HomeMy WebLinkAboutSec B Ch 1 03-08-30
Section B - Chapter 1
Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30
Corpening Creek, Mackey Creek, North Fork Catawba River, Muddy Creek, Linville
River and Lake James
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆
1.1 Subbasin Overview
This subbasin contains the headwaters of the Catawba
River from its source near Old Fort to the confluence with
Silver Creek in Burke County and includes the entire
watershed of Lake James. Approximately one-half of the
subbasin is within the Pisgah National Forest.
Subbasin 03-08-30 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 526 mi2
Land area: 516 mi2
Water area: 10 mi2
Population
2000 Est. Pop.: 57,046 people
Pop. Density: 108 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 87%
Surface Water: 3%
Urban: 1%
Agriculture: 9%
Counties
Avery, Burke and McDowell
Municipalities
Crossnore, Glen Alpine,
Grandfather Village, Marion,
Morganton, Old Fort and
Sugar Mountain
The Catawba River flows generally eastward with the
largest tributaries flowing south from mountainous
headwaters. These northern tributaries are typically swift
flowing, coldwater streams capable of supporting trout
populations. There are 26 NPDES discharges in this
subbasin.
There were 31 benthic macroinvertebrate community
sites, 11 fish community sites, and five ambient
monitoring stations (Figure B-1 and Table B-1) evaluated
during this assessment period. Sites on Canoe Creek, the
Catawba River, Linville River and Swannanowa Creek
improved. Declines were noted on Buck Creek, Little
Buck Creek, Crooked Creek, North Fork Catawba River
and North Muddy Creek. The drought appeared to be the
major stressor that affected benthic communities. Refer
to 2003 Catawba River Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html and Section A, Chapter
3 for more information on monitoring.
Overall, water quality is high in this subbasin. Almost the entire segment of the Catawba River
in this subbasin (except for the headwater portion, which was Good-Fair) was given a Good
bioclassification, but the low flows produced prolific growths of the rooted aquatic plant Elodea
canadensis in some areas.
The North Fork Catawba River below the Baxter Healthcare Corporation discharge declined
from Excellent to Good between 1997 and 2002, but there was a dramatic decline from Good to
Fair further downstream, where the river was wider with slower flow. Mackey Creek below a
metal plating discharge whose permit was rescinded in June 2001 showed the greatest change in
water quality, its bioclassification improving from Poor to Good. Poor benthic and fish
bioclassifications were found prior to removal of the discharge.
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 100
Table B-1 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-30
Biological Ambient Other
Armstrong Creek 11-24-14-(1) C Tr HQW 10.8 mi. AL
B-12 E--97
B-12 E--02
SF-1 E-99 SFS
Buck Creek (Lake Tahoma)11-19-(1) WS-II & B Tr 166.4 ac. AL
B-7 E--97
B-7 G--02 SFS
Canoe Creek 11-33-(2) WS-IV 5.6 mi. AL
B-19 GF--97
B-19 G--02 SST
CATAWBA RIVER 11-(1) C Tr 7.6 mi. AL
B-1 GF--02
F-1 GF--97 SST
CATAWBA RIVER (including
backwaters of Lake James
below elevation 1200)11-(8) C 23.5 mi. AL
B-2 GF--97
B-2 G--97
C0145000 nce
C0250000 nce SST
CATAWBA RIVER (including
backwaters of Rhodhiss Lake
below elevation 995)11-(31.5) WS-IV 9.8 mi. AL
B-15 G--97
B-15 G--02 C1210000 nce S FS
CATAWBA RIVER (Lake
James below elevation 1200)11-(23) WS-V & B 2,040.9 ac. AL L-1 nce S FS
CATAWBA RIVER (Lake
James below elevation 1200)11-(27.5) WS-V & B 3,769.5 ac. AL L-1 nce S FS
Crooked Creek 11-12 C 16.0 mi. AL
F-3 E--02
B-5 G--97 SFS
Curtis Creek 11-10 C Tr 9.7 mi. AL
F-2 G--02
B-4 G--97 SFS
Jacktown Creek 11-32-1-4-1 C 2.4 mi. AL SB-3 F--01 I-
Linville River 11-29-(19) B HQW 7.1 mi. AL
SB-4 E--97
SB-4 E--02 C1000000 nce S FS
Linville River 11-29-(4.5) B Tr 15.3 mi. AL
B-13 GF--97
B-13 G--02 SST
Little Buck Creek 11-19-11 WS-II & B Tr 4.4 mi. AL
B-8 E-97
B-8 G--02 SFS
Mackey Creek 11-15-(3.5)a C 1.8 mi.AL
SB-5 G--98
SF-3 G--02 SFS
Mackey Creek 11-15-(3.5)b C 0.8 mi. AL B-6 G--97 SPS
Use Support RatingData Type with Map Number
and Data Results
2004 1998Waterbody Length / Area Category
DWQ
Classification
Assessment
Unit Number
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 102
Table B-1 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-30
Biological Ambient Other
Use Support RatingData Type with Map Number
and Data Results
2004 1998Waterbody Length / Area Category
DWQ
Classification
Assessment
Unit Number
Mill Creek 11-7-(0.5) C Tr HQW 5.0 mi. AL
SF-4 E--99
SB-8 G--98 SFS
North Fork Catawba River 11-24-(2.5)a B Tr 7.1 mi. AL
B-10 E-97
B-10 G--02 SFS
North Fork Catawba River 11-24-(2.5)b B Tr 3.5 mi. AL
B-11 G--97
B-11 F--02 IFS
North Fork Catawba River 11-24-(13) C 7.0 mi. AL C0550000 nce NR FS
North Muddy Creek 11-32-1 C 18.4 mi. AL
B-16 G--97
B-16 GF--02 SST
Paddy Creek 11-28 C Tr 4.6 mi. AL
F-4 GF--02
SB-11 G--99 SST
South Muddy Creek 11-32-2 C 16.1 mi. AL
B-18 GF-97
B-18 GF--02 SST
Swannanoa Creek 11-7-9 C Tr 3.2 mi. AL
SB-12 F--98
SB-12 E--02 SFS
Toms Creek 11-21-(2) C HQW 6.6 mi. AL
B-9 G--97
B-9 NI--02 SFS
Youngs Fork
(Corpening Creek)11-32-1-4a C 3.6 mi. AL SB-1 P--01 IPS
Youngs Fork
(Corpening Creek)11-32-1-4b C 1.9 mi. AL
B-17 F--97
B-17 F--01
B-17 F--02
SF-2 F-01
SB-2 F--01 IPS
CATAWBA RIVER (including
backwaters of Lake James
below elevation 1200)11-(8) C 23.5 mi.REC
C0145000 nce
C0250000 nce S-
CATAWBA RIVER (including
backwaters of Rhodhiss Lake
below elevation 995)11-(31) WS-V 1.1 mi.REC C1210000 nce S -
CATAWBA RIVER (including
backwaters of Rhodhiss Lake
below elevation 995)11-(31.5) WS-IV 9.8 mi.REC C1210000 nce S -
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 103
Table B-1 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-30
Biological Ambient Other
Use Support RatingData Type with Map Number
and Data Results
2004 1998Waterbody Length / Area Category
DWQ
Classification
Assessment
Unit Number
Linville River 11-29-(19) B HQW 7.1 mi.REC C1000000 nce S -
North Fork Catawba River 11-24-(13) C 7.0 mi.REC C0550000 nce S -
Assessment Unit Number - Portion of DWQ Classified Index where monitoring is applied to assign a use support rating.
Use Categories:Monitoring data type: Use Support Ratings 2004:
AL - Aquatic Life F - Fish Community Survey E - Excellent NI - Not Impaired S - Supporting, I - Impaired, NR - Not Rated
REC - Recreation B - Benthic Community Survey G - Good NR - Not Rated
SF - Special Fish Community Study GF - Good-Fair Use Support Ratings 1998:
SB - Special Benthic Community Study F - Fair FS - fully supporting, ST - supporting but threatened
L - Lakes Assessment P - Poor PS - partially supporting, NS - not supporting
NR - not rated, N/A - not applicable
nce - no criteria exceeded
ce - criteria exceeded
Bioclassifcations:
Ambient Data
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 104
Waters in the following sections are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). This number
is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database, 303(d) Impaired
waters list, and the various tables in this basin plan. The assessment unit number is a subset of
the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the end of the
AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates
that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.
Use support ratings are summarized in Part 1.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 1.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 1.4 below. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Part 1.5.
Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all monitored waters.
1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings in subbasin 03-08-30 were assigned for aquatic life, fish consumption,
recreation and water supply. There is no fish consumption advice for waters in this subbasin;
therefore, all waters are rated No Data for Fish Consumption. All water supply waters are
Supporting on an Evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional water treatment plant
consultants. Refer to Table B-2 for a summary of use support ratings by use support category for
waters in the subbasin.
Table B-2 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-08-30
Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 186.9 mi
5,976.9 ac 0 48.4 mi 0
Impaired 11.4 mi 0 0 0
Not Rated 7.0 mi 0 0 0
Total 205.3 mi
5,976.9 ac 0 48.4 mi 0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 238.0 mi 0 0 59.1 mi.
5,976.9 ac.
Impaired 0000
Not Rated 62.6 mi 0 0 0
No Data 152.4 mi 658.2 mi
5,976.9 ac
609.8 mi.
5,976.9 ac.0
Total 453.0 mi 658.2 mi
5,976.9 ac
609.8 mi
5,976.9 ac
59.1 mi
5,976.9 ac
Totals
All Waters* 658.2 mi
5,976.9 ac
658.2 mi
5,976.9 ac
658.2 mi
5,976.9 ac
59.1 mi
5,976.9 ac
Note: All waters includes monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 105
1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters
The following waters were identified in the 1999 basin plan as Impaired or are newly Impaired
based on recent data. The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are
presented below. These waters are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). Refer to the
overview above for more information on AUs.
1.3.1 Corpening Creek (Youngs Fork) [AU# 11-32-1-4a and 11-32-1-4b]
Jacktown Creek [AU# 11-32-1-4-1]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Approximately 4.7 miles of Corpening Creek, from its source to North Muddy Creek, were listed
as Impaired due to nonpoint sources and the Marion WWTP, based on biological data collected
in 1990. The 1999 basin plan recommended that efforts to address water quality issues in the
Corpening Creek watershed should concentrate on nonpoint source pollution reduction, and
several recommendations were made to address urban stormwater pollution. Its headwaters
include the southeastern section of the Town of Marion and its lower reaches include the 2.4-
mile tributary, Jacktown Creek. The water quality problems seen in the creek are typical of
urban streams. The 1999 Catawba River Basinwide Plan noted that there was not enough
information to determine what efforts should be undertaken to restore Corpening Creek and
suggested a more in-depth study be conducted to identify the land use activities and streambank
problems that are causing degradation in this creek.
In 2001, DWQ initiated a Collaborative Assessment for Watersheds and Streams (CAWS)
Project on Corpening Creek. This EPA funded project sought to provide the foundation for
future water quality restoration activities in the Corpening Creek watershed by: 1) identifying
the most likely causes of the impairment; 2) identifying the major watershed activities and
pollution sources contributing to those causes; and 3) outlining a general watershed strategy that
recommends restoration activities and best management practices (BMPs) to address the
identified problems.
The project team collected a wide range of data to evaluate potential causes and sources of
impairment. Data collection activities included: benthic macroinvertebrate sampling at sites SB-
1, 2, 3 and B-17; assessment of stream habitat, morphology and riparian zone condition; water
quality sampling to evaluate stream chemistry and toxicity; sediment quality sampling to
evaluate sediment toxicity and provide a longer term record of the pollutants the stream carries;
and characterization of watershed land use, conditions and pollution sources.
The study concluded that multiple stressors associated mostly with development in the watershed
heavily impact aquatic organisms in the entire length of both Corpening Creek and Jacktown
Creek. The results suggest the primary cause of impairment is toxic impacts. Other cumulative
causes that contribute to the impairment are habitat degradation due to sedimentation and lack of
microhabitat, hydromodification due to scour, and nutrient enrichment.
Because of the widespread nature of biological degradation and the highly developed character
of the watershed, DWQ recognizes that bringing about substantial water quality improvement
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 106
will be a tremendous challenge. While a return to the relatively unimpacted conditions that
existed prior to urbanization is not possible, Corpening and Jacktown Creeks can support a
healthier biological community than they do today. For DWQ’s recommendations on how to
meet these challenges, please refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Parts 4.11 and 4.13.
1.3.2 Mackey Creek [AU# 11-15-(3.5)b]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Mackey Creek, from US 70 to the Catawba River (0.6 miles), was Impaired due to impacts from
Metal Industries discharge. The 1999 Catawba River Basinwide Plan recommended that DWQ
continue to work with the discharger to ensure process improvements.
The fish community of Mackey Creek (at US 70, McDowell County) above and below Metal
Industries metal plating discharge was investigated in 1998 and in 2002 (below only, site SF-3).
The discharge was discontinued in July 2000 and the permit was rescinded in June 2001. Prior
to its discontinuance, the fish community bioclassification in 1998 was rated Good above and
Poor below the discharge. In April 2002, the community below the discharge was Good and the
community had recovered due to the removal of the toxic discharge. The fish community and its
components are now typical of those found in mountains and foothills streams in the upper
Catawba River basin. The benthic macroinvertebrate community at site SB-6 improved from
Fair in 1998 to Good in 2002.
Due to the removal of the toxic discharge and resulting improvement in bioclassification, DWQ
recommends Mackey Creek be removed from the state 303(d) list. However, steady declines in
bioclassification in the upper reaches of this stream were noted above SR 1453. Recent land-
disturbing activities were identified as a source of sediment and lead to enforcement actions.
1.3.3 North Fork Catawba River [AU# 11-24-(2.5)b]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The North Fork Catawba River just below the Baxter Healthcare Corporation discharge declined
from Excellent to Good between 1997 and 2002; but there was a dramatic decline from Good to
Fair further downstream, where the river was wider with slower flow. A 3.47-mile segment of
the North Fork Catawba River from Stillhouse Branch to Armstrong Creek is Impaired because
of the Fair bioclassification at site B-11. The drought conditions provided minimal dilution, and
a conductivity value of 576 µmhos/cm was observed at the time of the benthic sampling in
August 2002.
Baxter Healthcare experienced problems with oil and grease discharges during the assessment
period but has taken steps to remedy the problem. There are several other concerns in the river
that may be contributing to the conditions noted. Those include sediment from road
construction, silviculture, mining, and naturally high pH conditions caused by limestone. DWQ
will continue to monitor the river and work with local resource agencies and landowners to
improve these conditions.
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 107
1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts
The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality
problems and concerns have been documented for some waters based on this assessment. While
these waters are not Impaired, attention and resources should be focused on these waters to
prevent additional degradation or facilitate water quality improvement. Waters in the following
section are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). See overview for more information on
AUs.
1.4.1 Lake James [AU# 11-(23)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Three dams that impound waters of the Catawba River and the Linville River create Lake James,
now operated by Duke Power. The Catawba, the North Fork of the Catawba, and the Linville
Rivers are its major tributaries. The lake is used to generate electricity at the Bridgewater
Hydroelectric Plant; public recreation is a secondary use.
The most upstream of the impoundments in the Catawba River Chain Lakes system, Lake James,
is divided into two hydrologic units: the Catawba River section and the Linville River section.
A man-made canal located at the Highway 126 Bridge connects these units. As a result, the lake
is a hydrologically complex system.
The reservoir is currently meeting all designated uses. However, increasing residential growth
along the shoreline and upstream along the Catawba River poses a threat to water quality. An
increase in the number of lakefront homes with septic tanks and greater recreational boating
activities is viewed as potentially damaging to the lake's water quality.
The Lake James Environmental Association joined the Volunteer Water Information Network
(see Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.6.1) and began sampling Lake James in 2001. Their sampling
results support concerns about sediment and nutrient loads entering the lake from the Catawba
River and the North Fork Catawba River (Mass et al., 2002).
Duke Power discovered the nuisance aquatic plant, Hydrilla, in the Catawba River arm in 1999.
This plant has the potential of spreading rapidly throughout the lake, reducing available boating
and swimming areas, and decreasing the lake’s aesthetic appearance. In 2002, 21,500 grass carp
were stocked by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission to control the spread of Hydrilla.
The Western Piedmont Council of Governments (WPCOG) in cooperation with the Isothermal
Planning and Development Commission completed a modeling effort to estimate sediment and
nutrient loadings to Lake James under current and future conditions using EUTROMOD, a
watershed and lake modeling tool developed for southeastern reservoirs. The objectives of this
effort were to estimate nutrient and sediment loads to the lake from individual subbasins and
compare future loadings from three hypothetical management scenarios. Those scenarios
included a Growth Scenario with new lakefront development, a Conservation Scenario with
reduced shoreline development and a 30-meter buffer along streams within the watershed, and a
Point Source Control Scenario featuring nutrient reductions from a major point source
discharger.
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 108
Analysis of the modeling results along with data on land cover, point source dischargers, soils,
agricultural practices, and septic tanks revealed several notable points and suggestions for future
management. Perhaps most importantly, the model estimated 71 percent of the annual
phosphorus load to the lake currently comes from nonpoint sources. Of the nonpoint source
phosphorus load, the model estimates 63 percent originates from agricultural practices even
though agriculture only makes up 7 percent of the watershed’s land cover. Additionally, 91
percent of the watershed remains forested. These facts lead to two management suggestions:
first, a variety of BMPs should be implemented to reduce phosphorus laden sediment runoff
from agriculture activities; and secondly, emphasis should be placed on protecting those forested
lands that currently exist along streams through landowner education and incentive programs
offered by existing agencies and organizations. The report goes on to suggest that local
governments use their authority to establish land use regulations to limit development in
floodplains and on steep slopes and to partner with other agencies and organizations with land
management interests to provide incentive based sediment reduction plans (WPCOG, June
2003).
DWQ fully supports the recommendations stated in the WPCOG modeling report. In addition,
DWQ will work to foster mutually beneficial relationships between local governments and those
agencies and organizations that have an interest in environmentally sound land management in
the hope that cost-effective solutions to sediment control will develop.
1.4.2 Linville River [AU# 11-29-(1)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
This 7.1-mile headwater portion of the Linville River near Linville and Grandfather Village
drains a highly developed area, including three golf courses, one of which has an impoundment
less than a mile upstream of DWQ’s benthic monitoring site B-13. The river harbors good
instream habitat, though very slippery rocks indicate nutrient enrichment may be a problem in
this portion of the Linville River. Residential and agricultural land use near this site affect the
stream habitat, resulting in a narrow riparian zone, unstable banks and infrequent pools.
The areas upstream of the Linville Gorge Wilderness Area face increasing development pressure
as tourism and second home purchases increase. DWQ recommends that local municipalities
and county governments carefully and sensibly manage the coming growth to protect the natural
resources that drive this growth. They can accomplish that end by adopting and enforcing land
use and zoning ordinances that reduce stormwater runoff from lawns, streets and golf courses.
Examples and advice on implementing these types of ordinances can be found at the Low Impact
Development Center webpage at http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/publications.htm.
1.4.3 Left Prong Catawba River [AU# 11-6]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The Left Prong Catawba River drains the northern slope of Allison Ridge before its confluence
with the mainstem Catawba River upstream of Old Fort. This river is currently being threatened
by sediment-laden runoff from two large home construction projects in its headwaters. The
mainstem Catawba River, to which it drains, is demonstrating impacts from poor land use
practices (NCDENR-DWQ, June 2003). If this problem is not addressed, impacts from sediment
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 109
originating in the Left Prong Catawba River could impair the stream itself and impact the
mainstem Catawba River and Lake James.
In the short-term, DWQ is working together with the Division of Land Resources to ensure that
all construction activities are in compliance with the NC Sedimentation and Pollution Control
Act. In the long-term, DWQ recommends that local municipalities and county governments
carefully and sensibly manage growth in order to protect the natural resources that attract new
development. They can accomplish that end by adopting and enforcing land use and zoning
ordinances that reduce stormwater runoff from lawns, streets and new development.
1.4.4 Muddy Creek [AU# 11-32]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The 98-square mile watershed of Muddy Creek is in Burke and McDowell counties. Muddy
Creek is formed by the confluence of North Muddy Creek and South Muddy Creek just upstream
of the confluence of Muddy Creek and the Catawba River. This watershed shows evidence of
significant sediment loads. Duke Power has been collecting sediment load data in the watershed
and estimates that up to 23,000 tons per year of sediment enter the Catawba River from the
Muddy Creek watershed under typical streamflow conditions. DWQ did not monitor Muddy
Creek during this assessment cycle but did conduct benthic and fish community assessments on
both its major tributaries, the North and South Fork Muddy Creeks. The benthic communities in
each of these streams showed significant impacts, and habitat assessments showed signs of
nutrient enrichment and sedimentation problems. Data compiled by the Muddy Creek
Watershed Restoration Initiative (discussed later) confirms heavy suspended solids loads and
fecal coliform contamination.
The City of Morganton uses the Catawba River as its primary drinking water source. Reductions
in the sediment load from the Muddy Creek watershed will likely result in lower treatment costs
for the city and significantly reduce the sediment loading to Lake Rhodhiss. Although Muddy
Creek is not currently impaired, the impacts of nonpoint source pollution are clearly evident.
Funding programs aimed at reducing nonpoint source pollution impacts should consider the
Muddy Creek watershed a primary candidate for awards.
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Duke Power, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Trout Unlimited, Clean Water Management Trust Fund, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
Western Piedmont Council of Governments, DWQ, McDowell County Soil and Water
Conservation District, Burke County Department of Community Development, City of
Morganton, and the Foothills Conservancy of NC are working together to reduce sediment loads
in Muddy Creek. This initiative is forming partnerships among industry, resource and
conservation agencies, local governments, and landowners to pursue sedimentation and water
quality improvements in the Muddy Creek watershed. The ultimate goal is to improve fish
habitat and water quality in the Catawba River and demonstrate the effectiveness of BMPs.
In 1999, the project partners began to implement a stream improvement project, conduct a
Muddy Creek watershed assessment to determine the feasibility and cost of significant sediment
improvement, and outreach and education through a newsletter and a brochure. Since 1999, the
partners have restored over 8,000 feet of barren banks through natural channel design stream
restoration and have reforested an additional 6,000 feet of riparian land that were devoid of
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 110
riparian forest buffer. In addition, the partners have developed the Muddy Creek Watershed
Restoration Plan, outlining the steps necessary to fully restore the watershed. All projects
undertaken by the partnership are done collaboratively with willing landowners on a voluntary
basis.
The Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan outlines four areas of investment needed to
complete the restoration and estimates that it will take an additional $17.5 million and a
minimum of ten years to achieve that goal. DWQ endorses the Muddy Creek Watershed
Restoration Plan and will assist the partners in any way possible to secure the resources
necessary to implement their four-point strategy. The four areas of investment are as follows:
1. Natural Channel Design Stream Restoration
The plan identifies six high priority stream reaches in the watershed totaling
approximately 12,000 linear feet that would benefit from natural channel design stream
restoration. These reaches contain 18 of the 26 highest priority barren bank sites
identified during field inventories that were responsible for the highest sediment delivery
estimates. Natural channel design stream restoration will likely consume $1.5-2.0 million
of the benchmark cost estimate given above.
2. Riparian Reforestation
The plan reveals approximately 32,000 feet of creek side land without riparian forest
vegetation as first priorities for riparian reforestation projects. Three additional
subwatersheds lack adequate riparian forest coverage on over 50 percent of their stream
lengths. Riparian forest enhancement should extend to these drainage areas as well.
Riparian reforestation of these inadequate buffer areas would likely consume $224,000 of
the benchmark estimate.
3. Livestock Exclusion
The plan prioritizes 15 livestock exclusion projects, which should eliminate an estimated
50-75 percent of the cattle access issues in the watershed. The partners would like to do
more, but the variable livestock market makes prioritization unpredictable because
grazing activities change year to year. These projects would likely consume $124,000 of
the benchmark estimate.
4. Riparian Forest Preservation
The plan also recognizes that gains made in these restoration strategies above will be
nullified if intact upstream areas become degraded. Therefore, approximately 15,200
acres have been prioritized for riparian forest preservation. Most of this acreage is in
large tract holdings and occurs at headwater areas and in subwatersheds whose riparian
zones are currently forested and intact. The $15 million preservation estimate is a
ballpark figure and would require purchase of conservation easements and donations of
conservation easements to cover anticipated costs. Fee simple purchase agreements
would likely increase that figure.
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 111
1.4.5 Canoe Creek [AU# 11-33-(1) and 11-33-(2)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Both the benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community in Canoe Creek at site B-19 were rated
Good in 2002. However, DWQ biologists noted problems from siltation and nonpoint source
pollution. These findings corroborate similar observations by local resource professionals and
citizens. Further study should be conducted to determine water quality conditions and potential
pollution sources. This creek would be a good candidate for assessment by local agencies or
volunteer groups.
1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-08-30
Although most streams in this subbasin are not Impaired by urban stormwater runoff, they are
threatened in many areas (Linville River, Left Prong Catawba River, Corpening Creek) by
development pressure from residential development. This is especially true with high value
vacation and retirement properties such as those around Lake James. In order to prevent aquatic
habitat degradation and Impaired biological communities, protection measures should be put in
place immediately. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11 for a description of stream water
quality problems in developing areas and recommendations for reducing impacts and restoring
water quality.
Section B: Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 112