 2001 revealed that all nutrient levels are elevated. Phosphorus, in particular,
exceeded the evaluation level (0.05 mg/1) 93 percent of the time, reaching a maximum of 3.70
mg/l. Dissolved oxygen data commonly showed supersaturated conditions, indicating algae
blooms.
There are six permitted wastewater discharges in the watershed: Oxford Glen WWTP on
Stevens Creek; Ashe Plantation WWTP on Duck Creek; and Fairview Elementary WWTP,
Section B: Chapter 12 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12 228

Fairfield Plantation WWTP, Country Woods WWTP and Hunley Creek WWTP on Goose Creek.
Each of these facilities received chlorine limits (which became effective by October of 2002)
during the last cycle of NPDES permit renewals, as is recommended by the 1998 basin plan.
However, owner/operators of the Oxford Glen and Ashe Plantation WWTPs decided to install
ultraviolet disinfection systems. Compliance reports from the most recent review period (2000-
2001) show problems with excess flow at the Fairfield Plantation and Country Woods WWTPs.
No other NPDES permit violations were observed in the Goose Creek watershed.
The Hunley Creek WWTP is a member of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Association, and
water chemistry samples are collected through the monitoring program at two locations on Goose
Creek (upstream and downstream of the facility). Dissolved oxygen was less than 5.0 mg/1 in 8.6
percent of downstream samples compared with only 1.1 percent of upstream samples. Fecal
coliform concentrations were reduced by half from 988 colonies/100ml upstream to 412
colonies/100m1 downstream. (The evaluation level is 200 colonies/100ml.)
The geometric means of fecal coliform samples collected from one station between 1996 and
2001 and two stations between 1998 and 2001 from Goose Creek (241, 988 and 412
colonies/100ml) indicate that the stream may not be suitable for primary recreation. In addition,
fecal coliform concentrations were greater than 400 colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of
samples from each site. Goose Creek is not currently classified for primary recreation (Class B).
However, the stream was historically placed on the 303(d) list for fecal coliform and a TMDL
has already been developed by DWQ. Goose Creek was historically placed on the 303(d) list for
fecal coliform and DWQ is currently working with Mecklenburg County to develop a TMDL.
Stevens Creek and Goose Creek from its source to SR 1524 just inside Union County are
currently Supporting aquatic life and secondary recreation, although impacts were evident in
1998, particularly in the headwaters of Goose Creek. Duck Creek and Goose Creek from SR
1524 to the confluence with the Rocky River are Impaired. Currently, problems with point
sources are limited to inflow and infiltration problems at the Fairfield Plantation and County
Woods WWTPs. Nonpoint source pollution problems are associated with stormwater runoff
from construction sites and developed areas, as well as agricultural activities.
2002 Recommendations
DWQ, in coordination with other natural resource agencies, will develop a site -specific
management strategy for the Goose Creek watershed which provides for the maintenance and
recovery of water quality conditions necessary to sustain the Carolina heelsplitter. The strategy
will likely contain recommendations for point and nonpoint sources of pollution (refer to page 32
for details).
Mecklenburg and Union counties, as well as Mint Hill, Indian Trail and Lake Park, are required
to obtain a NPDES permit for municipal stormwater systems under the Phase H stormwater rules
(refer to page 37 of Section A, Chapter 2 for details). The City of Charlotte received a NPDES
permit under the federal Phase I stormwater rules. DWQ applauds Charlotte-Mecklenburg's
Surface Water Improvement and Management Program (page 299 contains details) and
recommends that all local governments in the Goose Creek watershed implement programs to
reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff, including local riparian buffer ordinances.
Section B: Chapter 12 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12 229

Although much work is currently being conducted in the Goose Creek watershed by DWQ, other
natural resource agencies and local governments, local actions by citizens are still needed to
reduce nonpoint source pollution. Many parts of the Goose Creek watershed could benefit
greatly from riparian area restoration and protection. Section A, Chapter 4 outlines general best
management practices for protecting and improving water quality. In addition, an organized
group of dedicated citizens can be one of the most effective tools for affecting watershed
protection and preservation of quality of life in communities.
Water Quality Improvement Initiatives
In 1999, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission initiated a project in the Stevens Creek
watershed (tributary to Goose Creek in the headwaters of Mecklenburg County) to reduce the
peak flows and pollutant load carried by stormwater from residential areas, improve streambanks
through stabilization and buffering, conduct community education about use of household and
lawn chemicals, increase community involvement in the protection and restoration of Stevens
Creek, and implement livestock exclusion to prevent direct access to the creek or its tributaries.
This project was funded in part through the Clean Water Act — Section 319 Program (page 273).
The Goose Creek Watershed Advisory Committee was convened in December 2000 to make
recommendations to local governments, state agencies and other appropriate organizations that
would protect and improve water quality and wildlife habitat in the Goose Creek watershed. The
committee is comprised of stakeholders representing diverse interests in the watershed. Refer to
page 290 in Section C for details about the committee and its sources of funding. Appendix V
contains a summary of the recommendations.
The Goose Creek watershed (03040105 030020) is one of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River basin that has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an
area with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This
watershed will be given higher priority than a nontargeted watershed for the implementation of
NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 278 in Section C for details.
12.2.2 Crooked Creek (13.1 miles from source to Rocky River)
1998 Recommendations
The 1998 basin plan suggests that Crooked Creek is Impaired primarily by low dissolved oxygen
problems and nonpoint source pollution in the upstream watersheds of the North and South
Forks. The plan recommends that DWQ collect additional data and assess assimilative capacity
for oxygen -consuming wastes before any additional discharges are permitted into the watershed.
Status ofProgrress
In 2001, sampling of the benthic macroinvertebrate community resulted in a Good -Fair
bioclassification below the Union County Grassy Branch WWTP in the lower third of the
watershed. Water chemistry data revealed elevated turbidity concentrations at two locations.
DWQ biologists noted good habitat in Crooked Creek; however, indicators of organic
enrichment were numerous. Crooked Creek is currently rated Supporting; however, the increase
in bioclassification (from Fair in 1996) could be partly due to reduced nonpoint source pollution
impacts as a result of the extended drought.
Section B_ Chapter 12 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12 230

full -body contact recreation is greatest. North Fork Crooked Creek is not currently classified for
primary recreation (Class B).
2002 Recommendations
Further investigation into the causes and sources of these water quality impacts is needed before
recommendations to improve water quality can be made. However, local actions to reduce the
effects of noupoint source pollution, particularly from stormwater runoff as further development
occurs in the Crooked Creek watershed, will be an imperative part of improving water quality.
12.2.4 South Fork Crooked Creek (13.7 miles from source to Crooked Creek)
1998 Recommendations
Streamflow in the upper Crooked Creek watershed is naturally very low in the summer months
and smaller tributaries often stop flowing completely. Problems with low dissolved oxygen
associated with the Union County WWTP discharge were thought to be contributing to
impairment at the time of the 1998 basin plan. In 1996, Union County relocated its WWTP
discharge to Crooked Creek downstream and some improvement in the stream was expected in
the future as a result. DWQ recommended that no discharge containing an additional loading of
oxygen -consuming waste be permitted into South Fork Crooked Creek.
Status o Progress
Due to reduced flows during an extended drought, DWQ did not resample South Fork Crooked
Creek during the most recent basinwide planning cycle and the stream is currently not rated.
2002 Recommendations
As resources and stream condition allow, DWQ will sample South Fork Crooked Creek to
evaluate any improvement following the relocation of the Union County WWTP discharge
during the next basinwide planning cycle.
12.3 Status and Recommendations for Newly Impaired Waters
A portion of the Rocky River within this subbasin was rated Impaired based on recent DWQ
monitoring (1998-2001). This section outlines the potential causes and sources of impairment
and provides recommendations for improving water quality.
12.3.1 Rocky River (8.5 miles from Reedy Creek to Dutch Buffalo Creek)
Current Status
Benthic macroinvertebrates received a Fair bioclassification at a location one mile below the
Water and Sewer Authority of Cabamts County (formerly Rocky River Regional) WWTP in
2001 and 2002. Previously, this segment of river received Good -Fair bioclassifications. This
decline during an extended drought indicates point source problems. However, this portion of
the Rocky River was included in a field -calibrated QUALM modeling analysis which was
conducted by DWQ in the mid-1990s, and the WWTP has maintained compliance with its
NPDES permit.
Section B: Chapter 12 - Yadkin -Pee Dee Rtver Subbasin 03-07-12 232

Low flows in the Rocky River watershed are difficult to assess. USGS 7Q10 estimates for
various reaches of the river were made at different times using varying methodologies and, at the
time of modeling for the Rocky River Regional WWTP permit, did not provide a clear picture of
low flow conditions.
The geometric mean of fecal coliform samples collected between 1996 and 2001 from this
portion of the Rocky River (234 colonies/100m1) indicates that the stream may not be suitable for
primary recreation. Fecal coliform concentrations were greater than 400 colonies/100ml in
nearly 22 percent of samples from this site as well. Current methodology requires additional
bacteriological sampling for streams with a geometric mean greater than 200 colonies/100ml or
when concentrations exceed 400 coU100ml in more than 20 percent of samples. However, these
additional assessments are prioritized such that, as monitoring resources become available, the
highest priority is given to those streams where the likelihood of fullbody contact recreation is
greatest. The Rocky River is not currently classified for primary recreation (Class B).
2002 Recommendations
Further investigation into the causes and sources of these water quality impacts is needed before
recommendations to improve water quality can be made.
Water QualityImprovementInitiatives
The Rocky River watershed is one of three priority areas in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin
under the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP provides technical,
educational and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to address soil, water and related
natural resource concerns on their lands. Refer to page 274 in Section C for details.
12.4 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
Currently, portions of four waters in this subbasin are listed on the state's draft 2002 303(d) list.
Goose Creek is listed for fecal coliform and biological impairment. Crooked Creek and North
and South Forks Crooked Creek are listed for biological impairment. In the future, another
segment of the Rocky River will likely be added to the list for biological impairment. Appendix
IV contains more information on the state's 303(d) list and listing requirements.
12.5 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Notable Impacts
Based on DWQ's most recent use support assessment, the surface waters discussed below are not
Impaired. However, notable water quality impacts were documented. While these waters are not
considered Impaired, attention and resources should be focused on them over the next basinwide
planning cycle to prevent additional degradation or facilitate water quality improvement. A
discussion of how impairment is determined can be found in Appendix III.
Although no action is required for these streams, voluntary implementation of BMPs is
encouraged and continued monitoring is recommended. DWQ will notify local agencies and
others of water quality concerns discussed below and work with them to conduct further
monitoring and to locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally, education on
Section B: Chapter 12 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12 233

local water quality issues is always a useful tool to prevent water quality problems and to
promote restoration efforts. Nonpoint source agency contacts are listed in Appendix VI.
12.5.1 Irish Buffalo Creek
Coldwater Creek
Irish Buffalo Creek drains Kannapolis and Concord in northeastern Cabarrus County, and much
of the watershed is developed. Water chemistry samples revealed elevated phosphorus and
turbidity levels. Benthic macroinvertebrates received a Good -Fair bioclassification in 2001.
However, the fish community remains diverse despite these water quality impacts.
Coldwater Creek makes up a large portion of the Irish Buffalo Creek watershed. With the
exception of the Lake Concord watershed which is rapidly developing, there is very little urban
area in the Coldwater Creek watershed. However, a decline in bioclassification was observed at
NC 73 between 1996 (Good) and 2001 (Good -Fair). At the most downstream station, instream
habitat was lacking and the site also received a Good -Fair bioclassification.
The geometric means of fecal coliform samples collected from Irish Buffalo Creek between 1996
and 2001 (234 colonies/100m1) and Coldwater Creek between 1998 and 2001 (290
colonies/100ml) indicate that these streams may not be suitable for primary recreation. Fecal
coliform concentrations were greater than 400 colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of
samples from each site as well. Current methodology requires additional bacteriological
sampling for streams with a geometric mean greater than 200 colonies/100m1 or when
concentrations exceed 400 col/100ml in more than 20 percent of samples. However, these
additional assessments are prioritized such that, as monitoring resources become available, the
highest priority is given to those streams where the likelihood of full -body contact recreation is
greatest. Neither Irish Buffalo nor Coldwater Creeks are currently classified for primary
recreation (Class B).
Local actions to reduce the effects of nonpoint source pollution, particularly from stormwater
runoff as fiirther development occurs in the Irish Buffalo Creek watershed, will be an imperative
part of protecting water quality. The Kish Buffalo Creek watershed (03040105 020040) is one of
55 watersheds in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin that has been identified by the NC Wetlands
Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and
wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given higher priority than a nontargeted
watershed for the implementation of NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 278 in Section
C for details.
12.5.2 Dutch Buffalo Creek
The Dutch Buffalo Creek watershed in northeastern Cabarrus County is primarily agricultural,
and many small headwater tributaries are dammed for farm ponds. Although the stream
continued to receive a Good -Fair bioclassification, severe bank erosion and a lack of riparian
vegetation was observed. Local actions are needed to reduce the effects of nonpoint source
pollution, particularly from agricultural activities, and to restore habitat throughout the
watershed. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for details about reducing habitat degradation.
Section B: Chapter 12 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12 234

The Dutch Buffalo Creek watershed (03040105 020060) is one of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin -
Pee Dee River basin that has been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program
(NCWRP) as an area with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration
efforts. This watershed will be given higher priority than a nontargeted watershed for the
implementation of NCWRP restoration projects. Refer to page 278 in Section C for details.
12.6 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-07-12
The previous parts discussed water quality concerns for specific stream segments. This section
discusses water quality issues related to multiple watersheds within the subbasin. Information
found in this section may be related to concerns about things that threaten water quality or about
plans and actions to improve water quality.
12.6.1 Projected Population Growth
From 2000 to 2020, the estimated population increase for Mecklenburg County is 57 percent and
for Cabarrus County is 53 percent. Growth management within the next five years will be
imperative, especially in and around urbanizing areas and along highway corridors, in order to
protect or improve water quality in this subbasin. Growth management can be defined as the
application of strategies and practices that help achieve sustainable development in harmony with
the conservation of environmental qualities and features of an area. On a local level, growth
management often involves planning and development review requirements that are designed to
maintain or improve water quality. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4 for more information about
urbanization and development and recommendations to minimise impacts to water quality.
12.6.2 high Fecal Coliform Concentrations
Fecal coliform bacteria are widely used as an indicator of the potential presence of pathogens
typically associated with the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals and are therefore found in
their wastes. Coliform bacteria are relatively easy to identify and are usually present in larger
numbers than more dangerous pathogens, even though they respond to the environment and to
treatment in much the same way. Sources of fecal coliform bacteria, as well as other more
dangerous pathogens, include runoff from pastures, feedlots, poultry operations and lagoons that
do not employ appropriate best management practices. Other sources include straight pipes,
leaking and failing septic systems, and noncompliant WWTPs. Wildlife and pet waste also
contribute to elevated concentrations of pathogens.
The water quality standard for fecal coliform bacteria is based on a geometric mean of 200
colonies/100m1 of five samples collected within 30 days, or 20 percent of samples having a
concentration greater than 400 colonies/100ml. High levels of fecal coliform bacteria are
widespread through this subbasin. Samples were collected from 13 locations on seven streams,
and the geometric means for 10 locations (77 percent) were greater than 200 colonies/100ml over
the five-year assessment period. These data indicate that many streams in this subbasin may not
be suitable for primary recreation. Current methodology requires additional bacteriological
sampling for streams with a geometric mean greater than 200 colonies/100ml. However, these
additional assessments are prioritized such that, as monitoring resources become available, the
Section B: Chapter 12 - Yadl-in-Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12 235

highest priority is given to those streams where the likelihood of full -body contact recreation is
greatest. Currently, no waters in this subbasin are classified for primary recreation (Class B).
Section B: Chapter 12 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-12 236