Sec B Ch 6 03-08-35

Section B - Chapter 6
Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35
Clark Creek, Mauney Creek, South Fork Catawba River, Henry Fork and Jacob Fork
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

6.1 Subbasin Overview
There are seven facilities in this subbasin which are
required to monitor effluent toxicity. Five municipal and
one industrial facilities had one or more failing tests since
1997: Cherryville (3), Delta Mills (1), Lincolnton (3),
Maiden Creek (1), and Stanley WWTP (9).

There are three ecoregions in this subbasin: the Eastern
Blue Ridge Foothills (including the South Mountains),
the Northern Inner Piedmont, and the Southern Outer
Piedmont. The subbasin forms most of the watershed of
the South Fork Catawba River. This river has its origin at
the confluence of Henry and Jacob Forks. The other
major tributaries in this subbasin include Clark and Indian
Creeks.

Land use is primarily forested, but there is also a large
percentage of the subbasin in pasture. A greater
percentage of this subbasin is in pasture than in any other
subbasin. However, pasture is rapidly being converted to
residential land uses as the local population expands.
Most communities in this region are expected to increase
in population by more than 20 percent by 2020 (Table A-
6 and A-7).

The largest dischargers in this subbasin are those of
Hickory, 15 MGD to Henry Fork; Lincolnton, 6 MGD to
South Fork Catawba River; and Newton, 5.0 MGD to Clark Creek. Smaller dischargers include
the Town of Cherryville’s WWTP (2 MGD to Indian Creek), Delta Mills, Inc. (1 MGD to Clark
Creek), and the Town of Stanly’s WWTP (1 MGD to Mauney Creek).
Subbasin 03-08-35 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 559mi2
Land area: 558mi2
Water area: 1mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 163,865 people
Pop. Density: 292 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 57%
Surface Water: 0%
Agriculture: 39%
Counties
Burke, Catawba, Gaston and
Lincoln
Municipalities
Brookford, Cherryville, Conover,
Hickory, High Shoals, Hildebran,
Lincolnton, Long View, Maiden,
Newton, Spencer Mountain and
Stanley

Urban: 3%

There were 24 benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and six fish community samples
(Figure B-6 and Table B-12) collected during this assessment period. Two sites remained the
same; four sites had lower bioclassifications, and 16 sites were sampled for the first time during
this assessment period. Data were also collected from six ambient monitoring stations as well.
Benthic macroinvertebrate data showed that every site, except for Henry Fork declined in
bioclassification. Henry Fork may have maintained its Good rating despite the drought and the
City of Hickory’s discharge because of its large drainage area. Benthic data suggest the
wastewater treatments plants for the towns of Newton and Cherryville and Delta Mills may be
having negative effects, likely exacerbated by the drought, on Clark and Indian Creeks. Both
Section B: Chapter 6 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35 156
Table B-12 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-35

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
Beaverdam Creek 11-129-9-(0.7) WS-IV 8.3 mi. AL F-3 G--02 S -
Carpenter Creek
(Horseshoe Lake)11-129-5-9 C 3.6 mi. AL SB-1 NR--01 NR FS
Clark Creek 11-129-5-(9.5) WS-IV 1.8 mi. AL
B-4 GF--97
B-4 F--02 C4800000 nce I PS
Clark Creek
(Shooks Lake)11-129-5-(0.3)a C 3.3 mi. AL
SB-2 NR--01
SB-6 NR--00
SB-6 NR--01 NR PS
Clark Creek
(Shooks Lake)11-129-5-(0.3)b C 14.3 mi. AL
SB-3 F--00
SB-4 GF--01
SB-4 F--02 I PS
Cline Creek 11-129-5-2 C 3.1 mi. AL SB-7 NI--01 S -
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(12.5)a C 10.3 mi. AL
SB-9 F--01
SB-10 GF--01 I FS
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(12.5)b C 4.8 mi. AL
B-1 G--97
B-1 G--02 C4300000 nce S FS
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(12.5)c C 8.6 mi. AL C4360000 nce S
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(2) C ORW 19.5 mi. AL SF-1 G--98 S FS
Howards Creek 11-129-4 C 13.8 mi. AL
B-3 G--97
B-3 GF--02 S FS
Hoyle Creek 11-129-15-(6) WS-IV CA 0.5 mi. AL F-4 GF--02 S -
Indian Creek 11-129-8-(6.5) WS-IV 6.0 mi. AL
B-5 G--97
B-5 F--02
B-5 F--03
F-2 F--02 C5170000 nce I ST
Jacob Fork 11-129-2-(4) WS-III ORW 6.8 mi. AL C4370000 nce S FS
Maiden Creek 11-129-5-7-2-(1) WS-II 4.9 mi. AL SB-11 F--02 I FS
Pinch Gut Creek 11-129-5-7 C 7.2 mi. AL SB-12 G--01 S -
Pott Creek 11-129-3-(0.7) WS-IV 3.2 mi. AL
F-1 G--97
F-1 G--02 S -
South Fork Catawba River 11-129-(0.5) WS-V 8.4 mi. AL C4380000 nce S FS
Town Creek 11-129-5-4 C 3.8 mi. AL
SB-14
GF--00 S -
Data Type with Map Number
and Data Results
Use Support Rating
CategoryWaterbody
Assessment Unit
Number
DWQ
Classification
Length/
Area
Section B: Chapter 6 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35 158
Table B-12 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-35

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
Data Type with Map Number
and Data Results
Use Support Rating
CategoryWaterbody
Assessment Unit
Number
DWQ
Classification
Length/
Area
Clark Creek 11-129-5-(9.5) WS-IV 1.8 mi. REC C4800000 ce NR -
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(12.5)b C 4.8 mi. REC C4300000 nce S -
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(12.5)c C 8.6 mi. REC C4360000 nce S -
Indian Creek 11-129-8-(5) C 2.6 mi. REC C5170000 nce S -
South Fork Catawba River 11-129-(0.5) WS-V 8.4 mi. REC C4380000 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 S - Supporting, I - Impaired, NR - Not Rated
REC - Recreation B - Benthic Community Survey G - Good
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
FT - Fish Tissue Site nce - no criteria exceeded
ce - criteria exceeded
Bioclassifcations:
Ambient Data
Section B: Chapter 6 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35 159

streams declined from Good-Fair in 1997 to Fair in 2002. 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.

Life Consumption

Waters in Parts 6.3 and 6.4 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 6.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 6.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 6.4 below. Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all
monitored waters.

6.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings in subbasin 03-08-35 were assigned for aquatic life, fish consumption,
recreation and water supply. All water supply waters are Supporting on an Evaluated basis based
on reports from DEH regional water treatment plant consultants. Refer to Table B-13 for a
summary of use support ratings by use support category for waters in the subbasin.
Table B-13 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-08-35

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic Fish Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 119.0 mi 0 42.4 mi 0
Impaired 37.2 mi 0 0 0
Not Rated 15.0 mi 0 1.8 mi 0
Total 171.2 mi 0 44.2 mi 0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 36.2 mi 0 0 297.2 mi
Impaired 0 18.1 mi.0 0
Not Rated 42.6 mi 520.9 mi.494.8 mi 0
No Data 289.0 mi 0 0 0
Total 367.8 mi 539.0 mi 494.8 mi 297.2 mi
Totals
All Waters 539.0 mi 539.0 mi 539.0 mi 297.2 mi
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.
Section B: Chapter 6 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35 160

6.3 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.

6.3.1 Clark Creek [AU# 11-129-5-(0.3)a, 11-129-5-(0.3)b, and 11-129-5-(9.5)]

Clark Creek drains a 91-square mile watershed, flowing from its headwaters in the City of
Hickory southward through Newton and Maiden before joining the South Fork Catawba River in
Lincolnton. Aquatic life is Impaired on the 16.7-mile segment of Clark Creek from Miller
Branch to the South Fork Catawba River because of Fair bioclassifications at sites B-4, SB-4,
SB-5 and SB-7. Additionally, 1.8 miles are Not Rated for recreation because of high fecal
coliform readings at ambient site C4800000.

1999 Recommendations
TMDL: In 1999, DWQ recommended further study be conducted to determine the sources of
copper, cadmium and silver. The 1999 basinwide plan noted that the TMDL process would be
implemented to address fecal coliform, copper and turbidity problems in the Clark Creek
watershed.

CWMTF Grant: DWQ conducted an intensive study of the upper Clark Creek watershed, funded
by the Clean Water Management Trust Fund. This study was intended to reveal causes of
biological impairment. Its results are discussed below.

Color Reduction Strategy: DWQ recommended that Clark Creek be included in the development
of a Color Reduction Strategy for the South Fork Catawba River. Because the color issue
extends beyond the boundaries of this subbasin, it is discussed further in Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.4.

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Land use is a mixture of industrial, commercial and residential uses in the areas in and near
municipalities, with widespread agricultural use in the more rural areas. Two towns, Newton
and Maiden, operate major wastewater treatment plants with discharges into the creek.
Additional discharges are made by multiple industrial permit holders including textile, furniture
and food processors. In the early 20th century, almost the entire length of Clark Creek was
channelized (dredged and straightened) to improve drainage of agricultural lands. Benthic
macroinvertebrate communities are Impaired throughout the mainstem of Clark Creek. Aquatic
habitat is generally poor. The streambed is comprised largely of unstable sand deposits, and
bank erosion is widespread.

Intensive Watershed Assessment Study
Much progress has been made towards understanding the impacts to Clark Creek during the last
assessment period. After extensive study in the Clark Creek watershed (funded by the
CWMTF), DWQ published an assessment report for the upper Clark Creek watershed in
Section B: Chapter 6 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35 161

Catawba County. The study analyzed a broad range of data about the watershed to determine the
most probable stressors and sources of impairment. The analysis noted the following three
primary stressors:

¾ Widespread habitat degradation, manifested by extensive sedimentation and
instability.
¾ Toxicity from nonpoint sources (industrial and commercial areas), together with
scour (high velocity stormwater flows) and limited recolonization potential in the
Clark Creek headwaters.
¾ Toxicity due to chlorine discharge from the Newton WWTP is a likely cause of
impairment for at least one mile below the outfall.

DWQ’s report recommends the following actions to address current sources of impairment and
prevent future degradation. Actions one through six are all essential to the restoration of aquatic
communities throughout Clark Creek. Action seven is essential to improvement in the lower
portion of the study area below the Newton WWTP. The remaining actions should also be
implemented, but will result in limited improvement unless the first seven are also accomplished.

1. Extensive stream channel restoration activities and stormwater retrofit BMPs should
be implemented throughout the watershed. This will involve a substantial effort,
likely to take several decades to fully implement.
2. These activities should be implemented deliberately and incrementally over time:
¾ Work should be carried out first in tributary and headwater
subwatersheds. Restoration of the mainstem of Clark Creek should be
approached later when upstream sediment sources have been reduced
and upstream hydrologic conditions have been mitigated to the extent
practical.
¾ Channel restoration and stormwater BMPs should be implemented in
an integrated fashion so that both channel morphology and watershed
hydrology problems are addressed using a coordinated approach in
each subwatershed.
¾ Local governments and other stakeholders should develop the
cooperative organizational framework necessary to carry out the
watershed planning, project design, implementation and monitoring
activities that will be necessary to sustain the effort over time.
3. The five-square mile Cline Creek subwatershed should serve as the focus for initial
planning and project activities.
4. Post-construction stormwater management should be required for all new
development in the study area in order to prevent further channel erosion and
continued habitat degradation.
5. Existing riparian buffers must be protected.
6. In order to prevent future water quality deterioration related to new construction
activities, sediment and erosion control practices should be improved.
7. DWQ should ensure that chlorine concentrations in the Newton WWTP effluent are
reduced to nontoxic levels and plans to add a chlorine limit when the permit is
renewed in 2005.
Section B: Chapter 6 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35 162

8. The headcut in Clark Creek near the Martin Marietta quarry above I-40, of unknown
origin, should be stabilized to prevent further erosion and sediment loading to the
stream.
9. A watershed education program should be developed and implemented with the goal
of targeting homeowners and managers of commercial and industrial facilities in
order to reduce current stream damage and prevent future degradation.
10. Additional data should be obtained to more narrowly define the nature and source of
toxicants impacting the headwater of Clark Creek.

TMDLs
DWQ made significant progress regarding TMDL development during the last basinwide
planning cycle. In 2002, DWQ published a fecal coliform TMDL for Clark Creek.

Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL
The model outputs indicate that the sources of fecal coliform bacteria in the Clark Creek
watershed include primarily urban development, animal grazing and septic systems. These
sources accounted for about 53, 22 and 15 percent of the loading, respectively. In order for the
water quality target to be met, the final allocation of the fecal coliform bacteria requires a
nonpoint source load reduction of 77 percent/day for the various nonpoint sources of the fecal
coliform bacteria.

The sewer system lines connecting the Newton Clark Creek WWTP and the sewage collection
system in the watershed run along the mainstem of Clark Creek. The City of Newton should
check the system to verify there are no leaks. Connection failures between the sewer pipelines or
any leak from the pipe could result in fecal coliform contamination in the creek.

The model estimated that the point sources contributed about 5 percent of the total fecal coliform
loading in the watershed. The wasteload allocation, based on DWQ permits, was estimated to be
considerably lower than the actual discharged load. Therefore, reduction of fecal coliform
loading from point sources is not necessary at this time.

Copper TMDL
DWQ placed a Draft Copper TMDL on public notice in December 2003 and received many
comments. During the public comment period, questions were raised regarding the methodology
used to determine copper concentrations in the stream. The method used by DWQ looked at the
total level of copper in a sample. However, only a portion of the total copper in a sample is
environmentally active, or capable of harming aquatic ecosystems. Therefore, a "Hardness
Adjusted" analysis was performed to determine if the environmentally active copper exceeded
state standards. The results of this analysis revealed that environmentally active copper does not
exceed state standards in Clark Creek. For this reason, a copper TMDL will not be published
and copper impairment on Clark Creek will be removed from the next revision of the 303(d) list.

Planning Considerations
As indicated by the conclusions of the watershed assessment and TMDL efforts, the most
important factors leading to impairment in the Clark Creek watershed are broad in nature,
originating from a wide variety of sources. Addressing these problems will require actions that
are similarly broad in scope. Mitigating the potential impacts of future watershed development
on watershed hydrology is also critical, or improvements resulting from efforts to control current
Section B: Chapter 6 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35 163

sources of impairment may be short lived. The work described above provides the basic
information and framework necessary to develop a successful management strategy for the Clark
Creek watershed. It is now up to local governments, along with local citizen and business input,
to develop their own management techniques with assistance from DWQ. Please refer to Section
A, Chapter 4, Part 4.8.

6.3.2 Maiden Creek [AU# 11-129-5-7-2-(1)]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Maiden Creek begins its journey to Clark Creek just west of NC 16 in southern Catawba County.
The stream is impounded just above its confluence with Allen Creek to Maiden Reservoir. The
Town of Maiden uses Maiden Reservoir for its public drinking water supply. The 4.9-mile
segment from its source to a point 0.7 mile upstream from backwaters of Maiden Reservoir is
Impaired because of a Fair bioclassification at site SB-11.

This site at SR 1810 (Catawba County) was sampled at the request of the NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR). DWR sought benthic data to determine minimum flow requirements for the
Town of Maiden’s water supply reservoir. The resulting Fair bioclassification indicates the
stream is in a state of severe stress. DWQ suggests further study be conducted to determine
stressors and sources of impairment in this relatively small watershed. Identification and
effective management of those stressors may reduce operating costs and efficiency at the Town
of Maiden water treatment plant. Being part of the larger Clark Creek watershed, DWQ
recommends Maiden Creek be considered in any management plan developed for Clark Creek
(Section B, Chapter 6, Part 6.3.1).

6.3.3 Indian Creek [AU# 11-129-8-(6.5)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The watershed of Indian Creek includes western Lincoln County and the extreme northwestern
corner of Gaston County encompassing the north side of the Town of Cherryville. The fish
sample site (F-2) is eight miles below the Town of Cherryville’s WWTP (2 MGD) and a smaller
WWTP associated with the West Lincoln High School (0.01 MGD). Aquatic life is Impaired in
the 6.0-mile segment from a point 0.3 mile upstream of Lincoln County SR 1169 to South Fork
Catawba River as indicated by Fair bioclassifications at sites F-2 and B-5.

The overall stream and riparian habitats are of moderately high quality, but fish sampling
resulted in a Fair bioclassification in 1997 and 2002. Further study should be conducted to
determine the stressors causing impairment. DWQ will continue to monitor this stream.

6.3.4 Mauney Creek [AU# 11-129-15-5]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
About 4.3 miles of Mauney Creek was listed Impaired due to both nonpoint and point sources
(Stanley WWTP) of pollution.

In the 1999 basin plan, DWQ pledged to continue working with the Stanley WWTP facility to
assure permit limits are met and noted that additional resources will be necessary to conduct a
Section B: Chapter 6 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35 164

watershed survey to determine the potential actions needed to address nonpoint sources of
pollution in this creek. This remains true.

The Stanley WWTP conducts whole effluent toxicity tests on the discharge and has been in
compliance with permit limits recently. Recent compliance is due to improvements made at the
facility, including dechlorination and implementation of an industrial pretreatment program. In
addition, some flow from Stanley WWTP has been diverted to Mount Holly. This cooperation
reduces the number of sewer overflows for the Stanley system.

DWQ will resample this stream in the next assessment cycle.

6.3.5 Henry Fork [AU# 11-129-1-(12.5)a]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Henry Fork drains central Burke County south of Morganton. It flows along the south side of
Hickory before joining with Jacob Fork to form the South Fork Catawba River in Catawba
County. Water quality in the upper segments of the river have been rated Good since 1989.

Two sites on Henry Fork (Burke County) were sampled as part of a study to examine the effects
of a breached milldam. This breaching released large amounts of sediment into portions of the
stream. Site SB-10, upstream of the breached milldam, had good riffle habitat with a mix of
boulder, rubble, gravel, and sand and silt substrates. The sampling resulted in a Good-Fair
bioclassification.

The stream below the dam (SB-9) was noticeably impacted by the sediment release as evidenced
by the sand dominated substrate (~70 percent). The sand was several feet thick and was
sufficient to eliminate all bank and most riffle habitats. The site was given a Fair
bioclassification.

The impacts of sediment from the breached dam have Impaired aquatic life in the 10.3 mile
segment from Laurel Creek to SR1124, but the effects may be temporary. The presence of good
habitat directly above and below the impairment will aid in the recolonization of the segment, as
sediment is washed downstream. DWQ will continue to monitor this segment.

The lower reach of Henry Fork [11-129-1-(12.5)c] appears on the 2002 Integrated 304(b) and
303(d) Report because of turbidity levels. Data from this assessment period indicate that the
turbidity standard was not exceeded. However, there were periods where turbidity was elevated
above natural conditions. DWQ will continue to monitor this segment and again determine the
conditions of Henry Fork the next assessment period.

6.4 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 B: Chapter 6 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35 165

section are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). See overview for more information on
AUs.

6.4.1 South Fork Catawba River [AU# 11-129-(0.5), 11-129-(3.5), 11-129-(3.7)a, 11-129-
(3.7)b, 11-129-(9.5), 11-129-(10.5), 11-129-(14.5), 11-129-(15.5)]
Howards Creek is only six meters wide and has predominately sand and silt substrates, poor
riffles, and an intact riparian zone. In 1997, banks were considered stable, but there were many
erosion areas detected in 2002. The stream was rated Good in 1992 and 1997, but declined to
Good-Fair in 2002. The decline most likely resulted from the low flow due to drought and not
declining water quality.

The South Fork Catawba River is formed by the confluence of Jacob and Henry Forks in
Catawba County. It flows southerly through Lincoln and Gaston counties before joining the
mainstem Catawba River at Lake Wylie. The river is used extensively as both a drinking water
supply and for the assimilation of municipal and industrial wastewater. Because the South Fork
Catawba River flows through two subbasins, further discussion of issues and watersheds related
to the South Fork Catawba River is presented in Section A, Chapter 4.

6.4.2 Howards Creek [AU# 11-129-4]

6.4.3 Hoyle Creek [AU# 11-129-15-(6)]

From 1997 to 2002, the bioclassification at site F-4 declined from Good to Good-Fair. The
decline did not appear to be drought related. This stream is entrenched with easily eroded banks.
There are three NPDES facilities with a combined discharge of 0.6 MGD above the site: Lincoln
County’s WWTP; the Town of Stanley’s Lola Street WWTP; and a small, mobile home park’s
WWTP. Further investigation should be conducted on this stream to determine the cause of
decline in the fish community.

6.4.4 Town Creek [AU# 11-129-5-4]

Town Creek drains a portion of the Town of Newton. This stream was sampled for the first time
in 2000 and received a Good-Fair bioclassification. This borderline classification likely reflects
impacts from urban stormwater runoff and residential nonpoint source pollution. Refer to
Section A, Chapter 4, Parts 4.11 and 4.13 for information on urban runoff and habitat
degradation.

Section B: Chapter 6 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35 166