Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

Watershed Restoration Plan for
the Mud Creek Watershed

Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council
January 2003
Revised April 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents...........................................................................................................................i
List of Tables.................................................................................................................................ii
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ii
Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................iv
Section 1: Project Overview........................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1
1.2 The Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council................................................................2
1.3 NC Division of Water Quality Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project................2
1.4 NC Wetlands Restoration Program Local Watershed Planning .........................................3
1.5 Tennessee Valley Authority Integrated Pollutant Source Identification ............................3
Section 2: Mud Creek Watershed Characterization ................................................................4
2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................4
2.2 Hydrology and Sub-Watershed Delineation.......................................................................4
2.3 Soils.....................................................................................................................................6
2.4 Land Use/Land Cover in the Mud Creek Watershed..........................................................6
2.5 Water Quality and Stream Health .......................................................................................9
2.5.1 General Conclusions of WARP Assessment....................................................................9
2.5.2 DWQ Use Support Ratings ...........................................................................................10
2.5.3 DWQ’s Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project (WARP)...............................12
2.5.4 Volunteer Water Information Network .........................................................................15
2.5.5 Channel and Riparian Buffer Condition.......................................................................16
2.6 Local Water Quality Initiatives.........................................................................................19
2.6.1 Local Environmental Ordinances.................................................................................19
2.6.2 Land Use Planning and Zoning....................................................................................20
2.6.3 State Stormwater Regulations.......................................................................................21
2.6.4 Environmental and Conservation Organization (ECO)...............................................21
2.6.5 Volunteer Water Information Network .........................................................................22
2.6.6 Southside Development Initiative .................................................................................22
2.6.7 Apple Country Greenwy Commission ...........................................................................23
2.6.8 Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy ........................................................................23
2.6.9 French Broad Watershed Training Center...................................................................24
Section 3: Recommendations ....................................................................................................25
3.1 Stormwater........................................................................................................................26
3.1.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................26
3.1.2 Strategies to minimize impacts of stormwater runoff from future development ...........30
3.1.3 Strategies to reduce impacts of stormwater runoff from existing development............32
3.2 Agricultural Non Point Source Pollution..........................................................................35
3.2.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................35
Table of Contents Page i

3.2.2 Strategies to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution ....................................37
3.3 Habitat Degradation..........................................................................................................40
3.3.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................40
3.3.2 Strategies to Address Habitat Degradation..................................................................41
3.4 Upland Sources of Sedimentation.....................................................................................44
3.4.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................44
3.4.2 Strategies to Address Upland Sources of Sedimentation..............................................46
Section 4: Next Steps..................................................................................................................49
4.1 Present Watershed Restoration Plan to the Community...................................................49
4.2 Formalize Watershed Council...........................................................................................49
4.3 Hire Watershed Coordinator.............................................................................................49
4.4 Prioritize Recommendations .............................................................................................49
4.5 Set Measurable Watershed Improvement Goals...............................................................49
4.6 Secure Grants to Implement Projects................................................................................50
References....................................................................................................................................51
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................52
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................53

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Summary of area, stream miles and slope by subwatershed........................................5
Table 2.2. Percentage of subwatershed area by land use/cover.....................................................7
Table 2.3: Channelization and Buffers in the Mud Creek watershed..........................................18
Table 2.4: Summary of Zoning in the Mud Creek watershed......................................................21
Table 3.1: Existing Stormwater Management Ordinances in the Mud Creek watershed............29
Table 3.2: Estimated sediment loading rates in tons/acre for land uses in the Mud Creek
watershed....................................................................................................................45

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Map of the Mud Creek Watershed.............................................................................1
Figure 2.1: Streams in the Mud Creek Watershed........................................................................4
Figure 2.2: Subwatersheds in the Mud Creek Watershed.............................................................5
Figure 2.3: Generalized Land Use/Land Cover Patterns in the Mud Creek Watershed...............8
Figure 2.4: Use Classifications for streams in the Mud Creek Watershed.................................10
Figure 2.5: Use-support Ratings for streams in the Mud Creek Watershed ...............................11
Figure 2.6: WARP Biological Monitoring Sites.........................................................................12
Figure 2.7: Apple orchards and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in
the Clear Creek and Devils Fork Subwatersheds.....................................................13
Figure 2.8: Location of WARP water chemistry sampling sites................................................14
Table of Contents Page ii

Figure 2.9: VWIN monitoring sites in the Mud Creek Watershed.............................................15
Figure 2.10: Map of Hendersonville showing Mud Creek prior to channelization......................17
Figure 3.1: Stream vulnerability rating based on percent impervious cover in the
Mud Creek Watershed – by subwatershed................................................................27
Figure 3.2: Existing wetlands and areas with hydric soils in the Mud Creek Watershed...........28
Figure 3.3: Flooding at Hendersonville’s Southside, just one of many areas of chronic flooding
exacerbated by floodplain development and impervious cover...............................29
Figure 3.4: Agricultural land uses in the Mud Creek Watershed...............................................35
Figure 3.5: Cattle with direct access to Mud Creek....................................................................36
Figure 3.6: Cattle access points to streams in the Mud Creek Watershed..................................36
Figure 3.7: Eroding streambanks cause sediment to fill stream channels impacting aquatic
habitat.......................................................................................................................40
Figure 3.8: Site of Clear Creek stream restoration project .........................................................42
Figure 3.9: Runoff from gravel driveway in the upper Mud Creek watershed...........................44
Figure 3.10: Estimated annual sediment load from land uses in the Mud Creek watershed .......45
Figure 3.11: Number of building permits issued for new residential units in Henderson County
1996-2002 ................................................................................................................46

Table of Contents Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For the past three years, local stakeholders and state and federal resource managers have worked
together to gather data and outline a plan to restore the Mud Creek watershed. This document
represents the culmination of efforts undertaken by these partners to evaluate all possible sources
and causes of water quality degradation and recommend a comprehensive set of strategies for
addressing these problems.

Section 1 presents a brief overview of the project. In 2000, Land of Sky Regional Council of
Governments convened local stakeholders in the Mud Creek watershed to develop a plan for
addressing water quality problems in the watershed. At that same time, the Division of Water
Quality initiated an independent study to identify causes and sources of impairment in the Mud
Creek and two of its tributaries, Bat Fork and Clear Creek. These streams are on the North
Carolina 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies. Concurrently, the NC Wetlands Restoration
Program was interested in identifying potential stream and wetland restoration projects in the
Mud Creek watershed and agreed to collect additional stream and watershed data through a
partnership with the Tennessee Valley Authority to supplement efforts already underway in the
watershed.

Section 2 summarizes current conditions in the Mud Creek watershed including land use,
water quality, channel and buffer conditions, habitat and wetlands. The Mud Creek watershed
is 113 mi2 comprising approximately one-third of Henderson County’s land area. There are
three municipalities in the watershed: Hendersonville, Flat Rock and Laurel Park. Forty-five
percent of the Mud Creek watershed is forested, 25 percent is residential, commercial or
industrial, and 23 percent is agricultural. The Mud Creek watershed has roughly 10%
impervious cover, however, the percent of imperviousness varies greatly throughout the
watershed with some areas far exceeding the 10% threshold where declines in water quality and
aquatic communities are noted. Without appropriate water quality protection measures,
increasing urbanization in the watershed will further exacerbate existing water quality problems.

The Volunteer Water Information Network rates many streams in the Mud Creek watershed as
below average and poor due to nutrient enrichment, turbidity and high metals concentrations. A
comprehensive watershed assessment conducted by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in
2000-2002 indicates that biological communities in the Mud Creek watershed are impacted by a
number of factors including toxicants from agriculture and urban sources, scour from high
stormflow volumes, poor in-stream habitat, and a lack of tributaries with healthy biological
communities. In addition, DWQ monitoring showed that several streams violated the state
standards for fecal coliform bacteria levels.

Historic practices such as channelizing streams, clearing streamside vegetation and draining and
filling wetlands for agriculture and suburban development are prevalent across the watershed.
Because of these practices, the quality and distribution of adequate riparian buffers in the Mud
Creek watershed are insufficient to protect water quality and promote good aquatic habitat. In
addition, these practices exacerbate streambank erosion, increase sedimentation and increase the
volume and velocity of stormwater runoff.

Pesticides from apple orchards and row crops likely degrade the biological communities of
streams in the Clear Creek and Devils Fork area; both current and past use pesticides may play a
Executive Summary Page iv

role in stream degradation. Past use pesticides, such as DDT and chlordane, were widely used in
agriculture and residential areas. In addition, row crop pesticides likely impact biological
communities in upper Mud Creek.

Nutrient enrichment is evident in the Mud Creek watershed and possible nutrient sources include
cattle waste, straight pipes, failing septic systems and runoff from lawns, gardens, golf courses
and crop land. In urban streams, the combined factors of toxicants such as metals, organic
pollutants, and pesticides and scouring energy from high stormflow volumes severely limit
biological communities. Increasing turbidity levels noted in streams in the Mud Creek watershed
are probably the result of escalating land-disturbing activities.

Section 3 outlines the management strategies recommended by the Mud Creek Watershed
Restoration Council to address these problems. These recommendations are grouped into four
categories and the specific recommendations are presented in Table ES.1:

• Stormwater: Strategies to address the volume, velocity, and quality of post-construction
runoff from existing and future roads and commercial and residential development.
• Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agricultural Activities: Strategies to reduce pesticides,
nutrients, sediment and bacteria and other agriculture related non-point source pollution.
• Habitat Degradation: Strategies to improve aquatic habitat needed by aquatic organisms
to survive and reproduce in a stream. The recommendations address the causes of habitat
degradation including sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian
vegetation, loss of riffles or pools, loss of woody habitat and streambed scour (i.e., flow
that washes away habitat).
• Upland Sources of Sedimentation: Strategies to reduce sediment pollution from
construction activities and unpaved roads and driveways.

Section 4 outlines the next steps for the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council. These
steps include:

• Present the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Plan to the community.
• Restructure the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council as a formal committee and
seek appointments from the appropriate stakeholder groups.
• Hire a Watershed Coordinator to work with stakeholders and agency partners to
implement the watershed plan.
• Evaluate the management strategies and set long-term and short-term implementation
priorities.
• Set measurable goals to track progress and document accomplishments.
• Secure grants, as needed to implement education and restoration strategies.

Executive Summary Page v
Table ES.1: Proposed management strategies for addressing water quality and habitat concerns in the Mud Creek watershed. Management Strategies Lead Agency or Organization1 Funding2 STORMWATER • Develop and/or refine existing stormwater management ordinances and floodplain development ordinances. Local Governments No cost • Provide incentives to local residents to reduce stormwater runoff from existing and new development. Local Governments Tax credits • Review existing development ordinances and building codes for opportunities to minimize impervious surfaces. Local Governments No cost • Educate businesses and citizens about stormwater management issues and actions they can take to reduce these impacts. Local Governments, Council, CE Grants • Consider establishing a stormwater utility to fund the stormwater program including improvements to the existing stormwater collection system. Local Governments Grants • Map existing stormwater collection systems to identify illicit connections and develop a strategy for redirecting these discharges to proper wastewater treatment facilities. Local Governments Local $$, Grants • Implement a Stormwater BMP Retrofit Program to identify opportunities to reduce stormwater impacts from existing development. Local Governments, Council CE Grants • Promote pollution prevention and stormwater management by implementing BMPs on government owned facilities including motor fleet maintenance areas, parks, and other suitable sites. Local Governments, Council Grants • Encourage local businesses to implement stormwater BMP retrofits by creating an award program to cite local businesses’ accomplishments Local Government, PEP Private sector AG NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION • Promote innovative pest management practices to reduce the amount of pesticides applied in the watershed and to reduce the likelihood for pesticides to enter streams. S&WCD, CE ACSP • Find research on pesticide drift management and work to develop new Ag Cost Share Practices to minimize pesticide drift. S&WCD, CE Unknown • Work with willing landowners to stabilize streams near orchards and row crops to minimize the transport of historic pesticides. S&WCD ACSPExecutive Summary Page vi
Management Strategies Lead Agency or Organization1 Funding2 AG NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION continued…. • Work with willing landowners to implement buffers and conventional conservation practices such as cover crops, no till, field borders, filter strips, on row crop land. S&WCD ACSP• Initiate groundwater monitoring to determine if historic pesticides are moving from the soils of ag fields to streams through the groundwater. DWQ Unknown• Work with willing landowners to implement animal waste practices such as livestock exclusion, feed/waste structures, stream crossing and buffer strips to protect water quality. S&WCD EQIP,ACSP HABITAT DEGRADATION • Restore 15,000 feet of the most critically eroding streams in the Mud Creek watershed to improve habitat and water quality. NCWRP NCWRP• Restore native vegetation along streams to stabilize streambanks and improve habitat. Local Governments Grants • Educate landowners about the importance of riparian buffers for streambank stabilization, water quality and habitat. Council, CE Grants • Evaluate the benefits of a buffer ordinance to protect lands adjacent to streams from future development activities. Local Governments Unknown • Permanently protect high priority wetlands and riparian buffers. Local Governments, CMLC, ACGC Grants UPLAND SOURCES OF SEDIMENTATION • Consider the benefits of a local Sediment and Erosion Control Program to oversee local development activities. Local governments Permit Fees• Educate excavators and the public about how to control erosion. Local govts., CE Grants • Reduce the sediment pollution from unpaved roads, eroding road banks, and roadside ditches. Local governments, DOT, HOA DOT 1 Lead Agencies or Organizations are defined as follows: Council-Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council; Local Governments – Henderson County, Hendersonville, Flat Rock, and Laurel Park; PEP-Partners for Economic Progress; S&WCD-Henderson Soil and Water Conservation District; CE-Henderson County Cooperative Extension; DWQ-Division of Water Quality; NCWRP-North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program; CMLC-Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy; ACGC-Apple Country Greenways Commission; DOT-North Carolina Department of Transportation; HOA-Home Owners Associations. 2 ACSP-Agriculture Cost Share Program; EQIP-Environmental Quality Incentives Program; Grants – could include EPA 319 Nonpoint Source grants, NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund Grants; NCWRP-Wetland and Stream Restoration Funds; DOT-Regional road maintenance funds. Executive Summary Page vii

SECTION 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
Figure 1.1: Map of the Mud Creek Watershed.
Flat Rock
Henderson County is growing at a
rapid rate and much of this growth
is occurring in the Mud Creek
watershed (Figure 1.1). Across the
watershed, developers are
converting apple orchards and
pasture lands and clearing forested
hillsides for residential and
commercial developments. Water
quality problems associated with
growth and development, as well
as agricultural practices, are
evident in many streams in the
Mud Creek watershed. Mud Creek
and two of its tributaries, Clear
Creek and Bat Fork, are currently
on the state’s 303(d) List of
Impaired Waterbodies. The
Volunteer Water Information
Network (VWIN) operated by the
University of North Carolina at
Asheville rates many streams in
the Mud Creek watershed as below
average and poor. In addition to
current landscape changes and
uses, historic practices such as
draining and filling wetlands,
channelizing streams and clearing streamside vegetation further compromise the integrity of
these natural systems and exacerbate the effects of growth and development on stream health and
increase the intensity and frequency of flooding.
In late 1998, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) awarded Land of Sky Regional Council of
Governments (LOSRC) a grant to work with local stakeholders to develop a plan for addressing
water quality problems in the Mud Creek watershed. In 1999, DWQ received a grant from the
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) to identify causes and sources of stream
impairment through intensive monitoring and analysis and to develop watershed management
strategies for eleven impaired watersheds across the state. The Mud Creek watershed was
selected as one of the eleven watersheds in the Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project
(WARP). Concurrently, the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) was interested in
developing a local watershed plan for the Mud Creek watershed in order to identify potential
restoration projects that the NC Department of Transportation (DOT) can implement to fulfill
future compensatory mitigation requirements. NCWRP agreed to collect additional stream and
watershed data to supplement WARP and LOSRC efforts already underway in the watershed
through a partnership with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Section 1: Project Overview Page 1

For the past two years, local stakeholders and state and federal resource managers have gathered
data collaboratively and established priorities for restoring the Mud Creek watershed. This
document represents the culmination of efforts undertaken by these partners to evaluate all
possible sources and causes of water quality degradation and recommend a comprehensive set of
strategies for addressing these problems.

1.2 The Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council
In the Spring of 2000, the LOSRC established the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council
(Council) to provide a forum for local stakeholder participation in the development of the
Watershed Restoration Plan for Mud Creek. Council members include local government
officials representing Henderson County and the three municipalities in the watershed
(Hendersonville, Laurel Park and Flat Rock), state and federal agency officials, and business,
environmental and community group representatives. A list of organizations participating on the
Council as of December 2002 is presented in Appendix A. The Council holds monthly or
bimonthly meetings that are open to the public. The Council’s mission statement and goals are:

Mission: The Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council is a diverse group that strives to
improve and protect water quality throughout the Mud Creek watershed.
Goals:
• Develop a restoration plan and implementation strategy to improve water quality in the
Mud Creek watershed based on the Division of Water Quality’s watershed assessment and
Tennessee Valley Authority’s Integrated Pollutant Source Identification data.
• Increase public awareness about water quality problems in the watershed including
sedimentation and stormwater.
• Enhance public appreciation for the Mud Creek watershed through education and outreach.
• Promote the conservation of farmland and open space in the watershed to protect water
quality.
• Promote the reduction of flooding and its impacts in Hendersonville.
• Promote the restoration of wetlands and educate people about their value.
• Set water quality priorities and seek funding to implement a restoration plan.
To streamline the planning process, the Council established three subcommittees charged with
addressing a unique component of the planning effort: Technical (collect data and review
existing data), Education (public outreach) and Implementation (identify issues, document
existing programs, develop recommendations). The Subcommittees met independently and
reported their progress at the “full” Council meetings. A complete list of subcommittee tasks
and accomplishments is included as Appendix B.

1.3 NC Division of Water Quality Watershed Assessment and Restoration
Project
In 2000, the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) initiated a comprehensive study of the Mud
Creek watershed. This study is part of the Watershed Assessment and Restoration Program
(WARP), a study of eleven watersheds across the state being conducted with funding from the
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund. Each of the watersheds in this study contains streams
considered impaired because they are unable to support healthy aquatic communities. In the
Mud Creek watershed, the study focused on three impaired streams: Mud Creek, Clear Creek and
Section 1: Project Overview Page 2

Bat Fork. The overall goal of the project was to provide the foundation for future water quality
restoration activities by: 1) identifying the most likely causes of biological impairment (such as
degraded habitat or specific pollutants); 2) identifying the major watershed activities and sources
of pollution contributing to those causes (such as stormwater runoff from particular urban or
rural areas, streambank erosion, or hydrologic modification); 3) outlining a watershed strategy
that recommends restoration activities and best management practices (BMPs) to address these
problems and improve the biological condition of the impaired streams.

As part of this study, DWQ conducted extensive biological assessments in the Mud Creek
watershed, sampled ambient and storm water quality and walked many miles of streams in the
watershed to assess stream habitat, morphology, and riparian zone condition. The study also
evaluated watershed hydrologic conditions, land use, land management activities, and potential
pollution sources. WARP staff, located in Asheville, participated in Mud Creek Council
meetings and worked closely with local resource management professionals to draw on the
concerns and experience of watershed residents, local governments and others in evaluating the
nature of water quality problems and outlining potential solutions. Once complete, the
assessment report describing conclusions on these issues will be available to the CWMTF,
watershed stakeholders, and other interested parties through the DWQ website. Preliminary data
from this report are summarized in Section 2.

1.4 NC Wetlands Restoration Program Local Watershed Planning
In 2000, the NCWRP initiated a Local Watershed Planning program to conduct detailed
restoration planning in a limited number of Targeted Local Watersheds across the state. These
locally-based plans include a comprehensive watershed assessment to identify causes and
sources of nonpoint source impairment. The NCWRP will use these plans to identify wetland
and stream restoration projects to meet projected Department of Transportation compensatory
mitigation requirements. Through this process, the NCWRP will work with local stakeholders to
identify and prioritize wetlands areas, stream reaches, riparian buffer areas and best
management practices that will provide significant water quality improvement and other
environmental benefits to local watersheds. The NCWRP coordinates with local community
groups, local governments, and others to develop and implement these plans. The NCWRP
initiated the local watershed planning process in the Mud Creek watershed to complement the
efforts underway by the DWQ and Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council.

1.5 Tennessee Valley Authority Integrated Pollutant Source Identification
In 2000, the Tennessee Valley Authority developed a set of Integrated Pollutant Source
Identification (IPSI) tools to help DWQ, the NCWRP and the Mud Creek Watershed Council
identify and prioritize water quality improvement and protection measures in the Mud Creek
watershed. The IPSI consists of a geographical database of watershed features such as land
cover, estimates of impervious land cover, streams, soils, slope, and information about potential
nonpoint sources of pollution including streambank erosion sites, livestock operations, and
unpaved roads. The TVA IPSI data and methods are summarized in the report Mud Creek
Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Inventory and Pollutant Load Estimates (TVA,
2001). A subset of the TVA IPSI data are summarized in Section 2. The complete report
summarizing the IPSI data for the Mud Creek watershed is available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/pdf/lwp/mud_creek_lwp_ipsi.pdf.
Section 1: Project Overview Page 3

SECTION 2: MUD CREEK WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Introduction
This section summarizes current watershed conditions in the Mud Creek watershed including
land use, water quality, channel and buffer conditions, habitat and wetlands. The objective of
this analysis is to characterize existing watershed conditions and identify existing and potential
sources of water quality degradation. The Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Integrated
Pollutant Source Identification (IPSI) for the Mud Creek watershed served as an important
source of data on land use/cover, imperviousness, and stream channel and riparian conditions.
The IPSI is a geographic database and pollutant loading model based on interpretation of low-
altitude color infrared aerial photographs taken in March 2001 (TVA, 2001). In addition, the
Council also relied heavily on water quality and habitat assessment data gathered by WARP and
water quality monitoring data collected by VWIN.

2.2 Hydrology and Sub-Watershed Delineation
The Mud Creek watershed
is 113 mi2, comprising
approximately one-third
of Henderson County’s
land area. Mud Creek
begins in southwest
Henderson County and
flows east and north
through Hendersonville
to the French Broad River
(Figure 2.1). The
watershed is bounded to
the east and south by the
Tennessee Valley Divide,
to the north by a steep
mountain range and to the
west by a lower divide.
Hendersonville receives
an average of 56 inches of
rainfall annually. Western
North Carolina has been
in a drought since mid-
1998, and rainfall at
Hendersonville has been
84%, 75%, and 76% of
the annual average for
years 1999, 2000, and
2001, respectively.
Figure 2.1: Streams in the Mud
Creek Watershed.
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 4

The size of the watershed and variability of stream types make it difficult to generalize
watershed conditions. To deal with these issues, the watershed was divided into five
subwatersheds based upon topography, hydrology and land-use considerations. The
subwatershed boundaries are shown on Figure 2.2.

Table 2.1: Summary of area, stream miles and slope by subwatershed.
Subwatershed Name Drainage area Stream Miles Average Slope
Clear Creek 44.5 sq. miles 136 16%
Bat Fork 8.6 sq. miles 57 6%
Devils Fork 16.4 sq. miles 34 5%
Upper Mud Creek 20.5 sq. miles 61 17%
Lower Mud Creek 22.8 sq. miles 80 11%
Total 112.8 sq. miles 368 14%

Figure 2.2: Subwatersheds
in the Mud Creek
Watershed.
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 5

2.3 Soils
Three general soil associations comprise the majority of the Mud Creek watershed soil types—
(1) the Codurus-Toxaway-Rosman association, which are floodplain soils and consist of well
drained to very poorly drained soils that have loamy and sandy subsoils, (2) the Hayesville-
Bradson association, which are soils on ridges and stream terraces and consist of gently sloping
to moderately steep, well drained soils that have loamy and clayey subsoil, and (3) the Evard-
Edneyville-Ashe association, which are soils occurring on mountain ridge tops and side slopes
and consist of sloping to very steep, well drained and somewhat excessively drained soils that
have loamy subsoils (USDA, 1980).
Hydric soils figure prominently in floodplain areas, especially in the Bat Fork, upper Mud Creek,
the southern part of lower Mud Creek, and Devils Fork subwatersheds. Four percent of soils (4.1
mi2) in the watershed are hydric, and another seven percent (8.3 mi2) have hydric inclusions.
Many of these soils are actively drained for agriculture, and a small proportion has wetland
vegetation.

2.4 Land Use/Land Cover in the Mud Creek Watershed
Land use patterns can have a profound effect on water quality and stream hydrology. To assess
land use patterns in the Mud Creek watershed we evaluated land use and land cover data
generated by TVA from aerial photographs taken in March 2001. TVA’s Integrated Pollutant
Source Identification (IPSI) determined that 45 percent of the Mud Creek watershed is forested,
25 percent is residential, commercial or industrial, and 23 percent is agricultural. Although the
predominant land cover in the Mud Creek watershed is still forest cover, the watershed is
experiencing rapid growth and development due to increasing popularity as a retirement
community. On the whole, agriculture is declining in Henderson County. There was a loss of
25% of farmland between 1987 and 1997, and much of this land is being converted to residential
land. Agricultural commodities are changing, as well, with sod farms, and plasticulture
vegetables replacing the traditional vegetable farms, orchards, corn, and dairies.
Most of the forested land is along the northern and southern ridges that border the watershed,
and, accordingly, the Clear Creek and upper and lower Mud Creek subwatersheds have 39-60
percent of their land use in forest. However, these areas are desirable for homesites, and new
development is occurring in these steeper areas. The southern ridge of the Bat Fork
subwatershed, for example, is a patchwork of homesites surrounding the Kenmure golf course.
Agriculture is a significant portion of the watershed, accounting for more than a fifth of each
subwatershed except those of upper and lower Mud Creek. Apple orchards are prominent in the
valleys and on gentle slopes of the Clear Creek and Devils Fork subwatersheds and the Dunn
Creek area of the Bat Fork subwatershed. Pasture, often for beef cattle, is sited along stream
valleys and accounts for at least nine percent of land use/cover in all subwatersheds. It is
particularly notable along the mainstems of Clear and Mud Creeks, but also occurs along many
tributaries. Row crops are usually in flat floodplain areas, and corn and market vegetables (e.g.,
squash, beans, tomatoes, and peppers) are common.
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 6

Table 2.2. Percentage of subwatershed area by land use/cover.
Watershed Name
(Area sq. miles)
Bat Fork
(8.6)
Clear
Creek
(44.5)
Devils
Fork
(16.4)
Upper Mud
Creek
(20.5)
Lower Mud
Creek
(22.8)
Mud Creek
Watershed
(113)
Forest 31 50 20 60 39 45
Wetland 1 0 1 0 3 1
Transitional area 5 4 5 1 3 4
Open maintained 3 0 2 2 2 2
Orchard 4 12 13 0 0 7
Row crop 4 3 9 2 2 3
Pasture 15 15 22 11 9 13
Residential 24 12 24 21 31 20
Commercial/Industrial 10 2 4 1 9 5
Disturbed 1 0 0 0 1 1
Other 1 1 1 1 1 1
*"Transitional area" is shrub/old field vegetation or unmanaged orchard. "Open maintained"
is golf course, athletic field, cemetery, transmission or highway right-of-way, or airport
grassed runway. "Disturbed" is clear cut forest, mining, construction, or other disturbed
area. “Other” is water, dumpsites, or Christmas tree plantations.

Residential land accounts for almost a fourth of land in all subwatersheds except that of Clear
Creek. Residential land spreads from Hendersonville west to Laurel Park and south to Flat
Rock. North of Little Mud Creek, there is a broad swath of residential land along the Mud Creek
corridor. Although residential land is not as predominant in the Clear Creek subwatershed, a
shift from agricultural to residential land is apparent. Over one and one-half square miles of old
apple orchard is no longer in production and in transition to other uses (particularly residential).
This land area is more than 20 percent of the total area that is currently in apple production.

Commercial and industrial land is concentrated in and around Hendersonville, following the US
64, I-26, US 25, and US 176 road corridors. Most of this development exists in valley areas
along Mud Creek, lower Devils Fork, and Bat Fork.
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 7

Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 8
Figure 2.3: Generalized Land Use/Land Cover
patterns in the Mud Creek watershed.

2.5 Water Quality and Stream Health
The primary goal of the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council is to improve and protect
water quality throughout the Mud Creek watershed. To accomplish this goal, the Mud Creek
Council must understand the current condition of water quality and overall stream health in the
watershed, how these conditions have changed over time and what might be causing these
changes. The following section describes existing water quality and habitat data for the Mud
Creek watershed and provides some general conclusions about these data. The data used for this
characterization include DWQ basinwide monitoring data, WARP Mud Creek data and VWIN
monitoring data. The purpose of this summary is to characterize water quality problems and
stream health issues in the Mud Creek watershed based on these technical information sources
and is not intended to provide detailed analysis of this information or to discuss sampling and
data methodologies.

2.5.1 General Conclusions of WARP Assessment
WARP used the data summarized in the following sections to determine causes and sources of
biological impairment for Bat Fork, Clear Creek, Devils Fork and Mud Creek. The
recommendations listed in Section 3 of this document are designed in large part to address the
problems that the WARP study has illuminated. WARP concluded that a number of factors
impact water quality and stream health in the Mud Creek watershed:

• Pesticides: Based on the data available, pesticides are likely the primary factor causing
toxic impacts to benthic macroinvertebrate communities in apple growing areas
(including Clear Creek and Devils Fork). Both current use pesticides used on apples and
row crops and past use pesticides used on both agricultural and residential land may play
a role in stream degradation. Toxic impacts were also noted in upper Mud Creek and
tomato/pepper pesticides were pinpointed as a most likely source of toxicity.

• Habitat Degradation: Poor in-stream habitat for biological communities was a
widespread problem in the watershed, but most notable in Mud Creek and Bat Fork.
Lack of woody riparian vegetation, extensive channelization, and sedimentation (from
both in-stream and upland sources) are key factors responsible for habitat degradation.

• Stormwater: In urban streams, the combined factors of toxicants (e.g., metals, organic
pollutants, and pesticides) and scouring energy from high stormflow volumes severely
limit biological communities.

• Nonpoint Source Pollution: Nutrient enrichment was a notable problem in Clear Creek
and Devils Fork. Nutrient sources include cattle with stream access and possibly straight
pipes and failing septic systems.

• Cumulative Impacts: Combined impacts of toxicants from agriculture and urban
sources, scour from high stormflow volumes, poor in-stream habitat, and a lack of
tributaries with healthy biological communities are responsible for chronically impaired
biological communities in lower Mud Creek.

Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 9

WARP focused on 303(d) listed streams (Bat Fork, Clear Creek, and Mud Creek). They did not
intensively study many smaller streams in the watershed. However, the issues identified above
are likely important for many streams in the Mud Creek watershed.

2.5.2 DWQ Use Support Ratings
In 1997, DWQ assessed streams in the Mud Creek watershed as part of the basinwide planning
process for the French Broad River Basin and determined that Mud Creek, Bat Fork and Clear
Creek do not support their use classifications for Class C waters. The use classifications for
streams in the Mud Creek watershed are shown in Figure 2.4. Class C waters are protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life. Class C is the minimum protection class for
freshwaters. Class B waters are protected for primary recreation including frequent, organized
swimming. Water quality standards applicable to Class C apply to Class B waters in addition to
more stringent standards for bacterial pollution. “Tr” is a supplemental classification designed to
protect freshwaters for natural trout propagation and the survival of stocked trout, it does not
denote the presence of trout in a stream. Trout water (Tr) sections of Class B and C waters retain
all respective water quality standards with the addition of more stringent standards for dissolved
oxygen, temperature, turbidity and chlorine.

Figure 2.4: Use Classifications for
streams in the Mud Creek Watershed
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 10

To determine the biological health of streams, DWQ evaluates the composition and diversity of
stream benthic macroinvertebrate communities every five years. These communities can provide
important information about water quality stressors such as excessive nutrients, toxicants, and
sediment pollution. In addition, macroinvertebrates and fish communities respond to the quality
of in-stream habitat, which is influenced by factors such as sedimentation. Thus, biological
communities are reflections of stream integrity as a whole.

Figure 2.5 shows the use-support rating assigned by DWQ for streams in the Mud Creek
watershed and the location of the five biological monitoring sites that DWQ sampled in 1997.
Streams rated as either Not Supporting or Partially Supporting are considered impaired by the
DWQ. Mud Creek, Bat Fork and Clear Creek are listed on the state’s 303(d) List of Impaired
Waterbodies as Biologically Impaired Waters with no identified cause of impairment. One goal
of the DWQ Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project (WARP) is to determine the cause
of impairment of these streams. A summary of the data collected as part of the WARP study is
presented in Section 2.5.3. A complete summary of the DWQ Use Support Ratings and Stream
Use Classifications for the French Broad River Basin, including the Mud Creek watershed is
available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/french/frenchbroad_wq_management_plan.htm.
Figure 2.5: Use-support Ratings for
streams in the Mud Creek Watershed.
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 11

2.5.3 DWQ’s Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project (WARP)
In 2000, WARP launched a comprehensive assessment of the Mud Creek watershed to: 1)
determine the most likely causes of biological impairment; 2) identify the major watershed
activities and pollution sources; and 3) outline a general watershed strategy that recommends
restoration activities and best management practices (BMPs) to address the identified problems.
As part of this assessment, WARP conducted a wide range of data collection activities, including
benthic macroinvertebrate and water quality sampling, which are summarized in this section. A
detailed description of all their data collection methods as well as an analysis of their findings is
presented in the report titled Biological Impairment in the Mud Creek Watershed (DWQ, 2003).

Biological Sampling: WARP conducted biological sampling at 23 sites in the Mud Creek
watershed and two reference sites outside the watershed between July 2000 and October 2001
(Figure 2.6). WARP used benthic macroinvertebrate communities to characterize steam health.
WARP evaluated a number of community characteristics, including diversity, pollution tolerance
of the community as a whole, and species composition, to determine community health and the
types of pollution impacting the streams. In addition to gathering data at known problem sites in
the watershed, WARP also collected samples at reference sites to establish benchmarks for
healthy biological communities and conducted habitat assessments at all sites to determine if the
lack of habitat might also be a potential source of stress for these communities. Habitat scores
considered channel modifications, in-stream habitat (such as leafpacks, sticks, large woody
debris and rocks), sedimentation, riparian zone integrity, and riffle and pool frequency.

WARP found that the
healthiest communities are in
headwater streams with
adequate habitat that drain
forested areas of the
watershed—Laurel Fork,
upper Cox Creek and Harper
Creek in the Clear Creek
subwatershed and upper Mud
Creek above Walnut Cove
Road. Degraded benthic
communities were found at
almost all other sample sites.
Figure 2.6: WARP Biological
Monitoring Sites

Degraded biological
communities were reported
from the urban portions of the
watershed, including Devils
Fork at US 64 and Mud Creek
at 7th Avenue (in
Hendersonville). Habitat
scores were very low in these
urban areas and likely
contributed to community
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 12

degradation. In addition, the WARP study suggested that the high velocity and volume of
stormwater runoff generated by urban development scour stream channels, removing key habitat
such as leafpacks and woody debris.

Many of the biological sampling sites showed biological communities exposed to periodic toxic
stress, most notably the sites downstream from large areas of apple orchards and row crops.
Suspecting that pesticides might be impacting communities in lower Clear Creek and Devils
Fork, WARP sampled these sites before, during and after the growing season. Figure 2.7
illustrates the benthic community status at the biological sampling sites in the Clear Creek and
Devils Fork subwatersheds and their proximity to orchards and row crops.

A number of impacts other than toxicity likely influence the benthic communities at some sites.
Benthic community analysis for Clear Creek at Mills Gap Road and both sites on Devils Fork
showed signs of organic enrichment or high nutrients. WARP also determined that in upper Mud
Creek and in many areas throughout the watershed, excess sedimentation exacerbates many of
the primary causes of impairment.

Figure 2.7: Apple orchards, row crops, and
benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the
Clear Creek and Devils Fork Subwatersheds.
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 13

Chemical Water Quality Sampling: In addition to biological sampling, WARP also conducted
extensive chemical water quality sampling to characterize water quality conditions in the
watershed and to evaluate whether chemical and physical conditions might be negatively
affecting benthic communities. WARP established five sampling stations at the downstream
ends of the subwatersheds and evaluated these sites monthly for a standard set of parameters
including pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, metals, turbidity, and nutrients. Samples were
collected during both baseflow and stormflow periods. WARP also collected grab samples at a
number of sites in the watershed with known biological impairment. The purpose of the grab
samples was to assess potential chemical stressors such as pesticides, hydrocarbons and volatile
organic pollutants. Figure 2. 9 illustrates the location of WARP water quality sampling sites
across the Mud Creek watershed.

WARP chemical water quality
monitoring data indicated that
many streams in the Mud
Creek watershed including
upper and lower Mud Creek,
Clear Creek, Devils Fork, and
Bat Fork have higher nutrient
and specific conductance
levels than expected for
unpolluted streams in the
mountains. However, these
levels were not high enough to
affect biological communities
or exceed NC’s standard or
action levels. Dissolved
oxygen levels in these streams
were adequate for aquatic life.
In upper Mud Creek and Bat
Fork, fecal coliform bacteria
levels were above the NC
standards of 200
colonies/100mL. Although
fecal coliform does not affect
biological communities, it can
indicate the presence of viruses
and pathogens that pose a risk
to human health.
Figure 2.8: Location of WARP
water chemistry sampling sites.

Water samples taken during storms in the Clear Creek watershed had levels of insecticides that
are above ecological screening benchmarks and may cause sub-lethal impacts to aquatic insects.
Bed sediment samples collected from upper Mud Creek and Clear Creek provided evidence of
both current and past use pesticide inputs. WARP identified pesticides as a cause of biological
impairment in these streams.
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 14

WARP also evaluated selected metals concentrations in the watershed including cadmium,
copper, lead, silver and zinc. Median metal values for baseflow samples collected by WARP
were generally below NC’s standards or benchmark levels. However, some stormflow samples
exceeded the benchmark levels for cadmium, copper, lead and/or zinc. Bioassay results from
these samples indicated that these metal levels were not acutely toxic; however, results from a
Devils Fork sample taken below a large commercial area showed acute toxicity, likely due to
high copper, lead, and zinc concentrations. For a more detailed discussion of the WARP
monitoring protocol, sampling results and analysis, see the report titled Biological Impairment in
the Mud Creek Watershed, 2003.

2.5.4 Volunteer Water Information Network
The Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) monitors 33 sites in Henderson County
monthly for a wide range of water quality parameters including sediment, water clarity, pH,
alkalinity, conductivity, heavy metals, and nutrients. Nine of these sites are located in the Mud
Creek watershed (Figure 2.9). VWIN has monitored five of these sites monthly for nine years
and the other three for over three years. This information is valuable in assessing current water
quality conditions and trends in the Mud Creek watershed.

As shown in Figure 2.9, none
of the sites monitored by
VWIN in the Mud Creek
watershed rate excellent, but
three rate good. The remaining
sites are either average (3),
below average (2) or poor (1).
To determine these ratings,
VWIN compares nutrient,
metals, and sediment values at
these sites to a regional
average for Western North
Carolina. The regional average
is a composite score developed
from VWIN monitoring efforts
in Henderson County as well
as other western counties.
Figure 2.9: Water Quality rating for VWIN
monitoring sites in the Mud Creek Watershed.

Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 15

Good Sites: Consistent with the WARP study, the most upstream sites show fewer water quality
problems than sites located in the more developed areas of the watershed. However, even at the
good sites, VWIN noted that nutrient concentrations at the Berea Church Road site have been
unusually high at times and that turbidity, conductivity, lead, and all three nutrient levels at Clear
Creek at Apple Valley Road are increasing over time. VWIN concludes that the increasing
turbidity levels are probably the result of escalating land disturbing activities.

Average Sites: VWIN rates three sites in the Mud Creek watershed, Brittain Creek, Bat Fork
Creek, and Mud Creek at 7th Avenue as average. VWIN data indicate that conductivity levels
and heavy metals concentrations in Brittain Creek have been high at times and construction sites
may be the greatest contributor of sediment to the creek during rains. The site on Mud Creek at
7th Avenue shows high concentrations of zinc probably due to road runoff and elevated nutrient
concentrations that may be coming from upstream sources. Diverting wastewater effluent from
the GE plant to the Hendersonville wastewater treatment plant has helped to improve water
quality in Bat Fork, however nutrients and conductivity levels continue to be abnormally high.
VWIN suggests that livestock may be the main source of nutrients to Bat Fork.

Below Average Sites: VWIN rates Devil's Fork and Clear Creek at Nix Road (the downstream
site on Clear Creek) below average. The nutrient and conductivity levels measured at Devil's
Fork suggest that agriculture may be the most important source of pollutants to this stream. Both
of these streams have a heavy build-up of sediment in the downstream areas indicating that
erosion and runoff, including sediment pollution from land disturbing activities, have probably
been impacting these streams for a long time.

Poor Sites: Mud Creek at North Rugby Road is one of three sites in Henderson County that
rates poor. This site has consistently rated poor throughout the nine years of analysis. Nutrient
concentrations are much higher than average and water clarity is consistently poor. Nutrient
concentrations increase when stream flow decreases indicating a point-source for these
pollutants. Clear Creek shows serious problems with sedimentation and VWIN indicates that
land disturbing activities are probably a significant factor.

2.5.5 Channel and Riparian Buffer Condition
Channel and buffer condition are important indicators of stream habitat and watershed health.
Severely eroded streams produce significant quantities of sediment that are carried and deposited
downstream where they smother aquatic habitat. In some cases, channels become so deep and
wide that the stream can no longer access the flood plain during a significant storm event
increasing the likelihood of flooding downstream areas. WARP walked many miles of stream in
the Mud Creek watershed to document channel and riparian buffer condition, however this is a
very time intensive effort and they were not able to observe every stream in the watershed. As
part of the IPSI, TVA also evaluated channel and buffer conditions using aerial photography.
These data are useful for documenting areas of the watershed with eroding streambanks and
inadequate riparian buffers as well as streams channels that have been altered from their natural
state.

Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 16

Channelized Streams: Channelization, or the straightening of streams, was a common practice
in the Mud Creek watershed to improve drainage and increase valuable floodplain areas for
farming. This practice destroys stream habitat by eliminating riffles and pools and meander
bends. The practice also dramatically affects the watershed hydrology by deepening channels,
lowering the water table and increasing the stress on streambanks during storm events. Over
time, channelized streams can become very deep and overly wide with almost vertical
streambanks that can collapse sending large quantities of sediment directly into the stream. If the
streams become very incised, they will no longer over top their banks during storm events
increasing the volume and velocity of stormwater to downstream areas.

Historical topographic and parcel
maps reveal that large-scale
channelization of Mud Creek
occurred between 1840 and 1890
(Figure 2.10). Many tributaries to
Mud Creek, including Bat Fork
and Devils Fork, were also
channelized. Major floods of
1916, 1940, and 1964 caused much
concern, leading to a number of
stream channelization and
dredging projects aimed at
minimizing flooding problems.
Figure 2.10: Map of Hendersonville showing Mud
Creek prior to channelization.

Table 2.3 illustrates the percentage
of stream miles by subwatershed
delineated as channelized by the
TVA IPSI. Over 50% of the
natural channels and aquatic
habitat of Bat Fork and Devils
Fork have been significantly
altered by this practice. Biological
monitoring data collected by
WARP in these areas suggests that
loss of habitat in these areas could be impacting the benthic communities in these subwatersheds.

Eroding Streambanks: Although severe streambank erosion may be limited to short stream
reaches, the sediment pollution from these eroding banks can have impacts throughout the
watershed. The sources of excess sedimentation noted in stream channels throughout the Mud
Creek watershed are often not readily apparent because the sediment is from eroding
streambanks, and it is then transported and deposited downstream. Table 2.3 illustrates the
percentage of streambank miles that are eroding in each subwatershed as determined by the TVA
IPSI from aerial photography. Field assessments conducted by WARP staff suggest that these
estimates are conservative probably due to the limitations of determining eroding banks from
aerial photos. Although the TVA IPSI data indicate that only 18% of the streams in the Clear
Creek subwatershed are eroding, a more detailed analysis of these data show that the impact of
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 17

eroding streambanks is more significant in some areas of the watershed. In the Lewis Creek and
Henderson Creek drainages, 37% and 25% of the streams are severely eroding. There are many
potential factors that exacerbate streambank erosion including channelization, a lack of riparian
vegetation to stabilize banks and cattle with direct access to streams. Locating eroding streams
banks is a first step to addressing this problem; understanding the factors that contribute to the
problem requires a more detailed analysis.

Table 2.3: Channelization and Buffers in the Mud Creek watershed
Percentage of Subwatershed Stream Miles
Subwatershed Channelized
streams
Eroding
Streambanks*
Adequate Buffers on
Both Banks*
Bat Fork 56% 6% 15%
Clear Creek 28% 18% 11%
Devils Fork 55% 18% 2%
Upper Mud Creek 18% 12% 12%
Lower Mud Creek 28% 13% 9%
Total Watershed 33% 14% 11%
*Determined for a subset of streams (44% of total) that have a larger drainage area;
adequate buffers are those with >= 30 ft of woody vegetation with >= 66% crown cover.

Riparian Buffer Condition: As shown in Table 2.4, very few of the larger streams in the Mud
Creek watershed have adequate riparian buffers. Riparian buffers have many important
watershed functions. The deep roots of riparian vegetation help to stabilize streambanks and
reduce erosion. Overhanging tree limbs shade streams and keep waters cool in the summer to
protect fish and other aquatic life. Adequately sized riparian buffers can also filter pollutants
such as nutrients and sediment pollution that runs off adjacent fields and parking lots. Riparian
buffers also provide a protected corridor for wildlife migration. For all these reasons, riparian
buffer condition is an important indicator of stream health.

TVA IPSI data provide information about the width and vegetation type and condition of riparian
buffers for all streams deemed perennial. These “perennial” streams are a subset of streams
(only 44% of the total stream miles identified by the IPSI) that have larger drainage areas and are
an underestimate of true perennial stream miles. For this report, adequate buffers were
determined as those with woody vegetation with at least 66% crown cover and a width of >30 ft.
In general, adequate buffers are present along upper sections of the tributaries that drain the
forested northern ridge. In the lower gradient areas that are primarily in agriculture, there are
small stream sections that have adequate buffers in small forested patches. Based on this
assessment, the current quality and distribution of adequate riparian buffers in the Mud Creek
watershed is too limited to protect water quality and promote good aquatic habitat.

Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 18

2.6 Local Water Quality Initiatives
2.6.1 Local Environmental Ordinances
A set of state and local regulatory programs impact development and water quality protection in
the Mud Creek watershed, the most important of which are described below.

Henderson County Ordinances
• Subdivision Ordinance and the Manufactured Home Park Ordinance: These ordinances
require that stormwater drainage facilities be constructed to minimize erosion and
sedimentation, minimize flooding, and avoid excessive discharge; however,
specifications for post-development stormwater discharge volume and rate are not
addressed. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that structures built upon lots within
newly platted subdivisions must remain 30 feet from the edge of any blue line streams (as
indicated on USGS 1:24,000 Topographic Maps). However, the ordinance does not
require that the area within this setback remain vegetated or permeable to water.
• Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance: This ordinance delineates the uses and
development of land and structures in water supply watersheds within Henderson County
in order to maintain the high quality of surface water; however, no streams in the Mud
Creek watershed fall within this ordinance.
• Farmland Preservation: This ordinance encourages the voluntary preservation and
protection of farmland from non-farm development.

Hendersonville Ordinances
• Floodway and floodway fringe development. Development is limited in the floodway and
floodway fringe in order to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions. It
provides guidance to control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and
natural protective barriers involved in the accumulation of flood waters, including filling,
grading, dredging, or other development which may increase erosion or flood damage.
Redevelopment in the floodway and fringe is permissible provided there is no loss of
flood storage and the project utilizes BMPs to reduce post-redevelopment stormwater rate
if feasible.
• Stormwater management. Any development that includes impervious surfaces greater or
equal to 0.5 acres must submit a stormwater management plan with stormwater controls.
Post-development runoff rate must not exceed the pre-development rate.
• Natural Resources Protection Ordinance. This ordinance contains a stream buffer
protection standard that requires protection of a 50 foot buffer on both sides of blue line
streams identified on the current USGS quadrangle maps. Existing uses of the buffer
zone are allowed. The 50 foot buffer is divided into two zones—a 30 foot area of
undisturbed vegetation adjacent to the channel followed by a 20 foot belt of either
managed or unmanaged vegetation.

Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 19

Flat Rock Ordinances
• Subdivision buffer requirement. This requires protection of a 50 foot set back on
perennial streams, lakes, and wetlands as they appear on USGS topographic maps; the
setback is divided into two areas—a 25 foot zone of natural vegetation adjacent to the
channel followed by a 25 foot belt of either managed or natural vegetation. Perennial
streams not on a USGS topo, require a 10 foot buffer of natural vegetation.
• Floodplain ordinance. No structures, with some exceptions, or fill are allowed in the 100
year floodplain.
• Stormwater management. Both subdivisions and other types of commercial and
residential developments are required to construct stormwater drainage facilities to
prevent downstream erosion/sedimentation and follow existing natural drainage. Where
feasible, stormwater discharge points must discharge through vegetated areas. In
addition, commercial and residential developments (excluding subdivisions) are required
to have stormwater controls to insure that post-development stormwater runoff rates do
not exceed pre-development rates.

2.6.2 Land Use Planning and Zoning
Local governments use zoning and land use planning to guide growth, ensure adequate
infrastructure and services and to protect environmental resources. Local zoning ordinances are
a good indicator for how an area, like the Mud Creek watershed, might grow and develop and
how this growth might impact water quality. Table 2.5 summarizes the current zoning in the
Mud Creek watershed. The zoning categories used in Table 2.5 generalize some 63 distinct
zoning classifications of the five governmental entities with zoning authority in the Mud Creek
watershed.

The “traditional” zoning districts, such as residential, commercial and industrial, account for
more than 43% of the total Mud Creek watershed. Each of these zoning districts contains
elements regulating lot size, structure size, and property line setbacks. To the extent that land
use affects water quality, each of these districts can have considerable positive and negative
implications for water quality. Most districts regulate the size of the lot, thus affecting density
and potentially the degree of urban runoff. However, none of the districts regulate the amount of
impervious surface or require permanent measures to control storm water runoff. Over 78% of
the watershed falls within the zoning jurisdiction of Henderson County, with over 54% of the
watershed falling within the County’s Open Use Zoning District. Through issuance of a special
use permit, open use zoning allows for many land uses, such as mining and extraction operations
and junkyards, that could pose a threat to water quality. Given the flexibility inherent in Open
Use Zoning, it is difficult to project the potential impacts to water quality from future
development in the watershed.
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 20

Table 2.4: Summary of Zoning in the Mud Creek watershed.
Generalized Zoning
Category
Acres Per
Category
Percentage of
Watershed in
Zoning Category
Commercial 3,295 5%
Industrial 1,138 2%
Residential
High Density 1,006 1%
Medium Density 10,929 15%
Low Density 15,045 21%
Open Use Zoning 39,071 54%
Open Water 43 <1%
Federal/State Properties 276 <1%
Zoning Unknown 1,279 2%

2.6.3 State Stormwater Regulations
The Mud Creek watershed is not currently subject to any state stormwater regulations, but this
will change in the near future. EPA has developed a Phase II stormwater program mandating
that small communities not previously subject to federal stormwater requirements apply for
permit coverage. Under the new Phase II stormwater program, Hendersonville, Flat Rock, and
Laurel Park must develop and implement a comprehensive stormwater management program.
This program must include six minimum measures: (1) public education and outreach on
stormwater impacts; (2) public involvement/participation; (3) unauthorized discharge detection
and elimination; (4) construction site stormwater runoff control; (5) post-construction stormwater
management for new development and re-development; and (6) pollution prevention/good
housekeeping for municipal operations.

According to NC temporary rules, Hendersonville, Flat Rock, and Laurel Park are required to
apply for stormwater permit coverage by May 2004. Henderson County, while federally
designated by EPA as a Phase II community, must comply with the US EPA deadline of March
10, 2003 for permit application or file for an exemption. Henderson County is seeking an
exemption from the temporary rules since the County does not operate a municipal storm sewer
system.

2.6.4 Environmental and Conservation Organization (ECO)
The Environmental and Conservation Organization (ECO) is a non-profit organization that
focuses on environmental conservation in Henderson County and the mountain region. It is
involved in environmental education and service projects and promotes civic responsibility in
economic and democratic processes that have environmental considerations.

Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 21

ECO has coordinated the VWIN program in Henderson County in conjunction with EQI for
more than a decade, providing trained volunteers to sample 33 sites on 28 streams each month
(see paragraph 2.6.5). Monthly sample data and the VWIN annual report are distributed
by ECO to elected officials in Henderson County and the public. Where significant problems are
noted, ECO makes every effort to follow up with landowners or proper authorities to rectify and
improve sample results.

A biological monitoring program in Henderson County streams, begun by ECO in 2001, is
conducted semi-annually on seven sites in the Mud Creek watershed. The data gathered by the
trained volunteers on these and other sites will be included in annual VWIN reports beginning
with the 2001 report.

An annual community-wide stream cleaning project -- NC Big Sweep – is also coordinated in
Henderson County by ECO. On the third Saturday in September each year, many volunteers
pitch in to clean debris and trash from local waterways as part of the statewide litter removal
program. For several years, the project in Henderson County has focused on
cleaning Mud Creek and its major tributaries.

In addition, ECO presents regular public programs on water quality issues, especially focusing
on ways to reduce sedimentation and ways for homeowners to have wildlife-friendly yards and
gardens without using fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. ECO sponsors forums and
workshops on a number of water quality topics throughout the year.

2.6.5 Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN)
VWIN is a water quality monitoring program run by citizens and the Environmental Quality
Institute (EQI) at the University of North Carolina at Asheville. Volunteers collect samples at
nine locations in the Mud Creek watershed monthly. Samples are sent to EQI for analysis of
twelve parameters, including nutrients, metals, and turbidity. VWIN monitors over 200 stream
and lake sites monthly throughout Western North Carolina. Local volunteers collect samples at
specified sites on a given day each month, and samples are delivered to EQI for analysis. VWIN
prepares an annual report for each area at the end of the monitoring year. The annual report
includes comparisons of each site and each area with all sites analyzed in the mountain region.
Local governments and organizations can use this information to compare similar situations and
better recognize regional issues and develop regional solutions. Trend analysis is also carried
out on sites that have been monitored over a period of years. This provides information on
changing water quality over time and season.

2.6.6 Southside Development Initiative
In the summer of 2002 the City of Hendersonville engaged The Lawrence Group, town planners
and architects, to prepare a master plan for the City’s Southside, a 195-acre area centered on the
intersection of U.S. Highways 25 and 176. Most of the area lies within the 100-year flood plain
of Mud Creek; however, it was heavily developed prior to the City’s participation in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program. Mud Creek itself bisects the Southside,
crossing under U.S. 25 just north of its intersection with U.S. 176.

Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 22

The Lawrence Group facilitated a week-long design charette in September, soliciting input from
a wide range of “stakeholders”. The end-product of that process is a document called the
Hendersonville Southside Development Initiative (SDI) which provides a vision for the future
redevelopment of this area. The SDI Plan is intended to provide a clear framework for the
redevelopment of the Southside through a series of incremental, private and public development
decisions.

Included within the Southside study area are two large tracts totaling 26.5 acres which, within
the last year, the City has acquired with assistance from the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (WRP). The Plan noted the importance of these parcels to the Southside Development
Initiative and encouraged the City to continue to work with WRP to develop wetlands restoration
programs and to assist with flood mitigation. The City has entered into a memorandum of
understanding with WRP for the accomplishment of these restoration projects.

2.6.7 Apple Country Greenways
The Apple Country Greenway Commission is a governmental organization created by an
interlocal agreement between all five Henderson County local governments. In 2001, the
Commission completed a greenway masterplan for Henderson County. The Oklawaha Trail
project, adjacent to Mud Creek, is already underway. Greenways located in riparian areas can
help to improve habitat and water quality by protecting riparian areas from development.
Greenways can also raise public awareness about water quality and stream condition. One goal
of the Apple Country Greenway Commission is to design a plan that preserves, promotes and
enhances environmental assets. To accomplish this goal, they laid out a number of objectives
that are very consistent with the goals of the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council. These
include:
• Encourage localities to include greenways as a flood reduction strategy in their stormwater
regulations.
• Develop a countywide strategy for protecting natural stream corridors and other open space,
plus a mitigation program for addressing resources that have been adversely altered by land
development.
• Use areas adjacent to greenways as natural areas that protect, maintain, or restore natural
vegetation and aquatic and wildlife habitats.

2.6.8 Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy
The Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy (CMLC) is a nonprofit organization that works to
directly protect the natural diversity and beauty of western North Carolina by preserving
significant natural lands and scenic areas. Founded in 1994, CMLC has helped protect more
than 8,600 acres of land in Henderson, Transylvania and neighboring counties.

CMLC is pursuing funds to acquire voluntary donated conservation easements on key properties
in the Mud Creek watershed. CMLC intends to work in concert with the Mud Creek Watershed
Restoration Council’s efforts by preserving creeks and streams with existing high quality buffers
and intact forests critical to maintaining watershed quality in the future. CMLC identified four
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 23

areas as the most significant areas for protection in terms of water quality preservation and
natural heritage protection in the Mud Creek watershed. These areas are described below.

Bearwallow Highlands: The Bearwallow Highlands, a rugged series of peaks and ridges, form
the northwestern boundary of the Mud Creek watershed. Bearwallow Mountain is the tallest
peak in Henderson County outside the Pisgah National Forest. This area represents an important
part of the natural and cultural heritage of the region.

Floodplain/Agricultural: The Mud Creek and Clear Creek valleys have a long-standing history
of productive agricultural use. In particular, the orchards of northeast Henderson County along
the Clear Creek and its tributaries have historically brought the county the distinction of the
being the largest apple producer in North Carolina.

West Henderson Camps: Western Henderson County has for many years been home to a
cluster of summer camps, and retreat and conference centers. Children and families from around
and beyond the state retain fond associations of a summertime experience amid the natural
beauty of this area.

Flat Rock Natural Heritage: The wetlands of the French Broad and Mud Creek systems
exhibit more community diversity than those of any other region of western North Carolina.
Their broad floodplains, oxbows, backwaters, and bogs provide habitat for numerous plant
species that are often uncommon or non-existent in other mountain counties.

2.6.9 French Broad River Training Center

The NCSU Cooperative Extension (CE) is also playing a significant role in developing BMP
demonstration projects, educating the public and landowners, and conducting training sessions
for professionals in the region. A stormwater wetland was installed at a new container nursery in
the Clear Creek watershed. This project was funded by the CE’s Mountain Nurseries – Keeping
the French Broad Clean Project. The CE’s Upper French Broad River Riparian Restoration and
Protection Project is working with willing landowners to restore riparian buffers along the River
and its tributaries in Henderson and Transylvania counties. The Training Center has conducted
regional training sessions on watershed and floodplain management, stormwater and erosion
control, low impact development, conservation easements and riparian buffer restoration.
Section 2: Watershed Characterization Page 24

SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project’s (WARP) water quality
monitoring and habitat assessments, Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) IPSI data, and
Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) data, the Mud Creek Watershed Council has
determined that the following issues pose the greatest threat to water quality and stream health in
the Mud Creek watershed and should be addressed by the watershed plan:

• Stormwater: Post-construction runoff from roads and commercial and residential
development. The primary issues related to stormwater result from volume, velocity, and
quality. Recommendations need to consider stormwater resulting from existing development
but also how to address stormwater from future development.
• Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agricultural Activities: Pesticides, nutrients, sediment and
bacteria and other agriculture related non-point source pollution.
• Habitat Degradation: Removal of habitat needed by aquatic organisms to survive and
reproduce in a stream. Causes of habitat degradation can include sedimentation, bank
erosion, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, loss of riffles or pools, loss of woody
habitat and streambed scour.
• Upland Sources of Sedimentation: Sediment from construction activities, unpaved roads and
driveways, forestry, mining and development.

This section provides a general overview of each of these major issue areas and provides
recommended actions to address these problems.
Section 3: Recommendations Page 25

3.1 Stormwater
3.1.1 Overview
The conversion of farmland, forests and wetlands to rooftops, roads, and parking lots creates a
layer of impervious cover in the watershed that prevents precipitation from infiltrating the soil
and recharging the groundwater. In natural systems, less than a third of rainfall runs off of the
landscape. Most of the rainfall is absorbed by wetlands or percolates to ground water aquifers
and is slowly released to streams and lakes. In watersheds with a large amount of impervious
cover, much of the rainfall is converted to stormwater runoff and is diverted quickly to streams
via stormwater systems, including ditches. Stormwater runoff from roads and commercial and
residential development impacts stream habitat by scouring the streambed and banks. Over time,
these high velocity streamflows destabilize the streambanks causing them to collapse depositing
large amounts of sediment into the stream channel. In addition, stormwater runoff also carries
toxins, such as metals and organic pollutants, from parking lots and other paved surfaces directly
to the streams.

The towns of Hendersonville, Flat Rock, part of Laurel Park and surrounding developed areas
drain to Mud Creek, Devils Fork, Bat Fork, and many of their tributaries. Stormwater is directed
to the creeks, carrying with it pollutants from parking lots, roads, roofs, and other impervious
surfaces. Activities near streams by residential landowners are also a source of non-point source
pollution. Homes that are sited along the streams produce runoff from roofs, driveways, and
lawns which are a source of nutrients, fecal contamination (from pets), and other pollutants.
There is a large network of roads through the Mud Creek watershed, including Interstate 26, US
64, US 25, and US 176. Roads serve as conduits of stormwater which carries metals and
hydrocarbons built up on the road surfaces.

As the percentage of impervious cover in the watershed increases, so do the volume and velocity
of stormwater runoff, and this can negatively impact stream health. WARP data concluded that
stormflow scour of stream bed substrate is a significant issue for urban sections of Mud Creek
and its urban tributaries. Impervious cover is a good indicator to determine if a watershed is at
risk from stormwater impacts. These impacts can include: increased flooding, unstable stream
channels, increased streambank erosion, loss of instream habitat, and a decline in water quality.
The Center for Watershed Protection (CWP, 2001) presents three vulnerability categories based
on impervious cover:
(1) Sensitive stream. 0-10 % impervious cover. Stable stream channel, good habitat, diverse
biological communities.
(2) Impacted stream. 11-25% impervious cover. Stream channels erode and widen, banks
unstable. Habitat declines. Sensitive biota disappear.
(3) Severely impacted stream. >26% impervious cover. Stream channel highly unstable.
Habitat very degraded. Only pollution tolerant biota present.

Based on data compiled through the Integrated Pollutant Source Identification project conducted
by the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Mud Creek watershed has roughly 10 percent impervious
cover. However, the percent of imperviousness varies greatly throughout the watershed. Figure
3.1 illustrates that drainages in the Hendersonville and Laurel Park area approach or exceed the
severely impacted stream category, including Wash Creek (32%), Brittain Creek (23%), and
drainages along the Mud Creek mainstem (22%, 43%, 27%) and Bat Fork (36%). Clear Creek
Section 3: Recommendations Page 26

and upper Mud Creek drainages have relatively low imperviousness, reflecting the lower amount
of development in these primarily forested and agricultural areas.

Figure 3.1: Stream vulnerability rating based on
percent impervious cover in the Mud Creek
Watershed – by subwatershed.
Section 3: Recommendations Page 27

In addition to impervious cover, the presence of functional wetlands is another indicator for
assessing the risk of water quality degradation from stormwater impacts. Functional wetlands
act as both sponges and filters during storm events. When wetlands are drained to accommodate
agricultural activities or development, these functions are lost or impaired—resulting in
decreased recharge, increased flooding, degraded water quality and increased stormwater flows.
Hydric soils are one indicator for the presence or historical presence of wetlands.
An analysis of the IPSI data reveals over four square miles of hydric soils in the Mud Creek
watershed and over eight square miles of soils with hydric inclusions (Figure 3.2). The IPSI data
also show that only 0.9 sq. miles of the watershed currently support wetland vegetation,
suggesting a significant loss of functional wetlands in the Mud Creek watershed and an increased
likelihood of stream quality impacts due to stormwater volume and velocity. In May 2002, The
City of Hendersonville and WRP entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to purchase and
restore 26 acres of degraded wetlands adjacent to Mud Creek in Hendersonville’s Southside.
Projects like these, designed to restore lost wetland and floodplain functions, are critical steps to
reducing stormwater velocities and volumes.

Figure 3.2: Existing wetlands and areas with
hydric soils in the Mud Creek Watershed.
Section 3: Recommendations Page 28

Flooding has been a persistent issue in Henderson County, especially within the Mud Creek
watershed. Wide fertile floodplains that once served to store flood waters were drained and
diked to allow farming. Commercial and residential development has occurred in the floodplain,
as well leaving it susceptible to flooding. Mud Creek and its tributaries with wide floodplains
were very sinuous streams, often lined by wetlands. Unfortunately, most of these wetlands no
longer function as floodwater storage areas.

Figure 3.3: Flooding at Hendersonville’s
Southside, just one of many areas of chronic
flooding exacerbated by floodplain
development and impervious cover.

The Mud Creek watershed is rapidly developing and changing from a rural watershed to an
urban landscape. Since 1990, the population of Henderson County has grown over 28 percent
and is one of the fastest growing counties in North Carolina. Population growth is projected at
45 percent over the next twenty years with the fastest growth in the county occurring in the Mud
Creek watershed (CCP Demographics, 2002). Many local governments have adopted
stormwater controls, floodplain restrictions and buffer protection policies as shown by Table 3.1.
However, future development will further degrade water quality unless more direct actions are
taken to minimize the stormwater runoff from new development and mitigate the impacts of
stormwater runoff from existing development. Preventing further stream degradation from
future development should be the highest priority for all local governments and landowners,
followed by addressing current impacts from existing impervious surfaces.

Table 3.1: Existing Stormwater Management Ordinances in the Mud Creek watershed.
Floodplain
Restrictions
Stormwater
Controls
Buffer
Protection
Hendersonville X X X
Henderson County X
Flat Rock X X X
Laurel Park

Section 3: Recommendations Page 29

Local governments in Henderson County including Hendersonville, Flat Rock and Laurel Park,
are subject to requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Phase II Stormwater Program. Phase II of the NPDES stormwater program requires small
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) to obtain an NPDES permit. A small MS4 is a
city, town, county, association or other public body that owns or operates a stormwater collection
system. Regulated small MS4s automatically designated by the Environmental Protection
Agency must apply for a permit by March 2003 and are required to develop and implement a
comprehensive stormwater management program that includes 6 minimum measures:

1) Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts.
2) Public involvement/participation.
3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination.
4) Construction site stormwater runoff control.
5) Post-construction stormwater management for new development and redevelopment.
6) Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations.

Although the Phase II requirements will help to address many of the water quality problems
associated with stormwater in urban areas, they are unlikely to solve the stormwater velocity and
volume problems in watersheds such as Mud Creek that already have a high percentage of
impervious cover. The following ordinance revisions recommended by the Mud Creek
Watershed Restoration Council are consistent with the Phase II requirement for controlling post-
construction runoff; however, in some cases, the changes recommended by the Council exceed
the requirements of the Phase II program. To truly address the stormwater problem, local
governments in the Mud Creek watershed will need to think beyond compliance with the Phase
II stormwater program and take proactive steps to minimize impervious cover and control
stormwater from new developments, redevelopments, and to retrofit old developments.

3.1.2 Strategies to minimize impacts of stormwater runoff from future development
Local governments in the Mud Creek watershed should consider minimizing future
stormwater impacts by developing and/or refining existing stormwater management
ordinances and floodplain development ordinances.

The Mud Creek Council studied existing stormwater ordinances in light of the Phase II
requirements for local governments in the Mud Creek watershed and determined that the
following modifications would help these governments achieve maximum stormwater reductions
from new development:

All local stormwater ordinances should specify maintenance requirements for structural
stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). Ordinances should also specify that design
practices that reduce impervious cover and maintain stream-side areas in natural vegetation
and floodplain or use vegetated swales to convey stormwater are preferred to structural
practices for stormwater control.

All local governments in the Mud Creek watershed should implement inspection programs to
ensure compliance with stormwater ordinances, including proper installation and
maintenance of structural BMPs.
Section 3: Recommendations Page 30

Flat Rock: Consider extending post-construction runoff rate controls to subdivisions in
addition to the standards established for other types of developments, including non-major
commercial development. Flat Rock should also amend their buffer ordinance to require
diffuse flow through buffers.

Laurel Park: Consider developing local ordinances that address stormwater impacts from all
types of development, including development that occurs outside of designated water supply
watersheds. Laurel Park should also consider developing an ordinance to prohibit or limit
development of floodplains.

Henderson County: Consider developing a stormwater ordinance to address commercial
development and revising existing stormwater ordinances to ensure that the post-construction
runoff rate not exceed predevelopment runoff rate. Henderson County should also consider
developing a floodplain protection ordinance to limit development within floodplains.

To minimize post-construction run-off, local ordinances could state that post-development runoff
rates shall not exceed predevelopment runoff rates. Alternatively, local ordinances could have a
certain threshold for compliance (i.e. particular percent impervious cover), at which time
controls would be required so that the post runoff rate does not exceed the predevelopment
runoff rate. This option could be implemented via the review of building permits or zoning
permits so that local staff would calculate the percent of impervious cover in the watershed and
determine if the threshold value for protecting water quality had been exceeded. The local
governments could raise fees for building/zoning permits to cover staff costs for plan review and
post-construction site inspections.

Local governments should provide incentives to local residents to minimize existing and
future stormwater impacts by reducing stormwater runoff. In addition to regulatory
programs for stormwater management, local governments could implement an incentive based
program for controlling stormwater runoff from future and existing development. Incentives
could include tax breaks and regulatory flexibility, such as modified density requirements, for
new development. Under this approach, landowners could benefit from lower taxes on their
property for protecting stream buffers, constructing stormwater wetlands, limiting the amount of
impervious cover, or routing roof runoff to infiltration areas. Henderson County currently
assesses agricultural property at a lower value and could modify the existing assessment process
to allow a similar structure for conservation and water quality end-uses. Current zoning
ordinances could be revised to allow developers who protect floodplain areas or limit impervious
cover in floodplain areas to construct higher density developments.

Local governments in the Mud Creek watershed should review existing development
ordinances and building codes for opportunities to minimize impervious surfaces. These
opportunities may include reduced parking requirements, more versatility in the types of material
used for parking lots (could allow porous pavement for occasional use areas, especially in areas
with soils that infiltrate quickly), narrower street widths in residential areas, eliminating curbs, or
reducing the footprint of buildings. Local governments should also review existing landscaping
and open space requirements in order to see how those areas can be used to manage runoff.
Modifications to local ordinances may help local governments achieve compliance with Phase II
Section 3: Recommendations Page 31

stormwater requirements for pollution prevention and post-construction stormwater
management.

Local governments in the Mud Creek watershed should educate businesses and citizens
about stormwater management issues and actions they can take to reduce these impacts.

Contractors and Developers: Require licensed contractors/developers to attend workshops
about environmental/conservation site design. These workshops could focus on “Elements of
Good Design” (e.g., roof runoff routed to yard, setback from stream, porous driveways,
narrower streets). Local governments could also provide a BMP design manual, specific to
the mountains, stressing the preference for non-structural BMPs such as forested setbacks
and vegetated swales, minimization of impervious surfaces, and site design for topographic
constraints. The local governments should obtain assistance from the NC State University
School of Design, NCSU Biological and Agricultural Engineering, or the Center for
Watershed Protection in designing requirements, providing classes and developing the BMP
manual. Grant funds may be available through the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the
EPA 319 Program, or through a 205(j) Grant to develop these materials. The program could
also be subsidized through fees collected from workshop participants. Local governments
could work through a regional organization such as the Land of Sky Regional Council to
administer this program across a multi-county area. As an incentive, local governments
could expedite building permits for workshop participants or building permit applicants
incorporating good design principles into their development plans. These workshops would
also help local governments meet Phase II stormwater requirements for public
education/outreach.

Citizens: Distribute brochures developed by the State for Phase II compliance regarding
things landowners and buyers can do to limit impervious surfaces, manage stormwater and
minimize water quality toxicity via landscape application of chemicals. Local governments
can provide brochures to local realtors, real estate attorneys, bank loan departments, and
health departments for general public distribution. Local governments can also attach the
brochure to local building-related permit applications, home loan applications, closing
materials and septic tank permit applications. Local governments can get Phase II
compliance credit for public education/outreach for distributing these brochures.

3.1.3 Strategies to reduce impacts of stormwater runoff from existing development
Local governments in the Mud Creek watershed and surrounding watersheds should
consider establishing a stormwater utility to fund improvements to existing stormwater
collection system. The federal Phase II Stormwater Regulation is an unfunded mandate for
affected local governments. In addition, there is a need for increased funding to improve
stormwater drainage infrastructure and stormwater management programs at the local level.
Many local governments across the state (Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, Cumberland County)
have established stormwater utilities to manage and fund their local stormwater programs.
Stormwater utilities typically charge user fees based on the amount of impervious surface
contained on a given property since impervious surface area has an effect on the volume of
stormwater runoff created by that property. The assessed value of the property used in the
property tax calculations is not necessarily a good indicator of the contribution of runoff.
Stormwater user fees represent a more equitable means of generating revenue for stormwater
Section 3: Recommendations Page 32

management improvements. Residential stormwater fees are typically $2 to $3 per single-family
residence per month and are collected through the water billing process.

Local governments in the Mud Creek watershed should map existing stormwater collection
systems to identify illicit connections and develop a strategy for redirecting these
discharges to proper wastewater treatment facilities. The City of Hendersonville has hired an
engineering consultant to map its stormwater collection system. Although this is a costly
proposal, local governments subject to Phase II will be required to do this work and this
information is critical to identifying opportunities for system expansion, upgrades and for water
quality monitoring.

Local governments should seek grant funds to implement a Stormwater BMP Retrofit
Program to identify opportunities to reduce stormwater impacts from existing
development. There are many structural stormwater management techniques for capturing and
treating stormwater. Selecting the appropriate location for these measures is critical and often
challenging. Before local governments can begin to address this problem, they will need to
establish the goals for the retrofit program as this will help to determine which techniques are
most suitable. In the Mud Creek watershed, many streams in the urbanized areas show signs of
stress from high velocity flows related to stormwater runoff. One goal for stormwater retrofits
could be to reduce the velocity of stormwater flows and the resulting streambed scour and
streambank erosion. Another goal could be to reduce the occurrence of flooding in
Hendersonville by increasing stormwater retention through wetland restoration or structural
BMPs. Subwatersheds with the greatest percentage of impervious cover, currently experiencing
recurrent flooding or showing signs of water quality impairment due to stormwater pollutants
should be given priority for stormwater retrofits.

Given the technical expertise required to conduct a stormwater retrofit study, local governments
should seek grant funds through the Clean Water Management Trust Fund or 319 Program to
hire an engineering consultant for this analysis. It may be possible to combine stormwater
projects with other ongoing projects including the future Apple Country Greenway projects and
the Southside Development Initiative.

Local governments in the Mud Creek watershed should seek grant funds to promote
pollution prevention and stormwater management by implementing BMPs on government
owned facilities including motor fleet maintenance areas, parks, and other suitable sites.
These projects would not only help to address the stormwater problems in the Mud Creek
watershed, but would also function as demonstration projects that the local governments could
use to educate local businesses about stormwater management practices. There may be grant
funds available through the Section 319 Program or the Clean Water Management Trust Fund to
fund innovative stormwater projects. Local governments should conduct a comprehensive
assessment of their facilities to determine if these facilities are sources of pollutants or if on-site
stormwater retrofits or controls are possible.

Local governments should encourage local businesses to implement stormwater BMP
retrofits by creating an award program to cite local businesses’ accomplishments. A
“Watershed Steward” award would not only provide local business with great public relations
benefits, but would also help to address stormwater and nonpoint source pollution problems in
the Mud Creek watershed. Awards could be distributed for facilities that demonstrate the best
Section 3: Recommendations Page 33

approach to stormwater management. Awards could be given by business categories including
Service Stations, Home Building/Construction, Manufacturing, Retail Complex and Golf Course.
The Local Governments could work with the Chamber of Commerce or another local
organization such as the Partners for Economic Progress to administer the awards.

The Local Governments could also establish a similar program to encourage individual
homeowners to implement stormwater BMP retrofits. The local governments could provide a
brochure of information specific to homeowners outlining possible retrofits, such as redirecting
roof and gutter runoff to yards, cisterns or rain gardens. Local government staff or a special
volunteer committee could run the award program.
Section 3: Recommendations Page 34

3.2 Agricultural Non Point Source Pollution
3.2.1 Overview
Agricultural production is a major land use in the Mud Creek watershed, especially in the fertile
floodplains of Mud Creek, Clear Creek and Devils Fork (Figure 3.4). Approximately 23 percent
of the Mud Creek watershed is used for cropland and pasture. In an effort to maximize
production, property owners have cleared much of the land, sometimes leaving a thin strip of
trees adjacent to the streams. In the absence of a forested buffer, pollutants including sediment,
pesticides and nutrients can move directly from the land to the streams. In some areas where
forested buffers do exist, there are breaks to allow runoff from fields and orchards to drain
directly to streams.

Water quality monitoring conducted by WARP suggests that the biological communities in many
streams draining agricultural areas of the watershed are impacted by pesticide runoff from
adjacent orchards and row crops most notably in the upper Mud Creek, Clear Creek and Devils
Fork subwatersheds (NC Division of Water Quality, 2003).
Figure 3.4: Agricultural land uses in
the Mud Creek Watershed.
Section 3: Recommendations Page 35

In addition, fecal bacteria from cattle and horses that have direct access to streams can also
pollute streams. The IPSI study identified 87 beef cattle operations in the Mud Creek watershed;
54% of those operations were adjacent to streams. Most of these operations are fairly small and
not subject to North Carolina waste management permitting requirements. According to the
IPSI, cattle have actual or probable (stream in an active pasture but no exclusion fence observed)
access to 11.2 miles of stream (Figure 3.6). Cattle with direct access to streams can also
destabilize streambanks increasing the likelihood for streambank erosion and increased sediment
delivery to streams.
Figure 3.5: Cattle with direct
access to Mud Creek tributary. Although a large portion of the Mud Creek
watershed is transitioning from a primarily
forested and agricultural landscape to a
more urbanized setting, agriculture source
of pollution such as pesticides and soil
erosion must be addressed to improve water
quality.
Figure 3.6: Cattle access points to streams
in the Mud Creek Watershed.

Section 3: Recommendations Page 36

3.2.2 Strategies to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
The Henderson Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and Cooperative Extension
should continue to promote innovative pest management practices in the Mud Creek
watershed to reduce the amount of pesticides applied in the watershed and to reduce the
likelihood for pesticides to enter streams. There are a number of best management practices
(BMPs) currently approved by the Agriculture Cost Share Program to achieve this goal.
Through Ag Cost Share, farmers can receive 75% of the cost for implementing the BMPs.
Unfortunately, Henderson County only receives between $75,000-$100,000 per year from the Ag
Cost Share Program which is not enough to address the current need for agriculture BMPs in the
County. The County will need to investigate other funding sources such as a Clean Water
Management Trust Fund grant or other federal grant programs to fully implement this strategy.

AgriChemical Mixing Facilities: Many farmers currently mix pesticides next to streams.
The SWCD can work with apple farmers in the Clear Creek and Devils Fork watersheds
to replace pesticide mixing areas along the streams with state of the art AgriChemical
mixing facilities located above the floodplain. There are already about 20 AgriChemical
Mixing Facilities in the Mud Creek watershed. The first priority is to address those
closest to streams or upstream from streams with documented water quality impairment
due to pesticides.

Agrichemical Mixing Facilities are a fairly expensive BMP to implement costing $20,000
per facility and Henderson County can currently only fund 2-3 of these facilities per year
using Ag Cost Share funds. Many farmers are currently on the waiting list to implement
this BMP, but due to bad apple crops are waiting to implement this practice until the
apple market improves. To expedite the implementation of this BMP in the watershed,
the County should seek a grant to fund 10 Agrichemical Mixing Facilities per year for the
next four years. The grant should also provide greater than 75% cost share to reduce the
financial barrier for those farmers currently on the waiting list but hesitant to implement
this BMP due to poor apple crops. In addition to apple growers, tomato and pepper
farmers also need agrichemical mixing facilities. Since there are many small tomato and
pepper fields in the watershed, a less expensive system should be developed for these
farmers. Ideally this system should be located away from the stream and capture spilled
chemicals. The Henderson County Cooperative Extension should work through NC State
University to develop such a practice.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Many apple farmers in the Mud Creek watershed
currently use scouts to monitor the need for pesticide application. The scouts set traps to
determine when insects pose a risk to the apple crop. By applying pesticides only when
recommended by the scouts rather than on a predetermined schedule, farmers use 30%
less pesticides saving them money and reducing the likelihood for pesticides to runoff
into streams. This practice costs approximately $30/acre and is approved for Ag Cost
Share Funds. There are approximately 4,000 acres of orchards in the Mud Creek
watershed and currently 40% of these use IPM to reduce pesticide applications. It would
cost $120,000 per year to ensure that all orchards in the Mud Creek watershed use IPM to
reduce pesticide use.

Section 3: Recommendations Page 37

Backflow prevention for irrigation systems: Many farmers inject fertilizers or pesticides
into their irrigation system to distribute chemicals across their fields. Unless the dosing
pumps, which control the amount of chemicals injected into the irrigation system, are
fitted with a backflow prevention device, the chemicals can backwash into the streams
when the pumps are turned off. A back flow prevention device costs approximately
$1000-$3000 depending on the farmers irrigation system. Farmers applying pesticides
through an irrigation system that pumps water directly from a stream should be required
to install one of these devices. Until the State requires this practice, the County should
continue to fund this practice through the Ag Cost Share Program.

Removal of abandoned apple orchards: Although Henderson County has a long apple
growing tradition; many growers are abandoning their orchards for more profitable
ventures. Abandoned orchards are a breeding ground for pests that can migrate to
adjacent orchards requiring growers to apply more pesticides. By removing abandoned
orchards, the County can remove a potential source of insects thereby reducing the
amount of pesticides applied to viable orchards. This practices costs $400/acre. There
are approximately 1,000 acres of abandoned orchards in the Mud Creek watershed.
Henderson County should work with landowners to voluntarily remove all abandoned
orchards by 2005 and then remove newly abandoned orchards within 1 year of
abandonment.

Henderson Soil and Water Conservation District (District) and Henderson County
Cooperative Extension should develop new Agriculture Cost Share Practices to minimize
pesticide drift and reduce pesticide use. The District is a leader in developing Ag Cost Share
Practices to address pesticide management. The District should explore new technologies, such
as charged sprayers, that growers can use to reduce pesticide drift. The District should also
encourage the use of riparian buffers along streams bordering apple orchards to help address
water quality impacts from the arial drift of pesticides and promote organic apple farming as a
way to eliminate the risk of water quality degradation from pesticide contamination. Farmers
may need both technical and financial assistance to transition to organic methods. It takes three
years to meet organic farming standards and during that time the District may need to provide
incentive payments to growers through the Ag Cost Share Program.Cooperative Extension
should assist with this effort by hosting a symposium on pesticide drift management targeted at
issues specific to the apple industry.

The Henderson Soil and Water Conservation District should work with landowners to
stabilize streams near orchards to minimize the transport of historic pesticides. The TVA
IPSI data indicate that there are over 30,000 feet of eroding streambanks adjacent to active and
abandoned orchards concentrated in the Clear Creek, Lewis Fork, Henderson Creek and Devils
Fork watersheds. Although there is funding available through the Ag Cost Share Program and
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to stabilize streambanks, this practice is
not in great demand. Landowners need an incentive to participate. As an incentive, the County
could pay 100% of the cost for this work if the landowners abandon their orchards and stabilize
the streambanks at the same time. The County should seek a grant for $100,000 to cover the
25% cost share requirement traditionally paid by the landowners to stabilize 10,000 feet of the
eroding banks adjacent to active and abandoned orchards.

Section 3: Recommendations Page 38

The Henderson County Soil and Water Conservation District (District) should work with
landowners to implement effective riparian buffers and conventional conservation
practices such as cover crops, no till, field borders, filter strips, on crop land. The TVA
IPSI data indicate that there are over 2000 acres of land (<3%) used for row crops in the Mud
Creek watershed. The USDA already has requirements in place to protect highly erodible fields
in row crops and about 50% of row crop farmers already implement conservation practices and
BMP’s to reduce soil erosion. However, less than two percent of the streams flowing adjacent to
row crops in the Mud Creek watershed have an adequate riparian buffer to protect water quality
from pesticides and nutrients applied to these crops and to trap sediment runoff from the fields.
In addition, many apple orchards have limited or no buffers along adjacent streams, and forested
buffers can be an effective tool to control pesticides in spray drift and storm runoff. Some fields
are bermed at the stream edge, however breaks in the berms are common and stormwater is
funneled through these breaks directly to the stream. Although there is funding available
through the ACSP and EQIP for buffer restoration there is presently low demand for this
practice. The District should seek grant funds to develop strategies to entice landowners to
install effective buffers along apple orchards and row crop fields.

Henderson County should request that the Division of Water Quality (or NCSU) initiate
groundwater monitoring in the Mud Creek watershed to determine if historic pesticides
are moving from the soils of agricultural fields to streams through the groundwater. The
Mud Creek watershed Assessment conducted by the DWQ indicates that historic pesticides are
detectable in Clear Creek sediments. More research and monitoring should be conducted to
determine if agricultural fields are a potential source of pesticide contamination.

Henderson County Soil and Water Conservation District should work with landowners to
implement animal waste practices such as livestock exclusion, feed/waste structures, stream
crossing and buffer strips to protect water quality. TVA IPSI data indicate that there are over
9,600 acres of pasture in the Mud Creek watershed and that 5% of the pasture lands are well
maintained, 88% have uneven growth, and over 7% are overgrazed. The TVA IPSI data also
indicate that cattle have direct access to over 11.5 miles of stream in the watershed. Through the
Ag Costs Share Program and EQIP, landowners are eligible to receive funding for livestock
management BMPs. For Henderson County, the average cost to exclude cattle from a stream
and provide an alternative source of water is approximately $30,000. A dry-stack feeding
structure will increase the cost by approximately $20,000. Due to the cost of these management
practices, the County may need to seek grant funds to provide landowners with an incentive to
participate in these programs. Although there are currently more beef cattle operations than
horse farms in the watershed, current trends in Henderson County indicate that horse number are
increasing and cow numbers are decreasing. The County will need to adapt traditional outreach
and education programs designed for cattle farmers to address horse owners.
Section 3: Recommendations Page 39

3.3 Habitat Degradation
3.3.1 Overview
One of the major causes of water quality impairment in the Mud Creek watershed, as determined
by the recently completed WARP watershed assessment, is habitat degradation. Habitat
degradation, as defined by the Division of Water Quality, is the loss of habitat needed by
macroinvertebrates and fish to survive and reproduce in a stream. Habitat degradation can
include sedimentation, lack of riparian vegetation, loss of riffles or pools and loss of woody and
leaf habitat. The habitat surveys conducted as part of the WARP watershed assessment indicate
that channelization, sedimentation, minimal riparian vegetation, and streambank erosion and
streambed scour resulting from high volumes of stormwater runoff are all causes of habitat
degradation in the Mud Creek watershed.

The TVA IPSI data indicate that 33 percent of the streams in the Mud Creek watershed are
channelized, approximately 14 percent of the streambanks are severely eroding, and less than
11% percent of the larger streams in the watershed have adequate riparian buffers. Field
assessments conducted by DWQ suggest that these estimates may be conservative due to the
limitations of determining these stream features, especially eroding streambanks, from aerial
photographs.
Figure 3.7: Eroding streambanks cause sediment to fill
stream channels impacting aquatic habitat.
Section 3: Recommendations Page 40

3.3.2 Strategies to Address Habitat Degradation
Improving habitat for macroinvertebrates is not an explicit goal of the Mud Creek watershed
Restoration Council. However, the Division of Water Quality uses benthic organisms as an
indicator of stream health, and the Council recognizes that it must address this issue to improve
the use support ratings currently assigned to the Mud Creek watershed. For this reason, the
Council recommends the following strategies to address this problem:

The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) should work with
landowners and local governments to restore 15,000 feet of the most critically eroding
streams in the Mud Creek watershed to improve habitat and water quality. Full-scale
stream restoration is an expensive undertaking (approximately $125/foot in a rural setting and
$200/foot in an urban setting) and should be reserved for the most critical stream instability
problems. Generally, projects should be longer than 1,500 feet to achieve economies of scale.
The purpose of stream restoration is to restore the natural pattern (the stream meanders),
dimension (the width of the channel, height of the banks and floodplain, angle of the banks) and
profile (riffles and pools) of the stream using natural channel design techniques. All stream
restoration designs are based on a stable reference stream to ensure the long-term success of the
project.

There are many benefits to implementing stream restoration projects. The projects will stabilize
the streambanks reducing a significant source of sediment in the Mud Creek watershed. The
projects will restore the natural riffle and pool sequence to the stream-- improving habitat for
macroinvertebrates and fish. The projects will also restore the natural vegetation along the
streambanks and flood plain to keep the banks from eroding, to shade the stream and keep it cool
for fish and to provide a source of woody debris for instream habitat.

The NCWRP has selected the Mud Creek watershed as a high priority area for stream
restoration. The NCWRP intends to implement over 15,000 feet of stream restoration in the
watershed and will work with the Council to identify sites that are consistent with the Mud Creek
Watershed Restoration Plan. Although funding is available to complete these projects, the
NCWRP will need to identify good projects and willing landowners on both sides of the stream.
Using the IPSI data and WARP habitat assessments, the NCWRP will identify and pursue
projects in those subwatershed determined as most in need of stream restoration to improve
water quality and address habitat degradation. To delineate those areas, the NCWRP will
consider subwatersheds with severely eroding streambanks, incised channels, channelized
streams and inadequate riparian buffers. In addition, those areas identified through WARP field
assessment as high priority areas for stream restoration will receive priority for funding. The
WARP study recommended stream and riparian restoration for Upper Mud Creek and Bat Fork.
In addition, the study also recommended floodplain acquistion and enhancement in the urban
areas of Mud Creek, lower Devils Fork and Johnson Drainage Ditch. The NCWRP proposes to
identify stream restoration projects in the high priority subwatersheds by May 2003. The
NCWRP will present the proposed project sites to the Mud Creek Council to ensure that the
projects are consistent with the Council’s goals for the watershed.

In addition to identifying good restoration projects, the NCWRP must also identify landowners
willing to participate in the restoration projects. Many landowners participate in a stream
restoration project because they lack the resources to address their severe erosion problems
Section 3: Recommendations Page 41

themselves and are losing valuable pasture land or crop land as their streams widen and the
unstable banks erode – “lose it now or lose it later”. In other cases, structures on the property
may be at risk due to eroding streambanks. Some landowners may want to improve the
aesthetics of their stream or improve wildlife habitat for long-term enjoyment of their property.

Landowners must convey a permanent
conservation easement on any project
funded by the NCWRP. Generally, the
easement extends between 25-50 ft from
the top of the stream banks on both sides
of the stream. The landowner can donate
the easement or NCWRP can purchase the
easement. If the easement is donated, the
landowner may be eligible for a tax credit
in addition to other site improvements such
as cattle exclusion and watering systems.
Figure 3.8: Site of NCWRP’s Clear Creek
Stream Restoration Project.

The NCWRP recognizes that landowner
participation is a critical component of a
successful stream restoration project. The
NCWRP is currently implementing a
stream restoration project in the Mud
Creek watershed on Clear Creek. The
NCWRP hopes these projects will provide
local landowners with a better
understanding of stream restoration. Once
potential projects sites are identified, the
NCWRP will contact landowners to
determine their interest in stream
restoration.

Local governments should work with landowners to restore native woody vegetation along
streams to stabilize streambanks and improve habitat. Full-scale stream restoration is not
always a cost-effective solution to addressing site-specific streambank erosion problems. In
many cases, these site specific problems can be managed by stabilizing streambanks with
vegetation to reduce sedimentation. Buffer restoration costs on average $650-900 per acre and
there are a number of programs in place such as EQIP and Ag Cost Share that provide funding to
help landowners address this problem. These programs are administered by the Henderson Soil
and Water Conservation District and the NC Cooperative Extension Service.

The IPSI data indicate that over 11% of all riparian buffers of perennial streams in the Mud
Creek watershed are inadequate. As is the case with stream restoration projects, there is much
need for buffer restoration, but little landowner interest to implement this best management
practice. Local governments will need to identify private landowners interested in buffer
restoration through outreach efforts that could include workshops or newsletter articles.
Implementing a buffer restoration project in a city or county park in conjunction with the
volunteer group might also help to bring this issue to the public’s attention.

Section 3: Recommendations Page 42

The Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council should educate landowners about the
importance of riparian buffers for streambank stabilization, water quality and habitat.
Changing public perception about riparian buffers is a critical objective for the Mud Creek
Watershed Restoration Council. To accomplish this goal, the Council needs to identify key
target groups including golf courses, farmers, local government maintenance workers,
cemeteries, utilities, and homeowners groups and develop a communications strategy for these
audiences. Outreach materials might include a Powerpoint presentation, website, or factsheet.

Local governments should evaluate the benefits of a buffer ordinance to protect lands
adjacent to streams from future development activities. In Henderson County, like many
areas across the state, efforts to protect riparian buffers through both local ordinances and state
regulations have generated both strong public support and criticism. Although the policy issues
surrounding riparian buffers are contentious, the importance of riparian buffers to promoting and
protecting aquatic habitat is well documented. The Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council
recognizes the importance of riparian buffers to watershed protection and supports a
comprehensive approach to riparian buffer management that includes voluntary approaches as
well as regulatory approaches-- if that is what is necessary to improve the quality and function of
riparian buffers in the watershed. The feasibility study will assist decisions-makers and Mud
Creek stakeholders in delineating the costs and benefits of regulatory measures to protect
riparian buffers and allow the community to engage in a meaningful and fact-based dialogue on
this issue. To accomplish this objective, the feasibility study should address the following
questions:
• What is the current land use in proposed buffer areas?
• What is the potential economic impact of this rule?
• What are the potential environmental benefits?

Local governments in the Mud Creek watershed should work with the Carolina Mountain
Land Conservancy and the Apple Country Greenway Commission to permanently protect
high priority wetlands and riparian buffers in the watershed. Although many streams,
riparian areas and upland areas in the Mud Creek watershed have been degraded by development
and agriculture, there are still many high quality streams and wetland areas worthy of long-term
protection. The Natural Heritage Program has identified a number of Significant Natural
Heritage Areas in the Mud Creek watershed including Oklawaha Bog, Bat Fork Bog, King Creek
Bog, Pinnacle Mountain, Glassy Mountain and Bead and Lace Falls. Many areas of the
headwaters of the Mud Creek watershed remain forested and undeveloped. The Carolina
Mountain Land Conservancy can work with landowners in the Mud Creek watershed to protect
these areas by negotiating permanent conservation easements and fee simple acquisition on these
properties. The Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Natural Heritage Trust Fund are
two potential sources of funding for this purpose. The state also offers Conservation Tax Credits
to encourage landowners to donate conservation easements to land trusts and state programs.
The Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy has already identified four priority areas for
protection in the Mud Creek watershed. These areas are described in Section 2.6.6.
Section 3: Recommendations Page 43

3.4 Upland Sources of Sedimentation
3.4.1 Overview
Sediment pollution from construction activities, unpaved roads, forestry, mining, and land
development is a significant water quality problem in the Mud Creek watershed. Sediment
pollution impacts stream habitat by smothering benthic organisms and filling fish spawning
areas. Phosphorus, metals, pesticides and other pollutants readily adsorb to sediment particles
and are carried into streams from upland sources during storm events. Sediment can also fill
farm ponds and lakes, reducing storage capacity. Many farmers pump water directly from
streams to irrigate crops; suspended sediment can clog water filters and ruin water pumps,
increasing costs to farmers.

In 1973, the state adopted the NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act to control erosion and
sedimentation from road building and development activities. Agriculture and forestry activities
are exempt from this act; however, forestry operations are required to meet performance
standards and implement best management practices to control sediment pollution. WARP and
VWIN data for the Mud Creek watershed indicate excess sedimentation in areas downstream
from land disturbed for development. This suggests that existing regulations designed to
minimize sediment pollution from are inadequate to protect water quality.

In the Mud Creek watershed, home and road development, established home sites with eroding
slopes, unpaved roads and driveways, dam failure, and eroding road banks are potential sources
of sediment pollution. The TVA IPSI sediment loading model, which estimates the amount of
sediment pollution from various land uses in the watershed, suggests that residential
development (which includes residential properties under construction) and unpaved roads
account for over half of the upland sources of sediment pollution in the Mud Creek watershed
(Figure 3.9).

Although sediment loads should be considered in determining which strategies will be most
effective in reducing sediment pollution, the loading rate should also be considered. As shown
in Table 3.2, residential development may account for the greatest sediment loads in the
watershed, but the loading per acre is much greater from construction sites and eroding roads.
Management strategies to address sediment pollution should target not only the greatest sources,
but also the sources with the greatest loading rates.
Figure 3.9: Runoff from
a gravel driveway in the
Mud Creek watershed
Section 3: Recommendations Page 44

Eroding Roads
18%
Shrub, Scrub, Forest
4%
Agriculture
10%
Commercial
20%Industrial
1%
Transportation,
Electrical
Transmission
2%
Residential
43%
Clear-Cut, Mining,
Disturbed Areas
2%
Figure 3.10: Percent contribution of total annual sediment
load from upland sources in the Mud Creek watershed.

Table 3.2: Estimated sediment loading rates in tons/acre/year for land uses in the Mud Creek
watershed.
Land Use Loading Rate
(Tons/Acre) Land Use Loading Rate
(Tons/Acre)
Residential Cropland
• High Density 5.1 • High Residue 1.9
• Low Density 8.1 • Low Residue 5.4
• Under Construction 105.5 Pasture
Commercial • Good 0.1
• High Impervious 4.5 • Heavily Overgrazed 12.4
• Low Impervious 2.2 Orchards 0.6
• Under Construction 173.1 Forest 0.2
Industrial 7.1 Clearcut 2.4
Transportation 17.6 Mining 13.6
Electric Transmission 10.6 Disturbed Area 131.8
Section 3: Recommendations Page 45

3.4.2 Strategies to Address Upland Sources of Sedimentation
Addressing upland sources of sediment pollution requires a comprehensive approach to target the
greatest potential sources of sediment pollution. The Mud Creek Watershed Council
recommends the following strategies to reduce the impact of upland sources of sediment
pollution on water quality and habitat.

Local governments should consider the benefits of a local Sediment and Erosion Control
Program to oversee local development activities. Controlling sediment pollution from
construction activities must be a major component of any plan to address sediment pollution in
an urbanizing watershed like Mud Creek. As shown in Table 3.1, the sediment loading rate for
residential construction sites is up to 20 times greater than the loading rate from existing
development. Although the acreage of construction sites may be small relative to the acreage of
existing development, there is a tremendous potential for these sites to contribute great quantities
of sediment pollution to streams during storm events. WARP staff noted excess sedimentation in
areas downstream from land disturbed for development. Local governments in the Mud Creek
watershed should consider adopting their own local programs because the existing State
Sediment and Erosion Control (S&EC) regulations are inadequate to address the unique
environment of Western North Carolina. The Act does not adequately address the numerous
small building sites (less than one disturbed acre) on steep slopes that collectively contribute
large sums of sediment into county streams.

Since 1996, the number of building permits issued for new residential units in Henderson County
has steadily increased (Figure 3.11). Although not all of these units are located in the Mud
Creek watershed, this area is one of the fastest growing regions of the County. The State’s
Sediment and Erosion Control Program, operated by the Division of Land Quality, currently has
only one inspector assigned to Henderson County. This person must review and enforce between
60-80 sediment and erosion control plans each year. Most of the larger developers and
contractors operating in Henderson County are familiar with the state’s S&EC requirements and
compliance is generally acceptable. However, developers of many smaller sites, which fall
below the state’s one acre threshold for oversight, do not properly install best management
practices to minimize sediment pollution. It is possible they are unaware of the requirements
altogether. A local S&EC program could focus more time on smaller development sites – the
sites that may pose the greatest risk to water quality.

Figure 3.11: Number of building permits issued for new
residential units in Henderson County 1996-2002
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
YearNew Residential Units

Section 3: Recommendations Page 46

Increasing development in the Mud Creek watershed, especially in the steeper hilltops areas, will
only exacerbate the problem of sedimentation unless actions are taken to educate developers
about the importance of sediment and erosion control practices and provide increased oversight
of construction activities. Local governments can build on their existing permitting and
inspections program and adopt program requirements that address local concerns. For example,
they could require developers to attend a pre-construction erosion control planning meeting as a
condition of securing a building permit, revegetate bare earth within 15 working days and use
infiltration galleries for development on steep slopes to reduce runoff velocities. Building code
enforcement staff could withhold the Certificate of Occupancy until the developer establishes
post construction vegetation – one of the most important practices for controlling sediment
pollution from a disturbed area. Local governments can encourage neighbors to watch out for
violations, especially following storm events and can train building inspectors to report
violations to the local Erosion Control officers.

Many local governments across the state have adopted local sedimentation and erosion control
ordinances and administer local oversight programs. In western North Carolina, Avery,
Buncombe, Haywood, Jackson, Macon and Swain counties, as well as the City of Asheville, all
have local sediment and erosion control programs. A local program has the benefits of better
access for developers to technical assistance, quicker plan reviews and permits, more frequent
inspections, better follow-up on citizen complaints and more stringent or tailored rules specific to
that area’s unique environmental concerns. Most local governments fund their programs through
permit fees collected for plan review. Fees are generally based on the size of the project, but
could also be structured as an incentive to minimize land disturbance in highly sensitive areas
such as steep slopes or areas with highly erodible soils.

Local governments should educate excavators and the public about how to control erosion.
The NC Division of Land Resources (DLR) provides a number of training programs to educate
contractors, students and the public about sediment pollution. The Clear Water Contractors
Program is designed specifically for operators and contractors conducting earth moving activities
on a daily basis. The DLR also offers seminars to familiarize design professionals who develop
erosion and sedimentation control plans with erosion and sedimentation control principles and
practices. To increase local access to and participation in these programs, local governments
should co-sponsor these events with the DLR to ensure that these programs are offered at
convenient times and locations for local land development professionals.

The DLR also offers programs to educate students about erosion and sediment pollution
including classroom and special event presentations. The DLR has also developed the Erosion
Patrol curriculum for 3rd grade students and sponsors the “Muddy Water” essay contest for high
school students. In addition to these state sponsored education programs, many local nonprofit
organizations including the Haywood Waterways Association, Western North Carolina
Tomorrow and the Upper Broad River Watershed Protection Program have developed
informative brochures addressing sediment pollution. Local governments should modify these
programs as needed to address local sediment pollution concerns including sediment pollution
from unpaved roads and eroding roadbanks and construction activities on steep slopes.

Local governments should seek grant funds to develop a brochure outlining local sedimentation
and erosion control issues. The County should distribute these brochures to health and building
inspection departments, realtors, and other businesses working with development professionals.
Section 3: Recommendations Page 47

The Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council should develop a slide presentation that it can
deliver at meetings of realtors, homebuilders, civic clubs and other interested groups. The
County should also consider offering an award to “green graders” and “green developers” for
firms that demonstrate exceptional sediment and erosion control practices.

Local governments should work with the Department of Transportation, municipalities,
and property owner associations to reduce the sediment pollution from unpaved roads,
eroding road banks, and roadside ditches. According to the TVA IPSI, there are over 1000
miles of roads in the Mud Creek watershed and 34% (272 miles) of these roads are unpaved.
Many of these unpaved roads are directly adjacent to streams or cross over streams and provide a
direct pathway for sediment pollution to enter streams during storm events. To address this
problem, local governments should prioritize unpaved roads in the Mud Creek watershed to
determine which roads pose the greatest risk to water quality and encourage DOT to pave these
roads. Proximity to water, slope, and length are all factors that should be considered in
determining which roads pose the greatest potential threat to water quality.

In addition to unpaved roads, eroding road banks are also a significant source of sediment
pollution. TVA IPSI estimates that 15% of road banks along unpaved roads are eroding
compared to only 3.5% of road banks along paved roads. Eroding road banks often result from
roads cut into steep slopes. Local governments should work with DOT to vegetate and maintain
eroding shoulders, ditches, and side slopes. Where needed, DOT should also install and maintain
sediment catch basins to reduce sediment runoff from roads and eroding road banks. To reduce
sediment pollution from future roads, local governments should adopt more stringent design
standards for unpaved roads requiring builders to pave all roads over 15% grade and within 25
feet of a water body.

Section 3: Recommendations Page 48

SECTION 4: NEXT STEPS
4.1 Present Watershed Restoration Plan to the Community
The Council’s first task is to present the Watershed Restoration Plan’s findings and
recommendations to the community by updating the project fact sheet and conducting
presentations to community groups. These actions will increase public awareness of the key
watershed issues and recommended strategies and develop support and partnerships for the
implementation of strategies.

4.2 Formalize Watershed Council
The Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council was formed in the Spring of 2000 to study the
watershed and develop this watershed management strategy. Council members include local
government officials from the three municipalities and Henderson county, state and federal
agency officials and business, environmental and community group representatives. Now that
the planning phase of the project is complete, the Council may wish to reorganize to implement
the plan. This may include establishing a more formal structure (assigned positions) and seeking
formal appointments from the appropriate stakeholder groups. One option is to establish the
Council as a formal advisory committee to the Henderson County Commission.

4.3 Hire Watershed Coordinator
The Council has secured funds from the Tennessee Valley Authority and additional funds are
expected from the NC Division of Water Quality to hire a full-time Mud Creek Watershed
Coordinator. This Coordinator will staff the Council, coordinate with all stakeholders and
agency partners, conduct public educational activities, work with willing landowners on water
quality initiatives and assist local governments in the watershed with water quality management
issues and projects as requested. Initial funding will support the position for up to two years.
The Coordinator will need to seek additional funding for personnel and project costs through
grants and donations. Possible funding sources include the NC Clean Water Management Trust
Fund, Federal Clean Water Act Section 319 Program, NC Wetland Restoration Program, private
foundations corporations and many other potential sources.

4.4 Prioritize Recommendations
This management plan includes many recommended strategies. The Council should examine
each strategy in more detail, seek input from various interest groups and watershed citizens and
prioritize the strategies for both short and long term implementation. One consideration is the
availability of funding to implement projects.

4.5 Set Measurable Watershed Improvement Goals
The Council should set measurable goals to track progress under the implementation phase and
delineate timelines, potential implementers and funding sources for each strategy.

Section 4: Next Steps Page 49

4.6 Secure Grants to Implement Projects
Some strategies can be implemented with little or not additional funding, however, others will
requires grants and other outside sources of funding. The Coordinator will be responsible for
preparing grant applications or assisting other organizations as appropriate in securing funds.
Section 4: Next Steps Page 50

REFERENCES

Center for Watershed Protection. 2001. Watershed Vulnerability Analysis. Technical Release.

CCP Demographics. 2002. Henderson County 2000 and Projected 2020 Population Density by
Township.

Henderson County Inspection Department. Activity Reports 1996-2002.

Mass, Richard P., S.C. Patch, M.J. Westphal, E.A. Cook, C.C. Maurer and C.J. Walker. 2000.
Water Quality in the Mountains: Henderson County Volunteer Water Information Network Year
Seven Report.

NC Division of Water Quality. 2003. Biological Impairment in the Mud Creek Watershed.

NC Division of Water Quality. 2000. French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.

Tennessee Valley Authority. 2001. Mud Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Inventory
and Pollution Estimates.

References Page 51

APPENDIX A

Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council
Active Members as of December 2002

Fred Niehoff – City of Hendersonville Mayor
Mary Jo Padgett – City of Hendersonville Mayor Pro Tem and ECO
Mike Egan – City of Hendersonville Attorney
Renee Kumor – Riverlink Chairman
Dick Jones – Laurel Park Town Commissioner
Judy Boleman – Flat Rock Town Councilwoman
Grady Hawkins – Henderson County Commissioner
Don Ward – Henderson County Commissioner
Nippy Page – Henderson County Planning Department
Josh Freeman – Henderson County Planning Department
Fielding Lucas – Henderson Co. Environmental Advisory Committee
Larry Rogers – Partners for Economic Progress
Bob Williford – Hendersonville Chamber of Commerce
Gus Campano – Glade Holdings
Stan Summerfield/Rob Marcotte – Kimberly Clark
Stephanie Pursley – Hendersonville Board of Realtors
Van Estes – Hendersonville Board of Realtors
Paul Taylor, Jr. – Homebuilders of Hendersonville
Rick Merrill – Apple Country Greenway Commission and Designing Our Future
Bob Carter – Natural Resources Conservation Service
Tom Burnett – Henderson County Soil and Water Conservation District
Jonathan Wallin – Henderson Co. SWCD
Drew Brannon – Henderson Co. SWCD & Farmer
Cliff Ruth – NCSU - Henderson Co. Cooperative Extension Service
Jon Calabria – NCSU French Broad River Training Center
Marilyn Westphal – UNCA Environmental Quality Institute
Burline Pullin – Tennessee Valley Authority
Kristin Cozza – NC Wetland Restoration Program
Andrea Leslie - NC Division of Water Quality
Mike McDonald – NC Division of Water Quality
Laurie Moorhead – NC Division of Water Quality
Kieran Roe – Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy
Reggie Hall – Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy
Ed Ingle – NC Department of Transportation
Bill Eaker – Land of Sky Regional Council
Appendix A: Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council Members Page 52

APPENDIX B
Mud Creek Watershed Council Accomplishments

Technical Subcommittee

• Initiated an Integrated Pollution Source Identification (IPSI) project completed by TVA
in September 2001) (Appendix B)
• Initiated subwatershed windshield surveys
• Reviewed DWQ and IPSI data

Education Subcommittee

• Organized a “Know Your Watershed” educational program which was held on April 3,
2001
• Acquired educational watershed maps from TVA to distribute to schools in the watershed
by Education Subcommittee members
• Submitted notices of Council and educational meetings to various media (radio,
newspaper)
• Assisted with stream cleanups
• Organized initial public educational meetings
• Developed a project fact sheet for watershed residents and business owners
• (The fact sheet was created as a tool to help introduce and explain the Mud Creek
Watershed Restoration Project to the community).
• Organized a week of activities entitled “Mud Fest” which resulted in an award from the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources for the “involvement of elected
officials in an educational plan to promote stream protection and public awareness… for
the mission of conservation”

Implementation Subcommittee

• Began development of a “toolbox” of technical and financial assistance programs
available to landowners
• Began development of a “kickoff” best management practice (BMP) demonstration
project
• Organized a riparian buffer educational tour for local elected officials and key
government staff held on April 27, 2001
• Developed draft watershed management strategies for consideration by the full Council

Appendix B: Watershed Council Accomplishments Page 53

Appendix B: Watershed Council Accomplishments Page 54