HomeMy WebLinkAboutSec B Ch 2 03-08-31
Section B - Chapter 2
Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31
Lower Creek, Wilson Creek, Johns River and Lake Rhodhiss
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆
2.1 Subbasin Overview
This subbasin contains many headwater tributaries
designated as HQW because they are native trout waters.
Portions of this catchment, including Wilson Creek, are
within the Pisgah National Forest and have received
ORW designation. Wilson Creek itself recently received
designation from the National Park Service as a Wild and
Scenic River. The Johns River catchment contains high
quality areas, but also has widespread agricultural land
use and is threatened by residential development.
Subbasin 03-08-31 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 581 mi2
Land area: 578 mi2
Water area: 3 mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 90,041 people
Pop. Density: 160 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Surface Water: 1%
Urban: 3%
Agriculture: 11%
Counties
Avery, Burke, Caldwell and
Watauga
Municipalities
Blowing Rock, Cajah Mountain,
Cedar Rock, Connelly Springs,
Drexel, Gamewell, Glen Alpine,
Granite Falls, Lenoir, Morganton,
Rhodhiss, Rutherford College,
Sawmills and Valdese
Forest/Wetland: 85%
There were 32 benthic macroinvertebrate community
samples and 15 fish community samples (Figure B-2 and
Table B-3) collected during this assessment period. One
site improved; five sites remained the same; two sites had
a lower bioclassification, and 23 sites were sampled for
the first time during this assessment period. Data were
also collected from three ambient monitoring stations as
well. 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.
The Burke County population is expected to increase by
over 20 percent by the year 2020 (Table A-6). Urban
development and runoff from Lenoir and Morganton have
impacted several tributaries to the Catawba River in the
southeastern portion of the subbasin.
There are three ambient monitoring sites in this subbasin: Lower Creek near Morganton, Wilson
Creek near Gragg (a high elevation, headwater site), and Lake Rhodhiss. None of these sites
represents typical water quality for this subbasin. Wilson Creek had many low pH
measurements. This pattern had not been observed at this site since the early 1990s, and it
suggested that similar low pH values may be occurring in other high elevation streams that drain
forested catchments. Such areas have low buffering capacity and are most susceptible to acid
precipitation.
Five facilities in this subbasin monitor effluent toxicity. The two largest municipal dischargers
(Lenoir’s WWTP, 6 MGD; and Morganton’s WWTP, 8 MGD) have experienced occasional
failures over the last ten years. Lenoir’s facility failed about 25 percent of its self-monitoring
Section B: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 113
Table B-3 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-31
Assessment DWQ
Waterbody Unit Number Classification Category Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
Abingdon Creek 11-39-6 C 5.6 mi.AL SB-1 NI-02 S-
Blair Fork 11-39-3-1 C 2.6 mi.AL SB-2 NR--02 NR -
Bristol Creek 11-39-8 WS-IV 5.6 mi.AL SB-3 NR--02 NR PS
CATAWBA RIVER
(including backwaters
of Rhodhiss Lake below
elevation 995)11-(32.7) WS-IV 3.9 mi.AL
B-1 GF--97
B-1 GF--02 SFS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Rhodhiss Lake below
elevation 995)11-(37) WS-IV & B CA 1,848.5 ac.AL C2030000 ce
L-1 ce &
Special Algal
Studies ce IFS
Celia Creek 11-39-7-1-(2) WS-IV 1.3 mi.AL SB-4 NR--02 NR -
Gragg Prong 11-38-10 C Tr 4.0 mi.AL
SF-1 E--98
SF-1 E--99 S-
Greasy Creek 11-39-4 C 4.6 mi.AL
SB-6 NR--02
SB-5 NR--02 NR PS
Harper Creek 11-38-34-14 C Tr ORW 9.1 mi.AL SB-7 E--02 S-
Hunting Creek 11-36-(0.7) WS-IV 7.4 mi.AL F-3 F--02 I-
Husband Creek 11-39-7-(1) C 6.0 mi.AL SB-9 NI--02 SST
Irish Creek 11-35-3-(2)b WS-III 3.0 mi.AL F-2 F--02 I-
Johns River 11-38-(35.5) WS-IV HQW 6.9 mi.AL B-5 G--02 S-
Lower Creek 11-39-(0.5)a C 8.8 mi.AL SB-10 P--02 IST
Lower Creek 11-39-(0.5)b C 5.1 mi.AL SB-12 F--02 IPS
Lower Creek 11-39-(6.5) WS-IV 6.8 mi.AL
B-7 F--02
F-4 GF--97
F4 GF--02
SB-11 F--02 C1750000 nce I PS
McGalliard Creek 11-44-(3) WS-IV CA 3.9 mi.AL
B-9 GF--97
B-9 G--02
F-6 G--97
F-6 F--03 IST
Mulberry Creek 11-38-32-(15) C 5.4 mi.AL SF-2 E--99 SFS
Data Type with Map Number
and Data Results
Use Support Rating
Length / Area
Section B: Chapter 2 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 115
Table B-3 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-31
Assessment DWQ
Waterbody Unit Number Classification Category Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
Data Type with Map Number
and Data Results
Use Support Rating
Length / Area
Silver Creek 11-34-(0.5) C 15.4 mi.AL
F-1 GF--97
F-1 GF--02
B-2 E--02 SST
Smoky Creek 11-41-(1) WS-IV 7.5 mi.AL
B-8 G--97
B-8 GF--02
F-5 E--02 SFS
Spainhour Creek 11-39-3 C 4.7 mi.AL
SB-12 F--02
SB-13 F--02 IPS
Upper Creek 11-35-2-(13) WS-III Tr HQW 4.3 mi.AL SF-3 E--99 SFS
Warrior Fork 11-35-(1) WS-III 4.9 mi.AL
B-3 E--97
B-3 G--02 SFS
White Mill Creek 11-39-8-1-(2) WS-IV 3.4 mi.AL SB-15 NR--02 NR -
Wilson Creek 11-38-34 B Tr ORW 23.3 mi.AL B-6 E--02 C1370000 nce S FS
Zacks Fork Creek 11-39-1 C 8.0 mi.AL SB-17 NI--02 SPS
Lower Creek 11-39-(6.5) WS-IV 6.8 mi.REC C1750000 ce NR -
Wilson Creek 11-38-34 B Tr ORW 23.3 mi.REC C1370000 nce S FS
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
A - Ambient Monitoring Site P - Poor PS - partially supporting, NS - not supporting
L - Lakes Assessment NR - not rated, N/A - not applicable
nce - no criteria exceeded
ce - criteria exceeded
Ambient Data
Bioclassifcations:
Section B: Chapter 2 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 116
toxicity tests between 1992 and 1999, but has passed all tests since 2000. The last documented
problem at Morganton’s facility was in January 2002.
The site on Lower Creek reflected the influence of various point and nonpoint source problems
with high turbidity, high fecal coliform bacteria concentrations, and elevated conductivity near
the City of Lenoir. Samples from the site on Lake Rhodhiss often reflected algal bloom
problems with elevated dissolved oxygen concentrations and pH values.
The Catawba River near the City of Morganton was rated Good-Fair in 1997 and 2002, based on
benthic macroinvertebrate samplings. Some intolerant organisms were abundant at this site, but
daily variations in flow, due to power generation at the upstream Lake James dam, affected the
quality of the instream habitats. Many of the recently monitored streams that originate in the
Pisgah National Forest had Good or Excellent water quality ratings based on either fish or
macroinvertebrate data.
The middle portion of this subbasin has extensive areas used for the cultivation of ornamental
shrubs and trees. While streams in this area usually still have good water quality, two sites have
recently (2002) shown a decline from an Excellent to a Good bioclassification based on
macroinvertebrate data: Warrior Fork and the lower section of the Johns River. It is not known
if drought conditions contributed to this decline. A fish community sample from Irish Creek (a
tributary of Warrior Fork) showed severe habitat problems and was rated Fair.
Where watersheds have become more developed around the cities of Morganton, Lenoir and
Valdese, the stream bioclassifications were lower (Good-Fair or Fair). The physical
characteristics of these streams have also changed. Lower, Silver, Hunting and McGalliard
Creeks had lower gradients and were much sandier than streams in the northern part of the
subbasin. McGalliard Creek showed a decline in bioclassification between 1997 and 2002,
based on fish and macroinvertebrates. An intensive survey of the Lower Creek catchment in
2002 documented problems for many streams around Lenoir.
Waters in Parts 2.3 and 2.4 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 2.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 2.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 2.4 below. Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all
monitored waters.
2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings in subbasin 03-08-31 were assigned for aquatic life, fish consumption,
recreation and water supply. There is no fish consumption advice for waters in this subbasin;
Section B: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 117
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-4 for a summary of use support ratings by use support category for
waters in the subbasin.
Table B-4 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-08-31
Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 119.6 mi 0 23.3 mi 0
Impaired 39.7 mi
1,848.5 ac 00 0
Not Rated 25.5 mi 0 6.8 mi 0
184.8 mi
1,848.5 ac 0 30.1 mi 0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 333.7 mi 0 0 241.9 mi
1,848.5 ac
Impaired 0.0 mi 0 0 0
Not Rated 102.1 mi 0 0 0
No Data 61.3 mi 682.0 mi
1,848.5 ac
651.9 mi.
1,848.5 ac. 0
Total 497.1 mi 682.0 mi
1,848.5 ac
651.9 mi
1,848.5 ac
241.9 mi
1,848.5 ac
Totals
All Waters 682.0 mi
1,848.5 ac
682.0 mi
1,848.5 ac
682.0 mi
1,848.5 ac
241.9 mi
1,848.5 ac
Total
Note: All waters includes monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.
2.3 Status and Recommendations of Newly and Previously 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.
Section B: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 118
2.3.1 Lower Creek Watershed Including:
Lower Creek [AU# 11-39-(0.5)a, 11-39-(0.5)b, 11-39-(6.5), and 11-39-(9)]
Zacks Fork Creek [AU#11-39-1]
Spainhour Creek [AU#11-39-3]
Greasy Creek [AU#11-39-4]
Bristol Creek [AU#11-39-8]
Husband Creek [AU#11-39-7-(1)]
The watershed of Lower Creek includes the City of Lenoir and drains the southwest portion of
Caldwell County into the upper reaches of Lake Rhodhiss. 35.5 stream miles in the Lower Creek
Watershed appear on the 2004 303(d) list.
1999 Recommendations
DWQ recommended that suggestions for improving water quality found in WPCOG Study
(WPCOG, October 1998) be implemented in the Lower Creek watershed. The recommendations
were grouped into two general areas: watershed protection and urban stormwater planning.
DWQ noted that the key implementers of these recommendations, and others that may be
developed in the future, are the local governments and citizens of the Lower Creek watershed.
WPCOG Study recommendations for watershed protection include:
1. Establish 50-foot buffers along streams in the Lower Creek watershed.
2. Within targeted subbasins, identify property owners interested in participating in nonpoint
source demonstration projects.
3. Develop a strategy to raise awareness and educate the public about major pollution sources to
Lower Creek.
4. Encourage bioengineered solutions for future projects to stabilize streambanks.
5. Establish a Lower Creek Nonpoint Source Team to assist in implementing recommendations
and evaluate progress.
WPCOG Study recommendations for consideration by the local governments for urban
stormwater include:
1. Adopt strategies and regulations to minimize new impervious surfaces.
2. Encourage use of curb cuts and reduce street curb and gutter systems.
3. Encourage cluster development or open space zoning near perennial streams.
4. Encourage treatment of "hot spots" including gas stations and trash storage and handling
areas.
5. Label stormwater drains.
6. Participate in regional stormwater discussions.
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Based on data collected in this assessment period, approximately 20.7 miles of Lower Creek are
now Impaired for aquatic life because of Fair and Poor bioclassifications all along the stream.
This watershed also includes the entire length of Zacks Fork Creek (8.0 mi.), Spainhour Creek
(4.7 mi.), Greasy Creek (4.6 mi.), Bristol Creek (5.6 mi.), and Husband Creek, (5.96 mi) all of
which appear on the state’s 303(d) list. Current data indicate Husband Creek is not impaired and
will be removed from the 303(d) list during the 2006 revision.
Section B: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 119
DWQ is in the process of developing a TMDL to address turbidity violations in Lower Creek. In
2002, DWQ conducted an intensive study of the Lower Creek watershed to provide data and
information for future TMDL development. The study clearly demonstrated the effects of poor
land use practices, showing negative impacts to the biological community at all of the 17 sample
sites included in the study. The study also indicated the absence of severe nutrient or organic
enrichment, or toxic conditions. The study did note severe streambank erosion and nonexistent
or inadequate riparian buffers at many sites. Zacks Fork Creek, Greasy Creek and Bristol Creek
were too small to rate using standard evaluation techniques, and thus, were rated either Not
Impaired (Upper Zacks Fork Creek) or Not Rated (Lower Zacks Fork, Greasy and Bristol
Creeks). For a description of Use Support Methodology, refer to Appendix III. Despite
methodology restrictions, the variability in stream integrity seen within the watershed points to
the conclusion that overall, streams draining urban areas seem to be the most severely impacted.
In 2003, the EEP initiated a Local Watershed Plan for the Lower Creek watershed in Burke and
Caldwell counties. The EEP will use the watershed plan to identify and prioritize wetland and
stream restoration projects as well as best management practices to provide water quality and
aquatic habitat improvements to the watershed. The watershed characterization, or compilation
of existing data about watershed conditions, was completed in December 2003. The detailed
watershed assessment including water quality monitoring, field assessment and a restoration plan
is scheduled for completion by June 2005. The EEP will coordinate with local community
groups, local governments and others to develop and implement the restoration plan. For more
information about the Lower Creek Local Watershed Plan, contact Kristin Cozza of EEP at (704)
572-0955.
Until actions are taken to reduce urban stormwater runoff, it is reasonable to assume that stream
integrity in the Lower Creek watershed will continue to remain fair at best, or decline. Stream
restoration and watershed protection efforts should be coordinated with management strategies
developed for Lake Rhodhiss. Please refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11 for information on
Low Impact Development and other techniques to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff.
More information on Lake Rhodhiss can be found below and Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.2.
2.3.2 Lake Rhodhiss [AU# 11-(37)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Lake Rhodhiss is operated by Duke Power and is formed by the discharge of Lake James into the
Catawba River, the Mud and Lower Creek watersheds, and by the Johns River. The lake was
filled when the construction of the Rhodhiss Hydroelectric Station was completed in 1925. Lake
Rhodhiss is a relatively small and narrow lake located between Lake James and Lake Hickory on
the Catawba River. Three-fourths of the land in the watershed is forested, but the watershed is
under increasing pressure from development. The waters of the lake are used for water supply
by several municipalities, recreational purposes and hydropower generation. Algal blooms, taste
and odor problems, violation of the pH standard, and percent dissolved oxygen saturation values
above 120 percent indicate the reservoir (1,848.5 acres) suffers from eutrophication and is
Impaired in its support of aquatic life.
Rhodhiss Lake has been sampled by DWQ since 1981. This lake is usually eutrophic although it
was evaluated as mesotrophic in 1989 and 1997. Although there were high nutrient
concentrations, algal blooms were often limited by the reservoir’s short retention time. Drought
Section B: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 120
conditions increased retention times, and blooms of nuisance algae (especially blue-greens) were
recorded in 2001 and 2002. The presence of algae, which creates taste and odor problems in
treated drinking water, made it necessary for water treatment plants to use activated charcoal to
make the water drinkable. Nutrient reductions may help to alleviate these problems.
In 1999, after reviewing the results of a water quality modeling effort by the WPCOG (Jaynes,
1994; and Giorgino et al., 1997), DWQ committed to developing a watershed management
strategy for controlling nutrient inputs to the reservoir.
The water quality in Lake Rhodhiss has a dramatic impact on downstream conditions in Lake
Hickory. The intimate link between these two reservoirs was made more evident by the
continuance of taste and odor issues in Lake Hickory during the summer of 2002 until the algal
populations died back in Lake Rhodhiss. This close relationship supports DWQ’s conclusion
that a regional watershed management plan, encompassing the drainages of both Lake Hickory
and Lake Rhodhiss, must be developed to address the water quality concerns in each reservoir.
Because such a strategy would be applied across multiple subbasins, please refer to Section A,
Chapter 4, Part 4.7.2 for a detailed discussion.
2.3.3 McGalliard Creek [AU# 11-44-(3)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The watershed of McGalliard Creek drains an area dissected by Interstate 40, US 64/70, and
includes the Town of Valdese. The stream is also a tributary to Lake Rhodhiss and hosts a
dramatic waterfall approximately 40 feet high. The Town of Valdese maintains a popular city
park at the waterfall and hosts an annual family fishing tournament each June. About 1,200 trout
are stocked in the waters above the falls for each tournament, but due to poor habitat conditions
the fish do not survive long enough to reproduce. There are no NPDES dischargers in this
watershed, but elevated conductivity measurements indicate impacts from urban runoff. A
windshield survey conducted by DWQ in 2003 revealed most of the land in the watershed is
established residential neighborhoods. Many lots lack sufficient riparian vegetation to restrict
sediment and nutrient runoff during construction and from lawns. Declining fish
bioclassifications at site F-6 have led to aquatic life Impairment in the 3.9-mile stream segment
from McGalliard Falls to Lake Rhodhiss. The headwaters of McGalliard Creek are Not Rated.
The potential for McGalliard Creek to support a diverse aquatic population is high, but physical
barriers to natural recolonization, like the waterfall and Lake Rhodhiss, make it unlikely without
human intervention. Given the stable nature of land use in the watershed, DWQ encourages
private property owners to install landscaping that reduces the amount of sediment and nutrient
runoff entering the creek. Additionally, the Town of Valdese, through its Recreation
Department, should consider implementing a habitat restoration project in the creek above the
falls to increase the potential for stocked trout survival and enhance the visual appeal of the park.
Finally, McGalliard Creek should be evaluated in any nutrient/sediment management plan
developed for Lake Rhodhiss.
Section B: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 121
2.3.4 Irish Creek [AU# 11-35-3-(2)b]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The fish community in Irish Creek was sampled for the first time in 2002. Draining central
Burke County, Irish and Upper Creeks join to form Warrior Fork, a tributary to the Catawba
River north of the City of Morganton. The valleys in this area of Burke County are used
extensively for nursery tree propagation. Consequently, the stream’s instream and riparian
habitats suffer. The fish community was rated Fair at site F-2. Resampling in 2003 also resulted
in a Fair bioclassification, confirming the 2002 results. Thus, aquatic life is Impaired in this 3.0-
mile segment from Roses Creek to Warrior Fork.
Given that a significant portion of land in this subbasin is dedicated to nursery tree propagation,
there are excellent opportunities for the implementation of agriculture BMPs. DWQ will assist
local groups with project development in cooperation with local landowners and the regional
Soil and Water Conservation District to install and maintain BMPs. Additionally, Irish Creek
should be evaluated in any nutrient/sediment management plan developed for Lake Rhodhiss.
2.3.5 Harper Creek [AU# 11-38-34-14]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Harper Creek lies within Pisgah National Forest, northeast of Gamewell. All nine miles of
Harper Creek appear on the state’s 303(d) list because of a historical listing for sediment.
DWQ sampled Harper Creek in 2002 (site SB-7) and determined that the benthic community was
in Excellent condition. This suggests that either the stream was incorrectly listed as Impaired or
the circumstances causing the reported sediment loads have since been abated. In either case, the
Excellent bioclassification indicates Harper Creek is not Impaired and will be removed from the
303(d) list in 2006.
2.3.6 Hunting Creek [AU# 11-36-(0.7)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The fish community in Hunting Creek was sampled for the first time in 2002 and received a Fair
bioclassification at site F-3. It is therefore Impaired. Resampling in 2003 also resulted in a Fair
bioclassification, confirming the 2002 results. This 7.4-mile segment (1 mile upstream of SR
1940 to 0.4 mile downstream of Pee Dee Branch) of urban stream drains the southern and
southeastern areas of the City of Morganton in central Burke County. There are no NPDES
facilities in the watershed. Much like Irish Creek, the instream and riparian habitats suffer due to
the urbanization of the watershed. The stream is a tributary to the Catawba River just above
Lake Rhodhiss.
As the Town of Morganton implements Phase II stormwater regulations, DWQ suggests it take
measures to reduce urban stormwater impacts to the stream and advocates the use of LID and
stormwater BMPs as outlined in Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11. Additionally, Hunting Creek
should be evaluated in any nutrient/sediment management plan developed for Lake Rhodhiss
(see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.2).
Section B: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 122
2.4 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.
2.4.1 Johns River [AU# 11-38-(1), 11-38-(9), 11-38-(28), 11-38-(34.5), 11-38-(35.5), and
11- 38-(36.5)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The Johns River originates in the Pisgah National Forest on the south side of the Grandfather
Mountain drainage basin and flows southward to Collettsville. Just north of the Caldwell-Burke
county line, Wilson Creek joins the Johns River, significantly increasing the flow. The Johns
River then flows southward to the Catawba River at essentially the beginning of Lake Rhodhiss,
just northeast of Morganton. The entire reach is 23.8 miles long.
The Johns River has historically received an Excellent bioclassification; but in 2002, the lower
reach had declined by one bioclassification to Good at site B-5 and showed signs of nutrient
enrichment, including excessive growth of filamentous algae and aquatic macrophytes. It is
DWQ’s recommendation that immediate action be taken to protect the remaining intact riparian
forests in the upper reaches of the Johns River watershed and to implement agriculture BMPs in
the areas where intensive agriculture is currently underway or likely to expand. Such actions
could arrest the declining water quality in the lower Johns River watershed and insure good
quality water well into the future.
Crescent Resources, a major landholder in the Johns River watershed, proposed just such a plan
in 1997 (Crescent Resources, Inc., 1997). The plan would have protected over 2,000 acres by
restoring, enhancing and preserving former and existing riparian and wetland habitats. Although
this particular plan proved ultimately unsuccessful, it outlined a basic strategy that could still
result in effective protection for the Johns River. It is DWQ’s intent to pursue negotiations with
multiple stakeholders (Crescent Resources, WRC, FWS, etc.) during the next basinwide cycle
that would permanently protect natural habitat in the Johns River watershed. WRC is actively
pursuing funding opportunities that would be used to protect riparian habitat in the watershed.
DWQ supports that pursuit and will assist where possible.
2.4.2 Silver Creek [AU# 11-34-(0.5)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
There are two sample sites on Silver Creek that are used to evaluate fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate populations. The benthic site (B-2) has consistently produced Good-Fair
results since 1992. The fish site (F-1), new this assessment period, produced an Excellent rating.
These apparently contradictory results and concerns about pollution in this creek by local
citizens suggest the need for further investigation into water quality conditions and potential
Section B: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 123
pollution sources is necessary. This creek would be a good candidate for assessment by local
agencies or volunteer groups.
2.4.3 Catawba River [AU# 11-(32.7)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
This reach of the Catawba River passes near the center of Morganton and is heavily influenced
by the releases from Bridgewater Dam at Lake James. DWQ biologists noted a decline in the
biological community between site B-15 at Glen Alpine and site B-1 at NC 181. This may be
the result of urban runoff entering through Silver Creek, Canoe Creek and along the banks of the
mainstem. Negotiations during the FERC relicensing process (Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1)
should result in more consistent flows that may help establish more robust benthic communities.
Additionally, this segment should be evaluated in any nutrient/sediment management plan
developed for Lake Rhodhiss (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.2).
Section B: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 124