Sec A Ch 3 WQ Sum

Section A - Chapter 3
Summary of Water Quality Information
for the Catawba River Basin
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

3.1 General Sources of Pollution

Human activities can negatively impact
surface water quality, even when the
activity is far removed from the
waterbody. With proper management of
wastes and land use activities, these
impacts can be minimized. Pollutants
that enter waters fall into two general
categories: point sources and nonpoint
sources.
Point Sources

Piped discharges from:
• Municipal wastewater treatment plants
• Industrial facilities
• Small package treatment plants
• Large urban and industrial stormwater systems

Point sources are typically piped discharges and are controlled through regulatory programs
administered by the state. All regulated point source discharges in North Carolina must apply for
and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the state.

Nonpoint sources are from a broad range of land use activities. Nonpoint source pollutants are
typically carried to waters by rainfall, runoff or snowmelt. Sediment and nutrients are most often
associated with nonpoint source pollution. Other
pollutants associated with nonpoint source
pollution include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance
that may be washed off the ground or deposited
from the atmosphere into surface waters.

Unlike point source pollution, nonpoint pollution
sources are diffuse in nature and occur
intermittently, depending on rainfall events and
land disturbance. Given these characteristics, it is difficult and resource intensive to quantify
nonpoint contributions to water quality degradation in a given watershed. While nonpoint source
pollution control often relies on voluntary actions, the
state has many programs designed to reduce nonpoint
source pollution.
Nonpoint Sources

• Construction activities
• Roads, parking lots and rooftops
• Agriculture
• Failing septic systems and straight pipes
• Timber harvesting
• Hydrologic modifications
Cumulative Effects
While any one activity may not have a
dramatic effect on water quality, the
cumulative effect of land use activities
in a watershed can have a severe and
long-lasting impact.

Every person living in or visiting a watershed
contributes to impacts on water quality. Therefore, each
individual should be aware of these contributions and
take actions to reduce them.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 39

3.2 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards

North Carolina’s Water Quality Standards Program adopted classifications and water quality
standards for all the state’s river basins by 1963. The program remains consistent with the
Federal Clean Water Act and its amendments. Water quality classifications and standards have
also been modified to promote protection of surface water supply watersheds, high quality
waters, and the protection of unique and special pristine waters with outstanding resource values.

Statewide Classifications

All surface waters in the state are assigned a primary classification that is appropriate to the best
uses of that water. In addition to primary classifications, surface waters may be assigned a
supplemental classification. Most supplemental classifications have been developed to provide
special protection to sensitive or highly valued resource waters. Table A-17 briefly describes the
best uses of each classification. A full description is available in the document titled:
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of
North Carolina. Information on this subject is also available at DWQ’s website:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqs/.

Table A-17 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications

PRIMARY FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER CLASSIFICATIONS*
Class Best Uses

C and SC Aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation.
B and SB Primary recreation and Class C uses.
SA Waters classified for commercial shellfish harvesting.
WS Water Supply watershed. There are five WS classes ranging from WS-I through WS-V. WS
classifications are assigned to watersheds based on land use characteristics of the area. Each water
supply classification has a set of management strategies to protect the surface water supply. WS-I
provides the highest level of protection and WS-IV provides the least protection. A Critical Area
(CA) designation is also listed for watershed areas within a half-mile and draining to the water
supply intake or reservoir where an intake is located.
SUPPLEMENTAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Class Best Uses

Sw Swamp Waters: Recognizes waters that will naturally be more acidic (have lower pH values) and
have lower levels of dissolved oxygen.
Tr Trout Waters: Provides protection to freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of
stocked trout.
HQW High Quality Waters: Waters possessing special qualities including excellent water quality,
Native or Special Native Trout Waters, Critical Habitat areas, or WS-I and WS-II water supplies.
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters: Unique and special surface waters which are unimpacted by
pollution and have some outstanding resource values.
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters: Areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant
growth resulting from nutrient enrichment.
* Primary classifications beginning with a "S" are assigned to saltwaters.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 40

Statewide Water Quality Standards

Each primary and supplemental classification is assigned a set of water quality standards that
establish the level of water quality that must be maintained in the waterbody to support the uses
associated with each classification. Some of the standards, particularly for HQW and ORW
waters, outline protective management strategies aimed at controlling point and nonpoint source
pollution. These strategies are discussed briefly below. The standards for C and SC waters
establish the basic protection level for all state surface waters. The other primary and
supplemental classifications have more stringent standards than for C and SC, and therefore,
require higher levels of protection.

Some of North Carolina’s surface waters are relatively unaffected by pollution sources and have
water quality higher than the standards that are applied to the majority of the waters of the state.
In addition, some waters provide habitat for sensitive biota such as trout, juvenile fish, or rare
and endangered aquatic species.

High Quality Waters (Class HQW)

There are 279 stream miles of HQW waters (Figure
A-11) throughout the Catawba River basin. Special
HQW protection management strategies are
intended to prevent degradation of water quality
below present levels from both point and nonpoint
sources. HQW requirements for new wastewater
discharge facilities and facilities which expand
beyond their currently permitted loadings address
oxygen-consuming wastes, total suspended solids,
disinfection, emergency requirements, volume,
nutrients (in nutrient sensitive waters) and toxic
substances.

For nonpoint source pollution, development
activities which require a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan in accordance with rules
established by the NC Sedimentation Control Commission or an approved local erosion and
sedimentation control program, and which drain to and are within one mile of HQWs, are
required to control runoff from the development using either a low density or high density
option. The low density option requires a 30-foot vegetated buffer between development
activities and the stream; whereas, the high density option requires structural stormwater
controls. In addition, the Division of Land Resources requires more stringent erosion controls
for land-disturbing projects within one mile of and draining to HQWs.

Criteria for HQW Classification

• Waters rated as Excellent based on
DWQ’s chemical and biological
sampling.
• Streams designated as native or special
native trout waters by the Wildlife
Resources Commission.
• Waters designated as primary nursery
areas or other functional nursery areas
by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
• Waters classified by DWQ as WS-I,
WS-II or SA.

Outstanding Resource Waters (Class ORW)

There are 257 stream miles of ORW waters (Figure A-11) in the Catawba River basin. These
waters have excellent water quality (rated based on biological and chemical sampling as with
HQWs) and an associated outstanding resource.
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 41

The requirements for ORW waters are more
stringent than those for HQWs. Special
protection measures that apply to North
Carolina ORWs are set forth in 15A NCAC
2B .0225. At a minimum, no new
discharges or expansions are permitted, and
a 30-foot vegetated buffer or stormwater
controls for new developments are required.
In some circumstances, the unique
characteristics of the waters and resources
that are to be protected require that a specialized (or customized) ORW management strategy be
developed.
The ORW rule defines outstanding resource values
as including one or more of the following:
• an outstanding fisheries resource;
• a high level of water-based recreation;
• a special designation such as National Wild and
Scenic River or a National Wildlife Refuge;
• within a state or national park or forest; or
• a special ecological or scientific significance.

Primary Recreation (Class B and SB)

There are 229 stream miles and 45,687 freshwater acres classified for primary recreation in the
Catawba River basin.

Trout Waters (Class Tr)

There are 568 stream miles and 166 freshwater acres with supplemental trout waters (Tr)
classification. Different water quality standards for some parameters, such as dissolved oxygen,
temperature and turbidity, have been developed to protect freshwaters for natural trout
propagation and survival of stocked trout. These water quality standards result in more
restrictive limits for wastewater discharges to trout waters. There are no watershed development
restrictions associated with the Tr classification. However, the NC Division of Land Resources
does require a 25-foot vegetated buffer between Tr waters and graded construction sites.

The NC Wildlife Resources Commission also administers a state fishery management
classification, Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters. It provides for public access to
streams for fishing and regulates fishing activities (seasons, size limits, creel limits, and bait and
lure restrictions). Although many of these waters are also classified Tr by DWQ, this is not the
same classification.

Water Supply Watersheds (Class WS)

There are 998 stream miles and 47,082 freshwater acres classified as water supply watersheds in
the Catawba River basin (Figure A-12). The purpose of the Water Supply Watershed Protection
Program is to provide a proactive drinking water supply protection program for communities.
Local governments administer the program based on state minimum requirements. There are
restrictions on wastewater discharges, development, landfills and residual application sites to
control the impacts of point and nonpoint sources of pollution.

There are five water supply classifications (WS-I to WS-V) that are defined according to the land
use characteristics of the watershed. The WS-I classification carries the greatest protection for
water supplies. No development is allowed in these watersheds. Generally, WS-I lands are
publicly owned. WS-V watersheds have the least amount of protection and do not require
development restrictions. These are either former water supply sources or sources used by
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 43

industry. WS-I and WS-II classifications are also HQW by definition because requirements for
these levels of water supply protection are at least as stringent as those for HQWs. Those
watersheds classified as WS-II through WS-IV require local governments having jurisdiction
within the watersheds to adopt and implement land use ordinances for development that are at
least as stringent as the state’s minimum requirements. A 30-foot vegetated setback is required
on perennial streams in these watersheds.

Pending and Recent Reclassifications in the Catawba River Basin

He Creek (4.8 mi.), Henry Fork (4.26 mi.) and Jerry Branch (1.75 mi.) in Burke County are in
the process of being reclassified from WS-I ORW to WS-V ORW. This new classification will
reflect the removal of a Morganton water intake from these headwater streams.

3.3 DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Catawba River
Basin

Staff in the Environmental Sciences Branch and
Regional Offices of DWQ collect a variety of
biological, chemical and physical data. The following
discussion contains a brief introduction to each
program, followed by a summary of water quality data
in the Catawba River basin for that program. For more
detailed information on sampling and assessment of
streams in this basin, refer to the Basinwide Assessment
Report for the Catawba River basin, available from the
Environmental Sciences Branch website at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html or by calling (919)
733-9960.
DWQ monitoring programs for the
Catawba River Basin include:

Benthic Macroinvertebrates
(Section A, Chapter 3, Part 3.3.1)
Fish Assessments
(Section A, Chapter 3, Part 3.3.2)
Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring
(Section A, Chapter 3, Part 3.3.3)
Lake Assessment
(Section A, Chapter 3, Part 3.3.4)
Ambient Monitoring System
(Section A, Chapter 3, Part 3.3.5)
•
•
•
•
•

3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring

Benthic macroinvertebrates are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of rivers and
streams. These organisms are primarily aquatic insect larvae. The use of benthic data has
proven to be a reliable monitoring tool, as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle
changes in water quality. Since macroinvertebrates have life cycles of six months to over one
year, the effects of short-term pollution (such as a spill) will generally not be overcome until the
following generation appears. The benthic community also integrates the effects of a wide array
of potential pollutant mixtures.

Criteria have been developed to assign a bioclassification to each benthic sample based on the
number of different species present in the pollution intolerant groups of Ephemeroptera
(Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies) and Trichoptera (Caddisflies), commonly referred to as EPTs;
and a Biotic Index value, which gives an indication of overall community pollution tolerance.
Different benthic macroinvertebrate criteria have been developed for different ecoregions
(mountains, piedmont and coastal plain) within North Carolina. Bioclassifications fall into five
categories ranging from Poor to Excellent.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 45

Overview of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data

Appendix II lists all the benthic macroinvertebrate collections in the Catawba River basin
between 1983 and 2002, giving site location, collection date, taxa richness, biotic index values
and bioclassifications. There were 174 benthic samples collected during this assessment period.
Table A-18 lists the most recent bioclassifications (by subbasin) for all benthic sites in the
Catawba River basin. Streams listed as "Good" or "Excellent" are generally found in the
undeveloped mountainous regions of the basin. A designation of Not Impaired may be used for
flowing waters that are too small to be assigned a bioclassification (less than four meters in
width), but meet the criteria for a Good-Fair or higher bioclassification using the standard
qualitative and EPT criteria. Refer to Section A, Chapter 3, Part 3.5 for more information.

Streams in the Catawba Basin showing water quality improvements include:
• Swannanoa Creek (Subbasin 03-08-30) - soybean oil spill recovery
• Mackey Creek (Subbasin 03-08-30) – discharger removal
• Unnamed Tributary to Abernethy Creek (Subbasin 03-08-37) – discharger upgrade

Streams showing a decline in water quality include:
• North Fork Catawba River (Subbasin 03-08-30) – possible discharger impacts
• Warrior Fork and Johns River (Subbasin 03-08-31) – possible impact from nursery plant area
• Headwaters of Lower Creek (Subbasin 03-08-31) – unknown
• McGalliard Creek (Subbasin 03-08-31) – urban impacts
• Middle and Lower Little Rivers (Subbasin 03-08-32) – low flow
• McDowell Creek (Subbasin 03-08-33) – urban impacts
• Dutchmans Creek (Subbasin 03-08-33) – unknown
• Killian Creek (Subbasin 03-08-33) – possible discharger effect
• Indian Creek (Subbasin 03-08-35) – unknown

Table A-18 Summary of Bioclassifications for All Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Sites (using the most recent rating for each site) in the Catawba River Basin

Subbasin Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Not
Impaired
Not
Rated Total
03-08-30 8 31 6 2 1 2 0 50
03-08-31 16 9 7 10 1 3 9 55
03-08-32 0 2 8 4 0 0 0 14
03-08-33 4 1 1 3 0 0 0 9
03-08-34 0 0 3 7 8 0 1 19
03-08-35 9 12 10 9 2 0 5 47
03-08-36 0 9 6 2 0 0 2 19
03-08-37 0 0 6 7 6 1 3 23
03-08-38 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
Total (#) 37 64 50 44 18 6 20 239
Total (%) 15 27 21 18 8 3 8 100
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 46

3.3.2 Fish Assessments

Scores are assigned to fish community samples using the North Carolina Index of Biotic
Integrity (NCIBI). The NCIBI uses a cumulative assessment of 12 parameters or metrics. Each
metric is designed to contribute unique information to the overall assessment. The scores for all
metrics are then summed to obtain the overall NCIBI score. Appendix II contains more
information regarding the NCIBI. Since the late 1990s, application of the NCIBI has been
restricted to wadeable streams that can be sampled by a crew of 2-4 persons using backpack
electrofishers and DWQ Standard Operating Procedures (NCDENR-DWQ, 2001
(http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAU.html)).

Overview of Fish Community Data

Appendix II lists all of the fish community collections in the Catawba River basin between 1990
and 2002, giving site location, collection date and NCIBI rating. Fish community samples have
been collected at 55 sites during this assessment period. Table A-19 lists the most recent ratings
since 1990, by subbasin, for all fish community sites.

Table A-19 Summary of NCIBI Categories for All Freshwater Fish Community Sites (using
the most recent rating for each site) in the Catawba River Basin

Subbasin Excellent Good Good-Fair Fair Poor Total
03-08-30 4 4 2 1 1 12
03-08-31 5 0 1 3 0 9
03-08-32 1 2 1 1 0 5
03-08-33 0 1 1 0 1 3
03-08-34 0 0 1 0 1 2
03-08-35 1 3 1 1 0 6
03-08-36 0 0 1 0 0 1
03-08-37 0 0 0 2 0 2
03-08-38 0 0 1 1 0 2
Total (#) 11 10 9 9 3 42
Total (%) 26 24 21.5 21.5 7 100

Catawba River Basin Fish Kills

DWQ has systematically tracked reported fish kill events across the state since 1996. From 1996
to 2002, DWQ field investigators reported 14 fish kill events in the Catawba River basin. Kill
activity extent and fish mortality remained light, never exceeding 50,000. Causes listed on kill
reports included chemical spills, toxic discharges and bacterial infections. The extent to which
fish kills are related to land use activities is not known. DWQ attributes 34 percent of the 2002
Catawba River fish kills to unknown causes, of which land use cannot be excluded. Further
investigation into the relationship between land use within a watershed and fish kills in an
associated waterbody is necessary for watershed managers to make informed decisions. For
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 47

more information on fish kills in North Carolina, refer to the website at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Fishkill/fishkillmain.htm.

3.3.3 Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring

Acute and/or chronic toxicity tests are used to determine toxicity of discharges to sensitive
aquatic species (usually fathead minnows or the water flea, Ceriodaphnia dubia). Results of
these tests have been shown by several researchers to be predictive of discharge effects on
receiving stream populations. Many facilities are required to monitor whole effluent toxicity
(WET) by their NPDES permit or by administrative letter. DWQ’s Aquatic Toxicology Unit
(ATU) may also test other facilities. Per Section 106 of the Clean Water Act, the ATU is
required to test at least 10 percent of the major discharging facilities over the course of the
federal fiscal year (FFY). However, it is ATU’s target to test 20 percent of the major dischargers
in the FFY. This means that each major facility would get evaluated over the course of their
five-year permit. There are no requirements or targets for minor dischargers.

In addition, the ATU maintains a compliance summary for all facilities required to perform tests
and provides monthly updates of this information to regional offices and DWQ administration.
Ambient toxicity tests can be used to evaluate stream water quality relative to other stream sites
and/or a point source discharge.

Ninety-five NPDES permits in the Catawba River basin currently require WET testing. Seventy-
three permits have a WET limit; the other 22 permits specify monitoring but with no limit. The
number of facilities required to monitor WET has increased steadily since 1987, the first year
that WET limits were written into permits in North Carolina. The compliance rate has risen as
well. Since 1996, the compliance rate has stabilized at approximately 85-90 percent. Figure A-
13 summaries WET monitoring compliance in the Catawba River basin from 1987 to 2001.
Facilities with toxicity problems during the most recent two-year review period are discussed in
Section B subbasin chapters.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 48

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
19
8
5
19
8
6
19
8
7
19
8
8
19
8
9
19
9
0
19
9
1
19
9
2
19
9
3
19
9
4
19
9
5
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
Year
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

(
%
)
No. Facilities % Meeting Permit Limit
Figure A-13 Summary of Compliance with Aquatic Toxicity Tests in the Catawba River Basin

3.3.4 Lakes Assessment Program

Ten lakes in the Catawba River basin were sampled as part of the Lakes Assessment Program in
the summer of 2001. These lakes are discussed in the appropriate subbasin chapter in Section B
and in Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7: Lake Tahoma and Lake James (03-08-30); Lake Rhodhiss
(03-08-31); Lake Hickory, Lookout Shoals Lake and Lake Norman (03-08-32); Mountain Island
Lake (03-08-33); Lake Wylie (03-08-34); Newton City Lake (03-08-35); and Bessemer City
Lake (03-08-36).

3.3.5 Ambient Monitoring System

The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and estuarine stations
strategically located for the collections of physical and chemical water quality data. North
Carolina has 378 water chemistry monitoring stations statewide, including 34 stations in the
Catawba River basin. Between 23 and 32 parameters are collected monthly at each station. The
locations of these stations are listed in Table A-20 and shown on individual subbasin maps in
Section B. Refer to 2003 Catawba River Basinwide Assessment Report at the website
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html for more detailed analysis of ambient water quality monitoring
data.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 49

Table A-20 Locations of Ambient Monitoring Stations in the Catawba River Basin by
Subbasin

Subbasin/
Map Code1
Station
Number
Waterbody/
Location County Class
03-08-30
A-1 C0145000 Catawba R at SR 1234 near Greenlee McDowell C
A-2 C0250000 Catawba R at SR 1221 near Pleasant Gardens McDowell C
A-3 C0550000 N Fork Catawba R at SR 1552 near Hankins McDowell C
A-4 C1000000 Linville R at NC 126 near Nebo Burke B HQW
A-5 C1210000 Catawba R at SR 1147 near Glen Alpine Marion Burke WS-IV
03-08-31
A-6 C1370000 Wilson Cr at US 221 near Gragg Avery B Tr ORW
A-7 C1750000 Lower Cr at SR 1501 near Morganton Marion Burke WS-IV
A-8 * C2030000 Lake Rhodhiss at SR 1001 near Baton Marion Burke WS-IV & B CA
03-08-32
A-9 C2600000 Lake Hickory at NC 127 near Hickory Catawba WS-V & B
A-10 C2818000 Lower Little R at SR 1313 near All Healing Springs Alexander C
A-11 C3420000 Lake Norman at SR 1004 near Mooresville Iredell WS-IV & B CA
03-08-33
A-12 C3699000 Mountain Island Lake Above Gar Cr near Croft Gaston WS-IV & B CA
A-13 C3860000 Dutchmans Cr at SR 1918 at Mountain Island Gaston WS-IV
A-14 C3900000 Catawba R at NC 27 near Thrift Mecklenburg WS-IV CA
03-08-34
A-15 C4040000 Long Cr at SR 2042 near Paw Creek Gaston WS-IV
A-16 C4220000 Catawba R at power line crossing at South Belmont Mecklenburg WS-IV & B CA
A-33 C7500000 Lake Wylie at NC 49 near Oak Grove Mecklenburg WS-V & B
A-17 C8896500 Irwin Cr at Irwin Cr WWTP near Charlotte Mecklenburg C
A-18 C9050000 Sugar Cr at NC 51 at Pineville Mecklenburg C
A-19 C9210000 Little Sugar Cr at NC 51 at Pineville Mecklenburg C
A-20 C9370000 McAlpine Cr at SR 3356 Sardis Rd near Charlotte Mecklenburg C
A-21 C9680000 McAlpine Cr at SC SR 2964 near Camp Cox SC Lancaster (SC) FW
A-22 C9790000 Sugar Cr at SC 160 near Fort Mill SC Mecklenburg FW
03-08-35
A-23 C4300000 Henry Fork R at SR 1124 near Henry River Catawba C
A-24 C4360000 Henry Fork R at SR 1143 near Brookford Catawba C
A-25 C4370000 Jacob Fork at SR 1924 at Ramsey Burke WS-III ORW
A-26 C4380000 S Fork Catawba R at NC 10 near Startown Catawba WS-IV
A-27 C4800000 Clark Cr at SR 1008 Grove St at Lincolnton Lincoln WS-IV
A-28 C5170000 Indian Cr at SR 1252 near Laboratory Lincoln WS-IV
03-08-36
A-29 C5900000 Long Cr at SR 1456 near Bessemer City Gaston C
A-30 C6500000 S Fork Catawba R at NC 7 at McAdenville Gaston WS-V
A-31 C7000000 S Fork Catawba R at SR 2524 near South Belmont Gaston WS-V & B
03-08-37
A-32 C7400000 Catawba Cr at SR 2302 at SC State Line Gaston C
A-34 C8660000 Crowders Cr at SC 564 near Bowling Green, SC York (SC) FW
03-08-38
A-35 C9819500 Twelvemile Cr at NC 16 near Waxhaw Union C
* Removed May 2000
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 50

3.3.6 Notable Patterns in Ambient Data

The following patterns, as outlined in the 2003 Catawba River Basinwide Assessment Report,
support the conclusion that rapid urbanization and development are one of the greatest threats to
water quality in the Catawba River basin. Each parameter discussed below is at its greatest
average concentration in watersheds characterized by heavy urban development, such as those
encompassing the Greater Charlotte Metropolitan Area and the urbanized corridors along
Interstates 77, 85 and 40. In order to prevent the same decreases in water quality in watersheds
facing similar impacts from growth, management strategies must be developed that effectively
reduce impacts from point sources, nonpoint source runoff and habitat degradation.

Conductivity
Conductivity can be used to evaluate variations in dissolved mineral concentrations (ions) among
sites with varying degree of impact resulting from point source discharges. Generally, impacted
sites show elevated and widely ranging values for conductivity. Many stations (for example in
subbasins 03-08-34, 03-08-35, and 03-08-36) showed widely varying values which were the
result of point source dischargers located upstream of the sample site. Notable were the effluent
and urban-dominated streams of Mecklenburg County. Please refer to Section B, Chapters 4 - 6
for further discussion.

Metals
Twenty stations had more than 10 percent of the copper concentrations greater than the action
level (7.0 µg/l). Station C7000000, on the South Fork Catawba River, exhibited the most
chronic copper concentrations, exceeding the action level on 81 percent of the measurements.
Additionally, the great majority of stations exceeding the copper action level are located in the
most heavily urbanized subbasins. In cases where an individual discharger has a documented
toxic impact on a stream, those concerns are addressed through their NPDES permit. In many
cases, however, metal contaminants are found in urban stormwater runoff. Proper use of
stormwater BMP can reduce this impact. Please refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11 for
further discussion on this issue.

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Fecal coliform bacteria live in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals (humans as well as
other mammals) and are excreted in their waste. Fecal coliform bacteria do not actually pose a
danger to people or animals. However, where fecal coliform are present; disease-causing
bacteria may also be present, and water that is polluted by human or animal waste can harbor
other pathogens that may threaten human health. For further discussion on fecal coliform
bacteria, human health impacts and management issues, refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.14.

Ambient monitoring revealed continuing bacteria concerns at many sites in the Catawba River
basin. Although none of these sites were in waters classified for primary recreation, they
indicate areas in the basin where pollution originating from urbanized and developing areas is a
major concern. Table A-21 lists sites in each subbasin that show elevated fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations. The North Carolina fecal coliform standard for freshwater is 200 colonies/100ml
based on the geometric mean of at least five consecutive samples taken during a 30-day period
nor to exceed 400 colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of the samples during the same
period.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 51

Table A-21 Summary of Ambient Sites with Elevated Fecal Coliform Bacteria Concentrations
in the Catawba River Basin, September 1997 – August 20021

Subbasin/
Station
Waterbody/
Location N % > 400 Geometric
Mean
03-08-31
C1750000 Lower Cr at SR 1501 near Morganton Marion 54 38.9 252.7
03-08-32
C2818000 Lower Little R at SR 1313 near All Healing Springs 59 42.4 199.6
03-08-34
C4040000 Long Cr at SR 2042 near Paw Creek 59 39 324.2
C8896500 Irwin Cr at Irwin Cr WWTP near Charlotte 59 49.2 592.0
C9050000 Sugar Cr at NC 51 at Pineville 58 36.2 308.6
C9210000 Little Sugar Cr at NC 51 at Pineville 58 29.3 233.5
C9370000 McAlpine Cr at SR 3356 Sardis Rd near Charlotte 59 40.7 287.9
C9680000 McAlpine Cr at SC SR 2964 near Camp Cox, SC 58 25.9 230.5
C9790000 Sugar Cr at SC 160 near Fort Mill, SC 58 32.8 325.0
03-08-35
C4800000 Clark Cr at SR 1008 Grove St at Lincolnton 59 42.4 361.7
03-08-36
C5900000 Long Cr at SR 1456 near Bessemer City 58 37.9 349.6
03-08-37
58 22.4 224.1
03-08-38
C9819500 Twelvemile Cr at NC 16 near Waxahaw 31.6 285.9
C8660000 Crowders Cr at SC 564 near Bowling Green, SC
57

3.4 Other Water Quality Research
1 Stations sorted first by subbasin number, then by station number.

North Carolina actively solicits "existing and
readily available" data and information for each
basin as part of the basinwide planning process.
Data meeting DWQ quality assurance objectives are
used in making use support determinations. Data
and information indicating possible water quality
problems are investigated further. Both quantitative
and qualitative information are accepted during the
solicitation period.
DWQ data solicitation includes
the following:
• Information, letters and photographs
regarding the uses of surface waters for
boating, drinking water, swimming,
aesthetics and fishing.
• Raw data submitted electronically and
accompanied by documentation of
quality assurance methods used to collect
and analyze the samples. Maps showing
sampling locations must also be included.
• Summary reports and memos, including
distribution statistics and accompanied
by documentation of quality assurance
methods used to collect and analyze the
data.
Contact information must accompany all
data and information submitted.

High levels of confidence must be present in order
for outside quantitative information to carry the
same weight as information collected from within
DWQ, particularly when considering waters for the
303(d) list. Methodology for soliciting and
evaluating outside data is presented in Appendix III,
Part D and in North Carolina’s 2002 Integrated
305(b) and 303(d) Report (NCDENR-DWQ,
February 2003). Mecklenburg County, Winthrop
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 52

University and several citizens submitted data during the open solicitation period in October
2001. The next data solicitation period for the Catawba River basin is planned for fall 2007.

3.5 Use Support Summary

3.5.1 Introduction to Use Support Assessment

Surface waters are classified according to their best-intended uses as described earlier in Part 3.2
of this chapter. Determining how well a waterbody supports the best-intended uses (use support
assessment) is an important method of interpreting water quality data. A use support rating is
assigned during use support assessment and refers to whether the best-intended uses of the water
(such as water supply, aquatic life protection, shellfish harvesting and recreation) are being
supported. For example, waters with a healthy biological community (Excellent, Good or Good-
Fair) are Supporting, and waters with an unhealthy biological community (Fair or Poor) are
Impaired. Waters with inconclusive data (biological community Not Rated) are Not Rated.
Waters lacking data are not assigned a use support rating and listed as No Data. Specific details
on use support assessment and assigning use support ratings can be found in Appendix III.

There are five use categories: aquatic life, fish consumption, recreation, shellfish harvesting and
water supply. A use support rating is assigned to applicable categories depending on the surface
water classification or best-intended use. For example, all waters with appropriate data are
assigned a use support rating in the aquatic life, recreation and fish consumption categories.
Class WS waters are assigned a use support rating for the water supply category as well as for
the aquatic life, recreation and fish consumption categories. A single waterbody could
potentially be assigned a use support rating in all five categories, though most waters are
assigned a use support rating for the aquatic life, recreation and fish consumption categories. For
many waters, a category will not be applicable to the best-intended use of that water (e.g., the
shellfish harvesting category does not apply to Class C, SC, B, SB or WS waters) and no
assessment is made in that category. A full description of the classifications is available in the
DWQ document titled: Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface
Waters of North Carolina, online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/.

In previous use support assessments, surface waters were rated fully supporting (FS), partially
supporting (PS), not supporting (NS) and not rated (NR). FS was used to identify waters that
were meeting their designated uses. Impaired waters were rated PS and NS, depending on their
degree of degradation. NR was used to identify waters lacking data or having inconclusive data.
The 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance issued by the
EPA requested that states no longer subdivide the Impaired category. In agreement with this
guidance, North Carolina no longer subdivides the Impaired category and assigns the following
use support ratings: Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated or No Data.

Historically, the Supporting use support rating was also subdivided into fully supporting (FS)
and fully supporting but threatened (ST). ST was used to identify waters that were fully
supporting but had some notable water quality concerns and could represent constant, degrading
or improving water quality conditions. North Carolina’s past use of ST was very different from
that of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which uses it to identify waters that
demonstrate declining water quality (EPA Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 53

State Water Quality Assessments [305(b) Reports] and Electronic Updates, 1997). Given the
difference between the EPA and North Carolina definitions of ST and the resulting confusion
that arose from this difference, North Carolina no longer subdivides the Supporting category.
However, these waters and the specific water quality concerns are identified in the Section B
subbasin chapters so that data, management and the need to address the identified concerns are
presented.

3.5.2 Comparison of Use Support Rating to Streams on the List of Impaired Waters

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters not meeting standards.
EPA must then provide review and approval of the listed waters. A list of waters not meeting
standards is submitted to EPA biennially. Waters placed on this list, termed the 303(d) list,
require the establishment of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) intended to guide the
restoration of water quality. See Appendix IV for a description of 303(d) listing methodology.

Waters are placed on North Carolina’s 303(d) list primarily due to a use support rating of
Impaired. Use support ratings are based on biological and chemical data and, for some
categories, human health advisories. When the state water quality standard is exceeded, then this
constituent is listed as the problem parameter. TMDLs must be developed for problem
parameters on the 303(d) list. Other strategies may be implemented to restore water quality;
however, the waterbody must remain on the 303(d) list until improvement has been realized
based on either biological bioclassifications or water quality standards.

The 303(d) list and accompanying data are updated as the basinwide plans are revised. In some
cases, the new data will demonstrate water quality improvement and waters may receive a better
use support rating. These waters may be removed from the 303(d) list when water quality
standards are attained. In other cases, the new data will show a stable or decreasing trend in
overall water quality resulting in the same, or lower, use support rating. Attention remains
focused on these waters until water quality standards are met. Currently, there are 97 segments
listed on the North Carolina’s Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) in the Catawba River basin. These waters are listed for
variety of reasons including habitat degradation, fecal coliform bacteria, toxicity and unknown
causes. Refer to the website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/ for the complete listing.

3.5.3 Use Support Assessment in the Catawba River Basin

Aquatic Life Category

The aquatic life category is applied to all waters in North Carolina. Therefore, this category is
applied to all 3,048 freshwater miles and 50,764 freshwater acres in the Catawba River basin.
Biological, chemical and physical monitoring data collected between September 1997 and
August 2002 were used to assign a use support rating in this category. Table A-22 summarizes
aquatic life use support ratings in the entire Catawba River basin. Use support ratings by
subbasin are summarized in Section B.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 54

Table A-22 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings Summary for All Waters in the Catawba River
Basin (1997-2002)

Aquatic Life
Ratings/Basis Miles Acres
Impaired/Monitored 174.2 5,868.1
Supporting/Monitored 508.9 40,931.4
Not Rated/Monitored 62.9 3,964.7
Total Monitored 746.0 50,764.2
Supporting/Evaluated 681.66 0.0
Not Rated/Evaluated 501.1 0.0
No Data 1,119.5 0.0
Total Unmonitored 2,302.3 0.0
Total 3,048.3 50,764.2
Percent of Total Monitored 24.5 100.0
Percent of Monitored/Impaired 23.4 11.6
Percent of Total Impaired 5.4 11.6

Recreation Category

Like the aquatic life category, the recreation category is applied to all waters in North Carolina.
Therefore, this category is applied to all 3,048 freshwater miles and 50,764 freshwater acres in
the Catawba River basin. DWQ fecal coliform monitoring data collected between September
1997 and August 2002 were used to assign use support ratings in this category. Table A-23
summarizes recreation use support ratings in the Catawba River basin. Use support ratings by
subbasin are summarized in Section B.

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 55

Table A-23 Recreation Use Support Ratings Summary for Waters in the Catawba River Basin
(1997-2002)

Recreation
Ratings and Basis Miles Acres
Impaired/Monitored 24.4 0.0
Supporting/Monitored 121.5 41,255.1
Not Rated/Monitored 89.2 0.0
Total Monitored 235.1 41,255.1
Supporting/Evaluated 0.0 0.0
Not Rated/Evaluated 0.0 0.0
No Data 2,813.1 9,509.0
Total Unmonitored 2,813.1 9,509.0
Total 3,048.2 50,764.1
Percent of Total Monitored 7.7 81.3
Percent of Monitored/Impaired 10.4 0.0
Percent of Total Impaired 0.8 0.0

Fish Consumption Category

Like the aquatic life and recreation categories, the fish consumption category is applied to all
waters in North Carolina. Therefore, this category is applied to all 3,048 freshwater miles and
50,764 freshwater acres in the Catawba River basin. The Department of Health and Human
Services fish consumption advice was used to assign a use support rating in this category. 705
miles and 4,395 acres are Impaired in the Catawba River basin based on this advice. Refer to
Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.10 for a detailed discussion of the NCDHHS advice. Use support
ratings by subbasin are summarized in Section B.

Water Supply Category

There are 997.7 freshwater stream miles and 47,081.9 freshwater acres currently classified for
water supply in the Catawba River basin. All water supply waters have been assigned a use
support rating of Supporting on an Evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional water
treatment consultants. The reports are used to evaluate the ability of water treatment plants to
provide potable water to consumers for Class WS waters. Raw water quality is not assessed in
this category.

Impaired Waters

Table A-24 presents Impaired waters (in all categories) in the Catawba River basin that were
monitored by DWQ within the last five years. The category for which a water is Impaired is
indicated in the table. Descriptions of Impaired segments, as well as problem parameters, are
Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 56

outlined in Appendix III. Current status and recommendations for restoration of water quality
for each water and maps showing current use support ratings for waters in the Catawba River
basin are presented in each subbasin chapter in Section B.

Table A-24 Impaired Monitored Waters within the Catawba River Basin (1997 to 2002)

Name Assessment Class Subbasin Miles Acres Category Unit
Youngs Fork
(Corpening Creek) 11-32-1-4b C 03-08-30 1.9 Aquatic Life
Youngs Fork
(Corpening Creek) 11-32-1-4a C 03-08-30 3.6 Aquatic Life
Jacktown Creek 11-32-1-4-1 C 03-08-30 2.4 Aquatic Life
North Fork Catawba River 11-24-(2.5)b B- TR 03-08-30 3.5 Aquatic Life
Irish Creek 11-35-3-(2)b WS-III 03-08-31 3.0 Aquatic Life
Hunting Creek 11-36-(0.7)WS-IV 03-08-31 7.4 Aquatic Life
CATAWBA RIVER
(Rhodhiss Lake below
elevation 995)
11-(37)WS-IV & B CA 03-08-31 1,848.5 Aquatic Life
Lower Creek 11-39-(0.5)a C 03-08-31 8.8 Aquatic Life
Lower Creek 11-39-(0.5)b C 03-08-31 5.1 Aquatic Life
Lower Creek 11-39-(6.5)WS-IV 03-08-31 6.8 Aquatic Life
Spainhour Creek 11-39-3 C 03-08-31 4.7 Aquatic Life
McGalliard Creek 11-44-(3)WS-IV CA 03-08-31 3.9 Aquatic Life
Horseford Creek 11-54-(0.5)WS-IV 03-08-32 0.4 Aquatic Life
Lower Little River 11-69-(0.5)C 03-08-32 14.0 Aquatic Life
McDowell Creek 11-115-(1.5)b WS-IV 03-08-33 2.9 Aquatic Life
McDowell Creek 11-115-(1.5)a WS-IV 03-08-33 4.4 Aquatic Life
Killian Creek 11-119-2-(0.5)b C 03-08-33 3.2 Aquatic Life
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below elevation 570) 11-(122)WS-IV & B CA 03-08-34 601.1 Aquatic Life
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below elevation
570) North Carolina portion
11-(123.5)WS-V & B 03-08-34 3,418.5 Aquatic Life
Long Creek 11-120-(2.5)WS-IV 03-08-34 11.3 Aquatic Life
& Recreation
Sugar Creek 11-137a C 03-08-34 0.3 Aquatic Life
Irwin Creek 11-137-1 C 03-08-34 11.8 Aquatic Life
Little Sugar Creek 11-137-8a C 03-08-34 5.5 Aquatic Life
McAlpine Creek
(Waverly Lake) 11-137-9c C 03-08-34 4.6 Aquatic Life

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 57

Clark Creek (Shooks Lake) 11-129-5-(0.3)b C 03-08-35 14.3 Aquatic Life
Clark Creek (Shooks Lake) 11-129-5-(0.3)c(1)C 03-08-35 2.4 Aquatic Life
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(12.5)a C 03-08-35 10.3 Aquatic Life
Maiden Creek 11-129-5-7-2-(1)WS-II 03-08-35 4.9 Aquatic Life
Maiden Creek
(Including Maiden reservoir
below elevation 842)
11-129-5-7-2-(2.5)WS-II CA 03-08-35 2.1 Aquatic Life
Clark Creek 11-129-5-(9.5)WS-IV 03-08-35 1.8 Aquatic Life
Indian Creek 11-129-8-(6.5)b C 03-08-35 6.0 Aquatic Life
Catawba Creek 11-130c C 03-08-37 4.9 Aquatic Life
Crowders Creek 11-135c C 03-08-37 3.3 Aquatic Life
& Recreation
Crowders Creek 11-135g C 03-08-37 1.5 Aquatic Life
& Recreation
Crowders Creek 11-135d C 03-08-37 7.3 Aquatic Life
& Recreation
Crowders Creek 11-135a C 03-08-37 1.9 Recreation
Crowders Creek 11-135b C 03-08-37 3.1 Recreation
Crowders Creek 11-135e C 03-08-37 1.5 Recreation
Crowders Creek 11-135f C 03-08-37 1.4 Recreation
Abernethy Creek 11-135-4b C 03-08-37 1.8 Aquatic Life
Blackwood Creek 11-135-7 C 03-08-37 4.4 Recreation
Sixmile Creek 11-138-3 C 03-08-38 8.8 Aquatic Life

Section A: Chapter 3 – Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin 58