Catawba 2004

North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources

Catawba River
Basinwide Water
Quality Plan
September 2004
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section

Catawba River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan

September 2004

Prepared by:
Dave Toms
[e-mail]

NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality – Planning
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

[phone], ext. 577

This Document was approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission on September 9,
2004 to be used as a guide by the NC Division of Water Quality in carrying out its Water Quality
Program duties and responsibilities in the Catawba River basin. This plan is the second five-year update
to the Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan approved by the NC Environmental Management
Commission in February 1995.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................xii
Section A - General Basinwide Information..................................................................................1
Chapter 1 - Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning....................................................2
1.1 What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?...................................................2
1.2 Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning ...................................................2
1.3 Major Components of the Basinwide Plan.......................................................4
1.4 Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning ...............................................4
1.5 How to Get Involved........................................................................................4
1.6 Other References..............................................................................................5
1.7 Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations........................................5
Chapter 2 - Catawba River Basin Overview..................................................................................7
2.1 General Overview ............................................................................................7
2.2 Surface Water Hydrology...............................................................................10
2.2.1 Watershed Descriptions......................................................................10
2.2.2 Hydrologic Features ...........................................................................10
2.2.3 Minimum Streamflow ........................................................................11
2.2.4 Water Withdrawals and Water Supply...............................................11
2.2.5 Interbasin Transfers............................................................................13
2.3 Population and Growth Trends ......................................................................15
2.3.1 County Population and Growth Trends..............................................15
2.3.2 Population, Growth Trends and Population Density..........................16
2.4 Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin.........................20
2.5 Land Cover.....................................................................................................21
2.5.1 CGIA Land Cover ..............................................................................21
2.5.2 NRI Land Cover Trends.....................................................................22
2.6 NPDES Permits Summary .............................................................................25
2.6.1 Permitted Wastewater Discharges......................................................25
2.6.2 Other NPDES Permits ........................................................................26
2.7 Animal Operations .........................................................................................26
2.8 Natural Resources ..........................................................................................30
2.8.1 Catawba River Chain Lakes...............................................................30
2.8.2 Ecological Significance of the Catawba River Basin.........................31
2.8.3 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Catawba River Basin .......33
2.8.4 Forestry in the Catawba River Basin..................................................36
Table of Contents i
Chapter 3 - Summary of Water Quality Information for the Catawba River Basin ....................39
3.1 General Sources of Pollution..........................................................................39
3.2 Description of Surface Water Classifications and Standards.........................40
3.3 DWQ Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Catawba River Basin......45
3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring ..............................................45
3.3.2 Fish Assessments................................................................................47
3.3.3 Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring..............................................................48
3.3.4 Lakes Assessment Program................................................................49
3.3.5 Ambient Monitoring System..............................................................49
3.3.6 Notable Patterns in Ambient Data......................................................51
3.4 Other Water Quality Research .......................................................................52
3.5 Use Support Summary ...................................................................................53
3.5.1 Introduction to Use Support Assessment ...........................................53
3.5.2 Comparison of Use Support Rating to Streams on the List of
Impaired Waters .................................................................................54
3.5.3 Use Support Assessment in the Catawba River Basin .......................54
Chapter 4 - Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River
Basin .........................................................................................................................59
4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................59
4.2 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought.......................................................59
4.3 Color Reduction Strategy...............................................................................60
4.4 South Fork Catawba River Watershed Toxics Review..................................62
4.5 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Agreement..................................................63
4.6 Implementation of NCEEP Watershed Restoration and Local Watershed
Plans...............................................................................................................64
4.7 Chain Lakes Management Challenges...........................................................64
4.7.1 Hydropower Relicensing....................................................................66
4.7.2 Lake Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory and Lookout Shoals Lake
Watershed Protection..........................................................................67
4.7.3 Nutrient Management for Lake Wylie ...............................................71
4.7.4 Aquatic Weed Infestation...................................................................72
4.8 The Importance of Local Initiatives...............................................................73
4.9 Biological Criteria for Assessment of Aquatic Life.......................................74
4.10 Fish Consumption Advice..............................................................................74
4.11 Managing the Impacts of Growth and Development and Stormwater
Runoff ............................................................................................................78
4.11.1 Effects of Growth and Development in the Catawba River Basin .....78
4.11.2 The Role of Local Governments ........................................................79
4.11.3 Maintain and Develop Riparian Buffers.............................................81
4.11.4 Protect Headwater Streams.................................................................81
Table of Contents ii
4.11.5 Reduce Impacts of Future Development............................................82
4.12 DWQ Stormwater Programs ..........................................................................83
4.12.1 NPDES Phase I...................................................................................83
4.12.2 NPDES Phase II .................................................................................84
4.12.3 State Stormwater Program..................................................................86
4.12.4 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules......................................87
4.12.5 Trout Stream Protection .....................................................................90
4.13 Habitat Degradation .......................................................................................90
4.13.1 Sedimentation.....................................................................................91
4.13.2 Loss of Riparian Vegetation...............................................................94
4.13.3 Loss of Instream Organic Microhabitats............................................94
4.13.4 Channelization ....................................................................................95
4.13.5 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation.......................95
4.14 Fecal Coliform Bacteria .................................................................................96
4.15 Addressing Waters on the State’s Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report .......98

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section B - Water Quality Data and Information by Subbasin....................................................99
Chapter 1 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30
Corpening Creek, Mackey Creek, North Fork Catawba River, Muddy Creek,
Linville River and Lake James ...............................................................................100
1.1 Subbasin Overview ......................................................................................100
1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..............................................................105
1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..106
1.3.1 Corpening Creek (Youngs Fork)
Jacktown Creek ................................................................................106
1.3.2 Mackey Creek...................................................................................107
1.3.3 North Fork Catawba River ...............................................................107
1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................108
1.4.1 Lake James .......................................................................................108
1.4.2 Linville River....................................................................................109
1.4.3 Left Prong Catawba River................................................................109
1.4.4 Muddy Creek ....................................................................................110
1.4.5 Canoe Creek .....................................................................................112
1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-08-30........................112
Chapter 2 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31
Lower Creek, Wilson Creek, Johns River and Lake Rhodhiss...............................113
2.1 Subbasin Overview ......................................................................................113
2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..............................................................117
2.3 Status and Recommendations of Newly and Previously Impaired Waters..118
Table of Contents iii
2.3.1 Lower Creek Watershed Including:
Lower Creek
Zacks Fork Creek
Spainhour Creek
Greasy Creek
Bristol Creek
Husband Creek .................................................................................119
2.3.2 Lake Rhodhiss ..................................................................................120
2.3.3 McGalliard Creek.............................................................................121
2.3.4 Irish Creek ........................................................................................122
2.3.5 Harper Creek ....................................................................................122
2.3.6 Hunting Creek ..................................................................................122
2.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................123
2.4.1 Johns River.......................................................................................123
2.4.2 Silver Creek......................................................................................123
2.4.3 Catawba River ..................................................................................124
Chapter 3 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32
Lower, Middle and Upper Little Rivers, Lake Hickory, Lookout Shoals Lake
and Lake Norman....................................................................................................125
3.1 Subbasin Overview ......................................................................................125
3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..............................................................131
3.3 Status and Recommendations of Newly and Previously Impaired Waters..132
3.3.1 Horseford Creek ...............................................................................132
3.3.2 Lower Little River ............................................................................133
3.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................133
3.4.1 Lake Hickory ....................................................................................133
3.4.2 Muddy Fork......................................................................................134
3.4.3 Middle Little River ...........................................................................134
3.4.4 Gunpowder Creek.............................................................................134
3.4.5 Lookout Shoals Lake........................................................................135
3.4.6 Lake Norman....................................................................................135
Chapter 4 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-33
Dutchmans Creek, McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Lake...........................137
4.1 Subbasin Overview ......................................................................................137
4.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..............................................................140
4.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..141
4.3.1 McDowell Creek ..............................................................................141
4.3.2 Killian Creek ....................................................................................143
4.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................144
4.4.1 Mountain Island Lake.......................................................................144
4.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-08-33........................144
4.5.1 Water Quality Threats to Streams in Urbanizing Watersheds..........144
Table of Contents iv
Chapter 5 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34
Irwin Creek, Long Creek, McAlpine Creek and Sugar Creek................................146
5.1 Subbasin Overview ......................................................................................146
5.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..............................................................150
5.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..151
5.3.1 The Sugar Creek Watershed Including:
Irwin Creek
Little Sugar Creek
McAlpine Creek
Sugar Creek ......................................................................................151
5.3.2 Long Creek.......................................................................................154
5.3.3 Lake Wylie .......................................................................................154
5.4 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-08-34........................155
Chapter 6 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35
Clark Creek, Mauney Creek, South Fork Catawba River, Henry Fork and
Jacob Fork...............................................................................................................156
6.1 Subbasin Overview ......................................................................................156
6.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..............................................................160
6.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..161
6.3.1 Clark Creek.......................................................................................161
6.3.2 Maiden Creek ...................................................................................164
6.3.3 Indian Creek .....................................................................................164
6.3.4 Mauney Creek ..................................................................................164
6.3.5 Henry Fork........................................................................................165
6.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................165
6.4.1 South Fork Catawba River ...............................................................166
6.4.2 Howards Creek.................................................................................166
6.4.3 Hoyle Creek......................................................................................166
6.4.4 Town Creek ......................................................................................166
Chapter 7 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-36
Long Creek, Dallas Branch and South Fork Catawba River ..................................167
7.1 Subbasin Overview ......................................................................................167
7.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..............................................................170
7.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..171
7.3.1 Dallas Branch ...................................................................................171
7.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................172
7.4.1 South Fork Catawba River ...............................................................172
7.4.2 Long Creek.......................................................................................172
Chapter 8 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-37
Catawba Creek and Crowders Creek......................................................................174
Table of Contents v
8.1 Subbasin Overview ......................................................................................174
8.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..............................................................178
8.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..178
8.3.1 Catawba Creek..................................................................................179
8.3.2 Crowders Creek................................................................................179
8.3.3 Unnamed Tributary to Crowders Creek ...........................................180
8.3.4 McGill Creek ....................................................................................180
8.3.5 Abernethy Creek...............................................................................181
8.3.6 Lake Wylie .......................................................................................181
8.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................181
8.4.1 South Fork Crowders Creek [AU# 11-135-10]................................181
8.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-08-37........................182
Chapter 9 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-38
Sixmile Creek, Twelvemile Creek and Waxhaw Creek .........................................183
9.1 Subbasin Overview ......................................................................................183
9.2 Use Support Assessment Summary..............................................................186
9.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired Waters..187
9.3.1 Sixmile Creek...................................................................................187
9.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts....................187
9.4.1 Twelvemile Creek ............................................................................188
9.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-08-38........................188
9.5.1 Waxhaw Creek .................................................................................188

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section C - Current and Future Water Quality Initiatives .........................................................189
Chapter 1 - Current Water Quality Initiatives ...........................................................................190
1.1 Workshop Summaries ..................................................................................190
1.2 Federal Initiatives.........................................................................................191
1.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program .........................................191
1.2.2 USDA EQIP .....................................................................................192
1.3 State Initiatives.............................................................................................192
1.3.1 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program................................................192
1.3.2 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (Formerly Wetlands
Restoration Program)........................................................................193
1.3.3 Clean Water Management Trust Fund .............................................200
1.3.4 NC Construction Grants and Loans Program...................................204
1.3.5 North Carolina Stream Watch ..........................................................205
1.3.6 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control..............................................................................................206
1.3.7 Bi-State Catawba River Commission...............................................206
Table of Contents vi
1.3.8 Catawba River Corridor Project.......................................................206
1.4 Local Initiatives............................................................................................207
1.4.1 Mecklenburg County S.W.I.M. Program .........................................207
1.4.2 The Lake James Task Force .............................................................209
1.4.3 Catawba County ...............................................................................209
1.4.4 Caldwell County...............................................................................209
1.4.5 City of Newton .................................................................................210
1.4.6 Gaston County Projects....................................................................210
1.4.7 Morganton Greenway.......................................................................211
1.4.8 Burke County....................................................................................211
1.5 Regional Initiatives ......................................................................................211
1.5.1 Voices and Choices of the Central Carolinas...................................211
1.5.2 Sustainable Environment for Quality of Life...................................212
1.5.3 Catawba Lands Conservancy ...........................................................213
1.5.4 Foothills Conservancy......................................................................213
1.5.5 Catawba River Foundation...............................................................213
1.5.6 Trout Unlimited................................................................................213
1.5.7 American Rivers...............................................................................214
1.5.8 Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition..........................................214
1.5.9 Catawba Bi-State Task Force...........................................................214
1.6.0 NC Wildlife Federation....................................................................215
1.6.1 Volunteer Water Information Network Program (VWIN) and
Lake James Environmental Association...........................................215
1.6.2 The Trust for Public Land ................................................................216
Table of Contents vii

APPENDICES

I NPDES Discharges and Individual Stormwater Permits in the Catawba River Basin

II Biological Water Quality Data Collected by DWQ
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collections •
•
•
Fish Community Assessments
Lakes Assessments

III Use Support Methodology and Use Support Ratings

IV 303(d) Listing and Reporting Methodology

V Catawba River Basin Workshop Summaries

VI Catawba River Basin Nonpoint Source Program Description and Contacts

VII Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Appendices viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2002 to 2007).........................................................2
Figure A-2 Division of Water Quality Regional Offices ..........................................................6
Figure A-3 General Map of the Entire Catawba River Basin....................................................8
Figure A-4 General Map of the Catawba River Basin in North Carolina .................................9
Figure A-5 Percent Projected County Population Growth (2000-2020) for Counties of the
Catawba River Basin.............................................................................................17
Figure A-6 8-Digit Hydrologic Units in the Catawba River Basin and Population Density
by Subbasin...........................................................................................................19
Figure A-7 Percentages within Major CGIA Land Cover Categories in the Catawba River
Basin .....................................................................................................................22
Figure A-8 Land Cover Changes from 1982 to 1997 for the Catawba River Basin ...............24
Figure A-9 Animal Operations in the Catawba River Basin...................................................28
Figure A-10 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Catawba River Basin..........................34
Figure A-11 ORWs and HQWs in the Catawba River Basin....................................................42
Figure A-12 Water Supply Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin........................................44
Figure A-13 Summary of Compliance with Aquatic Toxicity Tests in the Catawba River
Basin .....................................................................................................................49
Figure A-14 Catawba River Chain Lakes..................................................................................65
Figure B-1 Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-30 .....................................................................101
Figure B-2 Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-31 .....................................................................114
Figure B-3 Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 .....................................................................126
Figure B-4 Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-33 .....................................................................138
Figure B-5 Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34 .....................................................................147
Figure B-6 Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-35 .....................................................................157
Figure B-7 Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-36 .....................................................................168
Figure B-8 Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-37 .....................................................................175
Figure B-9 Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-38 .....................................................................184
Figure C-1 Total Attendance by Various Interests at DWQ Water Quality Workshops in
the Catawba River Basin (2002).........................................................................190
Figure C-2 EEP Targeted Watersheds of the Catawba River Basin .....................................199
List of Figures ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Lake Stressor Summary.......................................................................................xvi
Table 2 Monitored Impaired Waters within the Catawba River Basin (as of 2003)........xxi
Table A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007)........................................................3
Table A-2 Five-Year Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan ..................3
Table A-3 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Catawba River Basin..........................................10
Table A-4 Minimum Streamflow Projects in the Catawba River Basin................................12
Table A-5 Estimated Interbasin Transfers in the Catawba River Basin (1997).....................14
Table A-6 Past and Projected Population (1990, 2000, 2020) and Population Change by
County...................................................................................................................15
Table A-7 Population (1980, 1990, 2000) and Population Change for Municipalities
Greater Than 2,000 Located Wholly or Partly in the Catawba River Basin.........18
Table A-8 Local Governments and Planning Units within the Catawba River Basin ...........20
Table A-9 Description of Major CGIA Land Cover Categories............................................21
Table A-10 Land Cover in the Catawba River Basin by Major Watersheds – 1982 vs.
1997.......................................................................................................................23
Table A-11 Description of Land Cover Types.........................................................................24
Table A-12 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Catawba River
Basin (as of 06/16/03)...........................................................................................26
Table A-13 Registered Animal Operations in the Catawba River Basin (as of 07/03/03)......29
Table A-14 Estimated Populations of Swine, Dairy and Poultry in the Catawba River
Basin (1998 and 1994)..........................................................................................30
Table A-15 Statistics on Major Lakes in the Catawba River Basin.........................................31
Table A-16 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Species in the Catawba River Basin (as
of August 2003)....................................................................................................32
Table A-17 Primary and Supplemental Surface Water Classifications ...................................40
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 .....46
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..............47
Table A-20 Locations of Ambient Monitoring Stations in the Catawba River Basin by
Subbasin................................................................................................................50
Table A-21 Summary of Ambient Sites with Elevated Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Concentrations in the Catawba River Basin, September 1997 – August 2002.....52
Table A-22 Aquatic Life Use Support Ratings Summary for All Waters in the Catawba
River Basin (1997-2002).......................................................................................55
Table A-23 Recreation Use Support Ratings Summary for Waters in the Catawba River
Basin (1997-2002)................................................................................................56
Table A-24 Impaired Monitored Waters within the Catawba River Basin (1997 to 2002).....57
Table A-25 NPDES Color Permitting Imposed During 2002 and 2003 for Catawba River
Basin Dischargers in the South Fork Catawba River Watershed .........................62
Table A-26 Lake Stressor Summary........................................................................................66
Table A-27 Communities in the Catawba River with Stormwater Requirements...................88
Table B-1 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 03-08-30..........................................................................................102
List of Tables x

Table B-2 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-08-30..............................................................................................................105
Table B-3 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 03-08-31..........................................................................................115
Table B-4 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-08-31..............................................................................................................118
Table B-5 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 03-08-32..........................................................................................127
Table B-6 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-08-32..............................................................................................................132
Table B-7 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 03-08-33..........................................................................................139
Table B-8 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-08-33..............................................................................................................141
Table B-9 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 03-08-34..........................................................................................148
Table B-10 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-08-34..............................................................................................................151
Table B-11 Summary of Sugar Creek Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL............................153
Table B-12 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 03-08-35..........................................................................................158
Table B-13 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-08-35..............................................................................................................160
Table B-14 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 03-08-36..........................................................................................169
Table B-15 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-08-36..............................................................................................................171
Table B-16 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 03-08-37..........................................................................................176
Table B-17 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-08-37..............................................................................................................178
Table B-18 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters
in Subbasin 03-08-38..........................................................................................185
Table B-19 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin
03-08-38..............................................................................................................186
Table C-1 Projects Funded Through Clean Water Act Section 319 ....................................191
Table C-2 Ecosystem Enhancement Program Targeted Local Watersheds (2003).............196
Table C-3 Projects in the Catawba River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund (as of 12/02).....................................................................................200
Table C-4 Projects in the Catawba River Basin Funded by the NC Construction Grants
and Loans Section...............................................................................................205
List of Tables xi

Executive Summary
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management

Basinwide water quality planning is a nonregulatory watershed-based approach to restoring and
protecting the quality of North Carolina’s surface waters. The NC Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) prepares basinwide water quality plans for each of the 17 major river basins every five-
years. While these plans are prepared by the DWQ, implementation and the protection of water
quality entail the coordinated efforts of many agencies, local governments and stakeholders in
the state.

The goals of basinwide planning are to:
ƒ Identify water quality problems and restore full use to Impaired waters.
ƒ Identify and protect high value resource waters.
ƒ Protect unimpaired waters yet allow for reasonable economic growth.

DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives:
ƒ Collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies.
ƒ Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity.
ƒ Better evaluate cumulative effects of pollution.
ƒ Improve public awareness and involvement.

The first basinwide plan for the Catawba River basin was completed in 1995 and the second in
1999. This 2004 Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan is the third five-year update.
The format of this plan was revised in response to comments received during the first and second
planning cycles. DWQ now places greater emphasis on more detailed information specific to the
Catawba River basin’s watersheds. A greater emphasis was placed on identifying causes and
sources of pollution for individual streams in order to facilitate local restoration efforts.

DWQ considered comments from three public workshops held in the basin and subsequent
discussions with local resource agency staff and citizens during draft plan development. This
input will help guide continuing DWQ activities in the basin.

Catawba River Basin Overview

The Catawba River basin, along with the Broad River basin, forms the headwaters of the Santee-
Cooper River system. This river system begins on the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge
Mountains in NC, flows through the NC piedmont to the NC-SC border near Charlotte, and
continues to flow through South Carolina to the Atlantic Ocean.

The basin contains the Linville River, one of only four state designated Natural and Scenic
Rivers. The mainstem of the Catawba River is regulated by a series of seven hydropower
reservoirs: Lake James, Lake Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory, Lookout Shoals Lake, Lake Norman,
Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie. Lake Wylie crosses the border of NC and SC. There are
3,048 miles of named and classified freshwater streams and over 50,000 freshwater
impoundment acres within the NC portion of the basin.
Executive Summary xii

Surface Water Classifications and Use Support Assessments

Use support assessments based on surface water classifications form the foundation of this
basinwide plan. Surface waters are classified according to their best-intended uses. Determining
how well a waterbody supports its uses (use support status) is an important method of
interpreting water quality data and assessing water quality.

Use support methodology has changed significantly since the 1999 revision of the Catawba
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.

1. In the 1999 basinwide plan 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 rates waters as Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated or No
Data. These ratings refer to whether the classified uses of the water (such as
water supply, aquatic life and primary/secondary recreation) are being met.

2. Use support methods have been developed to assess ecosystem health and human
health risk through the development of use support ratings for five categories:
aquatic life, fish consumption, recreation, shellfish harvesting and water supply.
These categories are tied to the uses associated with the primary classifications
applied to NC rivers, streams and lakes. 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. Detailed information
on use support methods is provided in Appendix III and summary tables in
Section A, Chapter 3.

Notable Themes in the 2004 Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan

The varied nature of the topics discussed below demonstrates the wide range of stressors leading
to water quality degradation in the Catawba River basin. In most cases of documented water
quality declines, a combination of many stressors has produced general habitat degradation (see
Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.13). Very rarely can water quality declines be attributed to a single
pollutant. In some way, every person, industry, farm and municipality in the basin impacts water
quality. Therefore, every resident of the basin must play a role in management strategies
designed to protect and restore the streams, lakes and rivers in the basin.

Population Growth and Urbanization
Pressure from a rapidly expanding human population is the driving force behind water quality
degradation in the Catawba River basin. The overall population of the basin, based on the
percent of the counties that are partially or entirely in the basin, is 1,170,512. This makes the
Catawba River basin the most populated river basin in the state. The basin population is
Executive Summary xiii

expected to grow by more than 696,000 people by 2020. Population growth for the basin as a
whole, from 1990 to 2000, is estimated at 18.5 percent, the fastest growing basinwide population
in the state. The estimated population density is 356 persons/square mile, versus the average
statewide population density of 163 persons/square mile, making this also the most densely populated
basin in the state.

The expanding population is accompanied by an increase in urban and built-up land cover that
increases the rate and intensity of polluted stormwater runoff. In the Catawba River basin, urban
and built-up land increased by 52.0 percent from 1982 to 1997 according to the Natural
Resources Inventory. Land cover is discussed in detail in Section A, Chapter 2, Part 2.5.

The impacts on rivers, lakes and streams as development surrounding metropolitan areas
consumes neighboring forests and fields can be significant and permanent if stormwater runoff is
not controlled. Greater numbers of homes, stores and businesses require greater quantities of
water. Growing populations not only require more water, but they also lead to the discharge and
runoff of greater quantities of waste and pollutants into the state’s streams and groundwater.
Thus, just as demand and use increases, some of the potential water supply is lost (Orr and
Stuart, 2000).

The current effects of this growth on water quality can be seen in the map of Impaired streams in
the Catawba River basin (Figure A-3). Sparsely developed watersheds and those contained in
the national forests of the northwestern portion of the basin generally contain streams with high
water quality, excellent aquatic species populations, and are supporting their designated uses.
Water quality declines dramatically in streams in the central and southern watersheds, where
urbanization is focused around urban centers and interstate corridors.

Population growth trends and the accompanying impacts to water quality are discussed in
Section A, Chapters 2 and 4.

Reducing Stormwater Runoff Impacts
Stormwater runoff is a primary carrier of nonpoint source pollution in both urbanized and rural
areas. The impact of stormwater runoff is particularly severe in developing areas where recently
graded areas are highly susceptible to erosion, and urbanized areas where stormwater runoff is
rapidly channeled through curb and gutter systems into nearby streams.

There are many different stormwater programs administered by DWQ. One or more of these
programs affect many communities in the Catawba River basin. The goal of the DWQ
stormwater discharge permitting regulations and programs is to prevent pollution from entering
the waters of the state via stormwater runoff. These programs try to accomplish this goal by
controlling the source(s) of pollutants. These programs include NPDES Phase I and II,
HQW/ORW stormwater requirements, and requirements associated with the Water Supply
Watershed Program. Local governments that are or may be affected by these programs are
presented in Table A-27.

The Importance of Local Involvement
As the Basinwide Planning Program completes its third cycle of plan development, there are
many efforts being undertaken at the local level to improve water quality. The Division of Water
Quality encourages local agencies and organizations to learn about these efforts and determine
Executive Summary xiv

how similar programs may be implemented in their own watersheds. Funding organizations are
also encouraged to seek out these programs and support them whenever possible.

Local organizations and agencies are able to combine professional expertise and local knowledge
not present at the state and federal level. This allows groups to holistically understand the
challenges and opportunities of local water quality concerns. Involving a wide array of people in
water quality projects also brings together a range of knowledge and interests and encourages
others to become involved and invested in these projects. Working in cooperation across
jurisdictional boundaries and agency lines opens the door to additional funding opportunities and
eases the difficulty of generating matching or leveraged funds. This will potentially allow local
entities to do more work and be involved in more activities because their funding sources are
diversified. The most important aspect of these local endeavors is that the more localized the
project, the better the chances for success.

The collaboration of local efforts is key to water quality improvements, and DWQ applauds the
foresight and proactive response by locally based organizations and agencies to potential water
quality problems. There are many excellent examples of local agencies and groups using these
cooperative strategies throughout the state. Please refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Parts 1.4 and
1.5 for a discussion of local initiatives already underway in the Catawba River basin.

Chain Lakes Management Challenges
One of the most prominent hydrologic features of the Catawba River basin is the series of Duke
Power hydropower impoundments along the river's mainstem, widely referred to as the Catawba
River Chain Lakes (Figure A-4). This chain-like configuration presents a unique challenge to
water quality management. The outflows from upstream reservoirs, as well as inputs from the
surrounding watershed and direct discharges to the lakes themselves, influence the water quality
in each impoundment. Therefore, water quality issues in a particular impoundment cannot be
addressed without first considering the influence of watershed conditions, upstream water
quality, and releases from upstream reservoirs. Downstream impacts must also be evaluated
before any management decisions are implemented.

Impacts to water quality can also be magnified by the presence of a reservoir. Dams
significantly slow the flow of water and create conditions not present in riverine systems. These
conditions increase nutrient availability and give algae more time to grow. In theory, a reservoir
may suffer the symptoms of excessive nutrient and sediment inputs, while a river receiving the
same level of pollutants may not. In this case, the river may be moving pollutants quickly
downstream, thus, preventing localized water quality problems. Similarly, two reservoirs
receiving the same pollutant load may not exhibit the same symptoms. For example, one
reservoir may have many small, isolated coves that allow algae to grow for extended periods of
time, while another reservoir may simply act like a wide, slow-flowing portion of a river with a
continuous exchange of water and minimal algal growth.

In some ways, the prosperity enjoyed by this area of North Carolina can be linked to the presence
of these dams. In addition to power generation, the lakes are now popular recreational areas and
provide drinking water to the local population. The lakes are also contributing to a recent
economic expansion as new residents seek lakefront housing. For statistics on the lakes, see
Table A-14.

Executive Summary xv

Unfortunately, several of the Catawba Chain Lakes are suffering impacts from a number of
stressors. Table 1 provides a brief summary of primary stressors affecting the impoundments.
The cumulative effects of these stressors have resulted in nutrient enrichment impairment of
Lake Rhodhiss and Lake Wylie. The stressors leading to these impairments are many and varied
and the management strategies necessary to restore them must be equally broad in scope.
Detailed discussion of these lakes can be found in Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.

Table 1 Lake Stressor Summary

Assessment
Parameter
Lake
James
Lake
Rhodhiss
Lake
Hickory
Lookout
Shoals
Lake
Norman
Mountain
Island
Lake
Wylie
% Saturation DO N Y Y Y N N Y
Algae N Y Y N N N Y
Chlorophyll a N Y* N N N N Y
pH N Y N N N N N
Sediment N Y Y N N Y N
Taste & Odor N Y Y N N N N
Macrophytes Y N Y Y Y Y N
"Y" Indicates parameter is noted within the impoundment.
* Standard exceeded in less than 10% of readings.

Hydropower Relicensing
Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires that Duke Power’s Catawba-Wateree Project has
a license in order to operate. Relicensing is the process for obtaining a new license for a hydro
project after the existing license expires. Duke Power’s current license for the project was issued
in 1958 and will expire in 2008.

The FPA provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive authority to
license all nonfederal hydro projects that are located on navigable waterways or federal lands.
Licenses are normally issued for a period of 30-50 years and contain conditions that regulate
project operations. To continue to operate project facilities after the expiration of an existing
license, a licensee must obtain a new license for its project.

The conditions in the new license are expected to change the way these hydro stations and
reservoirs are operated, primarily via rebalancing how the limited water supply is utilized.
Changing how this finite resource is used will benefit some interests and negatively impact
others. The final decision as to the terms and conditions of the new license is almost exclusively
reserved to the FERC and certain government resource agencies, including DWQ through the
401 Certification process, with mandatory conditioning authority. However, there are many
opportunities for other organizations, governmental entities and individual stakeholders to
substantially influence these decisions. In the end, Duke Power hopes to obtain a new license to
operate the project in a manner that comprehensively balances the use of the resource in the best
overall public interest (Duke Energy Corporation, 2003).

Executive Summary xvi

Challenges Related to Achieving Water Quality Improvements
The long-range mission of basinwide planning is to provide a means of addressing the complex
problem of planning for increased development and economic growth while maintaining,
protecting and enhancing water quality and intended uses of the Catawba River basin’s surface
waters. Within this basinwide plan, DWQ presents management strategies and recommendations
for those waters considered Impaired or that exhibit some notable water quality problems.

To achieve the goal of restoring Impaired waters throughout the basin, DWQ must work more
closely with other state agencies and stakeholders to identify and control pollutants. The costs of
restoration will be high, but several programs exist to provide funding for restoration efforts.
These programs include the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the NC Agricultural Cost
Share Program, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program, and the federally funded Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, among many others.

Due to increasing development, there are significant challenges that must be faced in balancing
economic growth with the protection of water quality in the Catawba River basin. Point source
impacts on surface waters can be measured and addressed through the basinwide planning and
permitting processes. Nonpoint sources of pollution can be identified through the basinwide
plan, but actions to address these impacts must be taken at the local level. Such actions should
include: development and enforcement of local erosion control ordinances; requirement of
stormwater best management practices for existing and new development; development and
enforcement of buffer ordinances; and land use planning that reduces impacts on natural
resources. This basinwide plan presents many water quality initiatives and accomplishments that
are underway within the basin. These actions provide a foundation on which future initiatives
can be built.

General Nonpoint Source Recommendations
Below is a list of potential management strategy components that should be applied in some
combination to restore any impaired water and protect unimpaired waters in the basin. Because
of uncertainties regarding how individual remedial actions cumulatively impact stream
conditions and in how the aquatic community will respond to improvements, the intensity of
management effort necessary to bring about a particular degree of biological improvement
cannot be established in advance. The types of actions needed to improve biological conditions
can be identified, but the mix of activities that will be necessary – and the extent of improvement
that will be attainable – will only become apparent over time as an adaptive management
approach is implemented. There is no silver bullet restoration strategy that can be applied to all
degraded waters. DWQ encourages adaptive management strategies that can be adjusted to fit
the characteristics of a degraded waterbody and feasibility requirements for the individuals and
organizations implementing it. The extremely high restoration cost estimates listed below serve
notice to the importance of protecting unimpaired waterbodies so that restoration is not
necessary.

Actions one through five are important to restoring and sustaining aquatic communities in a
watershed, with the first three recommendations being the most important.

1. Feasible and cost-effective stormwater retrofit projects should be implemented
throughout the watershed to mitigate the hydrologic effects of development (increased
stormwater volumes and increased frequency and duration of erosive and scouring flows).
Executive Summary xvii

This should be viewed as a long-term process. Although there are many uncertainties, costs
in the range of $1 million per square mile can probably be anticipated.
a. Over the short-term, currently feasible retrofit projects should be identified
and implemented.
b. In the longer term, additional retrofit opportunities should be implemented in
conjunction with infrastructure improvements and redevelopment of existing
developed areas.
c. Priorities should include evaluating the retrofit potential of existing instream
impoundments.
d. Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from EPA initiatives,
such as Section 319 funds or the North Carolina Clean Water Management
Trust Fund.
2. A watershed scale strategy to address toxic inputs should be developed and
implemented, including a variety of source reduction and stormwater treatment
methods. As an initial framework for planning toxicity reduction efforts, the following
general approach is proposed:
a. Implementation of available BMP opportunities for control of stormwater
volume and velocities. As recommended above to improve aquatic habitat
potential, these BMPs will also remove toxics from stormwater.
b. Development of a stormwater and dry weather sampling strategy in order to
facilitate the targeting of pollutant removal and effectiveness of source
reduction practices.
c. Implementation of stormwater treatment BMPs, aimed primarily at pollutant
removal, at appropriate locations.
d. Development and implementation of a broad set of source reduction activities
focused on: reducing nonstorm inputs of toxics; reducing pollutants available
for runoff during storms; and managing water to reduce storm runoff.
3. Stream channel restoration activities should be implemented in target areas, in
conjunction with stormwater retrofit BMPs, in order to improve aquatic habitat.
Before beginning stream channel restoration, a geomorphologic survey should be conducted
to determine the best areas for stream channel restoration. Additionally, it would probably be
advantageous to implement retrofit BMPs before embarking on stream channel restoration, as
restoration is probably best designed for flows driven by reduced stormwater runoff. Costs
of approximately $200 per foot of channel should be anticipated (Haupt et al., 2002; and
Weinkam et al., 2001). Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from federal
sources, such as EPA’s Section 319 funds or state sources including North Carolina Clean
Water Management Trust Fund.
4. Actions recommended above (e.g., stormwater quantity and quality retrofit BMPs) are likely
to reduce nutrient/organic loading and its impacts to some extent. Activities recommended to
address this loading include the identification and elimination of illicit discharges; education
of homeowners, commercial applicators, and others regarding proper fertilizer use; street
sweeping; catch basin clean-out practices; and the installation of additional BMPs targeting
BOD and nutrient removal at appropriate sites.
5. Prevention of further channel erosion and habitat degradation will require effective post-
construction stormwater management for all new development in the study area.
6. Effective enforcement of sediment and erosion control regulations will be essential to the
prevention of additional sediment inputs from construction activities. Development of
improved erosion and sediment control practices may be beneficial.
Executive Summary xviii

7. Watershed education programs should be implemented and continued by local governments
with the goal of reducing current stream damage and preventing future degradation. At a
minimum, the program should include elements to address the following issues:
a. redirecting downspouts to pervious areas rather than routing these flows to
driveways or gutters;
b. protecting existing woody riparian areas on all streams;
c. replanting native riparian vegetation on stream channels where such
vegetation is absent; and reducing and properly managing pesticide and
fertilizer use.

DWQ plans to further evaluate Impaired waters in the Catawba River basin in conjunction with
other agencies that address nonpoint source pollution issues and develop management strategies
for a portion of these Impaired waters for the next Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
(2009).

Point Source Pollution
For streams degraded by point source pollution, this plan presents a management strategy to
reduce the impacts from that pollutant source. As a standard permitting policy, DWQ does not
allow new nutrient loads from point sources to Impaired waters until a TMDL is complete for
that waterbody. In addition, applications for new or expanding nutrient discharges to all
mainstem reservoirs in the Catawba River basin must be accompanied by an analysis of nutrient
related impacts using a DWQ approved nutrient response model for the receiving reservoir.

Addressing Waters on the State’s 303(d) List

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters not meeting the criteria
determined by their designated uses. 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. EPA issued guidance in August 1997 that
called for states to develop schedules for developing TMDLs for all waters on the 303(d) list
within 8-13 years.

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
designated uses 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 designated uses are met. Currently, there are 77
waters listed on the North Carolina’s 2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report in the Catawba
River basin. These waters were listed for a variety of stressors including: turbidity, fecal
coliform and copper contamination, habitat degradation and unknown causes.

Assessment of Water Quality in the Catawba River Basin

Biological, chemical and physical monitoring data collected between September 1997 and
August 2002 were used to assign use support ratings in this basin.
Executive Summary xix

Aquatic Life
The aquatic life use support category is applied to all waters in North Carolina. Therefore, this
category is applied to all 3,048.3 freshwater miles and 50,764.2 freshwater acres in the Catawba
River basin. Approximately 24.5 percent of stream miles (746.0 miles) and 100.0 percent of
freshwater acres (50,764.2 acres) were monitored. There were 174.2 (23.4%) Impaired stream
miles and 5,868.1 (11.6%) Impaired freshwater acres.

Fish Consumption
Like the aquatic life use support category, the fish consumption category is also applied to all
waters in the state. Fish consumption use support ratings are based on fish consumption advice
or specific advisories issued by the NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS).
If a limited fish consumption advice, advisory or a no consumption advisory is posted at the time
of use support assessment, the water is rated Impaired.
The NCDHHS has developed regional fish consumption advice (all waters south and east of I-
85) for certain fish species shown to have elevated levels of mercury in their tissue. Only a small
portion of the Catawba River basin lies south of I-85 (lower Mecklenburg, Union and Gaston
counties). Due to the presence of dams that impede fish travel throughout the Catawba River
basin, only those waters draining to and entering the mainstem Catawba below I-85 and are not
impeded by dams are considered Impaired/Evaluated. Thus, 704.0 miles and 4,395 acres are
impaired in the Catawba River basin. All other waters are rated No Data. Because this
impairment is based on regional advice rather than site specific data, these waters will not appear
on the 303(d) per EPA guidance.

Recreation
Like the aquatic life use support category, the recreation category is also applied to all waters in
the state. Approximately 7.7 percent of stream miles (235.1 miles) and 81.3 percent of
freshwater acres (41,255.1 acres) were monitored by DWQ. There were 24.4 stream miles and
no freshwater acres Impaired in the recreation use support category.

Water Supply
There are 997.7 stream miles and 47,081.9 currently classified for water supply in the Catawba
River basin. All water supply waters are Supporting on an Evaluated basis based on reports from
DEH regional water treatment consultants.

Impaired Waters
The Table 2 presents Impaired waters (in all categories) in the Catawba River basin that were
monitored by DWQ within the last five years. The use support category for which a waterbody
is Impaired is indicated in the table. Descriptions of Impaired segments, as well as problem
parameters, are outlined in Appendix III. Management strategies for each waterbody are
discussed in detail in the appropriate subbasin chapter. Maps showing current use support
ratings for waters in the Catawba River basin are presented in each subbasin chapter in Section
B.

Executive Summary xx

Table 2 Monitored Impaired Waters within the Catawba River Basin (as of 2003)

Name Assessment
Unit Class Subbasin Miles Acres Category
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
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
Executive Summary xxi

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

Executive Summary xxii

Section A

General Basinwide Information

Section A: General Basinwide Information 1

Section A - Chapter 1
Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

1.1 What is Basinwide Water Quality Planning?

Basinwide water quality planning is a nonregulatory, watershed-based approach to restoring and
protecting the quality of North Carolina's surface waters. Basinwide water quality plans are
prepared by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for each of the 17 major river basins in
the state (Figure A-1 and Table A-1). Preparation of a basinwide water quality plan is a five-
year process, which is broken down into three phases (Table A-2). While these plans are
prepared by the DWQ, their implementation and the protection of water quality entail the
coordinated efforts of many agencies, local governments and stakeholder groups in the state.
The first cycle of plans was completed in 1998, but each plan is updated at five-year intervals.

Figure A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2002 to 2007)

1.2 Goals of Basinwide Water Quality Planning

The goals of basinwide planning are to:
ƒ Identify water quality problems and restore full use to Impaired waters.
ƒ Identify and protect high value resource waters.
ƒ Protect unimpaired waters yet allow for reasonable economic growth.

DWQ accomplishes these goals through the following objectives:
ƒ Collaborate with other agencies to develop appropriate management strategies.
ƒ Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity.
ƒ Better evaluate cumulative effects of pollution.
ƒ Improve public awareness and involvement.
Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 2

Table A-1 Basinwide Planning Schedule (2000 to 2007)

Basin
DWQ
Biological
Data
Collection
River Basin
Public
Workshops
Public
Review and
Draft Out
For Review
Final Plan
Receives
EMC
Approval
Begin
NPDES
Permit
Issuance
Chowan Summer 2000 3/2001 5/2002 7/2002 11/2002
Pasquotank Summer 2000 3/2001 5/2002 7/2002 12/2002
Neuse Summer 2000 6/2001 5/2002 7/2002 1/2003
Broad Summer 2000 11/2001 11/2002 2/2003 7/2003
Yadkin-Pee Dee Summer 2001 4/2002 1/2003 3/2003 9/2003
Lumber Summer 2001 12/2002 9/2003 12/2003 7/2004
Tar-Pamlico Summer 2002 3/2003 12/2003 3/2004 9/2004
Catawba Summer 2002 10/2003 7/2004 9/2004 12/2004
French Broad Summer 2002 11/2003 2/2005 4/2005 9/2005
New Summer 2003 4/2004 6/2005 9/2005 3/2006
Cape Fear Summer 2003 5/2004 4/2005 8/2005 4/2006
Roanoke Summer 2004 4/2005 4/2006 8/2006 1/2007
White Oak Summer 2004 10/2005 9/2006 12/2006 6/2007
Savannah Summer 2004 10/2005 11/2006 2/2007 8/2007
Watauga Summer 2004 10/2005 12/2006 3/2007 9/2007
Hiwassee Summer 2004 10/2005 11/2006 2/2007 8/2007
Little Tennessee Summer 2004 3/2006 1/2007 4/2007 10/2007
Note: A basinwide plan was completed for all 17 basins during the first cycle (1993 to 1998).

Table A-2 Five-Year Process for Development of an Individual Basinwide Plan

Years 1 - 2

Water Quality Data Collection and
Identification of Goals and Issues
• Identify sampling needs
• Conduct biological monitoring activities
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
• Coordinate with local stakeholders and other agencies to continue to
implement goals within current basinwide plan
Years 2 - 3

Data Analysis and
Public Workshops
• Gather and analyze data from sampling activities
• Develop use support ratings
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities
• Conduct public workshops to establish goals and objectives and
identify and prioritize issues for the next basin cycle
• Develop preliminary pollution control strategies
• Coordinate with local stakeholders and other agencies
Years 3 - 5

Preparation of Draft Basinwide
Plan, Public Review,
Approval of Plan,
Issue NPDES Permits and
Begin Implementation of Plan
• Develop draft basinwide plan based on water quality data, use
support ratings, and recommended pollution control strategies
• Circulate draft basinwide plan for review and present draft plan at
public review
• Revise plan after public review period
• Submit plan to Environmental Management Commission for
approval
• Issue NPDES permits
• Coordinate with other agencies and local interest groups to prioritize
implementation actions
• Conduct special studies and other water quality sampling activities

Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 3

1.3 Major Components of the Basinwide Plan

Each basinwide plan is subdivided into four major sections. The format provides general
basinwide information, information by each major watershed, and descriptions of water quality
protection initiatives.

Section A: Basinwide Information

• Introduces the basinwide planning approach used by the state.
• Provides an overview of the river basin including: hydrology, land use, local government
jurisdictions, population and growth trends, natural resources, wastewater discharges,
animal operations and water usage.
• Presents general water quality information including summaries of water quality monitoring
programs and use support ratings in the basin.

Section B: Subbasin Information

• Summarizes recommendations from previous basin plan, achievements, what wasn’t
achieved and why, current priority issues and concerns, Impaired waters, and goals and
recommendations for the next five years by subbasin.

Section C: Current and Future Initiatives

• Presents current and future water quality initiatives and success stories by federal, state
and local agencies, and corporate, citizen and academic efforts.

Appendices

• Lists NPDES dischargers and individual stormwater permits.
• Describes water quality data collected by DWQ, use support methodology and 303(d)
listing methodology.
• Provides workshop summaries, points of contact, and a glossary of terms and acronyms.

1.4 Benefits of Basinwide Water Quality Planning

Basinwide planning and management benefits water quality by:

• Focusing resources on one river basin at a time.
• Using sound ecological planning and fostering comprehensive NPDES permitting by
working on a watershed scale.
• Ensuring better consistency and equitability by clearly defining the program's long-term
goals and approaches regarding permits and water quality improvement strategies.
• Fostering public participation to increase involvement and awareness about water quality.
• Integrating and coordinating programs and agencies to improve implementation of point
and nonpoint source pollution reduction strategies.

1.5 How to Get Involved

To assure that basinwide plans are accurately written and effectively implemented, it is important
for citizens and other local stakeholders to participate in the planning process during:
Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 4

• Local Workshops: (Prior to the preparation of draft basinwide plans.) DWQ staff present
information about basinwide planning and the basin’s water quality. Participants can ask
questions, share concerns, and discuss potential solutions to water quality issues in the basin.
• Public Review: (After the draft plan is prepared.) DWQ staff discuss the draft plan and its
major recommendations, seeking public comments and questions.
• Public Comment Period: (After the draft plan is prepared.) The comment period is at least
30 days in length. Draft plans are made available on-line or by request.

1.6 Other References

There are several reference documents and websites that provide additional information about
basinwide planning and the basin’s water quality:

• A Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Management in North Carolina. August 2000. This
document includes general information about water quality issues and programs to address
these issues. It is intended to be an informational document on water quality. 156 pages.
• Catawba River Basinwide Assessment Report. June 2002. This technical report presents
physical, chemical and biological data collected in the Catawba River basin. 146 pages.
• Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. February 1995. This first
basinwide plan for the Catawba River basin presents water quality data, information and
recommended management strategies for the first five-year cycle. 181 pages.
• Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. December 1999. This second
basinwide plan for the Catawba River basin presents water quality data, information and
recommended management strategies for the second five-year cycle. 200 pages.
• NC Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan for the Catawba River Basin. DWQ
NC Wetlands Restoration Program.
• NC Division of Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch website at
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/.
• North Carolina's Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management: Program Description.
Creager, C.S. and J.P. Baker. 1991. DWQ Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.

1.7 Division of Water Quality Functions and Locations

For more information on the above documents, DWQ activities or contacts, please visit
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/ or call [phone] and ask for the basin planner responsible
for your basin of interest. Feel free to contact the appropriate Regional Office for additional
information (Figure A-2). For general questions about the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, contact the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748.

Section A: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Basinwide Water Quality Planning 5

Section A - Chapter 2
Catawba River Basin Overview
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

2.1 General Overview

The Catawba River basin, along with the Broad River basin, forms the headwaters of the Santee-
Cooper River system, which flows through South Carolina to the Atlantic Ocean (Figure A-3).
The Catawba River begins on the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Avery, Burke,
Caldwell and McDowell counties and flows southeast to the North Carolina-South Carolina
border near Charlotte (Figure A-4).

Many of these streams have Good to Excellent
water quality and are classified as trout waters.
The basin contains the Linville River, one of only
four rivers in the state designated as a Natural and
Scenic River. The Linville River flows through
the Pisgah National Forest Wilderness area and
into Lake James. In 2002, Wilson Creek gained
designation as a National Wild and Scenic River.

As the basin enters the piedmont from the
mountains, land use shifts from forest to
agricultural and urban uses. Nonpoint runoff from
agricultural operations and urban areas has caused nutrient enrichment and habitat degradation in
the streams, rivers and lakes of the area. Though urban areas are not numerous in the upper
portions of the basin, the lower Catawba region contains many cities, including the growing
Charlotte-Mecklenburg metropolitan area. In this region, urban growth has affected the water
quality of the lakes, streams and rivers.
Catawba River Basin Statistics

Total Area: 3,285 sq. miles
Freshwater Stream Miles: 3,048
Freshwater Lakes Acres: 50,764
No. of Counties: 11
No. of Municipalities: 61
No. of Subbasins: 9
Population (2000): 1,170,512 *
Pop. Density (2000): 356 persons/sq. mi.*

* Estimated based on % of county land area that
is partially or entirely within the basin.

The mainstem of the Catawba River in North Carolina is regulated by a series of seven
hydroelectric dams. The reservoirs formed by these dams are commonly referred to as the
Catawba River Chain Lakes. All are owned by Duke Power and were created to generate
electricity. The lakes begin with Lake James, located at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains,
followed by Lake Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory, Lookout Shoals Lake, Lake Norman, Mountain
Island Lake and Lake Wylie.

Population growth for the basin as a whole from 1990 to 2000 is estimated at 18.5 percent, and
estimated population density is 356 persons/square mile. The statewide population density is
163 persons/square mile, demonstrating the population concentration within the Catawba River
basin.

Over the 15-year period from 1982 to 1997, urban and built-up land cover increased by 183,000
acres or about 52 percent. Uncultivated cropland increased by 7,000 acres while pastureland
decreased by 13,000 acres. Forest and cultivated cropland cover significantly decreased by
104,000 and 75,000 acres, respectively (USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001).
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 7

2.2 Surface Water Hydrology

2.2.1 Watershed Descriptions

DWQ has a two-tiered system in which the state is divided into 17 major river basins with each
basin further subdivided into subbasins. The Catawba River basin is divided into nine subbasins
(6-digit DWQ subbasins) (Figure A-4). Maps of each subbasin are included in Section B. DWQ
and many other state agencies in North Carolina use this two-tiered system to identify
watersheds for many different programs. Most federal government agencies, including the US
Geological Survey (USGS) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), use a
different system of defining watersheds.

Under the federal system, the Catawba River basin is made up of hydrologic areas referred to as
hydrologic units (USGS 8-digit hydrologic units). The Catawba River basin is made up of three
hydrologic units: the Upper Catawba, South Fork Catawba and Lower Catawba. Hydrologic
units are further divided into smaller watershed units (14-digit hydrologic units) that are used for
smaller scale planning like that done by the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (Section C,
Chapter 1, Part 1.3.2). There are 94 14-digit hydrologic units in the Catawba River basin. Table
A-3 compares the three systems.

Table A-3 Hydrologic Subdivisions in the Catawba River Basin

Major
Waterbody Name
USGS 8-Digit
Hydrologic Units
DWQ 6-Digit
Subbasin Codes
Upper Catawba 03050101 03-08-30, 03-08-31, 03-08-32,
03-08-33, 03-08-34, 03-08-37
South Fork Catawba 03050102 03-08-35, 03-08-36
Lower Catawba 03050103 03-08-34, 03-08-38

2.2.2 Hydrologic Features

The Catawba River begins in mountainous western North Carolina near Grandfather Mountain
and flows easterly and southerly through the piedmont into South Carolina, where it joins Big
Wateree Creek to form the Wateree River. The hydrologic landscape is dominated by the
presence of Duke Power’s Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project. The Catawba-Wateree
Project is comprised of 13 hydropower plants and 11 reservoirs, including the James
(Bridgewater), Rhodhiss, Hickory (Oxford), Lookout Shoals, Norman (Cowan's Ford), Mountain
Island, Wylie, Fishing Creek, Great Falls, Rocky Creek, and Wateree reservoirs. Seven of these
reservoirs, from Lake James to Lake Wylie, are at least partially located within the boundaries of
North Carolina.

In addition to the mainstem lakes and river, the Catawba River basin includes the federally
recognized Wild and Scenic Linville River and the South Fork Catawba River. The Linville
River rushes through the high mountain wilderness areas of Burke County and into Lake James.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 10

The South Fork Catawba River flows through the agricultural and industrial corridor along US
Highway 321 and joins the mainstem Catawba River at Lake Wylie.

There are 3,048 stream miles and 50,764 freshwater acres (lakes) in the North Carolina portion
of the Catawba River basin.

2.2.3 Minimum Streamflow

One of the purposes of the Dam Safety Law is to ensure maintenance of minimum streamflows
below dams. Conditions may be placed on dam operations specifying mandatory minimum
releases in order to maintain adequate quantity and quality of water in the length of a stream
affected by an impoundment. The Division of Water Resources, in conjunction with the Wildlife
Resources Commission, recommends conditions relating to release of flows to satisfy minimum
instream flow requirements. The Division of Land Resources issues the permits (Table A-4).

2.2.4 Water Withdrawals and Water Supply

Prior to 1999, North Carolina required water users to register their water withdrawals with the
Division of Water Resources (DWR) only if the amount was 1,000,000 gallons or more of
surface water or groundwater per day. In 1999, the registration threshold for all water users
except agriculture was lowered to 100,000 gallons per day.

There are 235 registered water withdrawals in the Catawba River basin. The US Geological
Survey’s (USGS) 1995 summary estimated total water use in the basin at 279 MGD. Eighty-six
percent was withdrawn from surface water sources. Overall, public water systems supplied 152
MGD of surface water and 4 MGD of groundwater for both residential and nonresidential uses.
The remaining residential water demand was met by 17 MGD of self-supplied groundwater. In
addition, there was 87 MGD of self-supplied surface water withdrawn for nonresidential water
uses not including electric power generation (NCDENR-DWR, January 2001). For more
information on water withdrawals, visit the website at http://www.ncwater.org/ or call DWR at (919)
733-4064.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 11

Table A-4 Minimum Streamflow Projects in the Catawba River Basin

Site Waterbody Drainage Area
(sq. mi.)
Minimum Release
(cfs)
Hydropower Dams
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC#2232)a Catawaba River
Lake James (Bridgewater Dam) Catawaba River 380 25 (66b)
Lake Rhodhiss Catawaba River 1,088 40 (225b)
Lake Hickory (Oxford Dam) Catawaba River 1,310 40 (261)
Lookout Shoals Lake Catawaba River 1,449 60 (278b)
Lake Norman (Cowan’s Ford Dam) Catawaba River 1,770 80 (311b)
Mountain Island Lake Catawaba River 1,860 80 (314b)
Long Shoals (FERC#7742) South Fork Catawba River 470 92
High Shoals (FERC#4827) South Fork Catawba River 510 Nonec
Hardins (FERC#6492) South Fork Catawba River 512 43.5
Spencer Mountain (FERC#2607) South Fork Catawba River 622 76
McAdenville (FERC#4186) South Fork Catawba River 632 Nonec
Brushy Mountain (Millersville)
(Non-Jurisdictional) Lower Little River 80.7 2
Non-Hydropower Dams
Lake Tahomad Buck Creek 23.1 Nonee
Henry Riverf Henry Fork 81 24.5
Loch Dornie Linville River 3.5 1.9
Land Harbor Lake Linville River 19 6.6
West Fork Linville River Linville Ridge 0.3 0.1
Anchor’s Landing Silver Creek 3.77 3.9
Ben Webber Lake UT Long Creek 2.3 0.2
Miscellaneous Dams
Blue Ridge Country Club Laurel Branch 1.05 0.39
Duke Power Lincoln
Combustion Turbine Station Killian Creek 36 2.28
a The license issued for the Catawba-Wateree Project by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will
expire on 8/31/08. The flow requirements from each dam will be examined during the relicensing process. b Minimum average daily flow that may be requested for a specified period of time by the state to maintain water
quality standards. Flow requirements may be provided by power generation, spillage and/or leakage. c Even though there is no minimum flow, the project must still operate in a run-of-river mode; i.e., instantaneous
inflow equals instantaneous outflow. A noncompliant project can alter noticeably the streamflow. d The dam is a former hydropower facility (FERC#4021). The dam owners have surrendered the license to operate,
and the dam will have a minimum flow requirement determined in accordance with the NC Dam Safety Law. e Even though there is no minimum flow yet, the dam provides a run-of-river flow; i.e., instantaneous inflow equals
instantaneous outflow. f The site is a former, non-jurisdictional hydropower facility.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 12

2.2.5 Interbasin Transfers

"Interbasin Transfer" is the term used to describe the withdrawal, diversion or pumping of
surface water from one river basin and the use or discharge of all or any part of the water in a
basin different from the basin of origin. Water users in North Carolina are required to register
surface water interbasin transfers with the Division of Water Resources if the amount is 100,000
gallons per day or more. In addition, persons wishing to transfer 2 MGD or more, or increase an
existing transfer by 25 percent or more, must first obtain a certificate from the Environmental
Management Commission (G.S. 143-215.22I). The river basin boundaries that apply to these
requirements are designated on a map entitled Major River Basins and Sub-Basins in North
Carolina, on file in the Office of the Secretary of State. These boundaries differ from the 17
major river basins delineated by DWQ. The 8-digit hydrologic unit boundaries (Figure A-7)
correspond to these basins within the Catawba River basin. Table A-5 summarizes IBTs
involving the Catawba River basin.

In determining whether a certificate should be issued, the state must determine that the overall
benefits of a transfer outweigh the potential impacts. Factors used to determine whether a
certificate should be issued include:

• the necessity, reasonableness and beneficial effects of the transfer;
• the detrimental effects on the source and receiving basins, including effects on water supply
needs, wastewater assimilation, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, hydroelectric power
generation, navigation and recreation;
• the cumulative effect of existing transfers or water uses in the source basin;
• reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer; and
• any other facts and circumstances necessary to evaluate the transfer request.

A provision of the interbasin transfer law requires that an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement be prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Policy
Act as supporting documentation for a transfer petition. For more information on water
withdrawals, visit the website at http://www.ncwater.org or call DWR at [phone].
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 13

Table A-5 Estimated Interbasin Transfers in the Catawba River Basin (1997)

Supplying
System
Receiving
System
Source
Subbasin
Receiving
Subbasin
Estimated
Transfer (MGD) 1
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Charlotte-Mecklenburg Catawba Rocky 5.1
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Union County Catawba Rocky 0.22
Burlington Industries Burlington Industries Catawba Rocky 3.84
Gastonia Gastonia Catawba South Fork Catawba 5.25
Gastonia Cramerton Catawba South Fork Catawba 0.33
Gastonia Lowell Catawba South Fork Catawba 0.45
Gastonia McAdenville Catawba South Fork Catawba 0.42
Mooresville Mooresville Catawba Rocky 2.6
Valdese Burke County Catawba South Fork Catawba 0.08
Hickory Hickory Catawba South Fork Catawba 5.1
Hickory Newton Catawba South Fork Catawba Emergency
Hickory Conover Catawba South Fork Catawba 0.05
Hickory Brookford Catawba South Fork Catawba 0.06
Belmont Belmont Catawba South Fork Catawba Unknown
Belmont Cramerton Catawba South Fork Catawba Emergency
Long View Long View Catawba South Fork Catawba 1.3
Mount Holly Stanley Catawba South Fork Catawba Unknown
Lincoln County Lincolnton Catawba South Fork Catawba 0.01
Lenoir Caldwell County SE Catawba Yadkin Unknown
Lenoir Caldwell County N Catawba Yadkin Unknown
Mooresville Mooresville Catawba South Yadkin 0.28
Kings Mountain Kings Mountain Broad Catawba 1.47
Blowing Rock Blowing Rock New Catawba Unknown
Anson County Union County Yadkin Catawba 1.44
Alexander County Taylorsville South Yadkin Catawba 0.41
Alexander County Alexander County South Yadkin Catawba Unknown
Alexander County West Iredell South Yadkin Catawba 0.15
Statesville Troutman South Yadkin Catawba 0.07
Monroe Union County Rocky Catawba Unknown
Newton Newton South Fork Catawba Catawba Unknown
Newton Catawba South Fork Catawba Catawba 0.09
Dallas Gastonia South Fork Catawba Catawba Emergency
Bessemer City Gastonia South Fork Catawba Catawba Emergency
Bessemer City Bessemer City South Fork Catawba Catawba 1.51
Ranlo Gastonia South Fork Catawba Catawba Emergency
Stanley Stanley South Fork Catawba Catawba Unknown
Lincolnton Lincoln County South Fork Catawba Catawba Unknown
Cherryville Cherryville South Fork Catawba Broad Unknown
Kings Mountain Bessemer City Broad South Fork Catawba Emergency
1 All transfer amounts are based on average daily water use reported in 1997 Local Water Supply Plans, and the 1999
Water Withdrawal and Transfer Registration Database. "Unknown" refers to undocumented consumptive use.
"Emergency" refers to connections that are designated as for emergency use.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 14

2.3 Population and Growth Trends

In the following sections are three different ways of presenting population data for the Catawba
River basin. The Office of State Budget and Management projects population growth by county
using 2000 Census data as a starting point. This information is important in determining areas
that expect significant population changes in the future. Data presented by municipality
summarizes information on past growth of large urban areas in the basin. While the municipal
data are not projected into the future, it is possible to locate areas where past growth may have
impacted water quality. These two measures are based on political boundaries and not on
watersheds areas. Population data were also presented by subbasin to gain insight into
population densities within the basin. While the three different sets of information cannot be
directly compared because the areas and time periods are different, general conclusions are
apparent by looking at the information. Counties with the highest expected growth are
associated with the largest municipal areas and the most densely populated subbasins in the
Catawba River basin.

2.3.1 County Population and Growth Trends

Table A-6 shows the projected population for 2020 and the change in growth between 1990 and
2020 for counties that are wholly or partly contained within the basin. Since river basin
boundaries do not coincide with county boundaries, these numbers are not directly applicable to
the Catawba River basin. This information is intended to present an estimate of expected
population growth in counties that have some land area in the Catawba River basin.

Table A-6 Past and Projected Population (1990, 2000, 2020) and Population Change by
County

County
Percent of
County in
Basin ♦
1990 2000
Projected %
Growth
1990-2000
Projected
Population
2020
Projected %
Growth
2000-2020
Alexander 68 27,544 33,603 18.0 45,168 25.6
Avery 35 14,867 17,167 13.4 19,976 14.1
Burke 100 75,740 89,148 15.0 113,367 21.4
Caldwell 75 70,709 77,415 8.7 86,577 10.6
Catawba 100 118,412 141,685 16.4 186,058 23.8
Gaston 97 174,769 190,365 8.2 215,587 11.7
Iredell 22 93,205 122,660 24.0 182,758 32.9
Lincoln 93 50,319 63,780 21.1 90,778 29.7
McDowell 86 35,681 42,151 15.3 53,170 20.7
Mecklenburg 74 511,211 695,454 26.5 1,089,258 36.2
Union 25 84,210 123,677 31.9 210,738 41.3
Subtotals 1,256,667 1,597,105 21.3 2,293,435 30.4
♦ Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Note: The numbers reported reflect county population; however, these counties are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for counties located wholly or partially within the basin.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 15

Populations of counties wholly or partly contained within the basin increased by 340,438 people
between 1990 and 2000. Figure A-5 presents projected population growth by county (2000-
2020) for the Catawba River basin. Mecklenburg and Union counties are growing the fastest in
the lower basin, with Iredell, Alexander and Catawba counties growing the fastest in the upper
basin. The county populations are expected to grow by more than 696,000 by 2020. Along with
the increased population there will be increased drinking water demands and wastewater
discharges. There will also be loss of natural areas and increases in impervious surfaces
associated with construction of new homes, businesses and transportation infrastructure. These
side effects of population growth often have a negative impact on water quality if not carefully
managed. A detailed discussion of these impacts can be found in Section A, Chapter 4, Parts
4.11-4.13.

For more information on past, current and projected population estimates, contact the Office of
State Budget and Management at [phone] or visit the North Carolina State Demographics
website at http://demog.state.nc.us/.

2.3.2 Population, Growth Trends, and Population Density

Table A-7 presents population data from the Office of State Planning for municipalities with
populations greater than 2,000 persons, located wholly or partly within the basin. The highest
percentage of urban population growth has occurred in the lower basin around Cornelius,
Huntersville and Indian Trail. Mooresville, Waxhaw and Wesley Chapel have also increased in
population substantially over the last ten years.

Most population data are collected from within county or municipal boundaries. It is difficult to
evaluate population and population density within watersheds using this information. Both
county and municipal boundaries may extend beyond basin boundaries.

Information on population density at a watershed scale is useful in determining what streams are
likely to have the most impacts as a result of population growth. This information is also useful
in identifying stream segments that have good opportunities for preservation or restoration. This
information is presented to estimate population and population density by each subbasin and for
the entire basin. Assuming county populations are distributed evenly throughout each county,
subbasins that are within counties with large urban areas may overestimate the actual population
in that portion of the basin. The overall population of the Catawba River basin is 1,170,512,
with approximately 356 persons/square mile for counties that are partially or entirely in the
basin. Population density estimated by subbasin is presented in Figure A-6.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 16

Table A-7 Population (1980, 1990, 2000) and Population Change for Municipalities Greater
Than 2,000 Located Wholly or Partly in the Catawba River Basin

Municipality County Apr-80 Apr-90 Apr-2000 Percent Change
(1980-90)
Percent Change
(1990-2000)
Belmont Gaston 4,607 8,434 8,705 83.1 3.2
Bessemer City Gaston 4,787 4,698 5,119 -1.9 9.0
Cajah Mountain Caldwell 1,884 2,429 2,683 28.9 10.5
Charlotte • Mecklenburg 315,474 395,934 540,828 25.5 36.6
Cherryville • Gaston 4,844 4,756 5,361 -1.8 12.7
Conover Catawba 4,245 5,465 6,604 28.7 20.8
Cornelius • Mecklenburg 1,460 2,581 11,969 76.8 363.7
Cramerton Gaston 1,869 2,371 2,976 26.9 25.5
Dallas Gaston 3,340 3,012 3,402 -9.8 12.9
Davidson • Iredell,
Mecklenburg
3,241 4,046 7,139 24.8 76.4
Gamewell Caldwell 2,910 3,357 3,644 15.4 8.5
Gastonia Gaston 47,218 54,725 66,277 15.9 21.1
Granite Falls Caldwell 2,580 3,253 4,612 26.1 41.8
Hickory Burke, Caldwell,
Catawba
20,757 28,474 37,222 37.2 30.7
Hudson Caldwell 2,888 2,819 3,078 -2.4 9.2
Huntersville • Mecklenburg 1,294 3,023 24,960 133.6 725.7
Indian Trail • Union 811 1,942 11,905 139.5 513.0
Kings Mountain • Cleveland, Gaston 9,080 8,763 9,693 -3.5 10.6
Lenoir Caldwell 13,748 14,192 16,793 3.2 18.3
Lincolnton Lincoln 4,879 6,955 9,965 42.5 43.3
Long View Burke, Catawba 3,587 3,353 4,722 -6.5 40.8
Lowell Gaston 2,917 2,710 2,662 -7.1 -1.8
Maiden Catawba, Lincoln 2,574 2,470 3,282 -4.0 32.9
Marion McDowell 3,684 4,765 4,943 29.3 3.7
Matthews • Mecklenburg 1,648 13,651 22,127 728.3 62.1
Mint Hill • Mecklenburg 7,915 11,615 14,922 46.7 28.5
Mooresville • Iredell 8,575 9,317 18,823 8.7 102.0
Morganton Burke 13,763 15,085 17,310 9.6 14.7
Mount Holly Gaston 4,530 7,710 9,618 70.2 24.7
Newton Catawba 7,624 9,077 12,560 19.1 38.4
Pineville Mecklenburg 1,525 2,970 3,449 94.8 16.1
Ranlo Gaston 1,774 1,650 2,198 -7.0 33.2
Sawmills Caldwell 3,706 4,088 4,921 10.3 20.4
Stallings • Union 1,826 2,152 3,189 17.9 48.2
Stanley Gaston 2,341 2,897 3,053 23.8 5.4
Valdese Burke 3,364 3,914 4,485 16.3 14.6
Waxhaw Union 1,208 1,294 2,625 7.1 102.9
Weddington ♦ Union 848 3,803 6,696 348.5 76.1
Wesley Chapel Union ----- 1,018 2,549 ----- 150.4
• The numbers reported reflect municipality population; however, these municipalities are not entirely within the basin.
The intent is to demonstrate growth for municipalities located wholly or partially within the basin.
♦ Note: Weddington is listed in Mecklenburg and Union counties in the 2001 NC League of Municipalities Directory. It is
also listed in Mecklenburg and Union counties on the Office of State Planning website for the April 2001 municipality
population data even though there are no population figures listed for Mecklenburg County. However, on the 2000 GIS data
layer, Weddington is only listed in Union County.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 18

2.4 Local Governments and Planning Jurisdictions in the Basin

The Catawba River basin encompasses all or portions of 11 counties and 61 municipalities.
Table A-8 provides a listing of these municipalities, along with the regional planning jurisdiction
(Council of Governments). Fifteen municipalities are located in more than one major river basin.

Table A-8 Local Governments and Planning Units within the Catawba River Basin

County Region Municipalities
Alexander E Taylorsville ♦
Avery D Crossnore, Grandfather Village, Sugar Mountain ♦
Burke E Connelly Springs, Drexel, Glen Alpine, Hickory *, Hildebran, Long View *,
Morganton, Rhodhiss *, Rutherford College, Valdese
Caldwell E Blowing Rock * ♦, Cajah Mountain, Cedar Rock, Gamewell, Granite Falls, Hickory *,
Hudson, Lenoir, Rhodhiss *, Sawmills
Catawba E Brookford, Catawba, Claremont, Conover, Hickory *, Long View *, Maiden *, Newton
Cleveland C Kings Mountain * ♦
Gaston F Belmont, Bessemer City, Cherryville ♦, Cramerton, Dallas, Gastonia, High Shoals *,
Kings Mountain * ♦, Lowell, McAdenville, Mount Holly, Ranlo, Spencer Mountain,
Stanley
Iredell F Davidson * ♦, Mooresville ♦, Troutman ♦
Lincoln F High Shoals *, Lincolnton, Maiden *
McDowell C Marion, Old Fort
Mecklenburg F Charlotte ♦, Cornelius ♦, Davidson * ♦, Huntersville ♦, Matthews ♦, Mint Hill ♦,
Pineville
Union F Indian Trail ♦, Marvin, Mineral Springs, Stallings ♦, Waxhaw, Weddington,
Wesley Chapel
Watauga D Blowing Rock * ♦
* Located in more than one county.
♦ Located in more than one major river basin.
Note: Counties adjacent to and sharing a border with a river basin are not included as part of that basin if only a trace amount of
the county (<2 percent) is located in that basin, unless a municipality is located in that county. (Note: Cleveland County
is included only because of the municipality, Kings Mountain; and Watauga County is included only because of the
municipality, Blowing Rock.)
Note: Gastonia has a minute portion located in the Broad River basin; however, it will only be included in the Catawba River
basin at this time. Monroe has a minute portion located in the Catawba River basin; however, it will only be included in
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin at this time.
Region Name Location
C Isothermal Planning and Development Commission Rutherfordton
D Region D Council of Governments Boone
E Western Piedmont Council of Governments Hickory
F Centralina Council of Governments Charlotte

Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 20

2.5 Land Cover

Land cover can be an important way to evaluate the effects of land use changes on water quality.
Unfortunately, the tools and database to do this on a watershed scale are not yet available. Parts
2.5.1 and 2.5.2 below describe two different ways of presenting land cover in the Catawba River
basin. The CGIA land cover information is useful in providing a snapshot of land cover in the
basin from 1993 to 1995. This information is also available in a GIS format so it can be
manipulated to present amounts of the different land covers by subbasin or at the watershed
scale. The National Resources Inventory (NRI 1982-1997) land cover information is presented
only at a larger scale (8-digit hydrologic unit), but the collection methods allow for between-year
comparisons. The two datasets cannot be compared to evaluate land cover data. This
information is presented to provide a picture of the different land covers and some idea of change
in land cover over time. In the future, it is hoped that land cover information like the GIS
formatted dataset will be developed to make more meaningful assessments of the effects of land
use changes on water quality. This dataset would also be useful in providing reliable and small-
scale information on land cover changes that can be used in water quality monitoring, modeling
and restoration efforts.

2.5.1 CGIA Land Cover

The North Carolina Corporate Geographic Database contains land cover information for the
Catawba River basin based on satellite imagery from 1993-1995. The state’s Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA) developed 24 categories of statewide land cover
information. For the purposes of this report, those categories have been condensed into five
broader categories as described in Table A-9. Figure A-7 provides an illustration of the relative
amount of land area that falls into each major cover type for the Catawba River basin. Section B
of this plan provides land cover data specific to each subbasin based on this information.

Table A-9 Description of Major CGIA Land Cover Categories

Land Cover Type Land Cover Description
Urban Greater than 50 percent coverage by synthetic land cover (built-upon area)
and municipal areas.
Cultivated Cropland Areas that are covered by crops that are cultivated in a distinguishable pattern.
Pasture/Managed Herbaceous Areas used for the production of grass and other forage crops and other
managed areas such as golf courses and cemeteries. Also includes upland
herbaceous areas not characteristic of riverine and estuarine environments.
Forest/Wetland Includes salt and freshwater marshes, hardwood swamps, shrublands and all
kinds of forested areas (such as needleleaf evergreens, deciduous hardwoods).
Water Areas of open surface water, areas of exposed rock, and areas of sand or silt
adjacent to tidal waters and lakes.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 21

Catawba River Basin Land Cover (1993-1995)
Cultivated Cropland
2%
Urban
6%
Forest/wetland
67%
Pasture/managed
herbaceous
22%
Water
3%

Figure A-7 Percentages within Major CGIA Land Cover Categories in the Catawba River
Basin

2.5.2 NRI Land Cover Trends

Land cover information in this section is from the most current NRI, as developed by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001). The NRI is a
statistically based longitudinal survey that has been designed and implemented to assess
conditions and trends of soil, water and related resources on the Nation’s nonfederal rural lands.
The NRI provides results that are nationally and temporally consistent for four points in time --
1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997.

In general, NRI protocols and definitions remain fixed for each inventory year. However, part of
the inventory process is that the previously recorded data are carefully reviewed as
determinations are made for the new inventory year. For those cases where a protocol or
definition needs to be modified, all historical data must be edited and reviewed on a point-by-
point basis to make sure that data for all years are consistent and properly calibrated. The
following excerpt from the Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory provides
guidance for use and interpretation of current NRI data.

"The 1997 NRI database has been designed for use in detecting significant changes in
resource conditions relative to the years 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997. All comparisons
for two points in time should be made using the new 1997 NRI database. Comparisons
made using data previously published for the 1982, 1987 or 1992 NRI may provide
erroneous results because of changes in statistical estimation protocols, and because all
data collected prior to 1997 were simultaneously reviewed (edited) as 1997 NRI data
were collected."

Table A-10 summarizes acreage and percentage of land cover from the 1997 NRI for the major
watersheds within the basin, as defined by the USGS 8-digit hydrologic units, and compares the
coverages to 1982 land cover. Definitions of the different land cover types are presented in
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 22

Table A-11. Figure A-6 also shows the relationship between the 8-digit hydrologic units and
DWQ subbasin. These data can be used to evaluate changes in land cover over the large area
represented by the 8-digit hydrologic units and should not be assumed to represent land cover
changes at smaller scales in specific watersheds. In the Catawba River basin, the 8-digit
hydrologic units extend into South Carolina, and thus, are partially contained in North Carolina.
Data from 1982 are also provided for a comparison of change over 15 years. During this period,
urban and built-up land cover increased by 183,000 acres or about 52 percent. Uncultivated
cropland increased by 7,000 acres while pastureland decreased by 13,000 acres. Forest and
cultivated cropland cover significantly decreased by 104,000 and 75,000 acres, respectively.
Most land cover change is occurring in the upper Catawba River basin hydrologic unit that
includes the rapidly growing areas in Catawba and Iredell counties, and in the lower Catawba
River basin hydrologic unit in Mecklenburg and Union counties. Figure A-8 presents changes in
land cover between 1982 and 1997.

Table A-10 Land Cover in the Catawba River Basin by Major Watersheds – 1982 vs. 1997
(Source: USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001)
MAJOR WATERSHED AREAS

Upper South Fork Lower 1997 1982 %
Catawba Catawba Catawba TOTALS TOTALS change
Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres % of % of since
LAND COVER (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) % (1000s) TOTAL (1000s) TOTAL 1982
Cult. Crop 3.7 39.9 10.2 20.8 8.0 114.2 5.4 188.8 8.9 -39.5
Uncult. Crop 49.4 3.4 12.9 3.3 3.2 1.2 65.5 3.1 58.2 2.8 12.5
Pasture 72.2 4.9 60.4 15.5 17.2 6.7 149.8 7.1 162.8 7.7 -8.0
Forest 674.1 46.2 170.1 43.5 81.2 31.4 925.4 43.9 1029.6 48.7 -10.1
Urban & Built-Up 316.4 21.7 89.7 22.9 128.8 49.8 534.9 25.4 352.0 16.7 52.0
Federal 190.5 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 190.5 9.0 188.7 8.9 1.0
Other 102.7 7.0 17.9 4.6 7.4 2.9 128.0 6.1 133.6 6.3 -4.2
Totals 1458.8 100.0 390.9 100.0 258.6 100.0 2108.3 100.0 2113.7 100.0
% of Total Basin 69.2 18.5 12.3 100.0
SUBBASINS 03-08-30 03-08-31 03-08-35 03-08-34
03-08-32 03-08-33 03-08-36 03-08-38
03-08-34 03-08-37
8-Digit
Hydraulic Units 03050101 03050102 03050103
* = Watershed areas as defined by the 8-Digit Hydrologic Units do not necessarily coincide with subbasin titles used by DWQ.
Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service - 1982 and 1997 NRI
53.5

Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 23

Table A-11 Description of Land Cover Types
(Source: USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001)

Type Description
Cultivated Cropland Harvestable crops including row crops, small-grain and hay crops, nursery and orchard
crops, and other specialty crops.
Uncultivated Cropland Summer fallow or other cropland not planted.
Pastureland Includes land that has a vegetative cover of grasses, legumes and/or forbs, regardless of
whether or not it is being grazed by livestock.
Forestland At least 10 percent stocked (a canopy cover of leaves and branches of 25 percent or
greater) by single-stemmed trees of any size which will be at least 4 meters at maturity,
and land bearing evidence of natural regeneration of tree cover. The minimum area for
classification of forestland is 1 acre, and the area must be at least 1,000 feet wide.
Urban and
Built-up Areas
Includes airports, playgrounds with permanent structures, cemeteries, public
administration sites, commercial sites, railroad yards, construction sites, residences, golf
courses, sanitary landfills, industrial sites, sewage treatment plants, institutional sites,
water control structure spillways and parking lots. Includes highways, railroads and
other transportation facilities if surrounded by other urban and built-up areas. Tracts of
less than 10 acres that are completely surrounded by urban and built-up lands.
Other Rural Transportation: Consists of all highways, roads, railroads and associated rights-
of-way outside urban and built-up areas; private roads to farmsteads; logging roads; and
other private roads (but not field lanes).
Small Water Areas: Waterbodies less than 40 acres; streams less than 0.5 miles wide.
Census Water: Large waterbodies consisting of lakes and estuaries greater than 40
acres and rivers greater than 0.5 miles in width.
Minor Land: Lands that do not fall into one of the other categories.

1.8%
-4.2%
52.0%
-10.1%
-8.0%
12.5%
-39.5%
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Cult. Crop
U ncult.Crop
Pasture
Forest
Urban & Built-Up
Federal
Other
Land Cover Type
Ch
a
n
g
e
s

i
n

A
c
r
es

(
10
0
0
s
)

Figure A-8 Land Cover Changes from 1982 to 1997 for the Catawba River Basin
(Source: USDA-NRCS, NRI, updated June 2001)

Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 24

2.6 NPDES Permits Summary

Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe,
ditch or other well-defined point of discharge are
broadly referred to as ‘point sources’. Wastewater
point source discharges include municipal (city and
county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants and
small domestic wastewater treatment systems serving
schools, commercial offices, residential subdivisions
and individual homes. Stormwater point source
discharges include stormwater collection systems for
municipalities that serve populations greater than 100,000 and stormwater discharges associated
with certain industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and
obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits
are issued under the NPDES program, which is delegated to DWQ by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The primary pollutants associated
with point source discharges are:

* oxygen-consuming wastes,
* nutrients,
* color, and
* toxic substances including chlorine,
ammonia and metals.

2.6.1 Permitted Wastewater Discharges

Currently, there are 204 permitted
wastewater discharges in the Catawba
River basin. Table A-12 provides
summary information (by type and
subbasin) about the discharges. Various
types of dischargers listed in the table are
described in the inset box. A list of all
facilities can be found in Appendix I.
Facilities are mapped in each subbasin
chapter in Section B. A location key to the
facilities is provided at the beginning of
Appendix I. Because the GIS data have
not been updated as recently as the
NPDES database, refer to Appendix I to
determine the most current status of
individual NPDES permit holders.

The majority of NPDES permitted
wastewater flow into the waters of the
Catawba River basin is from major
municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Nonmunicipal discharges also contribute
substantial wastewater flow into the
Catawba River basin. Facilities, large or small, where recent data show problems with a
discharge are listed and discussed in each subbasin chapter in Section B.
Types of Wastewater Discharges

Major Facilities: wastewater treatment plants with
flows ≥1 MGD (million gallons per day); and some
industrial facilities (depending on flow and
potential impacts to public health and water
quality).
Minor Facilities: Facilities not defined as Major.
100% Domestic Waste: Facilities that only treat
domestic-type waste (from toilets, sinks, washers).
Municipal Facilities: Public facilities that serve a
municipality. Can treat waste from homes and
industries.
Nonmunicipal Facilities: Non-public facilities that
provide treatment for domestic, industrial or
commercial wastewater. This category includes
wastewater from industrial processes such as
textiles, mining, seafood processing, glass-making
and power generation, and other facilities such as
schools, subdivisions, nursing homes, groundwater
remediation projects, water treatment plants and
non-process industrial wastewater.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 25

Table A-12 Summary of NPDES Dischargers and Permitted Flows for the Catawba River
Basin (as of 06/16/03)

Catawba River Subbasin
Facility Categories 03-08-30 03-08-31 03-08-32 03-08-33 03-08-34 03-08-35 03-08-36 03-08-37 03-08-38 TOTAL
Total Facilities 29 14 52 10 44 24 14 15 2 204
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 8.62 24.69 14.51 10.99 119.67 27.33 24.08 7.26 2.51 239.66
Major Discharges 4 4 7 3 6 6 4 2 1 37
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 7.4 24.58 10.53 10.0 117.9 26.5 21.4 6.62 2.5 227.43
Minor Discharges 25 10 45 7 38 18 10 13 1 167
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 1.22 0.11 3.98 0.99 1.77 0.83 2.68 0.65 0.01 12.24
100% Domestic Waste 19 7 28 3 11 7 2 4 1 82
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 0.87 0.10 0.79 0.05 0.73 0.16 0.09 0.07 0.01 2.87
Municipal Facilities 4 3 11 3 5 8 6 1 1 42
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 4.52 24.58 12.65 10.75 104.03 26.03 21.38 6.0 2.5 212.44
Nonmunicipal Facilities 25 11 41 7 39 16 8 14 1 162
Total Permitted Flow (MGD) 4.10 0.11 1.85 0.24 15.64 1.29 2.70 1.26 0.01 27.20

2.6.2 Other NPDES Permits

Stormwater permits are granted in the form of general permits (which cover a wide variety of
more common activities) or individual permits. Excluding construction stormwater general
permits, there are 565 general stormwater permits and 38 individual stormwater permits (see
Appendix I for a listing). Refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.12 for more information on
stormwater programs and permits.

2.7 Animal Operations

In 1992, the Environmental Management Commission adopted a rule modification (15A NCAC
2H.0217) establishing procedures for managing and reusing animal wastes from intensive
livestock operations. The rule applies to new, expanding or existing feedlots with animal waste
management systems designed to serve animal populations of at least the following size: 100
head of cattle, 75 horses, 250 swine, 1,000 sheep or 30,000 birds (chickens and turkeys) with a
liquid waste system. Figure A-9 displays general locations of animal operations in the Catawba
River basin.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 26

Key Animal Operation Legislation (1995-2003)

1995 Senate Bill 974 requires owners of swine facilities with 250 or more animals to hire a certified operator.
Operators are required to attend a six-hour training course and pass an examination for certification.
Senate Bill 1080 established buffer requirements for swine houses, lagoons and land application areas
for farms sited after October 1, 1995.

1996 Senate Bill 1217 required all facilities (above threshold populations) to obtain coverage under a general
permit, beginning in January 1997, for all new and expanding facilities. DWQ was directed to conduct
annual inspections of all animal waste management facilities. Poultry facilities with 30,000+ birds and
a liquid waste management system were required to hire a certified operator by January 1997, and
facilities with dry litter animal waste management systems were required to develop an animal waste
management plan by January 1998. The plan must address three specific items: 1) periodic testing of
soils where waste is applied; 2) development of waste utilization plans; and 3) completion and
maintenance of records on-site for three years. Additionally, anyone wishing to construct a new, or
expand an existing, swine farm must notify all adjoining property owners.

1997 House Bill 515 placed a moratorium on new or existing swine farm operations and allows counties to
adopt zoning ordinances for swine farms with a design capacity of 600,000 pounds (SSLW) or more. In
addition, owners of potential new and expanding operations are required to notify the county (manager
or chair of commission) and local health department, as well as adjoining landowners. NCDENR was
required to develop and adopt economically feasible odor control standards by March 1, 1999.

1998 House Bill 1480 extended the moratorium on construction or expansion of swine farms. The bill also
requires owners of swine operations to register with DWQ any contractual relationship with an
integrator.

1999 House Bill 1160 extended (again) the moratorium on new construction or expansion of swine farms,
required NCDENR to develop an inventory of inactive lagoons. The Bill requires owners/operators of
an animal waste treatment system to notify the public in the event of a discharge to surface waters of the
state of 1,000 gallons or more of untreated wastewater.

2000 Attorney General Easley reached a landmark agreement with Smithfield Foods, Inc. to phase out hog
lagoons and implement new technologies that will substantially reduce pollutants from hog farms. The
agreement commits Smithfield to phase out all anaerobic lagoon systems on 276 company-owned
farms. Legislation will be required to phase out the remaining systems statewide within a 5-year period
(State of Environment Report 2000).

2001 House Bill 1216 extended (again) the moratorium on new construction or expansion of swine farms.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 27

Table A-13 summarizes, by subbasin, the number of registered livestock operations, total
number of animals, number of facilities, and total steady state live weight as of July 2003. These
numbers reflect only operations required by law to be registered, and therefore, do not represent
the total number of animals in each subbasin. There are no registered poultry operations in the
Catawba River basin.

Table A-13 Registered Animal Operations in the Catawba River Basin (as of 07/03/03)

Cattle Swine
Total Total
Subbasin No. of No. of Steady State No. of No. of Steady State
Facilities Animals Live Weight Facilities Animals Live Weight
03-08-30 2 360 504,000 0
03-08-31 0 0
03-08-32 8 3,288 4,603,200 1 2,600 368,420
03-08-33 1 175 245,000 0
03-08-34 0 0
03-08-35 8 3,121 4,369,400 0
03-08-36 2 794 1,111,600 0
03-08-37 0 0
03-08-38 1 700 980,000 0
Totals 22 8,438 11,813,200 1 2,600 368,420
* Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) is in pounds, after a conversion factor has been applied to the number of swine,
cattle or poultry on a farm. Conversion factors come from the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource
Conservation Service guidelines. Since the amount of waste produced varies by hog size, this is the best way to
compare the sizes of the farms.

Between 1994 and 1998, there was a 20 percent increase in poultry capacity in the basin. There
was a 22 percent decrease in dairy operations and a minimal increase in swine capacity.
Information on animal capacity by subbasin (Table A-14) was provided by the USDA.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 29

Table A-14 Estimated Populations of Swine, Dairy and Poultry in the Catawba River Basin
(1998 and 1994)

Subbasin
Total Swine
Capacity
Swine
Change
Total Dairy
Capacity
Dairy
Change
Poultry
Capacity
Poultry
Change
1998 1994 94-98 (%)1998 1994 94-98 (%)1998 1994 94-98 (%)
03-08-30 292 391 -25 295 737 -60 550,507 431,907 27
03-08-31 3,921 3,477 13 743 747 -1 1,836,300 1,730,400 6
03-08-32 3,628 4,578 -21 4,203 5,485 -23 3,942,879 3,175,448 24
03-08-33 2,717 1,802 51 1,448 1,448 0 62,084 11,822 425
03-08-34 428 274 56 45 45 0 538 538 0
03-08-35 1,355 1,814 -25 4,896 6,757 -28 2,133,378 1,767,550 21
03-08-36 107 101 6 1,793 2,138 -16 100,352 352 28,409
03-08-37 236 236 0 223 223 0 276 250 10
03-08-38 1,838 1,280 44 192 237 -19 2,179,920 1,869,620 17
TOTALS 14,522 13,953 4 13,838 17,817 -22 10,806,234 8,987,887 20
% of State Total <1% <1% 14% 13% 5% 5%

2.8 Natural Resources

2.8.1 Catawba River Chain Lakes

One of the most prominent hydrologic features of the Catawba River basin is the series of
hydropower impoundments along the river's length that are widely referred to as the Catawba
River Chain Lakes (Figure A-4). The discharge from the upstream reservoir, as well as inputs
from the surrounding watershed and discharges to the lakes, influences the water quality of each
impoundment. The most upstream impoundment, Lake James, has the best water quality of all
of the lakes in the Catawba River chain.

The next three impoundments are Lake Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory and Lookout Shoals Lake.
Enriched conditions found at these reservoirs are caused by nutrient loading from agricultural
runoff, urban stormwater and municipal dischargers. Although nutrient concentrations in these
reservoirs are sufficient to support substantial algal populations, short water retention times and
limited light availability historically kept algae from reaching higher levels (NCDEHNR-DEM,
1992). During the last basin cycle, retention times increased due to drought, and the potential for
intense algal growth was realized in Lake Rhodhiss and Lake Hickory. Refer to Section A,
Chapter 4, Part 4.7 for more information on these lakes.

Lake Norman is located on the Catawba River below Lookout Shoals Lake and has historically
exhibited good water quality. Water released from Lake Norman forms Mountain Island Lake,
which is moderately productive. The final impoundment on the Catawba River in North
Carolina is Lake Wylie. Lake Wylie is experiencing localized sedimentation and nutrient
enrichment problems in the Crowders Creek and Catawba Creek arms of the lake.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 30

All seven of the Catawba River Chain Lakes (Catawba-Wateree Project) are owned by Duke
Power Company and were created to generate electricity. All of the chain lakes were completed
between 1904 and 1928 with the exception of Lake Norman, which was completed in 1963. In
addition to power generation, the lakes are popular recreational areas, and some are used for
water supply purposes and for waterfront home development (Table A-15).

Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires Duke Power’s Catawba-Wateree Project to have
a license in order to operate. Relicensing is the process for obtaining a new license for a
hydropower project after the existing license expires. Duke Power’s current license for the
project was issued in 1958 and will expire in 2008. Please refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part
4.7.1 for a discussion on the relicensing process.

More detailed information on each of the lakes can be found in Section B.

Table A-15 Statistics on Major Lakes in the Catawba River Basin

Mean
Surface Mean Shore Retention Watershed
Area Depth Length Time Trophic Area Major
Lake (Acres) (Feet) (Miles) (Days) Level (Sq. Mi.) Uses *

Catawba River Chain Lakes (Upstream to downstream order)

Lake James 6,510 46 145 208 Oligotrophic 380 Hydro, Rec
Rhodhiss Lake 3,515 20 90 21 Mesotrophic 1,090 Hydro, Rec
Lake Hickory 4,100 33 105 33 Oligotrophic 1,310 Hydro, Rec, WS
Lookout Shoals 1,270 30 39 7 Oligotrophic 1,449 Hydro, Rec
Lake Norman 32,510 33 520 239 Oligotrophic 1,790 Hydro, Rec, WS
Mt. Island Lake 3,234 16 61 12 Oligotrophic 1,859 Hydro, Rec, WS
Lake Wylie 12,450 23 327 39 Eutrophic 3,020 Hydro, Rec

Other Major Lakes (Not on Catawba River)

Lake Tahoma 161 Oligotrophic Rec (was Hydro)
Little River Dam 162 Eutrophic 25 Rec (was Hydro)
Maiden Lake 14 Eutrophic 20 WS
Bessemer City 15 Mesotrophic 0.4 WS
Newton City Lake 17 Oligotrophic WS
* Hydro = Hydropower; Rec = Recreation; WS = Water Supply

The five other lakes in the Catawba River basin included in Table A-15 are not on the Catawba
River. The Little River Dam, located on a tributary to Lake Hickory, is no longer used for
hydropower purposes and has become a local fishing spot. Lake Tahoma, located on a tributary
to the Catawba River upstream from Lake James, is now a recreational lake owned by Lake
Tahoma, Incorporated. The last three lakes are small water supply reservoirs serving the
municipalities of Maiden, Bessemer City and Newton.

2.8.2 Ecological Significance of the Catawba River Basin

Significant natural plant and animal communities in the basin are somewhat influenced by the
geology of the area. The Catawba River basin supports several nationally significant aquatic
habitat communities, notable for their rare mollusk, fish and insect populations (see Table A-16).
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 31

The most biologically important aquatic habitats in the basin are in Waxhaw Creek, Wilson
Creek and Upper Creek. The Linville River, which also contains several rare species, is valued
as a recreational river and has been designated a State Natural and Scenic River. Ecologically
significant wetlands in the basin are mostly small, isolated bogs, such as the nationally
significant Pineola Bog in Avery County and several bogs in McDowell County. These bogs are
often home to a variety of rare plants and animals. Large, high quality floodplain wetland
communities have not been identified in the basin.

Table A-16 Rare Aquatic and Wetland-Dwelling Species in the Catawba River Basin (as of
August 2003)

Major
Taxon
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
Crustacean Caecidotea carolinensis Bennett's Mill Cave water slater SR FSC
Crustacean Dactylocythere isabelae Catawba crayfish ostracod SR FSC
Fish Carpiodes velifer Highfin carpsucker SC
Fish Micropterus coosae Redeye bass SR
Fish Etheostoma collis pop 1 Carolina darter - Central Piedmont population SC FSC
Fish Cyprinella zanema pop 1 Santee chub - Piedmont population SR
Insect Ceraclea slossonae A caddisfly SR
Insect Bolotoperla rossi A stonefly SR
Insect Acerpenna macdunnoughi A mayfly SR
Insect Ephemerella berneri A mayfly SR
Insect Barbaetis benfieldi Benfield's bearded small minnow mayfly SR
Insect Homoeoneuria cahabensis Cahaba sand-filtering mayfly SR
Insect Heterocloeon petersi A mayfly SR
Insect Rhyacophila mainensis A caddisfly SR
Insect Matrioptila jeanae A caddisfly SR
Insect Triaenodes marginata A triaenode caddisfly SR
Insect Micrasema burksi A caddisfly SR
Insect Micrasema sprulesi A caddisfly SR
Insect Macdunnoa brunnea A mayfly SR
Insect Macromia margarita Mountain River cruiser SR FSC
Insect Palaeagapetus celsus A caddisfly SR
Insect Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy snaketail SR FSC
Insect Ophiogomphus edmundo Edmund's snaketail SR FSC
Mollusk Alasmidonta robusta Carolina elktoe EX
Mollusk Leptoxis dilatata Seep mudalia T
Mollusk Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater E FSC
Mollusk Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E E
Mollusk Villosa constricta Notched rainbow SC
Mollusk Villosa delumbis Eastern creekshell SR
Mollusk Villosa vaughaniana Carolina creekshell E FSC
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 32

Rare Wetland-Dwelling Animals in the Catawba River Basin
Amphibian Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed salamander SC
Bird Vireo gilvus Warbling vireo SR
Bird Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T T (PD)
Insect Autochton cellus Golden banded-skipper SR
Mammal Sorex palustris punctulatus Southern water shrew SC FSC
Reptile Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T T(S/A)
Rare Species Listing Criteria
E = Endangered (those species in danger of becoming extinct)
T = Threatened (considered likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future)
EX = Extirpated
PD = Proposed Delisted
SR = Significantly Rare (rare in North Carolina, but not yet officially listed as threatened or endangered)
SC = Special Concern (have limited numbers in North Carolina and vulnerable populations in need of monitoring)
FSC = Federal Species of Concern (those under consideration for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act)
T(S/A) = Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance

2.8.3 Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Catawba River Basin

Figure A-10 is a map of the Significant Natural Heritage Areas of the Catawba River basin. The
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) of the Division of Parks and Recreation
compiles a list of Significant Natural Heritage Areas as required by the Nature Preserves Act.
The list is based on the program’s inventory of natural diversity in the state. Natural areas are
evaluated on the basis of the occurrences of rare plant and animal species, rare or high quality
natural communities, and geologic features. The global and statewide rarity of these elements
and the quality of their occurrence at a site relative to other occurrences determine a site’s
significance. The sites included on this list are the best representatives of the natural diversity of
the state, and therefore, have priority for protection. Inclusion on the list does not imply that any
protection or public access exists.

Sites that directly contribute to the maintenance of water quality in the Catawba River basin are
highlighted on the map and in the following text. More complete information on Significant
Natural Heritage Areas may be obtained from the Natural Heritage Program.

1. Waxhaw Creek Aquatic Habitat. A section of Waxhaw Creek in Union County, from the
vicinity of NC 200 downstream to the first tributary below SR 1117, is considered an
important aquatic habitat for a rare species of freshwater mussel known as Carolina
heelsplitter. Waxhaw Creek is one of only two streams in North Carolina and approximately
five streams nationwide that have living populations of this federally endangered species.

2. Wilson Creek Aquatic Habitat. Wilson Creek is a large creek that flows southeast from the
area of Grandfather Mountain to Johns River in northwestern Caldwell County. Wilson
Creek is one of only two known sites that support a population of a rare dragonfly, Edmund’s
snaketail. Edmund’s snaketail is a globally rare species, which was feared to be extinct until
it was rediscovered a few years ago.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 33

3. Upper Creek Aquatic Habitat. Upper Creek is a fairly large stream that flows southward
toward Catawba River in northern Burke County. The upper boundary of Upper Creek
Aquatic Habitat is at Timbered Branch, and the downstream boundary is at Warrior Fork, just
north of Morganton. Upper Creek is a nationally significant aquatic habitat recognized for
being the best of only two known locations with a population of a rare dragonfly, Edmund’s
snaketail. Upper Creek also supports another rare dragonfly, the pygmy snaketail. Two rare
freshwater mussel species, brook floater, a state threatened species; and eastern creekshell, a
significantly rare species, are also found in Upper Creek.

4. Linville Gorge/Grandfather Mountain. Linville Gorge, a 10,000-acre high quality natural
area significant for its 2,000-foot steep valley walls topped by quartzite cliffs, is one of the
few primeval gorges in the Appalachians. It contains several rare plant species, as well as a
few rare animal species and high quality examples of rare natural communities. Linville
Gorge is within the Pisgah National Forest and has been established as a National Wilderness
Area and a Registered Natural Heritage Area.

Grandfather Mountain is the highest mountain (5,964 feet) in the Blue Ridge Ranges region
of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Grandfather Mountain has an astonishing diversity of both
endemic and disjunct species, with nearly 60 rare plant and animal species known. Nearly
1,000 acres of Grandfather Mountain in Watauga and Avery counties are permanently
dedicated as a State Nature Preserve.

5. Gabbro sites. Mecklenburg and Union counties contain areas of unique geology that
support high quality wetland communities such as Upland Depression Swamp Forests.
Several of the upland depressions have recently been protected, but most of the gabbro sites
are highly threatened by development in the Charlotte area.

6. Piedmont Monadnocks. A cluster of monadnocks occurs on the southern edge of the
Catawba River basin in Gaston, Catawba and Burke counties. Three of the most prominent
monadnock clusters (remnant bodies of rock that are more resistant to erosion than the
surrounding rocks) are Crowders and Kings Mountains, South Mountains and Bakers
Mountain. In addition to their geologic significance, these monadnocks are significant
natural areas for their biodiversity.

The South Mountains are a rugged landscape of narrow ridges, ravine-like valleys and steep
slopes. The South Mountains support communities typical of the Blue Ridge but are
extremely rare in the Piedmont. Over 11,000 acres of South Mountains are protected as a
state park, and the recent acquisition of the adjacent Rollins Tract by the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission adds another 17,000 acres to the protected area. Crowders Mountain
and Kings Pinnacle are protected as the 3,000-acre Crowders Mountain State Park.
Approximately 300 acres of Bakers Mountain are owned by Catawba County and are under
consideration for protection as a park.

7. Shortia/Heartleaf sites. Northern oconee bells and dwarf-flowered heartleaf are two very
rare plants that live in areas of moist, sandy, acidic soils found on slopes of several streams in
Catawba, Burke, and McDowell counties. These species have been extirpated over most of
their former ranges by the damming of streams and rivers. Other populations have been
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 35

endangered through land development or excessive logging of the steep ravines in which the
plants grow.

2.8.4 Forestry in the Catawba River Basin

In Caldwell County, the Division of Forest Resources (DFR) manages approximately 300 acres
at the Tuttle Educational State Forest, which help protect the headwaters of Husband Creek and
Celia Creek. The forest, established in 1978, is managed as an outdoor classroom for school
groups and the general public, as well as for sustainable forestry. Visitation averages 35,000 per
year, including nearly 6,000 school children that are provided classes that focus on water quality
protection and soil conservation practices. More information is available on the North Carolina
Division of Forest Resources’ website at http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/.

The 1,700-acre Mountain Island Educational State Forest is currently being established on the
western shores of Mountain Island Lake along the Lincoln/Gaston county line. This forest helps
protect a significant portion of the watershed around Mountain Island Lake, which is used as the
primary drinking water supply for the greater Charlotte/Mecklenburg region. This forest focuses
on the benefits and importance of using proper Best Management Practices ("BMPs") and shows
how active sustainable forest management is compatible with water quality protection. While
the forest is not yet open to the public, a virtual tour is available on their website at
http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/esf/miesf/miesf_home.htm.

There is an estimated 171,000 acres of the Pisgah National Forest within the Catawba River
basin, which amounts to one-third of the entire holdings of the Pisgah National Forest. More
information about the National Forests and the USDA-Forest Service can be found on the
website at http://www.fs.fed.us/.

Forest Resources
Nearly 75 percent of forestland in the Catawba River basin is owned by nonindustrial private
landowners. Less than 5 percent of the forestland is owned by forest products companies, with
the remaining 20 percent under public ownership. Most of the forestland in public ownership
consists of the Pisgah National Forest (USDA-Forest Service, North Carolina’s Forests, 1990,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Resource Bulletin SE-142).

From the most recent data available, 25 different businesses in the basin are considered "Primary
Processors" of forestry-related raw material, which represents less than 10 percent of the total
number of primary processors (285) located in North Carolina. Some examples of a primary
processor include a sawmill, veneer mill, chip mill, paper mill or pallet mill. The state, with
general appropriations combined with tax revenue from forest product Primary Processors,
provides cost share assistance to private landowners for approved forestation practices through
the "Forest Development Program". Other state and federal cost share programs also are
available to promote forestation work and forestland management. More information on these
cost share programs is available at local DFR county offices and the DFR website at
http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/. At least 11,500 acres of land were reported as having been established or
regenerated in trees across the Catawba River basin during September 1997 through August
2002.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 36

During this same time period, DFR provided private forest landowners in the Catawba River
basin 1,655 individual forest management plans, encompassing 71,480 acres. In addition, 28
tracts of private forestland are certified Stewardship Forests, totaling over 3,700 acres. DFR’s
Urban and Community Forestry Program recognizes four municipalities in the Catawba River
basin, including Charlotte and Gastonia, as a "Tree City USA".

Forestry Regulation in North Carolina
Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act of 1973 (G.S. Chapter 113A, Article 4 referred to as "SPCA"). However, forestry
operations may be exempted from the permit requirements in the SPCA, if the operations meet
compliance standards outlined in the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A
NCAC 1I .0101 - .0209, referred to as "FPGs") and General Statutes regarding stream
obstruction (G.S. 77-13 and G.S. 77-14).

Additionally, the Environmental Management Commission enacted a temporary riparian buffer
rule in 2001 (15A NCAC 2B .0243) that applies to the lakes and mainstem of the Catawba River.
This riparian buffer rule goes into full effect in August 2004 and creates certain restrictions
regarding timber removal and forestry activities in the buffer zone. Refer to Section A, Chapter
4, Part 4.11.3 for further discussion.

The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (DFR) is delegated the authority to monitor
and evaluate forestry operations for compliance with these aforementioned laws and/or rules. In
addition, the DFR works to resolve identified FPG and basin buffer rule compliance questions
brought to its attention through citizen complaints. Violations of the FPG performance standards
that cannot be resolved by the DFR are referred to the Division of Land Resources for
enforcement action; violations of Catawba River temporary buffer rules are referred to DWQ for
enforcement. More information is available on the Water Quality Section of the DFR’s website
at http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/.

During the period September 1997 through August 2002, DFR conducted 1,186 FPG inspections
of forestry-related activities in the Catawba River basin; 92 percent of the sites inspected were in
compliance.

There are three Water Quality Foresters that cover the Catawba River basin. The DFR currently
has a Water Quality Forester located in seven of the DFR’s 13 Districts across the state. Service
Foresters and county personnel along with their other forest management and fire control
responsibilities handle water quality issues in the remaining districts. Water Quality Foresters
conduct FPG inspections, develop pre-harvest plans, and provide training opportunities for
landowners, loggers and the public regarding water quality issues related to forestry.

Forestry Best Management Practices
Implementing Forestry Best Management Practices ("BMPs") is encouraged by DFR in order to
efficiently and effectively protect the water resources of North Carolina. The Forestry Best
Management Practices Manual describes recommended techniques that may be used to comply
with the state’s forestry laws and help protect water quality. This document is available for
viewing on the Water Quality Section of the DFR’s website.

Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 37

Among the BMPs promoted for timber harvesting is the use of bridge mats for establishing
temporary stream crossings. Bridge mats are available for temporary use across the entire
Catawba River basin. The DFR’s Bridge Mat Loan and Education Program is an educational
and protection project which promotes the benefits of using portable bridges for stream
crossings, in lieu of using other techniques such as culverts or hard-surface crossings, both of
which have a greater potential to result in sedimentation. All bridge mat purchases for the
DFR’s program are funded by grant awards from the USEPA’s Nonpoint Source Pollution
Management Program under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act {1987}. More information
is available on the Water Quality Section of the DFR’s website at http://www.dfr.state.nc.us/.

The NCDFR frequently hosts workshops and ‘in-woods’ field tours for loggers, landowners and
other forestry professionals to provide refresher training on proper BMP implementation and the
importance of protecting water quality during forestry activities.
Section A: Chapter 2 – Catawba River Basin Overview 38

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

Section A - Chapter 4
Water Quality Issues Related to
Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

4.1 Introduction

This section discusses regional issues that are pertinent to multiple watersheds in the Catawba
River basin. It includes discussions on stormwater control, drought impacts, interstate
agreements, and other issues broad in scope. It also highlights issues that threaten water quality
everywhere and offers suggestions for reducing their impacts.

In this chapter: 4.2 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought
4.3 Color Reduction Strategy
4.4 South Fork Catawba River Watershed Toxics Review
4.5 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Agreement
4.6 Implementation of NCEEP Watershed Restoration and Local
Watershed Plans
4.8 The Importance of Local Initiatives
4.10 Fish Consumption Advice
4.15 Addressing Waters on the State’s Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report
4.7 Chain Lakes Management Challenges
4.9 Biological Criteria for Assessment of Aquatic Life
4.11 Managing the Impacts of Growth and Development and Stormwater
Runoff
4.12 DWQ Stormwater Programs
4.13 Habitat Degradation
4.14 Fecal Coliform Bacteria

4.2 Water Quality Issues Related to Drought

Water quality problems associated with rainfall events usually involve degradation of aquatic
habitats because the high flows may carry increased loadings of substances like metals, oils,
herbicides, pesticides, sand, clay, organic material, bacteria and nutrients. These substances can
be toxic to aquatic life (fish and insects) or may result in oxygen depletion or sedimentation.
During drought conditions, these pollutants become more concentrated in streams due to reduced
streamflow. Summer months are generally the most critical months for water quality. Dissolved
oxygen is naturally lower due to higher temperatures; algae grow more due to longer periods of
sunlight, and streamflows are reduced. In a long-term drought, these problems can be greatly
exacerbated and the potential for water quality problems to become catastrophic is increased.
This section discusses water quality problems that can be expected during low flow conditions.

The frequency of acute impacts due to nonpoint source pollution (runoff) is actually minimized
during drought conditions. However, when rain events do occur, pollutants that have been
collecting on land surfaces are quickly delivered to streams. When streamflows are well below
normal, this polluted runoff becomes a larger percentage of the water flowing in the stream.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 59

Point sources may also have water quality impacts during drought conditions even though permit
limits are being met. Facilities that discharge wastewater have permit limits that are based on the
historic low flow conditions. During droughts these wastewater discharges make up a larger
percentage of the water flowing in streams than normal and might contribute to lowered
dissolved oxygen concentrations and increased levels of other pollutants.

As streamflows decrease, there is less habitat available for aquatic insects and fish, particularly
around lake shorelines. There is also less water available for irrigation and for water supplies.
The dry conditions and increased removal of water for these uses further increase strain on the
resource. With less habitat, naturally lower dissolved oxygen levels and higher water
temperatures, the potential for large kills of fish and aquatic insects is very high. These
conditions may stress the fish to the point where they become more susceptible to disease and
where stresses that normally would not harm them result in mortality.

These are also areas where longer retention times due to decreased flows allow algae to take full
advantage of the nutrients present resulting in algal blooms. During the daylight hours, algae
greatly increase the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, but at night algal respiration and
die off can cause dissolved oxygen levels to drop low enough to cause fish kills. Besides
increasing the frequency of fish kills, algae blooms can also cause difficulty in water treatment
resulting in taste and odor problems in finished drinking water.

Evidence of these effects was noted across the entire Catawba River basin during the last
basinwide assessment period. A few examples include the increased duration and intensity of
algal blooms in Lake Rhodhiss and Lake Hickory (Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.2), the
increased impact of point source dischargers on conductivity in the Lower Little River (Section
B, Chapter 3, Part 3.1), and minor improvements in the bioclassification of Sugar Creek (Section
B, Chapter 5, Part 5.1) due to reduced urban runoff.

4.3 Color Reduction Strategy

The South Fork Catawba River watershed (subbasins 03-08-35 and 03-08-36) was identified in
previous basin plans as having a high concentration of NPDES permitted textile dischargers,
along with public concerns and complaints regarding color from such discharges. According to
state regulations [15A NCAC 02B.0211(3)(f)], colored effluent is allowed in "only such amounts
as will not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life
and the wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters
for any designated uses". This color standard is a narrative standard based on aesthetics and not
a numeric standard. The advantage of a narrative standard is that it is flexible. The
disadvantages are that it is subjective and difficult to enforce. The state has considered
developing a numeric standard, but there are many challenges in doing so. Some of these
challenges include knowing what the appropriate analytical approach is; what the appropriate
numeric standard is; and if a different standard should be used for different regions in the state to
reflect variations in background color. In addition, the practical application of this regulation
must take into account the various ways in which color is perceived. No narrative definition of
color impairment can be specified by a simple set of criteria because individuals under different
circumstances perceive color subjectively.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 60

It should be noted that to date, there are no data to show that the colored effluent is posing any
human health threat or is the only source of impact on the aquatic life in the river. Color is
usually not a toxicological problem. However, under certain conditions it can limit light
penetration that may be essential for the growth and existence of instream organisms. All
NPDES permitted dischargers with color waste are required to conduct toxicity testing on the
effluent to assure the discharge will not adversely impact the organisms in the receiving stream.
All of the color discharge facilities conducting toxicity testing have been in compliance with
permit limits.

Status of Progress and 2004 Recommendations

Color Study Report Development
In August 1999, the Division met with selected color dischargers in the watershed to address the
color issue. As a result of this meeting, eight color dischargers (Pharr Yarns, Delta Mills,
Yorkshire, Cramerton, Lincolnton, Gastonia-Long Creek, Hickory and Cherryville) elected to
form the South Fork Catawba River Water Quality Alliance and undertake a comprehensive
color monitoring study to identify current color problem areas in the watershed. The color
monitoring was conducted twice per month from April through November 2000 and included
color monitoring of effluent, upstream and downstream stations, as well as reference sites. The
study included analytical color measurement (ADMI units), visual observation and photographs.
The study period included an extremely dry summer and should represent near worst case
conditions. In addition, the study represents the most current assessment of color conditions in
the watershed, given the changing nature of the textile industry across the state. The Alliance
submitted individual reports to DWQ for each sampling event, as well as a Final Color Study
Report (AWARE Environmental, Inc., March 2001). One color discharger in the watershed
(City of Newton) elected to evaluate color independently from the Alliance members, using
similar monitoring protocols.
Using the data contained in the Final Color Study Report along with field observations, DWQ
developed a four-tier action plan to address the varying aesthetic color impacts to receiving
waters through the NPDES permitting system. The Tier 1 facility showed no visible color plume
during the color study. Tier 2 facilities showed minor color plumes at the outfall and limited
downstream color impact. Tier 3 facilities showed significant color plumes at the outfall and at
times greater downstream color impact. Finally, the Tier 4 facility showed significant plumes at
the outfall and significant downstream color impacts.

Color Permitting Policy
Based on the tier groupings and public comment received at a hearing in August 2001,
progressive permitting actions were developed for these facilities, ranging from color monitoring
(Tier 1), pollution prevention studies (Tier 2), engineering cost studies for end-of-pipe treatment
(Tier 3), and color reduction limits (Tier 4). Color monitoring will remain a baseline condition
for all facilities, as long as color remains a component of the discharge. The specific color
permitting requirements added to NPDES permit renewals and modifications during 2002-2003
are summarized in Table A-25. The City of Cherryville was removed from color permitting
requirements after its only textile input ceased discharge in 2001. Similarly, two facilities (City
of Gastonia – Long Creek WWTP and Crowders Creek WWTP) were downgraded to Tier 1
requirements following the termination of several textile inputs. Two facilities (Yorkshire and
Delta Apparel) have contested their 2002 permit conditions and still operate in accordance with
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 61

their previous permit. Most of the subject color dischargers have NPDES permits that expire in
2005. During this permit renewal process, DWQ will reevaluate the color requirements.

Facility
Table A-25 NPDES Color Permitting Imposed During 2002 and 2003 for Catawba River
Basin Dischargers in the South Fork Catawba River Watershed
Tier Color Permitting
Requirement
Pharr Yarns
Gastonia -
Long Creek
WWTP
1
Gastonia –
Crowders
Creek WWTP
Tier 1 facilities will receive color monitoring only, consisting of monthly effluent
sampling, and summer only (April-October) instream monitoring (upstream,
downstream). If observed, plume descriptions should be recorded. In addition, a Color
Reopener Special Condition will be added that allows permits to be reopened and
additional requirements imposed if color problems persist.
Cramerton 2
Yorkshire
Tier 2 facilities will receive Tier 1 requirements plus preparation of a Pollution
Prevention (P2)/Best Management Practices (BMPs) report. This report will address
the potential for the facility to reduce effluent color by incorporating P2 measures
and/or BMPs prior to treatment. For example, the facility could investigate the dyeing
process, looking at the potential for dye substitution, improved dyeing efficiency, etc.
The facility could do this work independently with their dye supplier or other resource,
or request voluntary assistance from the NC Division of Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Assistance. The report will be submitted within 12 months of the
permit effective date.
Hickory –
Henry Fork
3
Lincolnton
Tier 3 facilities will receive Tier 2 requirements plus preparation of a Color Reduction
Study. The color reduction study will involve an end-of-pipe treatment evaluation to
develop costs to reduce influent color by 75 percent and 90 percent. The reports will
be submitted within 24 months of the permit effective date.
4 Delta Apparel Tier 4 facilities will receive color reduction limits (90 percent color reduction between
influent and effluent) to be implemented by the permit effective date.
Newton

4.4 South Fork Catawba River Watershed Toxics Review

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The South Fork Catawba River Watershed Toxics Review was a screening effort initiated from
comments as noted in the 1995 Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan regarding public
concern for the river’s health. The 1999 plan recommended DWQ evaluate the need for
additional monitoring on the South Fork Catawba River and its tributaries.

During the last assessment period, ambient metal concentrations in the watershed did not exceed
the state action level at most locations, the exception being Clark Creek. Benthic and fish
community data are not available on the middle portion of the South Fork, but a site on the lower
section received a Good-Fair bioclassification. Sample sites on two major tributaries, Clark
Creek and Indian Creek, received Fair bioclassifications. These impacted biological
communities and the presence of several permitted discharges in the general area of Lincolnton
and High Shoals indicate that a biological community assessment is necessary in the middle
portion of the South Fork between Clark and Long Creek. DWQ will sample this area during the
next assessment period.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 62

During the latest assessment period, DWQ began addressing metal toxicity in the watershed by
starting the development of a copper Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) on Clark Creek. For
more information on Clark Creek and the copper TMDL, refer to Section B, Chapter 6, Part 6.3.
With regard to point source discharges, DWQ implements metal limits in NPDES permits when
a statistical analysis of the effluent data indicates a potential to exceed allowable levels. Should
modeling processes determine that a particular metal is a concern and is attributable to a point
source, then a limit for that metal can be implemented. Additionally, DWQ currently has a
procedure in place to determine if an NPDES limit is necessary for action level standards such as
copper and zinc and this procedure is used for all dischargers. NPDES permits in the South Fork
Catawba River are scheduled for the review/renewal process beginning in 2005.

4.5 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Agreement

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Agreement applies to all or part of two subbasins: 03-08-
34 and 03-08-38. For more information on other issues in these subbasins, refer to Section B,
Chapters 5 and 9.

In the summer of 2001, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC) filed a Petition for a Contested Case in the North Carolina Office of Administrative
Hearings regarding the renewal of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department’s (CMUD)
McAlpine Creek wastewater treatment plant. The primary complaint on the part of SCDHEC
has been that the permit was renewed without a phosphorus limit. Several downstream
waterbodies in the South Carolina portion of the Catawba River basin are listed as Impaired
because total phosphorus (TP) concentrations exceed the South Carolina state standard for TP in
lakes. Nearly all of South Carolina’s municipal dischargers to the mainstem Catawba River
(upstream of Lake Wateree) have been given phosphorus limits, generally equivalent to 1 mg/l.
The McAlpine Creek WWTP permit had a phosphorus optimization study special condition that
stipulated preparatory requirements for the facility to ready itself for the upcoming phosphorus
TMDL.

Since summer 2001, SCDHEC, DWQ and CMUD have been working towards achieving
consensus on an appropriate phosphorus limit for the McAlpine Creek WWTP. The parties are
on schedule with actions necessary to complete the terms of the settlement agreement. The
understanding has been that this decision will also affect DWQ’s permitting strategy for three
additional municipal permits: CMUD-Irwin WWTP, CMUD-Sugar Creek WWTP, and Union
County-Twelvemile Creek WWTP. Construction of phosphorus reduction facilities is currently
underway at McAlpine Creek WWTP.

The final settlement agreement includes four main points: phosphorus limits at all three CMUD
facilities, a bubble limit, a mass cap, and a TMDL. The phosphorus limit corresponds to 1 mg/l
at the permitted flow calculated on a 12-month rolling average. The bubble limit refers to a mass
limit for total phosphorus that applies to the combined discharge of all three CMUD plants. This
type of limit allows CMUD operational flexibility with regard to phosphorus removal. In order
to be protective of water quality in the downstream lakes, SCDHEC requested a maximum
combined limit to ensure optimized plant operation at all times. The maximum limit corresponds
to a concentration limit of 2 mg/l at maximum permitted flow. In addition, the agreement
includes a provision that will include DWQ and all affected NC entities in the TMDL process.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 63

The University of South Carolina completed a Federal Clean Water Act Section 319-funded
project in June 2003. The primary goal of this study was to provide a detailed quantitative
analysis of data and model simulations to support development of an effective TMDL for
phosphorus in the lower Catawba River basin of South Carolina. Simulations were based on the
WARMF model, which incorporated phosphorus loadings in the Sugar Creek watershed
tributaries, including Sugar Creek, Little Sugar Creek, McAlpine Creek and Irwin Creek.

At the time of this writing, the model is under review. SCDHEC is working closely with the
USEPA and DWQ to evaluate its effectiveness. A series of management scenarios will be
simulated to predict the effects of reductions in point sources and nonpoint sources on
downstream reservoirs. Stakeholder meetings will be held after additional management scenario
simulations are available.

4.6 Implementation of NCEEP Watershed Restoration and Local
Watershed Plans

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
For the Catawba River basin, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP,
formerly Wetlands Restoration Program) has integrated information normally found separately in
EEP Watershed Restoration Plans into this basinwide water quality plan. A separate version of
the watershed restoration plan for the Catawba River basin will be available online at the EEP
website by the fall 2004. These plans identify Targeted Local Watersheds within which EEP
will focus restoration efforts (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/).

DWQ will continue to integrate EEP restoration planning efforts into the basinwide process. An
overview of the program is presented in Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.3.2. Table C-3 lists all the
Targeted Local Watersheds selected by the EEP, arranged by DWQ subbasins. This section also
includes a description of the EEP Local Watershed Planning initiative. The EEP will continue to
use a comprehensive, integrated watershed approach in the identification of high priority local
watersheds in North Carolina's river basins. Also, the EEP hopes to expand their Local
Watershed Planning efforts into more areas of the state, as additional compensatory mitigation
resources become available.

4.7 Chain Lakes Management Challenges

One of the most prominent hydrologic features of the Catawba River basin is the series of
hydropower impoundments along the river's mainstem, widely referred to as the Catawba River
Chain Lakes (Figure A-14). This chain-like configuration presents a unique challenge to water
quality management. The outflows from upstream reservoirs, as well as inputs from the
surrounding watershed and direct discharges to the lakes themselves, influence the water quality
in each impoundment. Therefore, water quality issues in a particular impoundment cannot be
addressed without first considering the influence of watershed conditions, upstream water
quality, and releases from upstream reservoirs. Downstream impacts must also be evaluated
before any management decisions are implemented.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 64

Figure A-14 Catawba River Chain Lakes

Impacts to water quality can also be magnified by the presence of a reservoir. Dams
significantly slow the flow of water and create conditions not present in riverine systems. These
conditions increase nutrient availability and give algae more time to grow. In theory, a reservoir
may suffer the symptoms of excessive nutrient and sediment inputs, while a river receiving the
same level of pollutants may not. In this case, the river may be moving pollutants quickly
downstream, thus, preventing localized water quality problems. Similarly, two reservoirs
receiving the same pollutant load may not exhibit the same symptoms. For example, one
reservoir may have many small, isolated coves that allow algae to grow for extended periods of
time, while another reservoir may simply act like a wide, slow-flowing portion of a river with a
continuous exchange of water and little algal growth.

All seven of the Catawba River Chain Lakes (Catawba-Wateree Project) are owned by Duke
Power Company and were created to generate electricity. The chain lakes were completed
between 1904 and 1928 with the exception of Lake Norman, which was completed in 1963.
These hydro projects provided much of the electrical power base needed to drive the industrial
expansion (furniture, textile, etc.) seen in the first half of the 20th century. In some ways, the
prosperity enjoyed by this area of North Carolina can be linked to the presence of these dams. In
addition to renewable power generation, the lakes are popular recreational areas visited millions
of time per year and provide drinking water to the local population. The lakes are also
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 65

contributing to a recent economic expansion as new residents seek lakefront housing and
commercial developments relocate near reliable water supplies. For statistics on the lakes, see
Table A-15.

The following sections describe the variety of management issues related directly to the Catawba
River Chain Lakes. Table A-26 provides a summary of the many stressors in the lake chain.
The entire lakes assessment methodology and results of the chain lakes analysis can be found in
Appendix III. With the exception of hydropower relicensing, the following discussion focuses
primarily on Lake Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory, Lookout Shoals Lake and Lake Wylie. These
impoundments demonstrate more severe water quality stress and, not coincidentally, receive the
most direct input from the largest urbanized watersheds.

Table A-26 Lake Stressor Summary

Assessment
Parameter
Lake
James
Lake
Rhodhiss
Lake
Hickory
Lookout
Shoals
Lake
Norman
Mountain
Island
Lake
Wylie
% Saturation DO N Y Y Y N N Y
Algae N Y Y N N N Y
Chlorophyll a N Y* N N N N Y
pH N Y N N N N N
Sediment N Y Y N N Y N
Taste & Odor N Y Y N N N N
Macrophytes Y N Y Y Y Y N
"Y" Indicates parameter is noted within the impoundment.
* Standard exceeded in less than 10% of readings.

4.7.1 Hydropower Relicensing

Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires that Duke Power’s Catawba-Wateree Project has
a license in order to operate. Relicensing is the process for obtaining a new license for a hydro
project after the existing license expires. Duke Power’s current license for the project was issued
in 1958 and will expire in 2008.

The FPA provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive authority to
license all nonfederal hydro projects that are located on navigable waterways or federal lands.
Licenses are normally issued for a period of 30-50 years and contain conditions that regulate
project operations. To continue to operate project facilities after the expiration of an existing
license, a licensee must obtain a new license for its project.

The conditions in the new license are expected to change the way these hydro stations and
reservoirs are operated, primarily via rebalancing how the limited water supply is utilized.
Changing how this finite resource is used will benefit some interests and negatively impact
others. The final decision as to the terms and conditions of the new license is almost exclusively
reserved to the FERC and certain government resource agencies, including DWQ through the
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 66

401 Certification process, with mandatory conditioning authority. However, there are many
opportunities for other organizations, governmental entities and individual stakeholders to
substantially influence these decisions. In the end, Duke Power hopes to obtain a new license to
operate the project in a manner that comprehensively balances the use of the resource in the best
overall public interest (Duke Energy Corporation, 2003).

4.7.2 Lake Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory and Lookout Shoals Lake Watershed Protection
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) are actively involved in the
relicensing effort. State agencies committed to the multiyear license negotiation process with
Duke Power include the Division of Water Quality, Division of Water Resources, Division of
Parks and Recreation, and the Wildlife Resources Commission.

NCDENR and NCWRC believe that the relicensing process is an important opportunity to
examine environmental and public access issues associated with hydropower projects and to
develop strategies to address these issues. Environmental impacts include water quality
impairment or degradation as a result of flow release regimes, or issues associated with water
availability during extreme weather conditions (i.e., drought and extreme wet weather years).
Public access issues include the lack of access to reservoir shorelines for fishing and other
recreation.

Duke Power has developed a stakeholder input process that will allow NCDENR and NCWRC,
along with their South Carolina counterparts, to hear the ideas, concerns and interests of other
stakeholders in the basin and to work collaboratively with others to develop strategies to address
these issues. This framework consists of four Regional Advisory Groups (two in each state) and
two State Relicensing Teams. The Regional Advisory Groups are intended to hear input on and
negotiate management strategies for issues specific to their geographic region, while the State
Relicensing Teams do the same for issues that affect the entire basin. NCDENR and NCWRC
staffs are participating in both the State Relicensing Teams and the Local Advisory Teams as
established by Duke Power.

NCDENR also has some regulatory authorities and requirements that will have to be met through
the relicensing process. An example of these regulatory authorities is the 401 Water Quality
Certification. The 401 Certification must accompany Duke Power’s application for project
renewal and contains many regulatory components. One such component requires that water
quality standards (temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen levels, and the support of aquatic life)
downstream of dam outfalls must be met. While the 401 Certification is non-negotiable (state
mandatory authority), it should compliment the outcome of the negotiation process in several
ways. For example, the 401 Certification will require that flow releases from dams are sufficient
for supporting aquatic life standards, while the negotiation process can assure those releases
occur at times that accommodate the needs of recreational boaters, fishermen and water supply
users.

These lakes are perhaps the most closely linked in the lake chain and exhibit some of the most
significant water quality trends in the basin. These are the first impoundments below the
forested Blue Ridge and are heavily influenced by the urbanized corridor along Interstate 40.
Although these lakes are relatively small in volume, compared to Lake James (upstream) and
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 67

Lake Norman (downstream), the land area draining to them is quite large. In effect, most of the
pollution generated by the urban centers (Morganton, Hickory, Lenoir, etc.) and agricultural
operations is concentrated in these reservoirs. The result is heavy inputs of nutrients and
sediment. Each impoundment’s response to this load is discussed immediately below, and a
summary of noted impacts is presented in Table A-26.

DWQ advocates a broad scale management strategy be developed for these lakes collectively.
At minimum, this strategy should build upon the local efforts discussed below and will attempt
to facilitate regional cooperation among local stakeholders.

Current Status of Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Rhodhiss has been sampled by DWQ since 1981 and is usually found to be eutrophic. This
is a run-of-the-river reservoir and has a mean hydraulic retention time of 21 days. Although
there were high nutrient concentrations, algal blooms were often limited by the reservoir’s short
retention time. Drought conditions that increased retention times and nuisance algae (especially
blue-greens) blooms were recorded in 2001 and 2002. Public complaints of taste and odor
problems in processed lake water resulted in a special study to investigate the extent and nature
of the algal blooms. The study determined the existence of 15 well-established algae
communities; five of which are known to cause taste and odor problems. The study also stated
that blooms would persist as long as conditions favoring growth (low flow, high light and
nutrient rich waters) are in place (NCDENR-DWQ, 2001). The presence of algae that create
taste and odor problems in treated drinking water made it necessary for water treatment plants to
install (at significant cost) activated charcoal to make the water drinkable.

Lake Rhodhiss also receives heavy sediment and/or nutrient inputs from the Muddy Creek,
Lower Creek and Johns River watersheds. Within the lake itself, Lake Rhodhiss receives
nutrient inputs from the Morganton and Valdese wastewater treatment plants. The Town of
Lenoir’s wastewater treatment plant discharge enters Lake Rhodhiss via Lower Creek. 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 for aquatic life.

In June 2003, the Western Piedmont Council of Governments, using a grant from NCDENR,
published the results of a comprehensive modeling effort to predict sediment and nutrient loads
in the Lake Rhodhiss watershed (WPCOG, June 2003). The study consisted of two model
simulations, a baseline scenario representing conditions in 2000, and a year 2020 projection
based on anticipated growth in the watershed. With regard to sediment, the model produced
sediment export coefficients for each drainage area in the watershed that highlight areas with
disproportionally high contributions to the overall sediment load to Lake Rhodhiss. The model
predicts the overall sediment loads will remain the same or slightly decrease as agriculture land
is converted to impervious surfaces.

The study’s nutrient analysis revealed a very different trend than that of the sediment analysis.
The model predicts that by 2020, nitrogen and phosphorus loads are expected to increase 23 and
43 percent, respectively. The model attempted to determine how much of the nutrient load was
originating from point sources in the watershed and found that 21 percent of the nitrogen load
and 48 percent of the phosphorus load in 2000 originated from just four point source dischargers.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 68

The contribution of those dischargers to total nitrogen and phosphorus loadings by 2020 is
expected to increase to 31 and 62 percent, respectively.

Caldwell County, in cooperation with the municipalities of Granite Falls, Hudson, Cajah
Mountain, Sawmills and Gamewell, began development of an NPDES Phase II compliant
stormwater management program. The county hired a professional engineer to oversee the
program and formed a Stormwater Advisory Group (SWAG) to structure the emerging program
and tailor it to the community's needs. Caldwell County has begun a Public Education Program
that targets elected officials and civic leaders, the development community, and realtors.
Caldwell County has also begun an inventory of its facilities and operations that could
potentially have a detrimental impact on water quality.

Caldwell County's Environmental Engineer will be developing Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plans (SWPPP) for priority facilities. A preliminary draft of a Stormwater Quality Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance will be reviewed by the SWAG in February and March 2004.
The draft ordinance envisions post-construction controls that are more effective than the
minimum requirements in the state's proposed permanent NPDES Phase II rules (15A NCAC 2H
.0126 and 15A NCAC 2H .1014). It also includes provision for two-zone, 50-foot wide riparian
buffers along perennial streams and 30-foot wide buffers along intermittent streams. Finally,
Caldwell County staff will give a formal presentation to the Caldwell County Commissioners
during 2004 seeking approval for local delegation of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Program. Local delegation of that program, combined with the remainder of Caldwell County's
stormwater management efforts, will ensure more effective review and enforcement, while
potentially reducing both the time and expense currently required of Caldwell County's
development community.

Burke County has instituted a water protection program since 1998 that protects the shorelines of
Lake Rhodhiss and Lake Hickory against uncontrolled development. The program requires 60-
75 foot forested buffers, soil and erosion control/ stormwater mitigation plans, and impervious
surface limitations for any ground disturbing activity within 250 feet of Lake Rhodhiss, Lake
Hickory, and the Catawba River mainstem. The Burke County Subdivision Ordinance also
requires that any lot in the area not connected to public water and sewer utilities be at least two
acres in size, greatly reducing the density of homes on the lake shorelines.

DWQ applauds the foresight and proactive response to potential water quality threats in Caldwell
County, Burke County, and the entire Uni-Four area. These efforts should eventually realize
water quality benefits to the lake and surrounding streams.
Current Status of Lake Hickory
Lake Hickory was most recently monitored by DWQ in 2002. Surface dissolved oxygen and pH
values were elevated in May, indicating high algal productivity. Chlorophyll a values ranged
from moderate to elevated but were not greater than the water quality standard (40 µg/l). The
reservoir was evaluated as mesotrophic in May and July and eutrophic in August. Because of
algal blooms, taste and odor problems, and dissolved oxygen percent saturation values greater
than 120 percent, Lake Hickory (3,589 acres) is in danger of becoming Impaired by
eutrophication.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 69

A USGS study of Lake Hickory published in 1998 demonstrated the impact of the Lake
Rhodhiss release on water quality in Lake Hickory. The majority of nutrients enter Lake
Hickory through this discharge. Additionally, Lake Hickory is more sensitive to conditions in
Lake Rhodhiss than conditions in its immediate watershed. However, when the model was
adjusted to simulate runoff from built up urban streams (by increasing the nutrient input from
Snow Creek), the maximum algal concentrations in the lake increased by 100 percent. This
result illustrates Lake Hickory’s sensitivity to urban development (Bales et al., 1998).

The Town of Hickory experienced taste and odor problems in their drinking water in 2002.
Algal samples in May indicated the presence of filamentous blue-green algae, which may have
contributed to the problems. Since elevated densities of blue-green algae were also present in
Lake Rhodhiss, the problem persisted until the algae died back in both reservoirs.

Current Status of Lookout Shoals Lake
Lookout Shoals Lake, situated between Lakes Hickory and Norman, is one of the smaller
Catawba River Chain Lakes. The watershed draining to the impoundment is relatively small, its
largest tributary being the Lower Little River. The Lower Little River drains a predominantly
forest and agriculture area and carries a significant sediment load. The lake’s water quality is
more reflective of releases from upstream impoundments (Lakes Hickory, Rhodhiss and James)
than conditions in the immediate watershed.

Lookout Shoals Lake’s primary water quality concerns are nutrient enrichment, indicated by
increased photosynthetic activity and elevated dissolved oxygen levels recorded during 1997
sampling by DWQ, and a Parrot Feather (aquatic weed) infestation that is well established in the
upper portion of the reservoir (see Part 4.7.4). Low dissolved oxygen was also observed at the
upper end of the impoundment, likely due to low quality discharge from Lake Hickory.

2004 Recommendations for Lake Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory and Lookout Shoals Lake
The current conditions indicated above and the results of the WPCOG model evaluation
demonstrate the variety of stressors in the Rhodhiss-Hickory-Lookout Shoals system and the
corresponding management challenges. Additionally, they highlight the tight link between the
water quality in Lake Rhodhiss to that observed in Lake Hickory and Lookout Shoals. Because
of this link and the clearly degraded conditions in Lake Hickory and to a lesser extent, Lookout
Shoals Lake, DWQ is concerned that they may too become Impaired if conditions in Lake
Rhodhiss are not mitigated. DWQ has determined that a local watershed management planning
initiative including input and cooperation at local, state and federal levels will be necessary to
develop an achievable and cost-effective management strategy for the Rhodhiss-Hickory-
Lookout Shoals system. Duke Power, the owner/operator of these hydropower developments
must also be an active collaborator. The results of this initiative would compliment the
development of a Lake Rhodhiss Watershed TMDL developed by DWQ. It is also possible that
implementation of this initiative may improve conditions in Lake Rhodhiss and Lake Hickory to
the point that impairment is reversed and a TMDL is not necessary. DWQ recommends that
initiative should include at least the following objectives:

¾ NPDES Permit reevaluations: As part of DWQ permitting policy, no new nutrient
loads from point sources will be allowed to nutrient Impaired waters until a TMDL is
complete, and applications for new or expanding nutrient discharges to all mainstem
reservoirs in the Catawba River basin must be accompanied by an analysis of nutrient
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 70

related impacts using a DWQ approved nutrient response model for the receiving
reservoir.
¾ Optimization should occur at existing discharges with large nutrient loads.
¾ Plan for implementing BMPs at remaining agriculture operations.
¾ Plan for preservation and protection of intact riparian vegetation.
¾ Plan for restoration of severely impacted stream habitats.
¾ Integration with ongoing restoration activities including Lower and Muddy Creeks.
¾ Multiagency integration: local governments, DSWC, WRC, USFWS, DWQ, etc.
Lake Wylie is the most downstream reservoir in the Catawba River basin. The lake is operated
by Duke Power and was formed by the impoundment of the Catawba River in 1904 by a
hydroelectric dam located near Fort Mills, SC. There are more than 327 miles of shoreline, and
the majority of the reservoir lies within South Carolina. The immediate watershed of Lake
Wylie is being converted from forested and agricultural areas to more urban land uses.
Eutrophic conditions in Lake Wylie and several of its major tributaries have been evident for
many years. To address eutrophication in Lake Wylie, DWQ and South Carolina DHEC
developed a nutrient control strategy for the Lake Wylie watershed. In 1991, EPA approved the
Lake Wylie TMDL, including the point source allocation included in the Lake Wylie Nutrient
Management Plan. The Lake Wylie Nutrient Management Area is considered to be Lake Wylie
and its tributaries including: the Catawba River and its tributaries below Mountain Island Dam
and the South Fork Catawba River below its confluence with Long Creek.

¾ Assistance for local Soil and Erosion Control ordinance development.
¾ Smart growth that incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) principles. See
Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11.

The community-based efforts of Caldwell County, Burke County, the WPCOG Water Quality
Committee and others (refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.4) offer excellent starting points for a
watershed wide management plan. DWQ will support these efforts in whatever ways possible,
but funding from a wide variety of sources must be made available to ensure their long-term
success.

4.7.3 Nutrient Management for Lake Wylie

Current Conditions and 2004 Recommendations
Data from the most recent lake assessment period indicate that nutrient enrichment continues to
be a major concern in (both) the North and South Carolina portions of the lake. Out of 90
samples collected between 1997 and 2002, over 40 percent demonstrated elevated dissolved
oxygen concentrations. Although elevated dissolved oxygen concentrations were noted lake-
wide, the highest concentrations were located in the Crowders, Catawba and Allison Creek arms.
Because of chlorophyll a standard violations, algal blooms and dissolved oxygen percent
saturation values greater than 120 percent, Lake Wylie (4,020 acres, NC portion) is Impaired by
eutrophication.

Continued eutrophication concerns within Lake Wylie suggest that the nutrient management
strategy may not be sufficient to address the problem. Therefore, improvements to the strategy
may be warranted. For example, in the original strategy, discharges above Long Creek (a South
Fork Catawba River tributary) and, perhaps more significantly, nonpoint sources were not
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 71

included. In addition, a nutrient mass cap was not built into the discharge permits, allowing
dischargers to increase their overall nutrient load as long as instantaneous concentration limits
are not violated.

Over the next basinwide cycle, DWQ will appropriately place Lake Wylie in Section 4(a) of the
Integrated Report of Impaired Waters to the EPA in order to reflect the existing TMDL. Given
the continued evidence of nutrient enrichment problems, DWQ will also reevaluate the TMDL to
determine if additional nutrient reductions or controls are needed. This reevaluation will occur
on the standard 8 to13-year TMDL cycle. Until this TMDL is re-approved, no new nutrient
loads from point sources will be allowed, as per DWQ's existing permitting policy to impaired
waters. This policy includes the South Fork Catawba River watershed. Because this TMDL
involves both North and South Carolina jurisdictions, both states will be involved in decision-
making. In the meantime, DWQ supports and encourages the continued efforts of municipalities
and county governments to identify and implement local nonpoint source reduction plans and
wastewater treatment plant upgrades.

4.7.4 Aquatic Weed Infestation

During the assessment period, nuisance aquatic weeds rapidly established themselves in most of
the Catawba River Chain Lakes. Introduction by boat trailers and intentional planting for sport
fish habitat seem to be the most likely sources. The growth rate and probability of transporting
are so great that in Lakes James, Norman and Mountain Island the occurrence of Hydrilla sp. and
the potential for Parrot Feather, Myriophyllum aquaticum, infestation pose a more immediate
threat to recreation, water supply use, and power generation uses in the lake than water quality
standards violations.

Aquatic weeds present an additional and somewhat different management challenge than the
nutrient reduction approach discussed in Parts 4.7.2 and 4.7.3 above. Nutrient enrichment
certainly influences the growth rate of Parrot Feather, Hydrilla and other aquatic weeds, but the
extent of that influence is not documented. It is a reasonable assumption that reducing nutrient
loads will positively contribute to the effective management of infestations. In addition, control
(reduction) of aquatic weed beds may reduce the rate at which sediment is deposited around
them. Currently, however, biological control via grass carp, chemical treatment and habitat
elimination via water level drawdowns are the most viable management options.

In addition to the management efforts led by Duke Power and NC Aquatic Weeds Council, all
citizens must diligently reduce the probability of further infestations by removing weeds from
boat props and trailers between launches and never disposing of ornamental pond/aquarium
plants into the lakes. More information on aquatic weeds can be found at NCSU Crop Science
Department’s aquatic weed webpage at http://www.weedscience.ncsu.edu/aquaticweeds. Below is a
summary of control efforts in the lakes to date.

LAKE JAMES: Duke Power discovered the nuisance aquatic plant, Hydrilla, in the Catawba
River arm of Lake James 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, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission stocked 21,500 grass carp to
control the spread of Hydrilla.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 72

LAKE HICKORY: In 2001, Duke Power staff discovered Parrot Feather in the reservoir. Since
2001, the original ten-acre infestation has spread to 84 acres near the NC 321 bridge. Two
drinking water intakes are located nearby and have the potential of becoming clogged by this
plant. Businesses relying on water-based recreation are also concerned because the infestation
can make boating and swimming impossible. Duke Power, along with stakeholders and DWQ,
will work to develop and implement a Parrot Feather management program for the reservoir.
LOOKOUT SHOALS LAKE: To control the spread of Parrot Feather, Duke Energy drew down
the water level to a target of 20 feet below full pool in November 2002. But due to rainfall in
December, the water level rose to 14.3 feet below full pool in early January 2003. The pool level
was brought to its normal operation level of three feet below full pool by February 2003 to
accommodate annual fish spawning. Thus, the efficacy of the drawdown will probably be minor.
4.8 The Importance of Local Initiatives
As the Basinwide Planning Program completes its third cycle of plan development, there are
many efforts being undertaken at the local level to improve water quality. The Division of Water
Quality encourages local agencies and organizations to learn about these efforts and determine
how similar programs may be implemented in their own watersheds. Funding organizations are
also encouraged to seek out these programs and support them whenever possible.

LAKE NORMAN: In 1999, Duke Energy staff discovered approximately 25 acres of Hydrilla in
the reservoir. This invasive macrophyte has the potential for rapid growth with the subsequent
loss of swimming and boating areas. It also has the potential to clog intakes of water treatment
and power generation plants. A survey conducted in October 2002 by Duke Energy staff found
Hydrilla as far upstream as the NC 150 bridge. There is also the potential for Parrot Feather to
become established in Lake Norman via introduction from contaminated boat trailers or from
plant fragments floating downstream from Lookout Shoals Lake. Grass Carp were stocked in
Lake Norman as part of a joint effort between the Lake Norman Marine Commission, Duke
Power, NC DWQ, and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department to control the spread of
Hydrilla.

MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE: Hydrilla sp. was first noted in the reservoir in 2000 and now
covers more than 625 acres (Bonham, 2001). The exotic macrophyte was observed in the upper
end of the reservoir in 2002. Grass carp were first stocked in 2000 as a possible biological
control agent for this plant. In 2002, an additional 20,000 fish were stocked and maintenance
stocking continues.

Local people making decisions that affect change in their own communities is an important
benefit of local initiatives. There are a variety of limitations local initiatives can overcome
through collaboration including: restrictive budgets, staff resources, insufficient regulations, and
North Carolina’s rule-making process, among others.

These local organizations and agencies are able to combine professional expertise and local
knowledge not present at the state and federal level. This allows groups to holistically
understand the challenges and opportunities of local water quality concerns. Involving a wide
array of people in water quality projects also brings together a range of knowledge and interests
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 73

and encourages others to become involved and invested in these projects. Working in
cooperation across jurisdictional boundaries and agency lines opens the door to additional
funding opportunities and eases the difficulty of generating matching or leveraged funds. This
will potentially allow local entities to do more work and be involved in more activities because
their funding sources are diversified. The most important aspect of these local endeavors is that
the more localized the project, the better the chances for success.

The collaboration of these local efforts is key to water quality improvements, and DWQ
applauds the foresight and proactive response by locally based organizations and agencies to
potential water quality problems. There are many excellent examples of local agencies and
groups using these cooperative strategies throughout the state. Please refer to Section C, Chapter
1, Parts 1.4 and 1.5 for a discussion of local initiatives already underway in the Catawba River
basin.

4.9 Biological Criteria for Assessment of Aquatic Life

DWQ strives to properly evaluate the health of aquatic biological communities throughout the
state. Swamp stream systems, small streams and estuarine waters have presented unique
challenges for benthic macroinvertebrate evaluation, while nonwadeable waters and trout
streams have done the same for fish community evaluations. This section discusses some of the
challenges in assessing benthic macroinvertebrate communities in small streams. Refer to
Appendix II for further information.

The benthic macroinvertebrate community of small streams is naturally less diverse than the
streams used to develop the current criteria for flowing freshwater streams. The benthic
macroinvertebrate database is being evaluated, and a study to systematically look at small
reference streams in different ecoregions is being developed with the goal of finding a way to
evaluate water quality conditions in such small streams.

Presently, a designation of Not Impaired may be used for flowing waters that are too small to be
assigned a bioclassification (less than 4 meters in width), but meet the criteria for a Good-Fair or
higher bioclassification using the standard qualitative and EPT criteria. This designation will
translate into a use support rating of Supporting. However, DWQ will use the monitoring
information from small streams to identify potential impacts to small streams even in cases when
a use support rating cannot be assigned.

DWQ will use this monitoring information to identify potential impacts to these waters even
though a use support rating is not assigned. DWQ will continue to develop criteria to assess
water quality in small streams.

4.10 Fish Consumption Advice

The presence and accumulation of mercury in North Carolina’s aquatic environment are similar
to contamination observed throughout the country. Mercury has a complex life in the
environment, moving from the atmosphere to soil, to surface water and into biological
organisms. Mercury circulates in the environment as a result of natural and human
(anthropogenic) activities. A dominant pathway of mercury in the environment is through the
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 74

atmosphere. Mercury that has been emitted from industrial and municipal stacks into the
ambient air can circulate across the globe. At any point, mercury may then be deposited onto
land and water. Once in the water, mercury can accumulate in fish tissue and humans. Mercury
is also commonly found in wastewater.

The NC Department of Health and Human Services issues fish consumption advisories and
advice for those fish species which have median and/or average methyl mercury levels at 0.4
mg/kg or greater. These fish include shark, swordfish, king mackerel, tilefish, as well as
largemouth bass, bowfin (or blackfish) and chain pickerel (or jack) in North Carolina waters
south and east of Interstate 85. See Fish Consumption Advice below. As a result of this
guidance and the natural movement of fish back and forth across the I-85 boundary, DWQ
considers all waters draining to the Catawba River below I-85 Impaired in the fish consumption
use support category. Refer to Appendix III for more information regarding use support ratings
and assessment methodology.

Fish Consumption Advice

Fish is an excellent source of protein and other nutrients. However, several varieties of
freshwater fish may contain high levels of mercury, which may pose a risk to human health.
These guidelines will help you make healthy food choices. A "meal" is defined as six ounces of
cooked fish for adults and children 15 years or older and two ounces of cooked fish for younger
children.

FDA and EPA Advisory
On March 19th, 2003, the Food and Drug Administration and EPA issued a joint consumer
advisory about mercury in fish and shellfish. The advice is for women who might become
pregnant, women who are pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children. Aside from being
issued jointly by two federal agencies, this advisory is important because it emphasizes the
positive benefits of eating fish and gives examples of commonly eaten fish that are low in
mercury. In the past, FDA issued an advisory on consumption of commercially caught fish,
while EPA issued advice on recreationally caught fish.

By following these three recommendations for selecting and eating fish or shellfish, women and
young children will receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and be confident that they
have reduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury:

o Do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel or tilefish because they contain
high levels of mercury.
o Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish
that are lower in mercury.
o Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp,
canned light tuna, salmon, pollock and catfish.
o Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white") tuna has more mercury than
canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish,
you may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.
o Check local advisories about the safety of fish caught by family and friends in
your local lakes, rivers and coastal areas. If no advice is available, eat up to 6
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 75

ounces (one average meal) per week of fish you catch from local waters, but
do not consume any other fish during that week.

For more detailed information, visit EPA’s internet site at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/ or
visit http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/seafood1.html or call the FDA’s food information line toll-free at 1-888-
SAFEFOOD.

NCDHHS Advice
The NC Department of Health and Human Services updated the following advice on April 16th,
2002.

Women of Childbearing Age (15-44 years), Pregnant Women, Nursing Women and Children
under 15:

o Do not eat shark, swordfish, tilefish or king mackerel; or blackfish (bowfin),
largemouth bass or jack fish (chain pickerel) caught in North Carolina waters
south and east of Interstate 85. These fish are often high in mercury.
o Eat up to two meals per week of other fish.

Other Women, Men, and Children 15 years and older:

o Eat no more than one meal* per week of shark, swordfish, tilefish or king
mackerel; or blackfish (bowfin), largemouth bass or jack fish (chain pickerel)
caught in North Carolina waters south and east of Interstate 85. These fish are
often high in mercury.
o Eat up to four meals per week of other fish.
* A meal is 6 ounces of cooked fish for adults and 2 ounces of cooked fish for children under 15.

For more information and detailed listing of site-specific advisories, visit the NC Department of
Health and Human Services website at http://www.schs.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html or call (919)
733-3816.

2004 Recommendations

Improved Ambient Sampling Techniques
DWQ aims to stay abreast of new technology and sampling techniques to ensure that water
quality data are accurate, precise and of highest value. In 2000, DWQ started training water
quality sampling staff on the new EPA Method 1631 technique. Current monitoring using a
higher detection limit (EPA Method 245.1) has consistently yielded non-detected values, and
DWQ aims to use the 1631 Method to allow detection levels three orders of magnitude lower
than EPA Method 245.1.

NC Eastern Regional Mercury Study
In an effort to better manage state waters that may have methyl mercury issues, DWQ initiated a
study using grant funding from EPA Region IV. The study aims to provide information that may
be used in water quality standard and TMDL development. The study goals include:

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 76

• Determining levels of ambient mercury in the surface water system.
• Estimating site-specific total mercury: methyl mercury translators to evaluate water quality
criteria.
• Develop site-specific water to fish bioaccumulation factors.
• Determine levels of mercury in treatment plant effluent.

DWQ aims to complete this study in 2003, and results will be available to the public. For more
information, contact the DWQ Planning Branch Modeling/TMDL Supervisor at [phone].

DWQ Mercury Workgroup
DWQ is committed to characterizing methyl mercury exposure levels and determining if NPDES
sources need to be controlled. DWQ formed an internal Mercury Workgroup to improve
communication from all programs that directly affect mercury issues (i.e., Pretreatment,
Environmental Sciences, Basinwide Planning, etc.). The workgroup meets as needed to share
information and determine next steps in addressing mercury issues associated with the aquatic
environment.

DWQ will continue to host an internal workgroup to stay abreast of current mercury issues. The
public has voiced concerns that DWQ should be working on the ecological components and
consequences of mercury bioavailability to biota in these areas and the biogeochemical cycling
and production of methyl mercury from associated wetlands along these streams.

DWQ will continue to monitor concentrations of various contaminants in fish tissue across the
state and will work to identify and reduce wastewater contributions of mercury to surface waters.
The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) evaluates mercury levels in rainwater on a regular basis
through the EPA Mercury Deposition Network. Pollution prevention efforts are being
investigated on a state and federal level to reduce mercury emissions.

NPDES Mercury Requirement, Implementation of EPA Method 1631
NPDES permittees have worked with the state to reduce potential risks from this pollutant,
including tasks associated with collecting and reporting more accurate data. The most
commonly used laboratory analysis for total mercury (EPA Method 245.1) has a method
detection level of 0.2 µg/l, while the current water quality standard is an order of magnitude
lower at 0.012 µg/l. Thus, true compliance with the water quality standard could not be judged.
A more recently approved laboratory method (EPA Method 1631) has a detection level below
the water quality standard (0.0005 µg/l), which would allow the Division to assess potential
water quality impacts from dischargers more accurately.

A total of 155 facilities statewide will be required to use EPA Method 1631 (or subsequent low
level mercury methods approved by EPA in 40 CFR 136) when analyzing for total mercury
beginning September 1, 2003. These facilities are subject to this new requirement because of
either criteria: 1) the facility has a current total mercury limit in its NPDES permit that is <0.20
µg/l; or 2) the facility has limited instream dilution (i.e., the instream waste concentration (IWC)
is >6 percent). This requirement complies with 15 A NCAC 2B.0505(e)(4), which requires that
"test procedures must produce detection and reporting levels below the permit discharge
requirements".

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 77

The State of North Carolina alone cannot eliminate the atmospheric deposition of mercury over
surface waters. Actions for reducing atmospheric mercury will also be needed at the national
and international levels. The Mercury Report to Congress (EPA, 1997) lists initiatives under the
Clean Air Act that may reduce atmospheric mercury emissions from industrial sources. The
most significant initiative is emission limits for municipal waste combustors and medical waste
incinerators.

4.11 Managing the Impacts of Growth and Development and Stormwater
Runoff

Introduction
Urban growth poses one of the greatest threats to aquatic resources than any other human
activity. The impacts on rivers, lakes and streams as development surrounding metropolitan
areas consumes neighboring forests and fields can be significant and permanent if stormwater
runoff is not controlled. Greater numbers of homes, stores and businesses require greater
quantities of water. Growing populations not only require more water, but they also lead to the
discharge and runoff of greater quantities of waste and pollutants into the state’s streams and
groundwater. Thus, just as demand and use increases, some of the potential water supply is lost
(Orr and Stuart, 2000).

In addition, as watershed vegetation is replaced with impervious surfaces in the form of paved
roads, buildings, parking lots, and residential homes and driveways, the ability of the
environment to absorb and diffuse the effects of natural rainfall is diminished. Urbanization
results in increased surface runoff and correspondingly earlier and higher peak streamflows after
rainfall. Flooding frequency is also increased. These effects are compounded when small
streams are channelized (straightened) or piped and storm sewer systems are installed to increase
transport of drainage waters downstream. Bank scour from these frequent high flow events tends
to enlarge urban streams and increase suspended sediment. Scouring also destroys the variety of
habitat in streams, leading to degradation of benthic macroinvertebrate populations and loss of
fisheries (EPA, 1999).

Most of the impacts result in habitat degradation (Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.13), but urban
runoff also carries a potentially toxic cocktail including oil and grease from roads and parking
lots, street litter and pollutants from the atmosphere. Cumulative impacts from developing and
urban areas can cause severe impairment to urban streams.

4.11.1 Effects of Growth and Development in the Catawba River Basin

The above effects are perhaps more evident in the Catawba River basin than any other basin in
the state. A cursory look at population in the Catawba River basin reveals that approximately 10
percent of the state’s population resides within its boundaries, and fully four of 11 counties
experienced growth rates in excess of 20 percent in the last decade of the 20th century. The total
projected population density in 2030 of the counties in the lower Catawba River basin ranges
from 525 persons/square miles in Catawba County to more than 2,000 persons/square miles in
Mecklenburg County. The current effects of this growth on water quality can be seen in the map
of Impaired streams in the Catawba River basin (Figure A-3). The sparsely developed
watersheds of the northwestern portion of the basin generally contain streams with high water
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 78

quality, excellent aquatic species populations, and Supporting use support ratings. Water quality
declines dramatically in streams in the central and southern watersheds, where urbanization is
focused around urban centers and interstate corridors. It is no surprise then the greatest
concentration of Impaired streams lies in the areas of Gaston, Mecklenburg and Union counties
around Charlotte and the urbanizing corridors along interstate highways.

In the past, the Catawba River basin was blessed with an abundance of surface water that
supported the industrial expansion of the mid-20th century and the current domestic expansion.
Even today, there is sufficient water to serve its diverse domestic, agricultural, industrial, energy
production and recreational needs except in periods of severe drought. But, it is those periods of
drought that point to the impending threats to the availability of good quality water. Clean water
can likely be provided in sufficient quantity to supply the future needs of the basin, but only with
inspired foresight, planning and management.

4.11.2 The Role of Local Governments

A summary of necessary management actions needed by local authorities is provided here,
followed by discussions on large, watershed management issues. These actions are necessary to
address current sources of impairment and to prevent future degradation in all streams. The
intent of these recommendations is to describe the types of actions necessary to improve stream
conditions, not to specify particular administrative or institutional mechanisms for implementing
remedial practices. Those types of decisions must be made at the local level.

Because of uncertainties regarding how individual remedial actions cumulatively impact stream
conditions and in how aquatic organisms will respond to improvements, the intensity of
management effort necessary to bring about a particular degree of biological improvement
cannot be established in advance. The types of actions needed to improve biological conditions
can be identified, but the mix of activities that will be necessary – and the extent of improvement
that will be attainable – will only become apparent over time as an adaptive management
approach is implemented. Management actions are suggested below to address individual
problems, but many of these actions are interrelated (NCDENR-DWQ, June 2003).

Actions one through five are important to restoring and sustaining aquatic communities in a
watershed, with the first three recommendations being the most important.

1. Feasible and cost-effective stormwater retrofit projects should be implemented
throughout the watershed to mitigate the hydrologic effects of development (increased
stormwater volumes and increased frequency and duration of erosive and scouring flows).
This should be viewed as a long-term process. Although there are many uncertainties, costs
in the range of $1 million per square mile can probably be anticipated.
a. Over the short-term, currently feasible retrofit projects should be identified
and implemented.
b. In the longer term, additional retrofit opportunities should be implemented in
conjunction with infrastructure improvements and redevelopment of existing
developed areas.
c. Priorities should include evaluating the retrofit potential of existing instream
impoundments.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 79

d. Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from EPA initiatives,
such as Section 319 funds or the North Carolina Clean Water Management
Trust Fund.
2. A watershed scale strategy to address toxic inputs should be developed and
implemented, including a variety of source reduction and stormwater treatment
methods. As an initial framework for planning toxicity reduction efforts, the following
general approach is proposed:
a. Implementation of available BMP opportunities for control of stormwater
volume and velocities. As recommended above to improve aquatic habitat
potential, these BMPs will also remove toxics from stormwater.
b. Development of a stormwater and dry weather sampling strategy in order to
facilitate the targeting of pollutant removal and source reduction practices.
c. Implementation of stormwater treatment BMPs, aimed primarily at pollutant
removal, at appropriate locations.
d. Development and implementation of a broad set of source reduction activities
focused on: reducing nonstorm inputs of toxics; reducing pollutants available
for runoff during storms; and managing water to reduce storm runoff.
4. Actions recommended above (e.g., stormwater quantity and quality retrofit BMPs) are likely
to reduce nutrient/organic loading and its impacts to some extent. Activities recommended to
address this loading include the identification and elimination of illicit discharges; education
of homeowners, commercial applicators, and others regarding proper fertilizer use; street
sweeping; catch basin clean-out practices; and the installation of additional BMPs targeting
BOD and nutrient removal at appropriate sites.
c. replanting native riparian vegetation on stream channels where such
vegetation is absent; and
3. Stream channel restoration activities should be implemented in target areas, in
conjunction with stormwater retrofit BMPs, in order to improve aquatic habitat.
Before beginning stream channel restoration, a geomorphologic survey should be conducted
to determine the best areas for stream channel restoration. Additionally, it would probably be
advantageous to implement retrofit BMPs before embarking on stream channel restoration, as
restoration is probably best designed for flows driven by reduced stormwater runoff. Costs
of approximately $200 per foot of channel should be anticipated (Haupt et al., 2002; and
Weinkam et al., 2001). Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from federal
sources, such as EPA’s Section 319 funds or state sources including North Carolina Clean
Water Management Trust Fund.
5. Prevention of further channel erosion and habitat degradation will require effective post-
construction stormwater management for all new development in the study area.
6. Effective enforcement of sediment and erosion control regulations will be essential to the
prevention of additional sediment inputs from construction activities. Development of
improved erosion and sediment control practices may be beneficial.
7. Watershed education programs should be implemented and continued by local governments
with the goal of reducing current stream damage and preventing future degradation. At a
minimum, the program should include elements to address the following issues:
a. redirecting downspouts to pervious areas rather than routing these flows to
driveways or gutters;
b. protecting existing woody riparian areas on all streams;
d. reducing and properly managing pesticide and fertilizer use.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 80

4.11.3 Maintain and Develop Riparian Buffers

The presence of intact riparian buffers and/or wetlands in urban areas can reduce the urban
impacts. Establishment and protection of buffers should be considered where feasible, and the
amount of impervious cover should be limited as much as possible. Wide streets, large cul-de-
sacs, and long driveways and sidewalks lining both sides of the street are all features of urban
development that create excess impervious cover and consume natural areas.

Catawba River Basin Buffer Rules
On July 7, 2003, the Environmental Management Commission completed a stakeholder process
to protect mainstem riparian habitat on the Catawba River by finalizing the "Catawba River
Basin Buffer Rules" (§15A NCAC 02B.0243). The temporary rule became permanent in August
2004.

The Catawba River basin buffer rules apply to a 50-foot wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to
surface waters along the Catawba River mainstem below Lake James and along mainstem lakes
in the Catawba River basin. The rules create a two-zone protection area that allows for all
existing uses that were in place on June 30, 2001. As long as the current land use was in place
on that date, the Catawba River basin buffer rules do not apply. Otherwise, zone one is the 30-
foot wide strip closest to the waterline that must remain generally undisturbed. Zone two
constitutes the remaining 20 feet of buffers and allows for grading and revegetating as long as
the health of zone one is not impacted. There are many exemptions and activities that are
allowable with mitigation inside the buffer zone. Those include, but are not limited to, access
roads, view corridors and timber harvesting. For a complete copy of the rule and the list of all
exemptions, please refer to §15A NCAC 02B.0243 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/. For more
discussion on the process used to develop the rule, visit the webpage at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/catawba.htm.

In addition to the rules discussed above, several other programs are implemented in the basin to
protect riparian habitat. Protective zoning ordinances are in effect in all or part of Burke,
McDowell and Mecklenburg counties. In addition, special protection is given to riparian habitat
in water supply watersheds, high quality waters, outstanding resource waters, and trout waters
throughout the basin (see Section A, Chapter 3, Part 3.2).

4.11.4 Protect Headwater Streams

The Catawba River basin buffer rules described above are an effective way to reduce nonpoint
pollution impacts to the mainstem river and lakes, but is only part of a holistic, basinwide
management approach. Many streams in a given river basin are only small trickles of water that
emerge from the ground. A larger stream is formed at the confluence of these trickles. This
constant merging eventually forms a large stream or river. Most monitoring of fresh surface
waters evaluates these larger streams. The many miles of small trickles, collectively known as
headwaters, are not directly monitored and in many instances are not even indicated on maps.
However, impacts to headwater streams can (and do) affect the larger stream or river.

Headwater areas are found from the mountains to the coast along all river systems and drain all
of the land in a river basin. Because of the small size of headwater streams, they are often
overlooked during land use activities that impact water quality. All landowners can participate
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 81

in the protection of headwaters by keeping small
tributaries in mind when making land use
management decisions on the areas they control.
This includes activities such as retaining vegetated
stream buffers and excluding cattle from streams.
Local rural and urban planning initiatives should also
consider impacts to headwater streams when land is
being developed.
Planning Recommendations
for New Development

• Minimize number and width of
residential streets.
• Minimize size of parking areas
(angled parking & narrower slots).
• Place sidewalks on only one side of
residential streets.
For a more detailed description of watershed
hydrology, please refer to EPA’s Watershed
Academy website at
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/w
atershedmgt/principle1.html.
• Minimize culvert pipe and
hardened stormwater conveyances.
• Vegetate road right-of-ways,
parking lot islands and highway
dividers to increase infiltration.
• Plant and protect natural buffer
zones along streams and tributaries. 4.11.5 Reduce Impacts of Future Development

Proactive planning efforts at the local level are needed to assure that development is done in a
manner that maintains water quality. These planning efforts will need to find a balance between
water quality protection, natural resource management and economic growth. Growth
management requires planning for the needs of future population increases, as well as developing
and enforcing environmental protection measures. These actions are critical to water quality
management and the quality of life for the residents of the basin.

Areas adjacent to the high growth areas of the basin are at risk of developing Impaired biological
communities. These biological communities are important to maintaining the ecological
integrity in the Catawba River basin. These streams will be important as sources of benthic
macroinvertebrates and fishes for reestablishment of biological communities in nearby streams
that are recovering from past impacts or are being restored.

To prevent further impairment to aquatic life in streams in urbanizing watersheds local
governments should:

1. Identify waters that are threatened by development.
2. Protect existing riparian habitat along streams.
3. Implement stormwater BMPs during and after development.
4. Develop land use plans that minimize disturbance in sensitive areas of watersheds.
5. Minimize impervious surfaces including roads and parking lots.
6. Develop public outreach programs to educate citizens about stormwater runoff.

Action should be taken at the local level to plan for new development in urban and rural areas.
For more detailed information regarding recommendations for new development found in the
text box (above), refer to EPA’s website at www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/protection,
the Center for Watershed Protection website at www.cwp.org, and the Low Impact Development
Center website at www.lowimpactdevelopment.org. Additional public education is also needed in the
Catawba River basin in order for citizens to understand the value of urban planning and
stormwater management. DWQ recently developed a booklet that discusses actions individuals
can take to reduce stormwater runoff and improve stormwater quality entitled Improving Water
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 82

Quality In Your Own Backyard. To obtain a free copy, call [phone], ext. 558. For an
example of local community planning, visit the website at http://www.charmeck.org/Home.htm for
more information on the Town of Huntersville’s water quality ordinance and other programs in
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area.

4.12 DWQ Stormwater Programs

Introduction
There are many different stormwater programs administered by DWQ. One or more of these
programs affect many communities in the Catawba River basin. The goal of the DWQ
stormwater discharge permitting regulations and programs is to prevent pollution from entering
the waters of the state via stormwater runoff. Those programs try to accomplish this goal by
controlling the source(s) of pollutants. These programs include NPDES Phase I and II,
HQW/ORW stormwater requirements, and requirements associated with the Water Supply
Watershed Program. Local governments that are or may be affected by these programs are
presented in Table A-27.

4.12.1 NPDES Phase I

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
In the Catawba River basin, only the City of Charlotte has a Phase I stormwater permit. Phase I
of the EPA stormwater program started with Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in
1990. Phase I required NPDES permit coverage to address stormwater runoff from medium and
large stormwater systems serving populations of 100,000 or more people. Phase I also had
requirements for ten categories of industrial sources to be covered under stormwater permits.
Industrial activities which require permitting are defined in categories ranging from sawmills and
landfills to manufacturing plants and hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities.
Construction sites disturbing greater than five acres are also required to obtain an NPDES
stormwater permit under Phase I of the EPA stormwater program.

Throughout the Catawba River basin, various types of activities with point source discharges of
stormwater are required to be permitted under the state NPDES stormwater program. These
include industrial discharges related to manufacturing, processing and materials storage areas,
and construction activities with greater than five acres of disturbance. Most of those areas
requiring permits must develop Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SPPP) to minimize and
control pollutants discharged from their stormwater systems. Refer to Section A, Chapter 2, Part
2.6 for more information on permitting policy and procedure.

DWQ recommends continued implementation of the current stormwater programs as well as
implementation of the Phase II requirements. Many of the Impaired stream miles in the Catawba
River basin are Impaired at least in part because of runoff from urbanized areas. Development
and implementation of local programs that go beyond the minimum requirements will be needed
to restore aquatic life to these streams.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 83

4.12.2 NPDES Phase II

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Thirty municipalities and seven counties (Table A-27) in the basin are automatically required
(1990 and 2000 US Census designated Urban Areas) to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit
under the Phase II rules. Local governments designated on the 1990 US Census were required to
submit applications for NPDES stormwater permits by March 2003. Those designated based on
the 2000 US Census had until May 2004 to submit applications.

The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) previously adopted temporary and
permanent rules addressing implementation of the Phase II stormwater program in North
Carolina. However, in January 2004, the Rules Review Commission (RRC) objected to and
returned the permanent rules to the EMC. The EMC and other parties have challenged the
RRC's decision.

The RRC's return of the permanent stormwater management rules caused the earlier temporary
rules to expire and prevented the permanent rules from becoming effective. This left the state
with no formal program outlining the requirements for implementation of the federally mandated
NPDES stormwater Phase II program.

On July 12, 2004, the North Carolina General Assembly ratified Senate Bill 1210 (S1210) -
Phase II Stormwater Management. The Governor signed the bill on August 2, 2004. This bill
addresses implementation of the federal NPDES Phase II stormwater program in North Carolina.
The following is a summary of the bill’s major points. Updates on the Phase II program will be
posted as they become available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/Hot_Topics.htm.

Senate Bill 1210 Summary
Permit Applications. The bill provides that Phase II permit applications received from a local
government according to the schedule established by the EMC in its rule making will be
considered timely received. It requires the federally designated Phase II communities to
develop, implement and enforce a stormwater management program approved by DENR. The
programs must include the six minimum measures set out in the federal Phase II stormwater
rules. The post-construction stormwater standards to be applied are those set out in the
temporary rule adopted by the Environmental Management Commission except as modified in
some minor respects by the legislation. The bill exempts municipalities with populations less
than 1,000 from the Phase II permit requirement unless shown to be contributing to water quality
impairment.

County Coverage. New development in the unincorporated areas surrounding federally
designated Phase II municipalities must meet stormwater management requirements if the
development is located:

1. In an area that is considered an "urbanized area" under the federal Census.
2. Within the potential extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of a Phase II municipality (the
area outside the city limits in which the city may exercise planning and zoning
authority).

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 84

A city’s potential ETJ will extend 1-3 miles beyond its boundaries, depending on the population
of the city. If the municipality is not actually exercising its planning and zoning authority
throughout the entire area allowed by statute, then DENR is to implement the stormwater
management requirements in the area not regulated by the municipality.

If the combination of area covered by Phase II municipalities, potential extraterritorial
jurisdiction and urbanized areas totals at least 85% of the entire area of the county, then
stormwater requirements apply to new development in the entire county. As additional cities
come into the Phase II program by state designation, the EMC may require stormwater controls
in unincorporated areas surrounding those cities. Only unincorporated areas falling within a
designated city’s potential ETJ may be added; newly urbanized areas outside a designated city’s
potential ETJ would not be regulated except to the extent that they are served by a storm sewer
system that is required to obtain a permit. The decision to regulate some or all of the potential
ETJ must be based on finding that stormwater discharges from the area will harm water quality
or result in a significant contribution of pollutants to sensitive waters. The bill directs DENR to
implement the Phase II stormwater program in the delineated unincorporated areas, but counties
may voluntarily accept delegation of the program from DENR. If a county takes on
implementation of the program, the county may apply stormwater standards only in the
delineated areas or may chose to apply those standards throughout the county.

Overlapping stormwater programs. In cases where conflicting or overlapping stormwater
requirements are in effect, the more stringent standards will apply. (An example would be a
Phase II municipality located in a county subject to the EMC’s coastal stormwater rules.) The
bill authorizes the Secretary to settle disputes over application of overlapping requirements.
State Designation and Petition Process. Federal rules require that the state consider regulating
additional publicly owned storm sewer systems under Phase II based on water quality impacts.
The bill basically incorporates the process adopted by the EMC in the Phase II rule making. The
major difference is that the bill does not provide for state designation of counties. Designation
would be focused on cities (or other publicly owned or operated storm sewer systems);
delineating areas around the newly designated cities for regulation would add unincorporated
areas. Federal rules also allow any person to petition the state to require a Phase II stormwater

General Permit. The Bill directs the EMC to develop and implement a general permit for Phase
II stormwater coverage. The bill provides that the general permit requirements for post-
construction stormwater control may be no more stringent than those set out in the temporary
rule adopted by the EMC (as modified by the bill). A local government may choose to be
covered under the general permit rather than an individual permit.

Permitting. The Bill directs DENR to send a draft NPDES stormwater permit to public notice
by November 1, 2004 for all applications from municipal separate storm sewer systems located
in cities and counties designated under the 1990 census. It also requires that DENR send a draft
permit to public notice by May 1, 2005 for applications from those located in cities and counties
designated under the 2000 census. The permitted storm sewer systems must implement post-
construction stormwater requirements within 24 months after receiving the NPDES permit.
Municipalities (or other public entities) regulated later under the state designation process must
implement post-construction stormwater requirements within 36 months after receiving an
NPDES stormwater permit.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 85

permit for an unregulated storm sewer system or for an individual stormwater discharge. The
bill sets out the process for receiving and acting on petitions as required by the federal rules,
codifying the process adopted by the EMC in the final Phase II rule.
Interpretation, Effective Date and Sunset. The bill provides that the act should not be
interpreted to alter the authority of the EMC or a local government, affect pending litigation, or
give effect to any rules. The bill also states that it is not intended to affect vested rights or the
delegation of powers or duties to the EMC or DENR as established under existing law.
Agriculture and forestry exemptions from NPDES stormwater regulation apply. The bill will be
effective when it becomes law and sunset on October 1, 2011. The provisions of the bill will not
be codified.

Model Ordinance and Design Manual. The bill directs the EMC to develop a model
stormwater ordinance and an updated stormwater design manual by July 1, 2005.

Federal and State Development Projects. The bill provides that state and federal agencies may
apply to DENR for an NPDES stormwater permit covering all of the agency’s activities or for a
specific development project. To the extent a state or federal agency receives an NPDES
stormwater permit, it will not be subject to additional regulation under stormwater programs
implemented by local government under Phase II. State and federal activities or projects that are
not covered by an NPDES stormwater permit are subject to stormwater requirements of the bill,
as implemented by DENR or a permitted local government.

4.12.3 State Stormwater Program
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The State Stormwater Management Program was established in the late 1980s under the
authority of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and North
Carolina General Statute 143-214.7. This program, codified in 15A NCAC 2H .1000, affects
development activities that require either an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (for disturbances
of one or more acres) or development draining to Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or High
Quality Waters (HQW).

The State Stormwater Management Program requires developments to protect these sensitive
waters by maintaining a low density of impervious surfaces, maintaining vegetative buffers, and
transporting runoff through vegetative conveyances. Low density development thresholds vary
from 12-30 percent built-upon area (impervious surface) depending on the classification of the
receiving stream. If low density design criteria cannot be met, then high density development
requires the installation of structural best management practices (BMPs) to collect and treat
stormwater runoff from the project. High density BMPs must control the runoff from the 1 or
1.5-inch storm event (depending on the receiving stream classification) and remove 85 percent of
the total suspended solids.

Table A-27 shows the four counties in the Catawba River basin where permits may be required
under the state stormwater management program under HQW or ORW stormwater rules. All
development requiring an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (for disturbances of one or more
acres) must obtain a stormwater permit.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 86

DWQ will continue implementing the state stormwater program with the other NCDENR
agencies and local governments. Local governments should develop local land use plans that
minimize impervious surfaces in sensitive areas. Communities should integrate state stormwater
program requirements, to the extent possible, with other stormwater programs in order to be
more efficient and gain the most water quality benefits for protection of public health and aquatic
life. For example, the Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program in cooperation with the City
of Charlotte and towns has initiated a stakeholders' process that began in April and will continue
through December 2004 with the goal of developing a post-construction ordinance for new
development that will be considered for adoption by elected officials in the city, county and
towns in the spring of 2005. The purpose of the ordinance will be to control and manage
stormwater runoff and associated negative water quality impacts resulting from post-construction
stormwater discharges through the use of a combination of structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMPs). The ordinance will fulfill the following objectives:

Achieve compliance with the Phase I and Phase II NPDES Stormwater Permit
requirements for post-construction pollution control, as applied to the respective
jurisdictions.
•
•
•
•

Satisfactorily address the stormwater pollution control criteria specified by the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the US Fish and Wildlife Services
(USFWS) for the Rocky River watershed.
Satisfactorily address the causes of water quality impairment associated with
stormwater runoff in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
Satisfactorily address detention measures for the control of stormwater volumes and
peaks associated with new construction.

Local governments facing rapid development should follow the lead of towns like Huntersville
and develop zoning ordinances that augment and enhance the effect of regional programs by
requiring the use of Low Impact Development (LID) technologies that replicate predevelopment
runoff characteristics (Section B, Chapter 4, Part 4.3.1).

4.12.4 Water Supply Watershed Stormwater Rules
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
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. The program attempts to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff by
utilizing low density development or stormwater treatment in high density areas.

There are 23 surface water supply watersheds in the Catawba River basin. Local governments
that have land use jurisdiction within these watersheds are responsible for the adoption,
implementation and enforcement of the state’s water supply watershed minimum requirements.
Table A-27 is a list of the local governments responsible for a WSWP Program in the Catawba
River basin.

Local governments can adopt and enforce more stringent water supply watershed protection
ordinances if they choose. For example, the state’s rules require the use of a 30-foot vegetated
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 87

buffer (for low density development) along all waters in the water supply watershed that appear
as solid blue lines on USGS 1:24,000 scale topographical maps. The state’s rules allow the
buffer’s vegetation to consist entirely of grass rather than natural vegetation. However, a local
government can require a larger and undisturbed (natural vegetation) buffer. If a local
government adopts a more stringent ordinance, the state cannot require the local government to
enforce anything more stringent than the state’s minimum requirements. However, the state does
have statutory authority to assess civil penalties for local governments or developers for not
administering the state’s minimum requirements.

DWQ is currently reviewing local water supply watershed protection programs. This entails
conducting site visits to local governments, assessing their land use ordinances and checking
compliance with stormwater management, such as installation and maintenance of engineered
stormwater control ponds, buffers and built-upon surface area. DWQ staff also continues to
provide technical assistance through site visits, website (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wswp/index.html),
newsletter and correspondence.

DWQ recommends continued implementation of local water supply protection ordinances to
ensure safe and economical treatment of drinking water. Communities should also integrate
water supply protection ordinances with other stormwater programs, to the extent possible, in
order to be more efficient and gain the most water quality benefits for both drinking water and
aquatic life.

Table A-27 Communities in the Catawba River with Stormwater Requirements

NPDES TR Water
Requirements
State
Stormwater
Program
Water Supply
Watershed
Stormwater
Requirements
Local Government Phase I Phase II*

Belmont X X
Bessemer City X X
Blowing Rock X
Cajah Mountain X X
Catawba X
Charlotte X X
Claremont X X
Connelly Springs X X
Conover X X
Cornelius X X
Dallas X X
Davidson X X
Drexel X X
Gamewell X X
Glen Alpine X X
Grandfather Village X
Municipalities
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 88

Granite Falls X X
Hickory X X
High Shoals X
Hildebran X X
Hudson X X
Huntersville X X
Lenoir X X
Linville X
X
Longview X X
Lowell X X
Maiden X X
Mooresville X
Morganton X X
Mt. Holly X X
Old Fort X
Newton X X
X X
Rhodhiss X X
Rutherford College X X
Sawmills X X
Stanley X X
Sugar Mountain X
Troutman X
Valdese X X
Counties
Alexander X X X
Avery X X X
X X X
Caldwell X X X X
Catawba X X
Cleveland X
Gaston X X
Iredell X
Lincoln X
McDowell X X X
Mecklenburg X X X
Rutherford X
Union X X
Lincolnton
Ranlo

Burke X
* More local governments may be designated, once designation criteria are developed, in addition to those that may be
automatically designated based on 2000 Census.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 89

4.12.5 Trout Stream Protection

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Many of the coldwater streams in the Catawba River basin’s mountainous areas are home to
healthy trout populations. DWQ gives supplemental trout (Tr) classification to those streams
that are capable of supporting natural trout reproduction and survival of stocked trout. In order
to protect the high quality water found in these streams, DWQ and the Division of Land
Resources (DLR) enforce special regulations. For example, turbidity and dissolved oxygen
standards are more stringent in trout waters than in Class C waters. DLR also requires a 25-foot,
undisturbed vegetated buffer between the streambank and any land-disturbing activity (grading).
In addition to these requirements, DWQ recommends developers and contractors diligently
maintain erosion control structures when building near trout streams and encourages local
citizens to report erosion problems to regional DWQ and DLR offices. The contact information
for these offices can be found in Appendix VI, and North Carolina’s surface water classification
system is described in detail in Section A, Chapter 3.2.

4.13 Habitat Degradation

Instream habitat degradation is identified in the use
support summary (Appendix III) where there is a
notable reduction in habitat diversity or a negative
change in habitat. This term includes
sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of
riparian vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, loss of
woody habitat, and streambed scour. Good
instream habitat is necessary for aquatic life to
survive and reproduce. Streams that typically show
signs of habitat degradation are in watersheds that
have a large amount of land-disturbing activities
(construction, mining, timber harvest and
agricultural activities) or a large percentage of
impervious surfaces. A watershed in which most of
the riparian vegetation has been removed from
streams or channelization has occurred also exhibits
instream habitat degradation. Streams that receive a
discharge quantity that is much greater than the
natural flow in the stream often have degraded
habitat as well.
Some Best Management Practices
Agriculture
Construction
Forestry

• No till or conservation tillage practices
• Strip cropping and contour farming
• Leaving natural buffer areas around
small streams and rivers

• Using phased grading/seeding plans
• Limiting time of exposure
• Planting temporary ground cover
• Using sediment basins and traps

• Controlling runoff from logging roads
• Replanting vegetation on disturbed areas
• Leaving natural buffer areas around
small streams and rivers

Determining the cause and quantifying amounts of habitat degradation is very difficult in most
cases. To assess instream habitat degradation in most streams would require extensive technical
and monetary resources and perhaps even more resources to restore the stream. Although DWQ
and other agencies are starting to address this issue, local efforts are needed to prevent further
instream habitat degradation and to restore streams that have been Impaired by activities that
cause habitat degradation. As point sources become less of a source of water quality
impairment, nonpoint sources that pollute water and cause habitat degradation need to be
addressed to further improve water quality in North Carolina’s streams and rivers.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 90

4.13.1 Sedimentation

Introduction
Soil erosion, transport and redeposition are among the most essential natural processes occurring
in watersheds. However, land-disturbing activities such as the construction of roads and
buildings, crop production, livestock grazing and timber harvesting can accelerate erosion rates
by causing more soil than usual to be detached and moved by water. If best management
practices (BMPs) are not used effectively, accelerated erosion can strip the land of its topsoil,
decreasing soil productivity and causing sedimentation in streams and rivers (NCDENR-DLR,
1998). Sedimentation is the process by which eroded soil is deposited into waters. Sediment
that accumulates on the bottom of streams and rivers smothers aquatic insects that fish feed upon
and buries fish habitat that is vital to reproduction. Sediment filling rivers and streams decreases
their storage volume and increases the frequency of floods (NCDENR-DLR, 1998).
Suspended sediment can decrease primary productivity (photosynthesis) by shading sunlight
from aquatic plants, affecting the overall productivity of a stream system. Suspended sediment
also has several effects on various fish species including avoidance and redistribution, reduced
feeding efficiency, and therefore, reduced growth by some species, respiratory impairment,
reduced tolerance to diseases and toxicants, and increased physiological stress (Roell, June
1999). Suspended sediment also increases the cost of treating municipal drinking water.

During 1999 basinwide monitoring, DWQ aquatic biologists reported streambank erosion and
sedimentation throughout the Catawba River basin that was moderate to severe. Lower
bioclassification ratings were assigned because of sedimentation; bottom substrate was
embedded by silt and/or pools were partially filled with sediment. Unstable and/or undercut
(eroding) streambanks were also noted in explanation of lower ratings (NCDENR-DWQ, June
2003).

Land Clearing Activities
Erosion and sedimentation can be controlled during most land-disturbing activities by using
appropriate BMPs. In fact, substantial amounts of erosion can be prevented by planning to
minimize the (1) amount and (2) time the land is exposed. DWQ’s role in sediment control is to
work cooperatively with those agencies that administer sediment control programs in order to
maximize the effectiveness of the programs and to protect water quality. Where programs are
not effective, as evidenced by a violation of instream water quality standards, and where DWQ
can identify a source, then appropriate enforcement action can be taken. Generally, this entails
requiring the landowner or responsible party to install acceptable BMPs.

As a result of new stormwater rules enacted by EPA in 1999, construction or land development
activities that disturb one acre or more are required to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit. An
erosion and sediment control plan must also be developed and approved for these sites under the
state’s Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA) administered by the NC Division of Land
Resources. Site disturbances of less than one acre are required to use BMPs, but a plan is not
required.

Forestry operations in North Carolina are subject to regulation under the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act of 1973 (G.S. Chapter 113A, Article 4 referred to as "SPCA"). However, forestry
operations may be exempted from the permit requirements in the SPCA, if the operations meet
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 91

compliance standards outlined in the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A
NCAC 1I .0101-.0209, referred to as "FPGs") and General Statutes regarding stream obstruction
(G.S. 77-13 and G.S. 77-14). Detailed information is available on the Water Quality Section of
the DFR’s website at http://www.dfr.state.nc.us.

For agricultural activities which are not subject to the SPCA, sediment controls are carried out on
a voluntary basis through programs administered by several different agencies (see Appendix VI
for further information).

Stronger Rules for Sediment Control
The Division of Land Resources (DLR) has the primary responsibility for assuring that erosion is
minimized and sedimentation is reduced. In February 1999, the NC Sedimentation Control
Commission adopted significant changes for strengthening the Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program. The following rule changes were filed as temporary rules, subject to approval
by the Rules Review Commission and the NC General Assembly (NCDENR-DLR, July-
September 1999):

• Allows state and local erosion and sediment control programs to require a preconstruction
conference when one is deemed necessary.
• Reduces the number of days allowed for establishment of ground cover from 30 working
days to 15 working days and from 120 calendar days to 90 calendar days. (Stabilization must
now be complete in 15 working days or 90 calendar days, whichever period is shorter.)
• Provides that no person may initiate a land-disturbing activity until notifying the agency that
issued the plan approval of the date the activity will begin.
• Allows assessment penalties for significant violations upon initial issuance of a Notice of
Violation (NOV).

Additionally, during its 1999 session, the NC General Assembly passed House Bill 1098 to
strengthen the Sediment Pollution Control Act of 1973 (SPCA). The bill made the following
changes to the Act (NCDENR-DLR, July-September 1999):

• Increases the maximum civil penalty for violating the SPCA from $500 to $5000 per day.
• Provides that a person may be assessed a civil penalty from the date a violation is detected if
the deadline stated in the Notice of Violation is not met.
• Provides that approval of an erosion control plan is conditioned on compliance with federal
and state water quality laws, regulations and rules.
• Provides that any erosion control plan that involves using ditches for the purpose of
dewatering or lowering the water table must be forwarded to the Director of DWQ.
• Amends the General Statutes governing licensing of general contractors to provide that the
State Licensing Board for General Contractors shall test applicants’ knowledge of
requirements of the SPCA and rules adopted pursuant to the Act.
• Removes a cap on the percentage of administrative costs that may be recovered through plan
review fees.

For information on North Carolina’s Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program or to report
erosion and sedimentation problems, visit the new website at http://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/ or you
may call the NC Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section at [phone].

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 92

Recent Review of Sediment Control Research
The two most popular sediment control devices are silt fences and sediment basins. In 2001,
DWQ staff conducted a review of peer-reviewed research publications and consulted with
experts at NC State University (NCSU) to investigate the effectiveness of current sediment and
erosion control practices. In addition, engineering calculations have been conducted to obtain
theoretical effectiveness of sediment basins and silt fences. Research conducted in North
Carolina showed that construction sites in North Carolina produce 10-188 tons per acre per year
of sediment. Such wide variation might be attributed to the significant spatial and temporal
differences in rainfall intensity and duration, soil characteristics, slope, and the type of soil cover.
DLR currently uses the assumption that (on average) construction sites produce 84 tons/acre-
year. For comparison, erosion in undisturbed natural systems is only 0.1-0.2 tons/acre-year.

Currently, sediment basins are designed to have 1,800 cubic feet of storage space for each acre of
disturbed land. Based on the reference review and consultation, DWQ has concluded that these
basins have numerous deficiencies, including:

1. Insufficient volume. [Pennsylvania requires 5,000 cubic feet; Maryland and Virginia require
3,600 cubic feet.]
2. Inadequate cleaning frequency. [In many cases, effectiveness of the basins is significantly
reduced because they are only cleaned once a year.]
3. Short-circuiting. [In many cases, inlet and outlet in basins are constructed in very close
proximity, which results in a shorter than predicted retention time.]
4. Water is not being removed from the surface where concentration of the sediment is the
lowest.
5. Basins are designed with consideration of only cleared land. [In many cases, basins are
treating runoff from the entire drainage area, which is significantly larger than that of cleared
land.]

A sedimentation basin that is ideally designed and constructed is only able to capture 55 percent
of all sediment in runoff. As a result, each acre of cleared land will deliver 38 tons of sediment
to the waterways each year. After six months of operation, the effectiveness of the sediment
basin will be reduced to 33 percent and the loss of sediment will approach 56 tons/acre-year.

Silt fences are even less effective. A typical silt fence can capture only 22 percent of all particles
in runoff. Very often, they are improperly installed and receive inadequate maintenance that
results in further reduction in their effectiveness.

New research indicates that use of new technologies such as installation of baffles in the
sediment basins, application of flocculents, and use of skimmers can significantly increase
efficiency of sedimentation basins. Experiments conducted at NCSU demonstrated that the
current turbidity standard of 50 NTU (for waters not classified Tr) can be achieved in runoff if
these devices are used. However, the most important factor in reducing sedimentation is timely
cover of cleared land with mulches or use of the flocculent solutions to prevent erosion. It has
been conclusively proven that use of ground cover (temporary or permanent) dramatically
reduces erosion rates.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 93

4.13.2 Loss of Riparian Vegetation

During 2002 basinwide sampling, DWQ biologists reported degradation of aquatic communities
at numerous sites throughout the Catawba River basin in association with narrow or nonexistent
zones of native riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation loss was common in rural and
residential areas as well as in urban areas (NCDENR-DWQ, June 2003).

Removing trees, shrubs and other vegetation to plant grass or place rock (also known as riprap)
along the bank of a river or stream degrades water quality. Removing riparian vegetation
eliminates habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates that are food for trout and other fish. Rocks
lining a bank absorb the sun’s heat and warm the water. Some fish require cooler water
temperatures as well as the higher levels of dissolved oxygen cooler water provides. Trees,
shrubs and other native vegetation cool the water by shading it. Straightening a stream, clearing
streambank vegetation, and lining the banks with grass or rock severely impact the habitat that
aquatic insects and fish need to survive.

Livestock grazing with unlimited access to the stream channel and banks can cause severe
streambank erosion resulting in degraded water quality. Although they often make up a small
percentage of grazing areas by surface area, riparian zones (vegetated stream corridors) are
particularly attractive to cattle that prefer the cooler environment and lush vegetation found
beside rivers and streams. This concentration of livestock can result in increased sedimentation
of streams due to "hoof shear", trampling of bank vegetation, and entrenchment by the
destabilized stream. Despite livestock’s preference for frequent water access, farm veterinarians
have reported that cows are healthier when stream access is limited (EPA, 1999).

Establishing, conserving and managing streamside vegetation (riparian buffer) is one of the most
economical and efficient BMPs. Forested buffers in particular provide a variety of benefits
including filtering runoff and taking up nutrients, moderating water temperature, preventing
erosion and loss of land, providing flood control and helping to moderate streamflow, and
providing food and habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife (NCDENR-DWQ, February
2002). To obtain a free copy of DWQ’s Buffers for Clean Water brochure, call [phone],
ext. 558.

4.13.3 Loss of Instream Organic Microhabitats

Organic microhabitat (leafpacks, sticks and large wood) and edge habitat (root banks and
undercut banks) play very important roles in a stream ecosystem. Organic matter in the form of
leaves, sticks and other materials serve as the base of the food web for small streams.
Additionally, these microhabitats serve as special niches for different species of benthic
macroinvertebrates, providing food and/or habitat. For example, many stoneflies are found
almost exclusively in leafpacks and on small sticks. Some beetle species prefer edge habitat,
such as undercut banks. If these microhabitat types are not present, there is no place for these
specialized macroinvertebrates to live and feed. The absence of these microhabitats in some
streams in the Catawba River basin is directly related to the absence of riparian vegetation (refer
to Part 4.13.2 above). Organic microhabitats are critical to headwater streams, the health of
which is linked to the health of the entire downstream watershed.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 94

4.13.4 Channelization

Channelization refers to the physical alteration of
naturally occurring stream and riverbeds. Typical
modifications are described in the text box. Although
increased flooding, bank erosion and channel instability
often occur in downstream areas after channelization
has occurred, flood control, reduced erosion, increased
usable land area, greater navigability and more efficient
drainage are frequently cited as the objectives of
channelization projects.

Typical Channel Modifications

• Removal of any obstructions,
natural or artificial, that inhibit a
stream’s capacity to convey
water (clearing and snagging).
• Widening, deepening or
straightening of the channel to
maximize conveyance of water.
Direct or immediate biological effects of channelization
include injury and mortality of benthic
macroinvertebrates, fish, shellfish/mussels and other
wildlife populations, as well as habitat loss. Indirect biological effects include changes in
benthic macroinvertebrate, fish and wildlife community structures, favoring species that are
more tolerant of or better adapted to the altered habitat.
• Lining the bed or banks with
rock or other resistant materials.

Restoration or recovery of channelized streams may occur through processes, both naturally and
artificially induced. In general, streams that have not been excessively stressed by the
channelization process can be expected to return to their original forms. However, streams that
have been extensively altered may establish a new, artificial equilibrium (especially when the
channelized streambed has been hardened). In such cases, the stream may enter a vicious cycle
of erosion and continuous entrenchment. Once the benefits of a channelization project become
outweighed by the costs, both in money and environmental integrity, channel restoration efforts
are likely to be taken.

Channelization of streams within the continental United States is extensive and promises to
become even more so as urban development continues. Overall estimates of lost or altered
riparian habitats within US streams are as high as 70 percent. Unfortunately, the dynamic nature
of stream ecosystems makes it difficult (if not impossible) to quantitatively predict the effects of
channelization. Channelization has occurred historically throughout the Catawba River basin
and continues to occur in some watersheds, especially in small headwater streams.

4.13.5 Recommendations for Reducing Habitat Degradation

In March 2002, Environmental Management Commission (EMC) sent a letter to the
Sedimentation Control Commission (SCC) expressing seven recommendations for improving
erosion and sedimentation control, based on a comprehensive performance review of the
turbidity standard conducted in 2001 by DWQ staff. Specifically, the recommendations are that
the EMC and SCC:

1. Evaluate, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, whether statutory authority
is adequate to mandate temporary ground cover over a percentage of the uncovered area
at a construction site within a specific time after the initial disturbance of the area. If it is
found that statutory authority does not exist, then the EMC and SCC should prepare
resolutions for the General Assembly supporting new legislation to this effect.
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 95

2. Prepare resolutions supporting new legislation to increase the maximum penalty allowed
in the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act from $5,000 to $25,000 for the initial
response to a noncompliant site.
3. Jointly support a review of the existing Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual by DLR. This review should include, but not be limited to, a redesign of
the minimum specifications for sedimentation basins.
4. Evaluate, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, whether the statutory
authority is adequate for effective use of the "Stop Work Order" tool and, if found not to
be adequate, to prepare resolutions for the General Assembly supporting new legislation
that will enable staff to more effectively use the "Stop Work Order" tool.
5. Support increased research into and experimentation with the use of polyacrylamides
(PAMs) and other innovative soil stabilization and turbidity reduction techniques.
6. Jointly support and encourage the awarding of significant monetary penalties for all
activities found to be in violation of their Stormwater Construction General Permit, their
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, or the turbidity standard.
7. Hold those individuals who cause serious degradation of the environment through
excessive turbidity and sedimentation ultimately responsible for restoration of the area.

DWQ will continue to work cooperatively with DLR and local programs that administer
sediment control in order to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and to take appropriate
enforcement action when necessary to protect or restore water quality. However, more voluntary
implementation of BMPs is needed for activities that are not subject to these rules in order to
substantially reduce the amount of widespread sedimentation present in the Catawba River basin.

Additionally, more public education is needed basinwide to educate landowners about the value
of riparian vegetation along small tributaries and the impacts of sedimentation to aquatic life.
Funding is available through numerous federal and state programs for landowners to restore
and/or protect riparian buffer zones along fields or pastures, develop alternative watering sources
for livestock, and fence animals out of streams (refer to Section C). EPA’s Catalog of Federal
Funding Sources for Watershed Protection (Document 841-B-99-003) outlines some of these
and other programs aimed at protecting water quality. A copy may be obtained by calling the
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information at [phone] or by visiting
the website at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/fund.html. Local contacts for various
state and local agencies are listed in Appendix VI.

4.14 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.

The presence of disease-causing bacteria tends to affect humans more than aquatic creatures.
High levels of fecal coliform bacteria can indicate high levels of sewage or animal wastes which
could make water unsafe for human contact (swimming) or the harvesting and consumption of
shellfish. Fecal coliform bacteria and other potential pathogens associated with waste from
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 96

warm-blooded animals are not harmful to fish and aquatic insects. However, high levels of fecal
coliform bacteria may indicate contamination that increases the risk of contact with harmful
pathogens in surface waters. There are many waters that have high levels of fecal coliform
bacteria associated mostly with stormwater runoff in urban areas. To view the list of DWQ
ambient monitoring stations showing high concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria, refer to
Section A, Chapter 3, Part 3.3.6. DWQ is currently developing TMDLs (see Appendix IV) for
waters that are on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters.

Pathogens associated with fecal coliform bacteria can cause diarrhea, dysentery, cholera and
typhoid fever in humans. Some pathogens can also cause infection in open wounds.

Under favorable conditions, fecal coliform bacteria can survive in bottom sediments for an
extended period (Howell et al., 1996; Sherer et al., 1992; Schillinger and Gannon, 1985).
Therefore, concentrations of bacteria measured in the water column can reflect both recent inputs
as well as the resuspension of older inputs.

Reducing fecal coliform bacteria in wastewater requires a disinfection process, which typically
involves the use of chlorine and other disinfectants. Although these materials may kill the fecal
coliform bacteria and other pathogenic disease-causing bacteria, when they are introduced to the
natural environment, they also kill bacteria essential to the proper balance of the aquatic
environment, and thereby, endanger the survival of species dependent on those bacteria.

Water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria are intended to ensure safe use of waters for
recreation and shellfish harvesting (refer to Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2B .0200).
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 and not to exceed 400
colonies/100ml in more than 20 percent of the samples
during the same period.
Sources of Fecal Coliform
in Surface Waters

• Urban stormwater
• Wild animals and domestic pets
A number of factors beyond the control of any state
regulatory agency contribute to elevated levels of
disease-causing bacteria. Therefore, the state does not
encourage swimming in surface waters. To assure that
waters are safe for swimming indicates a need to test
waters for pathogenic bacteria. Although fecal
coliform standards have been used to indicate the
microbiological quality of surface waters for
swimming and shellfish harvesting for more than 50
years, the value of this indicator is often questioned. Evidence collected during the past several
decades suggests that the coliform group may not adequately indicate the presence of pathogenic
viruses or parasites in water.
• Improperly designed or managed
animal waste facilities
• Livestock with direct access to
streams
• Improperly treated discharges of
domestic wastewater, including
leaking or failing septic systems
and straight pipes

The detection and identification of specific pathogenic bacteria, viruses and parasites such as
Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Shigella are expensive, and results are generally difficult to
reproduce quantitatively. Also, to ensure the water is safe for swimming would require a whole
suite of tests for many organisms, as the presence/absence of one organism would not document
Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 97

the presence/absence of another. This type of testing program is not possible due to resource
constraints.

4.15 Addressing Waters on the State’s Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report

Introduction
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to develop a 303(d) list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have Impaired uses. States are also required to
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or management strategies for 303(d) listed
waters to address impairment. In the last few years, the TMDL program has received a great
deal of attention as the result of a number of lawsuits filed across the country against EPA.
These lawsuits argue that TMDLs have not been developed by states or the EPA. As a result of
these lawsuits, EPA issued a guidance memorandum in August 1997 that called for states to
develop schedules for developing TMDLs for all waters on the 303(d) list. The schedules for
TMDL development, according to this EPA memo, are to span 8-13 years.

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
In 2002, per EPA guidance, DWQ submitted required information on a format similar to that
specified in the 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (EPA,
2001b). This integrated report is considered a hybrid report, incorporating elements of old and
new EPA guidance on 305(b) and 303(d) reporting. EPA confirms this report satisfies Clean
Water Act (CWA) requirements for both the 2002 Section 305(b) water quality report and the
2002 Section 303(d) priority ranking of Impaired waterbodies, commonly referred to as the
Section 303(d) list. DWQ has now submitted and is waiting EPA approval on the 2004
Integrated Report.

The rigorous and demanding task of developing TMDLs for each of these waters during an 8 to
13-year time frame will require the focus of much of the water quality program’s resources.
Therefore, it will be a priority for North Carolina’s water quality programs over the next several
years to develop TMDLs for 303(d) listed waters. The waters in the Catawba River basin that
are on this list are presented in the individual subbasin descriptions in Section B and in Table A-
24. Waters listed as Impaired for the first time in this report will be listed in the 2006 Integrated
Report. For information on listing requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.

Section A: Chapter 4 – Water Quality Issues Related to Multiple Watersheds in the Catawba River Basin 98

Section B

Water Quality Data
and
Information by Subbasin

Section B: Water Quality Data and Information by Subbasin 99

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

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

Section B - Chapter 3
Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32
Lower, Middle and Upper Little Rivers, Lake Hickory, Lookout Shoals Lake
and Lake Norman
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

3.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin is located in the Northern Inner Piedmont
and Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregions with the
extreme northwestern headwaters of several streams in
the Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills ecoregion. The
southeastern portion of this subbasin (east of the Lower
Little River and south of the Catawba River) is flatter and
more characteristic of Piedmont areas than the northern
section.

Subbasin 03-08-32 at a Glance

Land and Water Area
Total area: 706 mi2
Land area: 647 mi2
Water area: 59 mi2
Population Statistics
Pop. Density: 257 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Counties
Municipalities

2000 Est. Pop.: 180,804 people Highly erodible soils and moderate gradients contribute
large amounts of sediment in the Little River watershed.
However, a majority of the subbasin remains forested.
Major reservoirs in this subbasin include Lakes Hickory
and Norman and Lookout Shoals Lake. Because of these
impoundments, a greater percentage of this subbasin is
classified as a water supply watershed than any of the
other subbasins, highlighting the increased pressure
placed on the resource by ever expanding populations. In
fact, the populations of Alexander, Catawba, Iredell,
Lincoln and Mecklenburg counties are all expected to
increase by over 20 percent by the year 2020 (Table A-6).

Forest/Wetland: 57%
Surface Water: 9%
Urban: 3%
Agriculture: 34%

Alexander, Burke, Caldwell,
Catawba, Iredell, Lincoln and
Mecklenburg

There were 24 benthic macroinvertebrate community
samples and 13 fish community samples (Figure B-3 and
Table B-5) collected during this assessment period. Two
sites improved; 12 sites remained the same; two sites had
a lower bioclassification, and three 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.
Cajah Mountain, Catawba,
Claremont, Connelly Springs,
Conover, Cornelius, Davidson,
Granite Falls, Hickory, Hildebran,
Hudson, Huntersville, Lenoir,
Long View, Mooresville, Newton,
Rhodhiss, Sawmills, Taylorsville
and Troutman

Sixteen facilities monitor effluent toxicity, some having multiple discharges. Four dischargers
had problems with toxicity, although three were very small dischargers with a permitted flow
less than 0.02 MGD. This group of discharges was associated with either groundwater
remediation or contact cooling water.

Section B: Chapter 3 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 125
Table B-5 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-32

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Hickory below
elevation 935)11-(51) WS-IV & B CA 263.1 ac. AL C2600000 nce L-1 ce NR FS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Hickory below
elevation 935)11-(53) WS-IV & B CA 1,232.8 ac. AL C2600000 nce L-1 ce NR FS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Hickory below
elevation 935)11-(59.5) WS-V & B 2,093.6 ac. AL C2600000 nce L-1 ce NR FS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Norman below
elevation 760)11-(74) WS-IV CA 265.3 ac. AL C3420000 nce L-3 nce S FS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Norman below
elevation 760)11-(75) WS-IV & B CA 31,331.6 ac. AL C3420000 nce L-3 nce S FS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lookout Shoals Lake below
elevation 845)11-(67) WS-IV 182.7 ac. AL L-2 nce S FS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lookout Shoals Lake below
elevation 845)11-(68.5) WS-IV CA 95.4 ac. AL L-2 nce S FS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lookout Shoals Lake below
elevation 845)11-(72) WS-IV & B CA 577.8 ac. AL L-2 nce S FS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lookout Shoals Lake below
elevation 845)11-(73.5) WS-IV & B CA 175.4 ac. AL L-2 nce S FS
Duck Creek 11-62-2-(4) C 4.4 mi. AL
B-4 GF--97
B-4 G--02
F-3 G--02 S ST
Use Support RatingData Type with Map Number
and Data Results
CategoryWaterbody Assessment
DWQ
Classification Length / Area
Section B: Chapter 3 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 127
Table B-5 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-32

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
Use Support RatingData Type with Map Number
and Data Results
CategoryWaterbody Assessment
DWQ
Classification Length / Area
Elk Shoal Creek (East Side)11-73-(0.5) WS-IV 7.8 mi. AL
B-7 GF--97
B-7 GF--02
F--5 E--97
F-5 G--02 S ST
Gunpowder Creek
(Old Mill Pond)11-55-(1.5) WS-IV 13.4 mi. AL
B-1 GF--97
B-1 GF--02 SST
Horseford Creek 11-54-(0.5) WS-IV 0.4 mi. AL SB-2 P--02 I-
Lower Little River 11-69-(0.5) C 14.0 mi. AL
F-4 G--97
F-4 F--02 C2818000 nce I FS
Lower Little River 11-69-(5.5) WS-IV 8.6 mi. AL
B-5 G--97
B-5 GF--02 SFS
Lyle Creek 11-76-(3.5) WS-IV 6.3 mi. AL
B-8 GF--97
B-8 GF--02 S FS
McLin Creek 11-76-5-(3) WS-IV CA 0.7 mi. AL
B-9 GF--97
B-9 GF--02 S FS
Middle Little River 11-62 C 21.5 mi. AL
B-3 GF--97
B-3 F--02
B-3 GF--03
F-2 G--97
F-2 E--02 S ST
Muddy Fork 11-69-4 C 6.8 mi. AL
B-6 GF--97
B-6 F--02
B-6 GF--03 S ST
Silver Creek 11-56-(2) WS-IV CA 0.8 mi. AL SB-3 GF--02 S -
Upper Little River
(Cedar Creek)11-58-(5.5) WS-IV 9.8 mi. AL
B-2 G--97
B-2 G--02
F-1 GF--97
F-1 GF--02 SFS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Hickory below
elevation 935)11-(53) WS-V & B 1,232.8 ac. REC C2600000 nce S -
Section B: Chapter 3 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 128
Table B-5 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-32

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
Use Support RatingData Type with Map Number
and Data Results
CategoryWaterbody Assessment
DWQ
Classification Length / Area
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Hickory below
elevation 935)11-(59.5) WS-V & B 2,093.6 ac. REC C2600000 nce S-
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Norman below
elevation 760)11-(74) WS-IV CA 265.3 ac. REC C3420000 nce S -
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Norman below
elevation 760)11-(75) WS-IV & B CA 31,331.6 ac. REC C3420000 nce S -
Lower Little River 11-69-(0.5) C 14.0 mi. REC C2818000 ce NR -
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
SB - Special Benthic Community Study GF - Good-Fair Use Support Ratings 1998:
L - Lakes Assessment F - Fair FS - fully supporting, ST - supporting but threatened
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 3 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 129

There are three ambient monitoring sites in this subbasin: two on Lakes Hickory and Norman,
and one on the Lower Little River. There were few unusual measurements at the two lake sites,
although high algal production sometimes produced high dissolved oxygen concentrations and
pH readings. Elevated fecal coliform bacteria concentrations and high turbidity levels were
noted on the Lower Little River after rainfall events.

Recent biological data produced Good or Good-Fair bioclassifications for most monitored
streams in this subbasin. However, a Fair bioclassification was recorded for a section of Middle
Little River and for Muddy Fork. Fish data also produced a Fair bioclassification for a section of
the Lower Little River. The Fair bioclassification for the Middle Little River seemed to be due
to low flow in 2002 and did not indicate a significant water quality problem. This finding was
reinforced by the Excellent fish community bioclassification given to the river. Muddy Fork,
however, showed signs of organic loading from nearby animal operations. The cause of the Fair
bioclassification for the headwaters of the Lower Little River (above the Town of Taylorsville
WWTP) was unknown, although a sand-dipping operation was noted just above the sampling
reach.

Based upon benthic macroinvertebrate data, water quality was fairly stable in this subbasin. The
majority of the between-year changes in bioclassification were associated with between-year
changes in flow. These changes fell into three categories:
1. Streams where drought conditions resulted in loss of flow. These streams showed a
decline during the extreme drought. Example: Middle Little River.

2. Streams which maintained flow under drought conditions and were influenced mainly
by nonpoint source pollution. These streams improved under drought conditions due
to a reduction in nonpoint source runoff. Example: Duck Creek.
3. Streams influenced by point source dischargers. These streams declined under
drought conditions due to higher instream waste concentrations. Example: the
downstream segment of the Lower Little River below the Town of Taylorsville.
Lake Hickory has been sampled by DWQ since 1981. This reservoir was consistently evaluated
as eutrophic based on summer samples from 1981 to 1992. Since then, however, the reservoir
has been most frequently evaluated as mesotrophic. High productivity was indicated in August
2002, but no visible algal blooms were observed.

Lookout Shoals Lake is a small run-of-the-river lake with a retention time of only nine days. It
has been sampled by DWQ since 1981, and the trophic state has fluctuated from oligotrophic to
eutrophic depending on the nutrient loading and flow conditions. The reservoir’s water quality is
thought to be more reflective of releases from upstream impoundments than conditions in the
immediate, surrounding watershed.

Lake Norman is the largest of the Catawba River reservoirs. It has been monitored by Duke
Power since the 1970s, and DWQ has sampled the reservoir since 1981. This reservoir has
consistently been evaluated as oligotrophic with low nutrient values and low algal production.
A nuisance aquatic plant, Myriophyllum aquaticum, infested the upper ends of Lake Hickory and
Lookout Shoals Lake. This plant can interfere with recreational and industrial uses of the lakes.
Section B: Chapter 3 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 130

Lookout Shoals Lake was drawn down in the fall of 2002 in an attempt to control the spread of
this plant.

Hydrilla, another nuisance aquatic plant, was found in Lake Norman. This macrophyte is
invasive, can decrease fish habitat, and can impact recreational activities such as swimming and
boating. It also has the potential of clogging intakes of water treatment plants. In an effort to
manage its growth, Duke Power is treating the infestation with herbicide.

Waters in Parts 3.3 and 3.4 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 3.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 3.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 3.4 below. Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all
monitored waters.

3.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings in subbasin 03-08-32 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-6 for a summary of use support ratings by use support category for
waters in the subbasin.

Section B: Chapter 3 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 131

Table B-6 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-08-32

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic Fish Water Recreation Life Consumption Supply
Monitored Waters
101.4 mi Supporting 0 34,923.2 ac 032,628.1 ac
Impaired 14.5 mi 0 0 0
0.7 mi Not Rated 0 14.0 mi 03,589.4 ac
14.0 mi 116.6 ac 00Total 34,923.2 ac 36,217.5 ac
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 10.4 0 36,217.5 ac
260.8 mi mi 0
Impaired 000 0
Not Rated 10.6 mi 0 0 0
453.2 mi 439.1 mi. No Data 315.6 mi 036,217.5 ac 1,294.3 ac.
Total 336.6 mi 453.2 mi 439.1 mi 260.8 mi
36,217.5 ac 1,294.3 ac 36,217.5 ac
Totals
453.2 miAll Waters 36,217.5 ac 36,217.5 ac
453.2 mi 453.2 mi 260.8 mi
36,217.5 ac 36,217.5 ac
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.
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.
3.3.1 Horseford Creek [AU# 11-54-(0.5) and 11-54-(3)]

3.3 Status and Recommendations of Newly and Previously Impaired
Waters

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Horseford Creek is a tributary to Lake Hickory. It is formed from the confluence of Frye and
Cripple Creeks, which both originate in the City of Hickory. The drainage area of Horseford
Creek is fairly small (4.7 mi2); the watershed is 100 percent urban, and there are no NPDES
dischargers. In response to a citizen complaint, a benthic macroinvertebrate sample (site SB-2)
was collected in September 2002 from Horseford Creek in the City of Hickory. This stream had
good habitat, but water quality problems associated with urban runoff produced a Poor
Section B: Chapter 3 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 132

bioclassification. Therefore, the 1.1 mile segment from Frye Creek to Lake Hickory is Impaired
for aquatic life.

This unusual combination of good habitat and poor biological integrity suggests that even
favorable instream habitat cannot compensate for the toxic effects of poorly controlled urban
runoff. Local citizen groups should cooperate with city officials and local business leaders to
develop a plan for reducing the impacts of urban runoff. Please refer to Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.11 for information on ways to reduce those impacts.

3.3.2 Lower Little River [AU# 11-69-(0.5)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
This stream’s watershed drains the northeast portion of the Brushy Mountains and northwestern
Alexander County, northwest of the Town of Taylorsville. It is a tributary to Lookout Shoals
Reservoir. In 2002, a new sand dipping operation was functional above the sampling reach.
Additionally, resource agency staff has noted significant sediment deposits at the mouth of the
Lower Little River where it enters the Catawba River/Lookout Shoals Lake headwaters.

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.

A precipitous bioclassification decline from Good to Fair occurred at fish community site F-4.
Therefore, aquatic life is Impaired in this 14.0-mile reach from its source to Stirewalt Creek. A
less severe decline was also documented downstream in the benthic community at site B-5. This
site declined from Good to Good-Fair between 1997 and 2002. Further investigations into the
major sources of sediment in this watershed should be conducted in order to find opportunities
for sediment control BMP installations. Opportunities for cooperation between local and county
planners should also be pursued to expedite the implementation of such BMPs.

3.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts

3.4.1 Lake Hickory [AU# 11-(51), 11-(53), and 11-(59.5)]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Lake Hickory is a run-of-river impoundment located between Lake Rhodhiss and Lookout
Shoals Lake on the Catawba River. The lake was filled in 1928 and is operated by Duke Power.
Approximately one-half of the drainage area is forested and another one-third is agricultural.
The major tributaries into Lake Hickory are the Catawba River, Middle Little River and
Gunpowder Creek. The waters of the lake are used to generate hydroelectric power, for public
water supply, and for recreational purposes. Lake Hickory is classified from the Rhodhiss Dam
to the US Highway 321 bridge on the Catawba River as WS-IV B CA, and from the US
Highway 321 bridge to Oxford Dam as WS-V and Class B. There are several municipal
wastewater dischargers located in the reservoir’s immediate watershed. These discharges, as
Section B: Chapter 3 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 133

well as nonpoint source pollution, have contributed to the eutrophic conditions observed over the
years. Because of algal blooms, taste and odor problems, and dissolved oxygen percent
saturation values greater than 120 percent, aquatic life use support in Lake Hickory (3,589 acres)
is Not Rated.

The water quality in Lake Hickory is driven by a variety of stressors including runoff from rural
and urban areas, NPDES discharges, and perhaps most notably, the discharge from Lake
Rhodhiss. 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 leads DWQ to the 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 more information on a regional watershed plan.

3.4.2 Muddy Fork [AU# 11-69-4]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Muddy Fork originates in north central Alexander County and is a tributary to the Lower Little
River. Muddy Fork is currently rated as Supporting, but has very poor habitat, generally lacking
riffles and pools. The immediate riparian zones are used for cattle grazing and cattle have direct
access to this 6.8-mile stream. A major industrial discharger has an outflow several miles above
the sample site. The stream received a Good-Fair bioclassification in 1997, a Fair in 2002, and
Good-Fair again in 2003 during a resample effort. Problems seem to be caused by organic
loading, possibly from cattle wastes. DWQ recommends Muddy Fork be considered for
installation of agriculture BMPs, including cattle exclusion fencing.

3.4.3 Middle Little River [AU# 11-62]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The watershed of the Middle Little River drains western Alexander and eastern Caldwell
counties, including the southwest portion of the Brushy Mountains. Site B-3 has shown a steady
decline in bioclassification over the past 10 years: Good in 1992, Good-Fair in 1997, and Fair in
2002. A resample to verify the Fair rating resulted in a Good-Fair bioclassification. Therefore,
this stream continues to be rated Supporting, although it demonstrates significant habitat
degradation. It is likely that these impacts are the result of poor land use practices. DWQ will
continue to monitor this stream and recommends further work be done to determine the cause of
habitat degradation in this stream.

3.4.4 Gunpowder Creek [AU# 11-55-(0.5) and 11-55-(1.5)]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Gunpowder Creek drains the southeastern portion of the City of Lenoir before passing through
Granite Falls and emptying into Lake Hickory. The City of Lenoir operates a wastewater
treatment plant on this 13.4-mile long creek. The stream is currently Supporting its designated
use with a Good-Fair bioclassification at site SB-1 in both 1997 and 2002. However, heavy
sedimentation has resulted in habitat degradation. DWQ will continue to monitor this stream and
recommends further work be done to determine the cause of habitat degradation in this stream.
Section B: Chapter 3 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 134

3.4.5 Lookout Shoals Lake [AU# 11-(72) and 11-(73.5)]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Lookout Shoals Lake, situated between Lakes Hickory and Norman, is one of the smaller
impoundments on the Catawba River. The lake is operated by Duke Power and is used for
hydropower generation, public water supply, and public recreation. The lake’s water quality is
more reflective of releases from upstream impoundments (Lake Hickory and Lake Rhodhiss)
than conditions in the immediate watershed. It is, therefore, likely that effective management in
the Lake Rhodhiss and Lake Hickory watersheds coupled with tailwater management by Duke
Power will help prevent water quality degradation in Lookout Shoals Lake. Please refer to
Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.2 for more information on a regional watershed plan.

In 2002, the upper end of the lake was infested with Myriophyllum aquaticum, the same species
that is thriving in Lake Hickory. To control the spread of Parrot Feather, Duke Power drew
down the water level to a target of 20 feet below full pool in November 2002. But due to rainfall
in December, the water level rose to 14.3 feet below full pool in early January 2003. The pool
level was brought to its normal operation level of three feet below full pool by February 2003 to
accommodate annual fish spawning. Thus, the efficacy of the drawdown will probably be minor.
Duke Power, along with stakeholders and DWQ, will continue to develop and implement a
Parrot Feather management program for the reservoir (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.4).

3.4.6 Lake Norman [AU# 11-(74) and 11-(75)]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Lake Norman, the state’s largest man-made reservoir, is located between Lookout Shoals and
Mountain Island Lakes on the Catawba River. The lake is operated by Duke Power and is used
to generate hydroelectric power at Cowans Ford Dam and for multiple purposes at the Marshall
Steam Station and the McGuire Nuclear Plant. The lake is also used for public water supply and
recreation.

In 1999, approximately 25 acres of Hydrilla were discovered in the reservoir by Duke Power
staff. This invasive macrophyte has the potential for rapid growth with the subsequent loss of
swimming and boating areas. It also has the potential to clog intakes of water treatment and
power generation plants. A survey conducted in October 2002 by Duke Power staff found
Hydrilla as far upstream as the NC 150 bridge. There is also the potential for Parrot Feather,
Myriophyllum aquaticum, to become established in Lake Norman via introduction from
contaminated boat trailers or from plant fragments floating downstream from Lookout Shoals
Lake. The occurrence of Hydrilla and the potential for Parrot Feather infestation pose an
immediate threat to recreation, water supply use, and power generation uses in the lake.

The area around Lake Norman is also experiencing the inevitable water quality impacts
associated with rapid development and increased recreational use. Elevated dissolved oxygen
levels, elevated nutrient and metal levels, and boating congestion have all been noted on the lake
(NCDENR-DWQ, June 2003). Lake Norman’s massive volume has allowed the lake to absorb
these human induced impacts and maintain reasonable water quality. But ultimately, the
increased demands on the lake’s aquatic resources could overwhelm its ability to accommodate
them, resulting in declining water quality. Now is the time to implement management strategies

Section B: Chapter 3 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 135

that will offset the impacts of development and possibly avoid critical water quality situations as
seen on other lakes in the Catawba River Chain Lakes and in other river basins (see Section A,
Chapter 4, Part 4.7).

Over the next basinwide planning cycle, DWQ will look for opportunities to develop appropriate
and cost-effective management strategies. Please refer to the sections on Urbanization, FERC
Relicensing, and Local Involvement (Section A, Chapter 4, Parts 4.7 and 4.8) for more
information. Duke Power, along with stakeholders and DWQ, will continue to develop and
implement an invasive plant management program for the reservoir (Section A, Chapter 4, Part
4.7.4).

Section B: Chapter 3 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-32 136

Section B - Chapter 4
Dutchmans Creek, McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Lake
Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-33
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

4.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont
ecoregion. The largest watershed in this subbasin is
Dutchmans Creek, formed by the confluence of Leepers
and Killian Creeks. Dutchman's Creek flows into the
Catawba River just downstream of Mountain Island Lake.
Streams in the subbasin are often sandy, low gradient
streams. Land use is primarily forested. The largest
discharger in this subbasin is the Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Utilities District which discharges 3 MGD into McDowell
Creek.

Urbanization is a significant threat to water quality in this
basin as some of the fastest growing communities in the
state are located within it (Table A-7). Recognizing this
threat, local governments have begun implementation of
innovative management strategies to reduce
urbanization’s negative impact on water quality.

There are six facilities in this subbasin required to monitor
effluent toxicity. Five facilities have passed all required
toxicity tests. The CMUD/McDowell Creek WWTP has
had three failing tests since 1997. The most recent
failings were in 2000 and thought to be due to sample
contamination. Otherwise, there have been no toxicity
failures since the plant disinfection process was converted from chlorine to ultra-violet (UV) in
1998.

Land and Water Area
Total area: 220 mi2
Land area: 216 mi2
Water area: 4 mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 117,621 people
Pop. Density: 546 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 69%
Surface Water: 2%
Urban: 2%
Agriculture: 27%
Counties
Catawba, Gaston, Lincoln and
Mecklenburg
Municipalities
Cornelius, Huntersville, Mount
Holly and Stanley
Subbasin 03-08-33 at a Glance

There are three ambient monitoring sites located in this subbasin: Mountain Island Lake above
Gar Creek, Dutchmans Creek at SR 1918, and the Catawba River at NC 27. All three sites have
exhibited elevated conductivity since the middle and late 1990s.

There were four benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and four fish community
samples (Figure B-4 and Table B-7) collected during this assessment period. Three sites had
lower bioclassifications, and one site was sampled for the first time during this assessment
period. 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.
Section B: Chapter 4 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-33 137
Table B-7 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-33

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
CATAWBA RIVER (Lake
Wylie below elevation 570)11-(117) WS-IV CA 375.3 ac.AL C3900000 nce L-1 nce NR FS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Mountain Island Lake below
elevation 648)11-(112) WS-IV CA 389.4 ac.AL C3699000 nce L-1 nce S FS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Mountain Island Lake below
elevation 648)11-(114) WS-IV & B CA 1,937.1 ac.AL C3699000 nce L-1 nce S FS
Dutchmans Creek 11-119-(0.5) WS-IV 7.4 mi.AL C3860000 nce S FS
Killian Creek 11-119-2-(0.5)a C 11.6 mi.AL
F-2 G--97
F-2 GF--02 SFS
Killian Creek 11-119-2-(0.5)b C 3.2 mi.AL
B-3 G--97
B-3 F--02 IFS
McDowell Creek 11-115-(1.5)a WS-IV 4.4 mi.AL
F-1 F--97
F-1 P--02 IPS
McDowell Creek 11-115-(1.5)b WS-IV 2.9 mi.AL B-1 F--02 IPS
CATAWBA RIVER (Lake
Wylie below elevation 570)11-(117) WS-IV CA 375.3 ac.REC C3900000 nce S -
CATAWBA RIVER
(Mountain Island Lake below
elevation 648)11-(114) WS-IV & B CA 1,937.1 ac.REC C3699000 nce S -
Dutchmans Creek 11-119-(0.5) WS-IV 7.4 mi.REC C3860000 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
L - Lakes Assessment GF - Good-Fair Use Support Ratings 1998:
F - Fair FS - fully supporting
P - Poor PS - partially supporting, NS - not supporting

nce - no criteria exceeded
ce - criteria exceeded
Bioclassifcations:
Ambient Data
DWQ Classification
Assessment Unit
NumberWaterbody Length / Area
Data Type with Map Number
and Data Results
Use Support Rating
Category
Section B: Chapter 4 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-33 139

Based on past benthic macroinvertebrate data, Dutchmans and Killian Creeks received either
Excellent or Good bioclassifications, and McDowell Creek a Good-Fair. In 2002, benthic
macroinvertebrate data from Dutchmans Creek declined to Good-Fair, and Killian and
McDowell Creeks declined to Fair. Similar trends were observed for the fish community at
McDowell Creek, which declined from Fair in 1997 to Poor in 2002; and in Killian Creek, which
declined from Good in 1997 to Good-Fair in 2002. The lower benthic macroinvertebrate and
fish bioclassifications were likely the result of the prolonged drought in Killian Creek, while the
lower bioclassifications in McDowell Creek were likely the result of expanding urbanization
surrounding the City of Charlotte. Remaining benthic macroinvertebrate sites which declined in
2002 from previous samples were likely due to extended low flows from the drought.

Mountain Island Lake is located on the Catawba River downstream of Lake Norman. In 2002, it
was classified as oligotrophic and received the lowest trophic scores since 1981. Nutrient levels
in 2002 were generally lower than measured in the past, and lakewide Secchi depths were
correspondingly high. These improved conditions might have been due to decreased runoff as a
result of the drought. The noxious exotic macrophyte, Hydrilla, is established and covers more
than 600 acres. To manage it, grass carp were stocked in 2000 and 2002.

Waters in Parts 4.3 and 4.4 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 4.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 4.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 4.4 below. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in Part 4.5.
Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all monitored waters.

4.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings in subbasin 03-08-33 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-8 for a
summary of use support ratings by use support category for waters in the subbasin.

Section B: Chapter 4 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-33 140

Table B-8 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-08-33

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 18.93 mi
2,701.7 ac 0 7.4 mi
2,312.4 ac 0
Impaired 10.4 mi 0 0 0
Not Rated 3.4 mi.0 0 0
Total 32.7 mi
2,701.7 ac 0 7.4 mi
2,312.4 ac 0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 0.0 mi 0 0 53.5 mi
2,701.7 ac
Impaired 0.0 mi 133.88 mi
375.29 ac 0 0
Not Rated 37.2 mi 0 0 0
No Data 92.2 mi 28.2 mi
2,326.41 ac
154.8 mi
389.3 ac 0
Total 129.4 mi 162.1 mi
2,701.7 ac
154.8 mi
389.3 ac
53.5 mi
2,701.7 ac
Totals
All Waters 162.1 mi
2,701.7 ac
162.1 mi
2,701.7 ac
162.1 mi
2,701.7 ac
53.5 mi
2,701.7 ac
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

4.3 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.

4.3.1 McDowell Creek [AU# 11-115-(1.5)a and 11-115-(1.5)b]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
McDowell Creek is a tributary to the upper reaches of Mountain Island Lake and drains the
rapidly growing suburban areas of the towns of Cornelius and Huntersville and the lands
between Interstate 77 and Lake Norman.

In 1999, DWQ noted that bank erosion in McDowell Creek was severe and instream habitat was
generally poor. The basinwide plan also mentioned that upgrades to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Section B: Chapter 4 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-33 141

Utilities WWTP had resulted in reduced nutrient loads. DWQ suggested that local initiates be
pursued to find solutions to habitat degradations.

Site B-1 was added in 2002 by DWQ as a basinwide monitoring site to track this rapidly
developing portion of Mecklenburg County. The site was previously monitored in 1990 and was
given a Good-Fair bioclassification. In 2002, the bioclassification declined to Fair. Upstream at
site F-1, the bioclassification declined from Fair in 1997 to Poor in 2002. The upper 7.2 miles of
McDowell Creek (US Hwy 21 to SR 2136) are Impaired for aquatic life because of the
bioclassifications at site B-1. The downstream 2.7 miles (SR 2136 to Mountain Island Lake) are
Not Rated because there is no sample site on this segment. It should be noted that no visible
difference in stream quality exists between the up and downstream segments.

Water quality data colleted by the Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program (MCWQP) since
1988 also indicates a significant decline in water quality conditions in McDowell Creek and the
cove in Mountain Island Lake where the creek drains. These declining water quality conditions
are being caused by the increased discharge of pollutants carried in stormwater runoff from
rapidly increasing impervious cover (parking lots, roads, houses, etc.) and construction activities
in the McDowell Creek watershed. Sediment from construction sites, nutrients from lawn
fertilizers, and heavy metals (lead, chromium and zinc) from parking lot and road runoff are the
primary culprits. Currently, water quality in McDowell Creek Cove is ranked as "POOR" by
Mecklenburg County and consistently ranks as one of the lowest water quality sites in the
county.

To assess the impacts from future development in this watershed, MCWQP completed a water
quality model for the McDowell Creek watershed that indicates a significant increase in pollutant
loads as the area approaches build out. If left unchecked, the poor water quality conditions in
McDowell Creek and McDowell Creek Cove will persist and could impact the quality of the
water at Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities (CMUD) drinking water intake located downstream.
The quality and usability of McDowell Creek Cove as a recreational area are also threatened by
sediment depositions that decrease water depth and impair navigation.

Town of Huntersville Role:
In October 2002, the Huntersville Town Board adopted a "non-degradation" goal for the
McDowell Creek watershed to halt the declining water quality trends. The board later expanded
this goal to include all the surface waters within its jurisdiction. The board further requested that
the MCWQP work with town staff to develop a post-construction ordinance to ensure that this
was fulfilled. In response to this request, a Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance was
drafted by staff and approved by the Town Board in February 2003.

Huntersville’s decision to adopt LID standards is based on the fact that a developed site can be
designed as an integral part of the environment, and thus, serves to protect existing water quality
conditions through the careful use of design principles that seek to mimic natural site hydrology.
In some applications, LID designs can also significantly reduce development costs with the
reduction of impervious surfaces (roadways), curb and gutters; use of less storm drain piping;
and elimination of large stormwater ponds. Reducing site development infrastructure also
reduces associated project, bonding and maintenance costs. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part
4.11.

Section B: Chapter 4 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-33 142

Mecklenburg County’s Role:
Mecklenburg County’s Water Quality Program is providing support to the Town of Huntersville
through plan reviews and inspections to ensure compliance with the new ordinance. In addition,
Mecklenburg County has agreed to install BMPs in critical areas of the McDowell Creek
watershed to remove nonpoint source pollutants from development activities that occurred prior
to the adoption of the Huntersville ordinance. The combination of the implementation of
Huntersville’s new water quality ordinance and the installation of retrofit BMPs will work
toward reversing negative water quality trends in McDowell Creek and result in the ultimate
improvement of overall water quality conditions. Mecklenburg County has already purchased
properties at several locations in the watershed and is currently working to secure Clean Water
Management Trust Fund grants to install BMPs at these sites.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Role:
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities (CMUD) received a permit modification to expand the
McDowell Creek WWTP (NC0036277) located in the lower reaches of the watershed near
Mountain Island Lake. In its plans for stepped plant expansion to 12 MGD (6.6, 9.0, 12.0
MGD), CMUD has included the treatment systems necessary to prevent an increase in existing
pollutant loads. In addition, CMUD will be expanding current nutrient removal systems at the
plant. The schedule is to complete construction to treat 9.0 MGD in 2005 and finish construction
to treat 12.0 MGD in 2007.

North Carolina’s Role:
Without state assistance, Huntersville and Mecklenburg County will be unable to fund the efforts
necessary to reverse the negative water quality trends in McDowell Creek. Funding from
programs such as the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Section 319 Program is
essential. State support is needed to ensure that this funding is made available.

DWQ applauds the cooperation, foresight and initiative demonstrated by all the parties involved
in the effort to reverse water quality impairment in McDowell Creek. The McDowell Creek
watershed offers several unique opportunities. MCWQP has over 20 years worth of water
quality data for McDowell Creek and Cove and continues to maintain a very extensive
monitoring network to measure the effectiveness of efforts to restore water quality. This
provides an opportunity to test the effectiveness of LID on a watershed scale and also to test the
effectiveness of regional BMPs as a retrofit in a developing watershed. This also creates a
unique opportunity to evaluate modeling as a tool for ordinance development and
implementation.

Over the next basin cycle, DWQ will work to provide Huntersville and Mecklenburg County
with the necessary support to continue their BMP implementation program. Additionally, DWQ
will seek guidance from Huntersville and Mecklenburg County as it encourages the development
of similar programs across the Catawba River basin.

4.3.2 Killian Creek [AU# 11-119-2-(0.5)b

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Killian Creek is a tributary to upper Dutchmans Creek in southeastern Lincoln County. In 1992
and 1994, the stream received an Excellent bioclassification, Good in 1997, and Fair in 2002.
Because of the Fair bioclassification at site B-3 in 2002, 3.2 miles (from Anderson Creek to a
Section B: Chapter 4 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-33 143

point 1.2 miles upstream of mouth) are Impaired. Flows were less than 20 percent of historical
median flow during the 2002 sampling and likely influenced the water quality decline. The
decrease in bioclassification may also be due to reduced dilution of instream wastes from the
Forney Creek and Fa Be Enterprises WWTPs. These facilities discharge to Forney Creek, a
tributary to Killian Creek. There is no evidence to suggest these facilities are operating
improperly or violating their current permits. DWQ will continue to monitor this creek in the
next basin cycle.

4.4 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.

4.4.1 Mountain Island Lake [AU# 11-(112) and 11-(114)]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Mountain Island Lake is operated by Duke Power and is located on the Catawba River
downstream from Lake Norman. The reservoir is used as a water supply for the City of
Charlotte and to generate electricity at the Riverbend Steam and Mountain Island Stations.

The reservoir was most recently monitored by DWQ in 2002. The lake was classified as
oligotrophic; nutrient concentrations were generally lower than those observed in the past, and
lake-wide Secchi depths indicated good water clarity. Decreased nutrient concentrations and
greater water clarity may have been due to the drought conditions, which decreased nonpoint
source runoff throughout the basin. Prior to 2002, the most recent monitoring was conducted in
1997.

Hydrilla is established in the reservoir and covers approximately 625 acres (Bonham, 2001).
The exotic macrophyte was observed in the upper end of the reservoir in 2002. Grass carp were
first stocked in 2000 as a possible biological control agent for this plant. In 2002, an additional
20,000 fish were stocked. Duke Power, along with stakeholders and DWQ, will continue to
develop and implement an invasive plant management program for the reservoir.

Extensive management efforts are underway in the McDowell Creek Cove area of Mountain
Island Lake. Please refer to the discussion of McDowell Creek (Section B, Chapter 4, Part 4.3.1)
for a detailed description of those activities.

4.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-08-33

4.5.1 Water Quality Threats to Streams in Urbanizing Watersheds

Subbasins in and around the Greater Charlotte Metropolitan Area are experiencing rapid growth
as new homes and businesses sprout up on old farms and forests. This development places
Section B: Chapter 4 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-33 144

intense pressure on the sensitive stream communities within those basins. 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, Parts 4.11 and 4.13 for a description of
urban stream water quality problems and recommendations for reducing impacts and restoring
water quality.

Section B: Chapter 4 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-33 145

Section B - Chapter 5
Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34
Irwin Creek, Long Creek, McAlpine Creek and Sugar Creek
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

5.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin is in the Southern Outer Piedmont
ecoregion and contains the Sugar Creek watershed, a
portion of Lake Wylie, and much of the City of Charlotte
metropolitan area. This is the most heavily urbanized
region of the basin and the state, and its population is
expected to increase over 30 percent by 2020 (Table A-
6). Only 52 percent of the subbasin is forested – the
smallest percentage of any of the subbasins.

There are currently over 50 NPDES permitted
dischargers in this subbasin. The largest one is the
Charlotte/Mecklenburg Utilities District, which
discharges to Irwin Creek (15 MGD), McAlpine Creek
(64 MGD), and Little Sugar Creek (20 MGD).

There are 30 facilities in this subbasin required to
monitor effluent toxicity. Of these, six facilities have
had more than one failing toxicity test since 1997:
American Truetzschler, Inc. (12), Cousins Real
Estate/Gateway Village (12), Duke Power/Allen 002 (3),
First Union Commons (4), Hoechst Celanese/Dreyfus
(2), and Unocal/Rhom and Haas Facility (5). Four other
facilities had one failing test since 1997: (AquAir
WWTP, Belmont WWTP, CMUD/Irwin Creek WWTP,
and CMUD/McAlpine Creek WWTP).
Subbasin 03-08-34 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 324 mi2
Land area: 317 mi2
Water area: 7mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 408,821 people
Pop. Density:1,231 persons/mi2

Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 52%
Surface Water: 2%
Urban: 32%
Agriculture: 13%
Counties
Gaston and Mecklenburg
Municipalities
Belmont, Charlotte, Huntersville,
Matthews, Mint Hill, Mount Holly
and Pineville

There were eight benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and four fish community
samples (Figure B-5 and Table B-9) collected during this assessment period. One site improved;
three sites remained the same; two sites had a lower bioclassification, and two sites were
sampled for the first time during this assessment period. There are ten ambient monitoring
stations located in this subbasin, both in North and South Carolina.

Based upon benthic macroinvertebrate data, McAlpine Creek and Sugar Creek (at SC 160) were
given Fair bioclassifications in 1997 and 2002, while Sugar Creek at SR 1156 and Little Sugar
Creek were given Poor bioclassifications. Both streams had been given Fair bioclassifications in
1997. These low bioclassifications are due to urban runoff, poor habitat, and may be influenced
by wastewater discharges. The declines were attributed to the drought rather than significant
declines in water quality.

Section B: Chapter 5 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34 146
Table B-9 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-34

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below
elevation 570)11-(122) WS-IV & B CA 601.1 ac.AL
C3900000 nce
C4220000 nce L-1 ce I FS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below elevation
570) North Carolina portion 11-(123.5) WS-V & B 3,418.5 ac.AL
C7000000 nce
C7400000 nce
C7500000 nce L-1 ce I FS
Irwin Creek 11-137-1 C 11.8 mi.AL
B-2 F--97
B-2 P--02
SF-2 P--97
SF-2 P--02 C8896500 nce IPS
Little Sugar Creek 11-137-8b C 5.5 mi.AL
B-3 F--97
B-3 P--02
SF-1 F--97
SF-1 GF--02 C9210000 nce IPS
Long Creek 11-120-(2.5) WS-IV 11.3 mi.AL C4040000 ce IPS
McAlpine Creek
(Waverly Lake)11-137-9a C 8.5 mi.AL C9370000 nce NR PS
McAlpine Creek
(Waverly Lake)11-137-9c 4.6 mi.AL
B-4 F--97
B-4 F--02 IPS
Sugar Creek 11-137a C 0.3 mi.AL
B-1 F--97
B-1 F--02 C8896500 nce IPS
Sugar Creek 11-137b 10.9 mi.AL C9050000 nce NR PS
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below
elevation 570)11-(122) WS-IV & B CA 601.1 ac.REC C4220000 nce S
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below elevation
570) North Carolina portion 11-(123.5) WS-V & B 3,418.5 ac.REC C3900000 nce S-
Irwin Creek 11-137-1 C 11.8 mi.REC C8896500 ce NR -
Little Sugar Creek 11-137-8b C 5.5 mi.REC C9210000 ce NR -
Long Creek 11-120-(2.5) WS-IV 11.3 mi.REC C4040000 ce NR -
Data Type with Map Number
and Data Results
Use Support Rating
Category
Assessment Unit
Number DWQ Classification Length / AreaWaterbody
Section B: Chapter 5 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34 148
Table B-9 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-34

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
Data Type with Map Number
and Data Results
Use Support Rating
Category
Assessment Unit
Number DWQ Classification Length / AreaWaterbody
McAlpine Creek
(Waverly Lake)11-137-9a C 8.5 mi.REC C9370000 ce NR -
Sugar Creek 11-137a C 0.3 mi.REC C8896500 ce NR -
Sugar Creek 11-137b C 10.9 mi.REC C9050000 ce NR -
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:
L - Lakes Assessment F - Fair FS - fully supporting
P - Poor PS - partially supporting, NS - not supporting

nce - no criteria exceeded
ce - criteria exceeded
Ambient Data
Bioclassifcations:
Section B: Chapter 5 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34 149

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.

Waters in Part 5.3 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 5.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 5.3 below. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in
Part 5.4. Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all monitored
waters.

5.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings in subbasin 03-08-34 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-10 for a
summary of use support ratings by use support category for waters in the subbasin.

Section B: Chapter 5 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34 150

Table B-10 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-08-34
Life

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 0 0 4,019.6 ac 0
Impaired 39.5 mi
4,019.6 ac.00 0
Not Rated 35.2 mi 48.3 mi 0 0
Total 74.8 mi
4,019.6 ac
48.3 mi 004,019.6 ac
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 0 0 0 30.4 mi
4,019.6 ac
Impaired 0 246.8 mi
4,019.6 ac 0 0
Not Rated 93.2 mi 1.0 mi 0 0
No Data 79.8 mi 0 199.5 mi. 0
Total 173.0 mi 247.8 mi
4,019.6 ac
199.5 mi
4,019.6 ac
30.4 mi
4,019.6 ac
Totals
All Waters 247.8 mi
4,019.6 ac
247.8 mi
4,019.6 ac
247.8 mi
4,019.6 ac
30.4 mi
4,019.6 ac
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

5.3 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.

5.3.1 The Sugar Creek Watershed Including:
Irwin Creek [AU# 11-137-1]
Little Sugar Creek [AU# 11-137-8]
McAlpine Creek [AU# 11-137-9a and 11-137-9c]
Sugar Creek [AU# 11-137a and 11-137b]

1999 Recommendations
These four streams and their smaller tributaries collectively drain the metropolitan center of
Charlotte in Mecklenburg County. The watershed receives large amounts of both point and
nonpoint pollution from the urban areas, severely impacting stream health in each of the streams.
Similar habitat conditions are found at all sample sites within this watershed, sand/silt substrate,
Section B: Chapter 5 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34 151

severe bank erosion, and disturbed or nonexistent riparian vegetation. Elevated levels of both
fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity indicate impairment by urban runoff and wastewater
discharges in all four streams. In the 1999 plan, DWQ noted they would work closely with
Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte during the development of a TMDL and
implementation plan for this watershed.

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Impairment for Sugar Creek = 11.2 mi.; Irwin Creek = 11.8 mi.; Little Sugar Creek = 5.5 mi.;
and McAlpine Creek = 4.6 mi.

Water quality in general has remained low but stable over the last planning cycle. In 2002,
declines were noted on Sugar Creek (B-2) and Little Sugar Creek (B-3), but this decline was
most likely due to the severe drought. The Irwin Creek site is showing a slight trend of lowered
conductivity since the middle 1990s. Conversely, McAlpine Creek at SR 3356 showed slightly
elevated conductivity trends since the middle 1990s. In addition, McAlpine Creek at SR 3356
had slightly elevated levels of NO monia since the early 1990s. Sugar Creek at
NC 51 has had slightly elevated levels in NO
notably since the early 1980s. Dissolved oxygen concentrations have steadily increased since the
late 1960s at this site. Sugar Creek at SC 160 has shown elevated trends in NO
dissolved oxygen since the late 1980s, while ammonia and total Kjeldahl nitrogen have
dramatically decreased since the late 1970s.

2 + NO3-N and am
2 + NO3-N, while other nutrients have decreased
2 + NO3-N and

Many streams in this watershed are also Impaired within South Carolina. Recreational or aquatic
life uses on Steele, Sugar and McAlpine Creeks are Impaired because of fecal coliform bacteria
or copper violations and appear on South Carolina’s Draft 2003 303(d) List (SCDEHC, 2002).
North Carolina is subject to an interstate TMDL developed by South Carolina and will therefore
cooperate on its development.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL
In response to a high level of government and citizen interest in a fecal coliform TMDL, a
stakeholder group was formed in 1999. The stakeholder group, lead by the Mecklenburg County
Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP) and the DWQ, took a very active role in
every stage of the TMDL development process. MCDEP has a well-developed and respected
water quality management program and was able to take the lead role in both the source
assessment and model development.

The end result of this stakeholder effort was a comprehensive fecal coliform TMDL that received
approval in March 2002. The TMDL addresses all identifiable sources of fecal coliform
pollution including, but not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, sanitary sewer overflows,
stormwater runoff, failing septic systems, and background wildlife contributions. The TMDL
study indicated that excluding stormwater runoff, the primary contributors of fecal coliform
pollution in this watershed are point sources (WWTP, etc.) and direct input nonpoint sources
(failing septic systems). Table B-11 presents a summary of the TMDL and describes the
necessary reductions in fecal coliform contamination in the Sugar Creek watershed. Loading
reductions are defined for both point and nonpoint sources.

Section B: Chapter 5 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34 152

Table B-11 Summary of Sugar Creek Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL

Critical Conditions Site-specific critical conditions occurred during periods of low streamflow coinciding
with high fecal coliform loads from both the SSOs and the WWTPs.
Seasonality All seasons addressed.
Development Tools Watershed model, BASINS Versions
Supporting Documents Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load for the Irwin, McAlpine, Little Sugar and
Sugar Creek Watersheds, Mecklenburg County, and references listed in report.
TMDL(s) Waterbody TMDL (cfu/100ml)
Sugar Creek 8.4x1012
Irwin Creek 7.7x1012
Little Sugar Creek 9.4x1012
McAlpine Creek downstream of Sardis Road 1.1x1013
McAlpine Creek upstream of Sardis Road 6.8x1012
Loadings Sugar Creek watershed:
Point sources 7.4x10 /100ml (63% reduction)
Nonpoint sources 8.9x10 /100ml (58% reduction)

12 col11 col
Irwin Creek watershed:
Point sources 7.0x1012 col/100ml (60% reduction)
Nonpoint sources 7.3x1011 col/100ml (62% reduction)

Little Sugar Creek watershed:
Point sources 6.7x1012 col/100ml (43% reduction)
Nonpoint sources 2.6x1012 col/100ml (19% reduction)

McAlpine Creek watershed (downstream):
Point sources 7.8x1012 col/100ml (70% reduction)
Nonpoint Sources 3.2x1012 col/100ml (28% reduction)
McAlpine Creek watershed (upstream):
Point sources 7.8x1012 col/100ml (32% reduction)
Nonpoint sources 5.9x1011 col/100ml (68% reduction)

The MCDEP, Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities, and Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water
Services can accomplish implementation of the TMDL cooperatively. Local coordination,
oversight and reporting for the TMDL should be the responsibility of the MCDEP. Each of the
three programs has currently funded efforts dedicated to reducing fecal coliform levels in
Charlotte’s streams, and these efforts can be augmented to fulfill the requirements of the TMDL
Implementation Strategy.

Phosphorus Load Reduction Strategy
In the summer of 2001, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC) filed a Petition for a Contested Case in the North Carolina Office of Administrative
Hearings regarding the renewal of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD)
McAlpine Creek wastewater treatment plant. The primary complaint on the part of SCDHEC
was that the permit was renewed without a phosphorus limit. Nearly all of South Carolina’s
municipal dischargers to the mainstem Catawba River (upstream of Lake Wateree) have been
given phosphorus limits, generally equivalent to 1 mg/l. The McAlpine Creek WWTP permit
had a phosphorus optimization study special condition that stipulated preparatory requirements
for the facility to ready itself for the upcoming phosphorus TMDL.
Section B: Chapter 5 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34 153

In January 2002, SCDHEC, DWQ and CMUD reached an agreement on the terms of the
phosphorus limits at the McAlpine treatment plant and expanded the permitting strategy to
include the WWTPs on Sugar, Irwin and Twelvemile Creeks (in Union County). The final
settlement agreement includes four main points: phosphorus limits at all three CMUD facilities,
a bubble limit, a mass cap, and a TMDL. The phosphorus limit corresponds to 1 mg/l at the
permitted flows calculated on a 12-month rolling average. The bubble limit refers to a mass
limit for total phosphorus that applies to the combined discharge of all three CMUD plants. This
type of limit allows CMUD operational flexibility with regard to phosphorus removal. In order
to be protective of water quality in the downstream lakes, SCDHEC requested a maximum
combined limit to ensure optimized plant operation at all times. The maximum limit corresponds
to a concentration limit of 2 mg/l at maximum permitted flow. In addition, the agreement
includes a provision that will include DWQ and all affected NC entities in the TMDL process.

5.3.2 Long Creek [AU# 11-120-(2.5)]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The Long Creek watershed drains north central Mecklenburg County between Charlotte and
Huntersville. Approximately 11.3 miles of Long Creek (from a point 0.6 mile downstream of
Mecklenburg County SR 2074 to a point 0.4 mile upstream of Mecklenburg County SR 1606)
are rated Impaired due to turbidity and exceedances of the manganese water quality standard.
Ambient data from the current assessment period indicate that the turbidity readings remain in
violation of the state standard. Fecal coliform concentrations are also above the state standard,
but Long Creek is not used for primary recreation. There are no NPDES discharges to this
stream, suggesting that impairment is likely a result of urban runoff, construction and agriculture
in the watershed. This evaluation is based on chemical monitoring data because DWQ does not
have biological monitoring locations on Long Creek at this time.

In 2002, Mecklenburg County entered into a partnership with the NCDOT and the NC Division
of Land Quality regarding the I-485 construction project through the Long Creek watershed.
NCDOT funded staff and resources for the development, monitoring and maintenance of 15
continuous automated monitoring sites located throughout the watershed, which automatically
download water quality data to a website every 15 minutes and alert staff regarding elevated
turbidity levels. In 2003 and 2004, the network detected several sedimentation problems that
were quickly corrected thus preventing significant downstream water quality impacts. The
program has been extremely successful and NCDWQ encourages similar programs and
partnerships when the opportunity arises in other watersheds.

Long Creek suffers from the impacts of rapid urbanization. Please refer to Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.13 for a detailed discussion on DWQ’s approach to and recommendations for this issue.
5.3.3 Lake Wylie [AU# 11-(122) and 11-(123.5)]

The area covered by Lake Wylie overlaps the boundaries of subbasins 03-08-34, 03-08-36 and
03-08-37. Therefore, a detailed discussion on Lake Wylie can be found in Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.7.3. Because of chlorophyll a standard violations, algal blooms, and dissolved oxygen
percent saturation values greater than 120 percent, Lake Wylie (4,019.6 acres, NC portion) is
Impaired by eutrophication. Data collected by the Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program
support these findings.
Section B: Chapter 5 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34 154

5.4 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-08-34

Water Quality Threats to Streams in Urbanizing Watersheds

Subbasins in and around the Greater Charlotte Metropolitan Area are experiencing rapid growth
as new homes and businesses replace old farms and forests. This development places intense
pressure on the sensitive stream communities within those basins. 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 4.13 for a description of urban stream
water quality problems and recommendations for reducing impacts and restoring water quality.

Section B: Chapter 5 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-34 155

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

Section B - Chapter 7
Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-36
Long Creek, Dallas Branch and South Fork Catawba River
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

7.1 Subbasin Overview

Subbasin 03-08-36 is located entirely in Lincoln County
in the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion. The small
subbasin consists of the Long Creek watershed and a
portion of the South Fork Catawba River between the
Town of Stanly and Lake Wylie. Major metropolitan
areas include the cities of Gastonia and Belmont, the
Interstate 85 corridor, and parts of Bessemer City. These
areas are not growing as quickly as other subbasins
(Tables A-6 and A-7), yet urban stormwater remains a
concern. Most of the streams are very sandy due to
erosion problems throughout the area. Land use remains
primarily forested.

Major dischargers in this watershed include Collins and
Aikman Products (4 MGD) and the City of Gastonia’s
Long Creek WWTP (16 MGD), both discharging to the
South Fork Catawba River.

There are six facilities in this subbasin required to
monitor effluent toxicity. Five of these facilities had one
or more failing tests since 1997: Cramerton WWTP (2),
Dallas WWTP (6), Lowell WWTP (2), Pharr Yarns (1),
and Yorkshire Americas (3).
There were six benthic macroinvertebrate community
samples and two fish community samples (Figure B-7 and Table B-14) collected during this
assessment period. Two sites improved and four sites were sampled for the first time during this
assessment period. 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.
Subbasin 03-08-36 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 104mi2
Land area: 101mi2
Water area: 3mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 57,125 people
Pop. Density: 522 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 54%
Surface Water: 3%
Urban: 14%
Agriculture: 29%
Counties
Municipalities
Belmont, Bessemer City,
Cramerton, Dallas, Gastonia, Kings
Mountain, Lowell, McAdenville,
Ranlo and Spencer Mountain

Gaston

There are four ambient monitoring sites located in this subbasin: Long Creek at SR 1456, Long
Creek at SR 2042, South Fork Catawba River at NC 7, and South Fork Catawba River at SR
2524. The Long Creek at SR 1456 site has exhibited elevated conductivity levels since the early
1990s and has also shown elevated levels in pH since the middle 1980s. Long Creek at SR 2042
has shown declining levels of nutrients since the middle 1980s.

Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling could not be conducted in 2002 at the South Fork Catawba
River and Long Creek sites due to flow problems. However, a fish community assessment was
conducted on Long Creek in 2002 and resulted in a Good-Fair rating.

Section B: Chapter 7 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-36 167
Table B-14 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-36

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
Limekiln Creek 11-129-16-2 WS-II 1.9 mi.AL
SB-3 G--98
SB-3 E--01 SFS
Long Creek 11-129-16-(4) C 15.3 mi.AL
F-1 F--97
F-1 GF--02
SB-1 NR--98
SB-2 F--98
SB-2 NR--01
SB-4 GF--97 C5900000 nce S FS/ST
South Fork Catawba River 11-129-(15.5) WS-V 18.1 mi.AL C6500000 nce S ST
South Fork Catawba River 11-129-(15.5) WS-V 18.1 mi.REC C6500000 nce S -
Long Creek 11-129-16-(4) C 15.3 mi.REC C5900000 ce NR
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 NR - Not Rated S - Supporting, I - Impaired, NR - Not Rated
REC - Recreation B - Benthic Community Survey G - Good
SB - Special Benthic Community Study GF - Good-Fair Use Support Ratings 1998:
F - Fair FS - fully supporting, ST - supporting but threatened
P - Poor PS - partially supporting, NS - not supporting

nce - no criteria exceeded
ce - criteria exceeded
Bioclassifcations:
Ambient Data
Data Type with Map Number
and Data Results
Waterbody
Assessment Unit
Number
Use Support Rating
CategoryLength / Area
DWQ
Classification
Section B: Chapter 7 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-36 169

Bessemer City Lake, a small water supply reservoir for Bessemer City, was classified as
oligotrophic in 2002. Nutrient concentrations were low with the exception of elevated ammonia
levels in June.
7.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Waters in Parts 7.3 and 7.4 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 7.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 7.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 7.4 below. Refer to Appendix III for use support methods and more information on all
monitored waters.

Use support ratings in subbasin 03-08-36 were assigned for aquatic life, fish consumption,
recreation and water supply. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an Evaluated
basis because of a fish consumption advice (Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.10). All water supply
waters are Supporting on an Evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional water
treatment plant consultants. Refer to Table B-15 for a summary of use support ratings by use
support category for waters in the subbasin.

Section B: Chapter 7 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-36 170

Table B-15 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-08-36

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 17.2 mi 0 0 0
Impaired 000 0
Not Rated 0 0 15.3 mi 0
0 15.3 mi 0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 0 0 0 19.5 mi
Impaired 0 55.9 mi 0 0
Not Rated 0 0 0 0
No Data 38.7 mi 0 40.6 mi 0
Total 38.7 mi.55.9 mi 40.6 mi 19.5 mi
Totals
All Waters 55.9 mi 55.9 mi 55.9 mi 19.5 mi
Total 17.2 mi
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

7.3 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.

7.3.1 Dallas Branch [AU# 11-129-16-7b]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Dallas Branch is a tributary to Long Creek and the 0.8-mile segment from the Dallas WWTP
(NC0068888) to Long Creek was listed as Impaired in the 2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report due to municipal point source discharges. The Dallas WWTP has had compliance issues
with quarterly chronic toxicity and weekly fecal coliform limits. Effluent chlorine values are
elevated at times. In response, the facility has recently added a dechlorination system. Upon
permit renewal in 2005, a total residual chlorine limit will be added. Upon inspection in October
2003, the plant was meeting its permit requirements and appeared to be well maintained. DWQ
will resample this stream once the chlorine limit is in place.

Section B: Chapter 7 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-36 171

7.4 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.

7.4.1 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)]

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.

7.4.2 Long Creek [AU# 11-129-16-(4)]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The Long Creek watershed includes the north side of Gastonia and Bessemer City and central
Gaston County. Due to a variety of restoration efforts and verification by scientific
investigations, Long Creek was removed from the state’s 303(d) list in 2000.

An eight-year study and restoration plan concluded in 2002 with the implementation of nonpoint
source controls in the upper two-thirds of the watershed. Best management practices, land use
changes, closure of mining operations, construction of livestock exclusion fencing, and riparian
buffer establishments all led to significant decreases in nutrients, sediment and bacterial
concentrations in the stream (Line and Jennings, 2002). The following is a summary of the
study’s major findings and achievements:

¾ More than 350 BMPs to treat runoff from 9,000 acres of pasture and cropland were
implemented in the watershed. Animal waste management systems were installed to
properly handle and apply 5,000,000 gallons of animal waste from four dairy
operations.
¾ The implementation of primarily erosion control practices and the conversion of some
land from row crop to tree production in the headwaters of Long Creek resulted in a
decrease in the frequency of dredging around the water supply intake for Bessemer
City. Prior to 1996, the stream channel required dredging of deposited sediment three
to four times per year, but after, the need for dredging decreased to less than once per
year.
¾ The implementation of BMPs and changes in land use in the watershed resulted in 75
and 70 percent decreases in median annual total phosphorus and fecal coliform levels at
three downstream monitoring sites on Long Creek.
Section B: Chapter 7 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-36 172

¾ The closure of a surface mining operation and subsequent draining of several large
tailings ponds in 1997 coincided with decreases in suspended sediment and fecal
coliform levels at three monitoring sites on Long Creek.
¾ The installation of livestock exclusion fencing and riparian buffer establishment in the
pasture of a large dairy operation resulted in major reductions in weekly nitrogen,
phosphorus and suspended sediment loads to the creek. Fecal coliform bacteria levels
decrease following livestock exclusion.
¾ Monthly sampling of 10 monitoring wells in a dairy pasture documented elevated levels
of nitrogen and phosphorus in groundwater beneath heavily use areas of the pasture.
Data from monitoring wells in the riparian buffer indicated that the buffer was effective
at nitrogen removal from groundwater, but was not effective at phosphorus removal.
¾ Annual sampling has documented that the abundance and diversity of the
macroinvertebrate community at several sites in Long Creek has been increasing,
indicating an improving trend in water quality.
¾ Monitoring of a small wetland, constructed along an urban stream, documented
decreases in the concentrations of petroleum-related polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) as water from the stream passed through the wetland. However, the wetland
had little effect on combustion-related PAHs.
¾ Sampling of cropland soil, streambanks and streambeds indicated that cropland had
considerably higher total phosphorus levels than streambank or bed material. Storm
sampling of two tributaries and Long Creek showed the phosphorus load in suspended
sediment was an order of magnitude greater than for bedload sediment.

At least 1.5 years of background or pretreatment water quality monitoring are required to
document the effectiveness of nonpoint source controls; however, the start of a project and the
initiation of monitoring often prompt landowners to implement improved management practices.
Therefore, a concerted effort to explain the timeline of the study must be made prior to the start
of monitoring.
Section B: Chapter 7 – Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-36 173

Section B - Chapter 8
Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-37
Catawba Creek and Crowders Creek
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

8.1 Subbasin Overview

This subbasin contains the Catawba and Crowders Creek
watersheds which flow through Kings Mountain and the
Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregions. Much of the
subbasin is forested, but there are also substantial urban
areas. The population in this area is not expected to grow
as rapidly as in other areas of the Catawba River basin
(Table A-6), but urban stormwater remains a significant
concern.

There are six facilities in this subbasin required to
monitor effluent toxicity. Five of these facilities have had
one or more failing tests since 1997: Gastonia/Catawba
Creek WWTP (3 failures), FMC Corp. (formerly Lithium
Corp. (3)), Rhodia Inc. (4), CR Industries (3), and
Textron, Inc. (7).

There were 11 benthic macroinvertebrate community
samples and two fish community samples (Figure B-8
and Table B-16) collected during this assessment period.
Two sites remained the same and 11 sites were sampled
for the first time during this assessment period. 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.

There are two ambient monitoring sites located in this subbasin: Lake Wylie at NC 49 and
Crowders Creek at SC 564. Catawba Creek has shown a steady decrease in conductivity since
the middle 1980s; whereas, Crowders Creek has shown elevated conductivity and nitrogen levels
since the early 1990s. Catawba Creek has shown slightly decreased total phosphorus
concentrations since the late 1970s, while dissolved oxygen concentrations have decreased since
the late 1970s. Point source dischargers have historically contributed to severe problems in
Crowders Creek.

Waters in Part 8.3 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.
Subbasin 03-08-37 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area: 106mi2
i2
Water area: 1mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 55,232 people
Pop. Density: 516 persons/mi2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 63%
Surface Water: 1%
Urban: 15%
Agriculture: 21%
Counties
Cleveland and Gaston
Municipalities
Bessemer City, Gastonia and
Kings Mountain

Land area: 105m

Section B: Chapter 8 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-37 174
Table B-16 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-37

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
Abernethy Creek 11-135-4a C 3.2 mi.AL SB-1 NI--02 S ST
Abernethy Creek 11-135-4b C 1.8 mi.AL SB-2 F--02 IST
Blackwood Creek 11-135-7 C 4.4 mi.AL SB-3 NR--02 NR -
Catawba Creek 11-130c C 4.9 mi.AL F-1 F--02 I NS
Crowders Creek 11-135a C 1.9 mi.AL SB-4 NR--02 NR PS
Crowders Creek 11-135b C 3.1 mi.AL SB-5 GF--02 S PS
Crowders Creek 11-135c C 3.3 mi.AL SB-6 F--02 I PS
Crowders Creek 11-135d C 7.3 mi.AL F-2 F--02 I PS
Crowders Creek 11-135g C 1.5 mi.AL
B-1 F--97
B-1 F--02 C8660000 nce I PS
South Fork Crowders Creek 11-135-10 C 5.7 mi.AL
SB-7 GF--02
SB-8 F--02
SB-9 GF--02 NR PS
Blackwood Creek 11-135-7 C 4.4 mi.REC
Special
Fecal Coliform
TMDL Study I -
Crowders Creek 11-135a C 1.9 mi.REC
Special
Fecal Coliform
TMDL Study I -
Crowders Creek 11-135b C 3.1 mi.REC
Special
Fecal Coliform
TMDL Study I -
Crowders Creek 11-135c C 3.3 mi.REC
Special
Fecal Coliform
TMDL Study I -
Crowders Creek 11-135d C 7.3 mi.REC
Special
Fecal Coliform
TMDL Study I-
Crowders Creek 11-135e C 1.5 mi.REC
Special
Fecal Coliform
TMDL Study I-
Waterbody Length / Area
Data Type with Map Number and
Data Results
Use Support Rating
Category
DWQ
Classification
Assessment Unit
Number
Section B: Chapter 8 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-37 176
Table B-16 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-37

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998Waterbody Length / Area
Data Type with Map Number and
Data Results
Use Support Rating
Category
DWQ
Classification
Assessment Unit
Number
Crowders Creek 11-135f C 1.4 mi.REC
Special
Fecal Coliform
TMDL Study I-
Crowders Creek 11-135g C 1.5 mi.REC C8660000 ce
Special
Fecal Coliform
TMDL Study I-
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
SB - Special Benthic Community Study GF - Good-Fair Use Support Ratings 1998:
F - Fair FS - fully supporting, ST - supporting but threatened
P - Poor PS - partially supporting, NS - not supporting

nce - no criteria exceeded
ce - criteria exceeded
Bioclassifcations:
Ambient Data
Section B: Chapter 8 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-37 177

Use support ratings are summarized in Part 8.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 8.3 below. Waters with notable impacts and water quality issues related to the
entire subbasin are discussed in Parts 8.4 and 8.5. Refer to Appendix III for use support methods
and more information on all monitored waters.

8.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings in subbasin 03-08-37 were assigned for aquatic life, fish consumption,
recreation and water supply. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an Evaluated
basis because of a fish consumption advice (Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.10). Refer to Table B-
17 for a summary of use support ratings by use support category for waters in the subbasin.
Table B-17 does not include freshwater acreage associated with Lake Wylie to avoid duplication
between subbasins. Lake Wylie’s entire acreage is included in Table B-10.

Table B-17 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-08-37

Use Support
Rating Life Consumption
Water Aquatic Fish Recreation Supply
Monitored Waters
Supporting 6.3 mi 0 0 0
Impaired 18.8 mi 0 24.4 mi. 0
Not Rated 23.6 mi 0 0 0
Total 48.7 mi 0 24.4 mi 0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 0 0 0 0.
Impaired 0 84.4 mi 0 0
Not Rated 11.4 mi 0 0 0
No Data 24.2 mi 0 59.9 mi 0
Total 35.6 mi 84.4 mi 59.9 mi 0
All Waters 84.4 mi 84.4 mi 84.4 mi 0
Totals
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.

8.3 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
Section B: Chapter 8 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-37 178

presented below. These waters are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). Refer to the
overview above for more information on AUs.

8.3.1 Catawba Creek [AU# 11-130a, 11-130b, and 11-130c]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Catawba Creek, a tributary to Lake Wylie, drains the south and southeast area of the City of
Gastonia and southeastern Gaston County. The 13.5 miles from its source to Lake Wylie appear
on the state’s 303(d) list as Impaired because of urban runoff, storm sewers and municipal point
source discharges.

The City of Gastonia’s 9 MGD WWTP, which previously discharged to Catawba Creek, no
longer discharges into this watershed. Eliminating this discharge decreased the conductivity in
the stream from 293 µmhos/cm in 1997 to 148 µmhos/cm in 2002. Four smaller NPDES
permitted dischargers continue to operate, but there are no longer any major (>1 MGD)
dischargers in the watershed. At site F-1, the stream and riparian zones are degraded by poor
land use and livestock have access to the stream.

Catawba Creek is in a very similar condition to Long Creek (subbasin 03-08-36) prior to the
restoration activities described in Section B, Chapter 7. Poor land use activities, livestock
access, and an urbanizing watershed all suggest that Catawba Creek would benefit from a
restoration program modeled after the Long Creek project. DWQ will work with interested
parties to provide guidance and secure funding for such a project.
8.3.2 Crowders Creek [AU# 11-135a, 11-135b, 11-135c, 11-135d, 11-135e, 11-135f, and
11-135g]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Crowders Creek, also a tributary to Lake Wylie, drains the south and western region of the City
of Gastonia, the Interstate 85 corridor, and the eastern area of the Town of Kings Mountain. The
entire 15.8-mile creek is listed as Impaired in the state’s 303(d) list due to high fecal coliform
concentrations from urban runoff, storm sewers and point source discharges. Data also indicate
the biological community is Impaired. The South Carolina portions of the creek are Impaired
because of poor biological communities and high fecal coliform concentrations. SCDHEC is
providing information to assist DWQ in this TMDL development. As a by-product of this
project, SCDHEC will receive an updated version of the Catawba WARMF model.

DWQ met with representatives of the City of Gastonia and the Gaston County Cooperative
Extension Services in 2001 to discuss the development of a Crowders Creek TMDL. As a result
of that meeting, the organizations agreed to conduct two intensive surveys of fecal coliform in
the Crowders Creek watershed. The studies concluded that widespread water quality problems
exist in the watershed and fecal coliform concentrations exceed the state standard in many
locations. However, because of upgrades to a lithium ore processing plant and the removal of
the Kings Mountain WWTP, Bessemer City WWTP and a chicken rendering plant, the studies
did not note the severe water quality problems documented in the late 1980s.

A benthic macroinvertebrate sample at the SC 564 site in 1988 was rated Poor. Although the
rating improved to Fair in 1989 and Good-Fair in 1992, site B-1 has been rated Fair since 1997.
Section B: Chapter 8 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-37 179

One facility implicated in the degraded water quality was the Carolina and Southern Processing
plant. Approximately three years ago, this facility tied onto the City of Gastonia’s WWTP and
has ceased its direct discharge to Crowders Creek. Additionally, in the spring of 2002, the
Bessemer City WWTP ceased its 1.5 MGD discharge to Abernethy Creek (a tributary to
Crowders Creek) and now sends waste to Gastonia’s recently upgraded WWTP. These changes
may have been responsible for the slight improvement in the biological community in Crowders
Creek.

The final product of these studies is a fecal coliform TMDL scheduled for public notice in the
first quarter of 2004. The TMDL evaluates the contribution of both point and nonpoint sources
and attempts to determine the percentage by which various types of sources (urban, agriculture,
WWTP, etc.) contribute to the degradation of Crowders Creek. Initial results show that urban
runoff contributes nearly two-thirds of the total fecal coliform load, versus one-third by
agriculture and WWTPs combined. This finding indicates that Crowders Creek would likely
benefit from a management plan that reduces the detrimental effects of urbanization. For more
information on management suggestions for urbanizing watersheds, please refer to Section A,
Chapter 4, Part 4.11. Additionally, DWQ encourages implementation of agriculture BMPs
wherever possible. Even though agriculture does not constitute the largest source of fecal
coliform bacteria in this watershed, eliminating cattle access to streams will provide substantial
protection to stream habitat and assist in the reduction of overall fecal coliform concentrations
(see Section C, Chapter 1 for funding assistance sources).

8.3.3 Unnamed Tributary to Crowders Creek [AU# 11-135-8.5]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The entire 0.4-mile segment of this stream from its source to Crowders Creek is listed as
Impaired for unknown causes. The biological sampling strategy for the Crowders Creek TMDL
described above included a site on this stream. DWQ biologists noted poor instream habitat,
possible toxicity, and evidence of nutrient enrichment. Given its direct connection to Crowders
Creek, DWQ feels improvements to this stream will be best addressed through implementation
plans developed for the Crowders Creek TMDL.

8.3.4 McGill Creek [AU#11-135-2]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
McGill Creek, a tributary to Crowders Creek, is listed on the state’s 303(d) list as Impaired for
unknown causes (2.4 miles). Kings Mountain has ceased operation of a wastewater treatment
plant that once discharged into this creek and had an instream waste concentration limit of 100
percent. This means that, at times, the discharge from the WWTP could have comprised the
entire flow in the stream. Biologists attempting to sample McGill Creek for inclusion in the
Crowders Creek TMDL study were unable to locate any water in the stream, instead finding only
a dry ditch. McGill Creek was therefore not sampled. Because the WWTP no longer operates
and the stream appears to be intermittent, DWQ has no plans to sample this creek again and will
recommend it be removed from the 303(d) list.

Section B: Chapter 8 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-37 180

8.3.5 Abernethy Creek [AU# 11-135-4b]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Abernethy Creek receives runoff from I-85 and discharges from a lithium ore processing plant.
The stream was originally rated Fair in 1987, but improved to Good-Fair as upgrades to the plant
were completed. Site SB-2 may have been rated Fair in 2002 because of the drought and
consequent reduction in dilution of the plant discharge. Therefore, 1.75 miles from First Creek
to Crowders Creek are currently Impaired in support of aquatic life. DWQ should continue to
monitor the impacts of the discharge on the biological community in Abernethy Creek and work
with the discharger to determine if any additional upgrades are necessary. Installation of BMPs
to reduce the impact of land use activities along the upper section may also help restore this
stream.

8.3.6 Lake Wylie [AU# 11-(117), 11-(122), and 11-(123.5)]

The area covered by Lake Wylie overlaps the boundaries of subbasins 03-08-34, 03-08-36 and
03-08-37. Therefore, a detailed discussion on Lake Wylie can be found in Section A, Chapter 4,
Part 4.7.3. This reservoir was most recently monitored in 2001 and 2002 and was classified as
eutrophic. Percent oxygen saturation at the surface exceeded 120 percent in approximately 50
percent of the measurements lake wide. Nutrient concentrations ranged from moderate to
elevated with particularly high levels of total phosphorus and total Kjeldahl nitrogen in the
Crowders Creek arm. This arm also had elevated total phosphorus concentrations in 1997.
However, as a result of the City of Gastonia decommissioning its Catawba Creek WWTP and
redirecting this effluent to the improved Long Creek WWTP, the Crowders Creek arm has
shown an overall decrease in total phosphorus and total nitrogen. Despite these improvements,
there are still severe nutrient and dissolved oxygen concerns in the reservoir. Because
chlorophyll a concentrations violate the state standards, Lake Wylie is considered Impaired for
aquatic life.
8.4 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.

8.4.1 South Fork Crowders Creek [AU# 11-135-10]
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
South Fork Crowders Creek was sampled as part of an intensive sampling effort to support
TMDL development for Crowders Creek. Sites SB-7, SB-8 and SB-9 received Good-Fair, Fair
and Good-Fair bioclassifications, respectively. The use support rating for this stream is Not
Rated because of the inconclusive bioclassifications. However, the habitat at all these sites
showed significant impact from non point source runoff. The riparian buffer is narrow and the
stream substrate is heavily embedded by sand and silt. The conditions in this stream will not
Section B: Chapter 8 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-37 181

improve and may further decline is nonpoint sources of pollution in the watershed are not
reduced. This stream should be included in any management strategy developed for Crowders
Creek. See section 8.3.2 above.

8.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-08-37

Subbasins in and around the Greater Charlotte Metropolitan Area are experiencing rapid growth
as new homes and businesses sprout up on old farms and forests. This development places
intense pressure on the sensitive stream communities within those watersheds. 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
urban stream water quality problems and recommendations for reducing impacts and restoring
water quality.

Section B: Chapter 8 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-37 182

Section B - Chapter 9
Sixmile Creek, Twelvemile Creek and Waxhaw Creek Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-38
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

9.1 Subbasin Overview

This small subbasin includes portions of two ecoregions –
the Southern Outer Piedmont and the Carolina Slate Belt.
These tributaries to the Catawba River in South Carolina
have very low flows during the summer and may stop
flowing during drought periods. Much of the subbasin is
forested, but a greater percentage of the land is classified
as cultivated than in any other subbasin. This is changing
rapidly, however, as residential communities expand into
the area. Union County has the highest expected
population growth rate of any in the basin. The county
population is expected to increase by more than 40
percent in the next 20 years (Table A-6 and A-7).

No benthic macroinvertebrate community samples and
two fish community samples (Figure B-9 and Table B-18)
collected during this assessment period. Both sites were
sampled for the first time during this assessment period.
Refer to 2003 Catawba River Basinwide Assessment Report at
Subbasin 03-08-38 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
i2
Land area: 178mi2
Water area: 1mi2
Population Statistics
2000 Est. Pop.: 48,660 people
i2
Land Cover (percent)
Forest/Wetland: 61%
Surface Water: 1%
Urban: 4%
Counties
Municipalities
Charlotte, Indian Trail, Marvin,
Mineral Springs, Monroe, Stallings,
Waxhaw, Weddington and Wesley
Chapel
Agriculture: 35%

Mecklenburg and Union

Pop. Density: 277 persons/m

Total area: 179m

Major dischargers in this subbasin include the Union
County/Sixmile Creek (1.0 MGD) and Twelvemile Creek
WWTPs (2.5 MGD). There are two facilities in this
subbasin which are required to monitor effluent toxicity.
Since 1997, the Union County/Sixmile Creek WWTP
failed two tests and the Union County/Twelvemile Creek
WWTP failed three tests.
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html
and Section A, Chapter 3 for more information on monitoring.

There is only one ambient monitoring site in this subbasin: Twelvemile Creek at NC 16. This
site has exhibited elevated conductivity since the early 1990s; other parameters have remained
stable since monitoring began in the early 1980s.

Nonpoint source runoff is a major source of water quality degradation in this subbasin.
However, acute and prolonged lack of flows during the summer intrinsically limits the diversity
of the aquatic life. No benthic macroinvertebrate samples have been collected from this subbasin
since 1992. Benthic macroinvertebrates have been collected only six times from three locations
since 1983. Four of the collections were made in the winter and early spring when flows were
the highest. Twelvemile and Waxhaw Creeks were last rated Good-Fair in the early 1990s. The
fish community in Twelvemile Creek declined from Good in 1997 to Good-Fair in 2002, while
Sixmile Creek maintained its Fair rating in 2002.
Section B: Chapter 9 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-38 183
Table B-18 DWQ Assessment and Use Support Ratings Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-08-38

Biological Ambient Other 2004 1998
Sixmile Creek 11-138-3 C 8.8 mi.AL F-2 F--02 I -
Twelvemile Creek 11-138 C 3.0 mi.AL F-1 GF-02 C9819500 S -
Twelvemile Creek 11-138 C 3.0 mi.REC C9819500 NR -
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 G - Good
GF - Good-Fair
F - Fair
P - Poor

nce - no criteria exceeded
ce - criteria exceeded
Bioclassifcations:
Ambient Data
DWQ
Classification
Assessment Unit
NumberWaterbody Length / Area
Data Type with Map Number
and Data Results
Use Support Rating
Category
Section B: Chapter 9 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-38 185

Waters in Parts 9.3, 9.4 and 9.5 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 9.2 below. Recommendations, current status and
future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in 1999 and newly Impaired waters are
discussed in Part 9.3 below. Supporting waters with noted water quality impacts are discussed in
Part 9.4 below. Other water quality issues are discussed in Part 9.5. Refer to Appendix III for
use support methods and more information on all monitored waters.

9.2 Use Support Assessment Summary

Use support ratings in subbasin 03-08-38 were assigned for aquatic life, fish consumption,
recreation and water supply. All waters in the subbasin are considered Impaired on an Evaluated
basis because of a fish consumption advice (Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.10). All water supply
waters are Supporting on an Evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional water
treatment plant consultants. Refer to Table B-19 for a summary of use support ratings by use
support category for waters in the subbasin.

Table B-19 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Use Support Category in Subbasin 03-08-38

Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Monitored Waters
mi 0 0 0
Impaired 8.8 mi 0 0 0
Not Rated 13.6 mi 0 3.0 mi 0
Total 25.4 mi 0 3.0 mi 0
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting 0 0 0 0
Impaired 0 166.4 mi 0 0
Not Rated 74.0 mi 0 0
No Data 67.0 mi 0 163.4 mi 0
Total 141.0 mi 166.4 mi 163.4 mi 0
Totals
All Waters 166.4 mi 166.4 mi 166.4 mi 0
Supporting 3.0
Note: All waters include monitored, evaluated and waters that were not assessed.
Section B: Chapter 9 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-38 186

9.3 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.

9.3.1 Sixmile Creek [AU# 11-138-3]

Sixmile Creek flows along the border between Mecklenburg and Union counties and drains the
southeast and southwest portions of each county, respectively. The 8.8-mile segment from its
source to the NC/SC border is Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair bioclassification at site
F-2. The South Carolina portion is Impaired because of elevated fecal coliform levels.

1999 Recommendations
DWQ recommended that the two remaining dischargers not connected to Charlotte Mecklenburg
Utilities sewer lines perform an Engineering Alternative Analysis (EAA). DWQ stated that the
stream was too small to rate and would not be sampled during the next assessment period.

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Since the 1999 plan, all NPDES point sources have been removed from Sixmile Creek.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department constructed the collection system in the watershed
and purchased the private wastewater collection systems. Therefore, EAAs are no longer
applicable. DWQ biologists also determined that while the creek was too small in late summer
to rate using benthic methodologies, a fish community analyses performed in the wetter spring
season is appropriate. DWQ, therefore, again sampled this creek in 2002.

Despite the removal of all NPDES discharges, Sixmile Creek received the highest conductivity
rating of any stream in the basin during the 2002 sampling effort. It was also noted that cattle
had access to the stream. These two points and the natural low flow state of this stream indicate
its sensitivity to nonpoint source runoff. DWQ encourages Union County to develop
management strategies that address runoff in this developing watershed. Please refer to Section
A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11 for more suggestions on land use planning. DWQ will work with local
resource agencies to implement agricultural BMPs for cattle exclusion.

9.4 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.

Section B: Chapter 9 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-38 187

9.4.1 Twelvemile Creek [AU# 11-138]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The watershed of Twelvemile Creek abuts the Crooked Creek watershed in the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River basin. There are no NPDES facilities within the watershed. The South Carolina portion of
the stream is Impaired because of copper, turbidity and fecal coliform concentrations.

From 1997 to 2002, the bioclassification at site F-1 declined from Good to Good-Fair, and no
pollution intolerant species were found. Additionally, suspended sediment from the West Fork
Twelvemile Creek colored the entire Twelvemile Creek channel. A study should be conducted
to compare fish populations and habitat in the East and West Forks of Twelvemile Creek to the
mainstem in hopes of determining the primary stressors in this watershed. In the meantime,
DWQ encourages Union County to develop management strategies that address runoff in this
developing watershed. Please refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11 for more suggestions on
land use planning.

9.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-08-38

9.5.1 Waxhaw Creek [AU# 11-139]

Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
The Catawba Lands Conservancy (CLC) identified Waxhaw Creek in Southwest Union County
as a priority for land protection efforts because it is the only stream in the Catawba River basin
that supports populations of the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter mussel. A total of
only six populations of this mussel occur in the entire world, including one other North Carolina
population in Goose Creek, in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. Perhaps the single most
important factor in the conservation of the Carolina heelsplitter is protecting the water quality of
their creek habitats, including the use of forested buffers and prevention of siltation and other
sources of pollution.

Funded by a grant from the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Conservation
Trust for North Carolina, the Conservancy conducted a study of the integrity of the stream
corridor and identified areas most important for conservation and restoration activities. DWQ
supports the work being conducted by CLC and will assist in any way possible to protect this
unique resource. DWQ also encourages Union County to develop management strategies that
address runoff in this developing watershed. Please refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.11 for
more suggestions on land use planning.

The downstream portion of Waxhaw Creek in South Carolina is Impaired because of elevated
copper and fecal coliform concentrations. Consequently, in the future, North Carolina will be
subject to an interstate TMDL. DWQ will work cooperatively with South Carolina as they
develop a TMDL for Waxhaw Creek.

Section B: Chapter 9 - Catawba River Subbasin 03-08-38 188

Section C

Current and Future
Water Quality Initiatives

Section C: Current and Future Water Quality Initiatives 189

Section C - Chapter 1
Current Water Quality Initiatives
⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆⊆

1.1 Workshop Summaries

In September 2003, there were three workshops held by DWQ in the Catawba River basin in the
towns of Dallas, Hickory and Newton. There were 112 people in attendance representing a
variety of interests. Figure C-1 gives an estimation of groups/interests represented based on
information recorded on attendance sheets.
Natural Resource
Agencies
Agricultural
Interests
Education
Media
Industry/
Consulting
Environmental
Organizations
Local/Regional
Governments

Figure C-1 Total Attendance by Various Interests at DWQ Water Quality Workshops in the
Catawba River Basin (2002)

DWQ staff gave presentations about general water quality in the Catawba River basin, basinwide
planning and the Wetlands Restoration Program (since reorganized as Ecosystem Enhancement
Program, or EEP). Participants at each workshop also gave brief presentations about local water
quality initiatives. Workshop attendees were asked to discuss the following questions in small
groups:

1. What are the main threats to water quality in the Catawba River basin?
2. Where are the problem areas or waters?
3. What recommendations do you have for addressing these problems/waters?
4. What local agencies or organizations should be involved in addressing the problems?

A detailed outline of each small group’s discussion of these questions is available upon request.
Good discussion was generated at each workshop, and all of the information was considered and,
in some cases, incorporated into this draft plan. The most frequently cited threats to water
quality identified by workshop participants are discussed below.
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 190

Important Issues Basinwide

The most important issues identified by workshop participants were related to development and
nonpoint sources of pollution. Increasing urbanization was a concern identified throughout the
basin. Losses of forestland and wetlands, increases in nutrient loading from many sources, and
stormwater runoff were identified as threats to water quality at the workshops. Issues related to
enforcement of existing rules and monitoring, lack of BMP maintenance, mercury
contamination, and better drought planning were also of concern. Refer to Appendix V for
summary tables from the workshops.

1.2 Federal Initiatives

1.2.1 Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration
projects. USEPA, the granting agency, allocates approximately $4.6 million for Section 319 in
North Carolina; three quarters of which the state designates to competitively selected projects.
Project proposals are reviewed and selected by the North Carolina Nonpoint Source Workgroup,
made up of state and federal agencies involved in regulation or research associated with nonpoint
source pollution. Information on the North Carolina Section 319 Grant Program, including
application deadlines and requests for proposals, is available online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/.

From 1992-2004, approximately $1,427,000 was allocated by the Section 319 Program to initiate
or complete projects in the Catawba River basin. These projects include land acquisition, stream
restoration and education. The projects vary greatly in scope and scale, many having basinwide
applications. Descriptions of the projects listed below and other Section 319 Program
information are available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/319.htm.

Table C-1 Projects Funded Through Clean Water Act Section 319

FY Project
Name Agency Project
Area
Total Amount
Funded
1992 Long Creek Monitoring Gaston County Agriculture 190,000
1994 Long Creek-Agriculture BMP Evaluation NCSU Agriculture 157,500
1995 Catawba River Land Acquisition City of Morganton Watershed Protection 250,000
1995 Long Creek Watershed Project NCCES Agriculture 354,298
1997 Catawba River Basin Buffers NCSU-NRLI General 25,282
1998 South Fork Catawba River NCSU Urban Stormwater 88,392
1998 Caldwell County Rain Garden and
Streambank Stabilization NCSU CES, BAE Urban Stormwater 10,800
2000 Stream Restoration Project in Gaston
County (New Hope Branch)
Gaston County
NRCD
Wetlands and Hydrologic
Modification 68,137
2000
Demonstration of Low Impact
Development (LID) Strategies for NPS
Pollution Prevention and Stream
Restoration in the Catawba River Basin
UNC-Charlotte Urban Stormwater 180,000
2001 Mountain Island Reservoir (MIR) BMPs
Education State Forest DFR Forestry 103,108
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 191

1.2.2 USDA EQIP

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was reauthorized in the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) to provide a voluntary conservation program for
farmers and ranchers that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as
compatible national goals. EQIP offers financial and technical help to assist eligible participants
to install or implement structural and management practices on eligible agricultural land.

EQIP offers contracts with a minimum term that ends one year after the implementation of the
last scheduled practices to a maximum term of ten years. These contracts provide incentive
payments and cost shares to implement conservation practices. Persons who are engaged in
livestock or agricultural production on eligible land may participate in the EQIP program. EQIP
activities are carried out according to an environmental quality incentives program plan of
operations developed in conjunction with the producer that identifies the appropriate
conservation practice or practices to address the resource concerns. The practices are subject to
NRCS technical standards adapted for local conditions. The local conservation district approves
the plan.

EQIP may cost share up to 75 percent of the costs of certain conservation practices. Incentive
payments may be provided for up to three years to encourage producers to carry out management
practices they may not otherwise use without the incentive. However, limited resource
producers and beginning farmers and ranchers may be eligible for cost shares up to 90 percent.
Farmers and ranchers may elect to use a certified third-party provider for technical assistance.
For application information, refer to any county extension office or visit the website at
http://www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/EQIP/.

1.3 State Initiatives

1.3.1 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program

The North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program was established in 1984 to help reduce the
sources of agricultural nonpoint source pollution to the state’s waters. The program helps
owners and renters of established agricultural operations improve their on-farm management by
using Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs include vegetative, structural or
management systems that can improve the efficiency of farming operations while reducing the
potential for surface and groundwater pollution. The Agriculture Cost Share Program is a
voluntary program that reimburses farmers up to 75 percent of the cost of installing an approved
BMP. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) implements the program. The
cost share funds are paid to the farmer once the planned control measures and technical
specifications are completed. The annual statewide budget for BMP cost sharing is
approximately 6.9 million.

Soil and Water Conservation District contacts for the Catawba River basin are included in
Appendix VI or visit the website at http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/agcostshareprogram.html for
more information.

Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 192

1.3.2 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (Formerly Wetlands Restoration Program)

In July 2003, the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP) was officially merged with
compensatory mitigation resources of the NCDOT to become the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP). EEP is administered as a new program area within NCDENR and has
essentially replaced the WRP. EEP’s central mission includes the same goals of the former
WRP. The Memorandum of Agreement of July 2003 between NCDENR, NCDOT and the
Army Corps of Engineers further stipulates that EEP mitigation projects will be: 1) provided in
advance of the permitted NCDOT impacts; 2) designed to address functional replacement of
stream, buffer and wetlands impacts; and 3) identified and implemented within the context of a
watershed approach based on multiple scales of planning.

The EEP planning approach will continue to include the development of Watershed Restoration
Plans on a basinwide scale, GIS-based screening analyses of 8-digit cataloguing units (CUs), and
local watershed planning (LWP) initiatives applied at the scale of 14-digit hydrologic units
(HUs) and component subwatersheds. A new Planning Guide will be prepared in 2004 to
describe the updated EEP approach to watershed restoration planning at these various scales,
including the selection of Targeted Local Watersheds, which will continue to play a key role in
our program’s watershed restoration strategies.

EEP is a nonregulatory program responsible for implementing wetland and stream restoration
projects throughout the state. The focus of the program is to improve watershed functions in the
17 river basins across the state by restoring wetlands, streams and riparian buffers within
selected local watersheds. These vital watershed functions include water quality protection,
floodwater retention, fisheries and wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. The EEP is
not a grant program. Instead, the program funds local restoration projects directly through the
Wetlands Restoration Fund.

Restoration sites are targeted through the development and use of Watershed Restoration Plans
(formerly called "Basinwide Wetland and Riparian Restoration Plans"). The restoration plans
are developed, in part, using information compiled in DWQ's Basinwide Water Quality Plans
and Basinwide Assessment Reports. The EEP Plans evaluate resource data and existing water
quality initiatives within local watersheds in order to select "Targeted Local Watersheds".
Targeted Local Watersheds are areas with the greatest need and opportunity for stream and
wetlands restoration efforts, and where EEP resources can be most efficiently focused for
maximum restoration benefit. The EEP Watershed Restoration Plans are updated every five
years on the same timeline as DWQ's Basinwide Water Quality Plans.

The selection of Targeted Local Watersheds (at the scale of NRCS 14-digit Hydrologic Units, or
HUs) does not necessarily restrict the location of EEP restoration project sites. However, these
targeted HUs are given higher priority than nontargeted HUs in considering the selection of EEP
candidate restoration project sites. Targeted Local Watersheds are simply local watersheds
where stream, wetland and riparian buffer restoration projects will make the most sense in the
context of overall watershed and wetlands protection.

The EEP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs or
environmental groups. For example, the EEP’s efforts can complement projects funded through
the Section 319 Program. Integrating wetlands or riparian area restoration components with
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 193

Section 319-funded or proposed projects will often improve the overall water quality and habitat
benefits of the project. The EEP actively seeks landowners within the Catawba River basin that
have restorable wetland, riparian and stream sites.

Table C-3 below lists the EEP’s Targeted Local Watersheds [stream names and 14-digit HU
codes] in the Catawba River basin. This table also indicates the pertinent factors that led to the
selection of each Targeted Local Watershed. The Targeted Local Watersheds are selected on the
basis of available data indicating the need and opportunity for local stream and wetlands
restoration projects. Factors such as water quality problems, degraded aquatic habitat, cleared
riparian buffers, significant natural areas or species, and increasing development pressures in the
watershed are weighted heavily in determining these priority watersheds. Also, the presence of
existing or planned water quality or habitat restoration projects in the same local watershed can
be a significant factor in the choice of these watersheds. In some cases, EEP has used the water
quality information alone (e.g., use impairment, potential increases in nonpoint source pollution)
to support the selection of a specific Targeted Local Watershed. Targeted local watersheds are
presented in Figure C-2.

The EEP is also working to develop comprehensive Local Watershed Plans within certain
Targeted Local Watersheds identified in the Watershed Restoration Plans. These locally-based
plans develop comprehensive watershed assessments to identify causes and sources of nonpoint
source impairment. They also identify and prioritize wetland areas, stream reaches, riparian
buffer areas, and best management practices that will provide significant water quality and
habitat improvements and other environmental benefits to local watersheds. The EEP will
coordinate with local community groups, local governments and others to develop and
implement these plans.

Selection of a watershed as a Targeted Local Watershed does not mean that a Local Watershed
Plan will be initiated in that area. Local Watershed Plans are developed in areas that have
extensive future mitigation needs, while Targeted Local Watersheds are selected as part of the
EEP planning process for the Basinwide Watershed Restoration Plans.

The plans also identify and prioritize wetland areas, stream reaches, riparian buffer areas, and
best management practices that will provide significant water quality improvement and other
environmental benefits to the local watershed. There are currently two local watershed planning
efforts underway in the Catawba River basin and each are described below.

For more information about the EEP and its Watershed Restoration Plans, please call (919) 715-
0476 or visit the EEP website at http://www.nceep.net/.

Catawba Local Watershed Plans

Charlotte Area Local Watershed Plan
In 2002, the EEP initiated the Charlotte Area Local Watershed Plan in conjunction with
Charlotte Storm Water Services, Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Utilities Department, and Mecklenburg Department of Environmental Protection. The 251-
square mile planning area included Little Sugar, Long, McDowell, Irwin, Sugar and McAlpine
Creeks, all listed on North Carolina’s 2002 303(d) Impaired stream list. The primary purpose of
this study was to identify stream and wetland restoration opportunities as well as potential
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 194

stormwater and nonpoint source pollution Best Management Practices that could be implemented
in the study area to address water quality problems and habitat degradation. The EEP contracted
with CH2MHill to conduct a detailed watershed assessment that involved compiling existing
water quality, habitat and land use data and using this information to assess the health of 318
individual catchments (<1 square mile) across the study area. CH2MHill also developed a
calibrated water quality model for the study area to predict total suspended solids, phosphorus
and zinc concentrations and loadings under alternative management scenarios.

Based on the assessment data, the stakeholders selected five small focus areas or grouping of
catchments (0.5 to 7 square miles) for detailed field assessment. The focus areas represented
various land use patterns found across the study area from urban built-out areas to suburban
areas under development. The field assessments evaluated restoration project opportunities
including stream and wetland restoration as well as stormwater and water quality BMPs. The
Local Watershed Plan provides detailed information about the recommended projects including
cost and pollutant removal at the project and watershed scale. The plan was completed in
August 2003. The EEP is currently focusing project implementation in the McDowell Creek and
Long Creek watersheds. For more information about this project, contact Kristin Cozza at (704)
572-0955 or to view the technical reports and watershed plan, visit the website at
h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/plans/charlotte.htm.

Lower Creek Local Watershed Plan
In 2003, the EEP initiated a Local Watershed Plan for the Lower Creek Watershed in Burke and
Caldwell counties. The Lower Creek watershed (90 square miles) drains the municipalities of
Lenoir and Gamewell and includes Zacks Fork, Spainhour Creek, Bristol Creek and Greasy
Creek, all on North Carolina’s 2002 303(d) list of Impaired streams. The EEP will use the 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 and field assessment and 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 at [phone].

Targeted Local Watersheds

Table C-2 below lists the EEP’s Targeted Local Watersheds [stream names and 14-digit HU
codes] in the Catawba River basin. This table also indicates the pertinent factors that led to the
selection of each Targeted Local Watershed. The Targeted Local Watersheds are selected on the
basis of available data indicating the need and opportunity for local stream and wetlands
restoration projects. Factors such as water quality problems, degraded aquatic habitat, cleared
riparian buffers, significant natural areas or species, and increasing development pressures in the
watershed are weighted heavily in determining these priority watersheds. Also, the presence of
existing or planned water quality or habitat restoration projects in the same local watershed can
be a significant factor in the choice of these watersheds. In some cases, EEP has used the water
quality information alone (e.g., use impairment, potential increases in nonpoint source pollution)
to support the selection of a specific Targeted Local Watershed. Targeted local watersheds are
presented in Figure C-2.
Section C: Chapter 1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 195

Table C-2 Ecosystem Enhancement Program Targeted Local Watersheds (2003)

Subbasin Local Watershed
Name and HU code
Impaired
Stream(s)1
Downward
Trend in
Water Quality2
Public
Water
Supply3
ORW or
HQW4
Aquatic
NHP
Elements5
Existing,
Planned
Projects6
Municipality(ies);
Phase I or II7
Local Resource
Professional
Recommendation8
03-08-30 West Fork Catawba
03050101010010 No No No Yes Yes
03-08-30 Upper Linville River
03050101030010 No No Yes No Yes Yes
03-08-30 Paddy Creek
03050101030030 No No Yes No No
03-08-30 North Muddy Creek
03050101040010 Yes Yes No No Yes SWCD Marion
Phase II Yes
03-08-30 South Muddy Creek
03050101040020 No No No No No SWCD Yes
03-08-31 Silver Creek
03050101050050 No No Yes Yes No Morganton
Phase II
03-08-31 Lower Johns River
03050101070040 No No 1997
Data Yes Yes Yes Yes
03-08-31 Warrior Fork
03050101060020 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
03-08-31 Upper Lower Creek
03050101080010 Yes No Yes No No LWP Lenoir
Phase II
03-08-31 Lower Lower Creek
03050101080020 Yes No Yes No Yes LWP Gamewell
Phase II
03-08-31 Irish Creek
03050101060030 Yes Yes Yes No No
03-08-31 Hunting Creek
03050101060050 Yes No 1997
Data Yes No Yes Morganton
Phase II
03-08-31 Brown Branch
03050101070020 No Yes No Data No Yes EEP
03-08-31 McGalliard Creek
03050101090010 Yes Yes Yes No No Valdese
Phase II
03-08-32 Muddy Fork Creek
03050101120030 No No Yes Yes No
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 196

Table C-2 Ecosystem Enhancement Program Targeted Local Watersheds (2003)

Subbasin Local Watershed
Name and HU code
Impaired
Stream(s)1
Downward
Trend in
Water Quality2
Public
Water
Supply3 4
Aquatic
NHP
Elements5
Existing,
Planned
Projects6
Municipality(ies);
Phase I or II7
Local Resource
Professional
Recommendation8
03-08-32 Elk Shoal Creek
03050101130010 No No Yes No No
03-08-32 Horseford Creek
03050101090020 No No Data No No No Hickory
Phase II
03-08-32 Jumping Run Creek 03050101120040 No No Data Yes No No EEP
03-08-32 Lyle Creek
03050101140010 No Yes No Yes No Data EEP
03-08-33 McDowell Creek 03050101170010 Yes Yes Yes No No LWP Huntersville
Phase II Yes
03-08-34 Long Creek
03050101170020 Yes No Yes No Yes LWP Charlotte
Phase I Yes
03-08-34 Irwin & Sugar Creeks
03050103020020 Yes Yes No No No
LWP
Charlotte
Phase I Yes
03-08-34 Little Sugar Creek
03050103020030 Yes Yes No No No
LWP
Charlotte
Phase I Yes
03-08-34 McMullen Creek
03050103020040 No No No No No
LWP
Charlotte
Phase I Yes
03-08-34 McAlpine Creek
03050103020050 Yes No No No No LWP DWQ
TMDL
Charlotte
Phase I Yes
03-08-35 Clark Creek
03050102030010 Yes DWQ WARP
Study Yes No No Yes Hickory
Phase II
03-08-35 Clark Creek
03050102030020 Yes Yes Yes No No
03-08-35 Maiden Creek
03050102030030 Yes No Data Yes No Yes Maiden
Phase II
03-08-35 Indian Creek
03050102050010 Yes Yes Yes Yes No
03-08-36 Long Creek
03050102070020 No No Yes No Yes Gastonia
Phase II
ORW or
HQW
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 197

Table C-2 Ecosystem Enhancement Program Targeted Local Watersheds (2003)

Subbasin Local Watershed
Name and HU code
Impaired
Stream(s)1
Downward
Trend in
Water Quality2
Public
Water
Supply3
ORW or
HQW4
Aquatic
NHP
Elements5
Existing,
Planned
Projects6
Municipality(ies);
Phase I or II7
Local Resource
Professional
Recommendation8
03-08-37 Crowders Creek
03050101180010 Yes No No No No Gastonia
Phase II
03-08-38 Sixmile Creek
03050101030010 Yes No No No Yes Charlotte
Phase I
03-08-38 Twelvemile Creek
03050101030020 No Yes No No Yes
1 Stream segments (or entire streams) that do not support their designated uses and are, therefore, considered impaired based on declining biological ratings [e.g., due to degraded
aquatic habitat] and/or failure to meet NCDWQ water quality standards. As identified in the 2003 Draft Basinwide Water Quality Plan (DWQ, 2003).
2 Downward Trend in Water Quality as indicated in the 2003 Draft Basinwide Assessment Report (DWQ, 2003).
3 Water Supply (WS) = waters used as water supply sources for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes.
4 ORW = outstanding resource waters. HQW = high-quality waters, which include critical habitat areas or primary nursery areas.
5 Aquatic Natural Heritage elements are special species, habitats or community types identified by the NC Natural Heritage Program and that occur, or spend some portion of
their life cycle, in wetlands, streams, riparian areas or estuarine waters.
6 Existing or planned projects in the following programs: EEP = Ecosystem Enhancement Program; LWP = EEP Local Watershed Plan; CWMTF = Clean Water Management
Trust Fund; CES = North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service; 319 = North Carolina Division of Water Quality Section 319 Program; WARP = North Carolina Division of
Water Quality Watershed Assessment and Restoration Program.
7 Associated towns or cities and applicability of NPDES Phase II stormwater rules, or that are otherwise likely to have significant current or future urban stormwater
management issues.
Local Resource Profes8 sional Recommendation, as determined during the outreach process of updating the NCWRP Watershed Restoration Plan.
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 198

1.3.3 Clean Water Management Trust Fund

North Carolina’s Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) was established by the
General Assembly in 1996 (Article 13A; Chapter 113 of the North Carolina General Statutes).
At the end of each fiscal year, 6.5 percent of the unreserved credit balance in North Carolina’s
General Fund (or a minimum of $30 million) goes into the CWMTF. Revenues from the
CWMTF are then allocated in the form of grants to local governments, state agencies and
conservation nonprofit organizations to help finance projects that specifically address water
pollution problems. The 18-member, independent, CWMTF Board of Trustees has full
responsibility over the allocation of monies from the fund.

The CWMTF provides funding for projects that: 1) enhance or restore degraded waters; 2)
protect unpolluted waters; and/or 3) contribute toward a network of riparian buffers and
greenways for environmental, educational and recreational benefits. In the Catawba River basin,
61 projects were funded between 1997 and 2003, totaling $30,511,123. Table C-3 lists the
individual grants. For more information on the CWMTF or these grants, call [phone] or
visit the website at http://www.cwmtf.net/.

Table C-3 Projects in the Catawba River Basin Funded by the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund (as of 12/02)
Project Description

FY Application
Name
Proposed Amount
Funded Subbasin
2000
Bessemer City –
Decommission WWTP
and Reroute Waste
Decommission Bessemer City WWTP and rescind permit of 1.5
MGD. Route effluent to Gastonia’s nearby regional WWTP.
Upgrade Ninth Street Pump Station. Construct new sewer force
mains and gravity sewer lines.
$2,000,000.00 03-08-37
2001
Blowing Rock –
China Creek / Johns River
Land Acquisition
Acquire through fee simple purchase 192 acres of the headwaters
of China Creek. CWMTF funds to purchase 80 riparian acres. $201,000.00 03-08-31
2001 Burke County –
Planning / Lake James
Conduct a planning project for the Catawba River WS-IV using
spatial growth management decisions. $62,000.00 03-08-30
1999 Caldwell County –
Wilson Creek Acquisition Acquire through fee simple purchase 4 acres along Wilson Creek. $51,000.00 03-08-31
2001
Catawba Lands & Foothills
Conservancy – Acquisition /
Johnston Creek
Provide funds to cover transactional costs on two riparian
conservation easements (385 acres). Overall project would
protect 525 acres through donated and purchased easements in
Mountain Island Lake Watershed along Johnson Creek.
$116,000.00 03-08-33
2001
Catawba Lands Cons –
Buck & Smith Tract /
South Crowders Creek Acq
Acquire through fee simple purchase and permanent conservation
easements 107 acres along South Crowders Creek. CWMTF
funds to purchase 27.1 acres and establish a CE on 11.3 acres.
Landowner to donate CE on 68.4 acres.
$166,000.00 03-08-37
1998
Catawba Lands Cons –
Acq / Ryne Preserve /
South Fork Catawba
Acquire through fee simple purchase and permanent conservation
easements 245 acres along the South Fork Catawba River and two
unnamed tributaries. Acreage includes a donated conservation
easement of 185 acres.
$310,000.00 03-08-35
2002
Catawba Lands Cons –
Acq / Ramsey Tract,
South Fork Catawba River
Acquire 16.4 acres through fee simple purchase along the South
Fork Catawba River. An additional 3.5 acres will be donated. A
total of 19.9 acres will be protected.
$77,000.00 03-08-35
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 200

2002
Catawba Lands Cons –
Acq / Anderholt Tract
South Fork Catawba River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 75 riparian acres along the
South Fork Catawba River. $343,000.00 03-08-35
Colt Thornburg Tract /
South Fork Catawba River
and Coley Creek
Minigrant to pay for transactional costs for a donated easement on
70 acres along the South Fork Catawba River and Coley Creek. 03-08-35
2003
Catawba Lands Cons –
Donated Minigrant, Friday
Farm Tract / Hoyle Creek
$16,000.00Minigrant to pay for transactional costs for a donated easement on
170 acres along the South Fork Catawba River and tributaries. 03-08-35
2003
Catawba Lands Cons –
Donated Minigrant,
Oakwood Farm Tract /
South Fork Catawba River
Minigrant to pay for transactional costs for a donated easement on
63 acres along the South Fork Catawba River and tributaries. $25,000.00 03-08-35
1997
Catawba Lands Cons –
South Fork Catawba
Acquisition Plan
Identify and prioritize riparian buffer protection objectives, meet
with landowners to negotiate easements or acquisitions, find
funding for acquisitions, and track progress of acquisition through
monitoring of water quality and buffer management goals.
$50,000.00 03-08-35
1999 Catawba Lands Cons –
South Fork Acquisition
Acquire through fee simple purchase and permanent conservation
easements 207 acres along the South Fork Catawba River and
tributaries.
$905,000.00 03-08-36
1999
Catawba Lands Cons –
South Fork Catawba
Acquisition
Acquire through fee simple purchase and permanent conservation
easement 284 acres along the South Fork Catawba River.
CWMTF funds to purchase a 219-acre tract and landowner to
donate permanent conservation easement on another 65 acres.
$811,000.00
South Fork Catawba River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 13 acres along the South
Fork Catawba River. $60,000.00 03-08-35
2001 Catawba Lands Cons –
Acquisition Minigrant
Provide funds to cover preacquisition costs for 214 acres that
border Long and Little Long Creeks. $25,000.00 03-08-36
2001
Catawba Lands Cons –
Acquisition / 03-08-35
South Fork Catawba River
Purchase riparian areas and to cover monitoring and transactional
costs for two tracts. Total protected acreage (fee simple
acquisition) will be 75.6 acres along South Fork Catawba River.
$217,000.00
Catawba Lands Cons –
South Fork Catawba Land
Acquisition
$420,373.00 03-08-35
Catawba Lands Cons –
Acquisition /
Rollins & Banker Tracts,
South Fork River
Acquire through fee simple purchase and a permanent
conservation easement 115 acres along the South Fork Catawba
River. CWMTF to purchase 75 riparian acres and landowner to
donate an additional 40 acres. Ties in with already protected
stream corridor.
03-08-35
2000 Centralina COG – Acq /
Mountain Island Lake
Acquire through fee simple purchase 1,231 acres along Mountain
Island Lake on the Catawba River. $6,560,000.00 03-08-33
Charlotte –
Stormwater Demonstration
(School Grounds)
Design and construct a wetland system at an elementary school,
capable of treating water from 15-acre urban watershed. Maintain
wetland system as stormwater treatment works and demonstration
site for a minimum of 15 years. Monitor results.
$200,000.00 03-08-34
1997
Charlotte, City of – Acq /
Mountain Island Lake,
Gar Creek
Acquire through fee simple purchase 13 acres along Gar Creek
Cove of Mountain Island Lake. CWMTF funds to purchase 1/2 of
the riparian acres.
$250,000.00 03-08-33
2001 Claremont – Acquisition
Coulters Branch
Acquire through fee simple purchase 7 acres along Coulters
Branch. $56,000.00 03-08-32
2003
Catawba Lands Cons –
Donated Minigrant,
$10,000.00
03-08-35
2000
Catawba Lands Cons –
Acquisition /
2003
Acquire through fee simple purchase and permanent conservation
easements 252 acres along the South Fork Catawba River.
CWMTF funds to purchase 130 acres and landowner to donate a
conservation easement on an additional 122 acres.
1997 $286,000.00
2002
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 201

2001
Conover –
Sewer Overflow
Warning System
Implement sewer collection system overflow prevention and
management demo project to expand city’s current warning
system and install sewer overflow communicators at manholes
that have historically overflowed. Remote and trouble spots
targeted.
$43,000.00 03-08-32
2001
Cons Trust for NC –
Duggers Creek /
Upper Linville Gorge Acq
Acquire through fee simple purchase 314 acres along Gulf Branch
and Duggers Creek. $366,000.00 03-08-30
2001
Foothills Conservancy –
Acq / Adams Tract,
Left Prong Catawba River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 771 acres along the Left
Prong Catawba River. CWMTF funds will be used to acquire 320
riparian acres.
$821,000.00 03-08-30
2000
Foothills Conservancy of
NC – Acquisition /
Phillips Creek
Acquire conservation easements on 80 acres along Phillips Creek.
A donated easement on an upland 34 acres will be included. $131,000.00
Foothills Conservancy of
NC – Caldwell County
Acquisition Minigrant
Provide funds to cover preacquisition costs for land in Caldwell
County. $25,000.00
03-08-31
& 03-08-
32
Foothills Conservancy of
NC – Acquisition
Blue Ridge Parkway,
Linville River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 41 acres along the Linville
River. CWMTF funds to purchase 30 riparian acres and
landowner to donate an additional 10 acres. Tract is adjacent to
the Blue Ridge Parkway and is upstream of Linville Falls.
$328,000.00 03-08-30
1999
Foothills Conservancy of
NC Minigrant –
Catawba River
Minigrant to pay for transactional costs for fee simple purchase of
the 360-acre Watermill Tract on the Catawba River in Burke
County.
$25,000.00 03-08-30
2002
Gaston County SWCD –
Restoration & Stormwater /
Duharts Creek Tributary
Construct four wetland areas to treat runoff from school and other
developed areas adjacent to the creek. Monitor results. $36,000.00 03-08-36
1999 Gastonia – Acquisition and
Greenway / Catawba Creek
Acquire through fee simple purchase 77 acres along Catawba and
Anthony Creeks. $347,000.00 03-08-37
2000
Gastonia – Water’s Edge
Tract Acquisition /
Mountain Island Lake
Acquire through permanent conservation easements 425 acres
(Water’s Edge Tract) along Mountain Island Lake. $1,000,000.00 03-08-33
1997 Gastonia – Catawba Creek
Tributary Restoration
Design and construct natural design stream restoration project
along 2,000 feet of stream. Revegetate stream buffer. Place
restored area under open space conservation easement.
$219,250.00 03-08-37
1998
Gastonia – Decommission
Catawba Creek WWTP
and Reroute Waste
Decommission failing Catawba Creek WWTP and convert plant
to a 7.5 MGD pumping station. Construct force main (8,400 LF)
to take wastewater to Long Creek plant, a "state-of the art" system
and a preferred discharge location. Includes backup generator.
$1,000,000.00 03-08-37
1998
Granite Falls –
Sewer Rehabilitation /
Gunpowder Creek
Replacement of Granite Fall’s existing sewer line (15,400 LF)
along Bill Branch in order to eliminate discharge of raw sewage
into surface waters and to reduce groundwater and rainwater
inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system.
$1,228,000.00 03-08-32
2002
Granite Falls, Town of –
Acquisition /
Lake Rhodhiss
Acquire through fee simple purchase 166 acres along the Lake
Rhodhiss and tributaries. CWMTF funds will be used to acquire
80 riparian acres.
$890,000.00 03-08-31
1997
Hildebran – Wastewater
Collection System /
Drowning Creek
Construct wastewater collection system in the Drowning Creek
watershed to eliminate 29 failing residential septic systems. $136,000.00 03-08-32
1997 Lenoir – Acquisition and
Greenway / Zacks Fork Acquire through fee simple purchase 5 acres along Zacks Fork. $50,000.00 03-08-31
1997 Maiden – Acquisition /
Maiden and Allen Creeks
Acquire a permanent conservation easement on 18 acres along
Maiden Creek. $360,000.00 03-08-35
03-08-31
2003
2003
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 202

1998
McDowell County –
Wastewater Collection
System / Corpening Creek
Design and construct wastewater collection system to serve the
Stumptown community and to tie on and treat waste from the
Stumptown community.
$1,500,000.00 03-08-30
1997
McDowell County –
Stream Restoration /
Catawba River Park
Stabilize streambanks (2 reaches) of Youngs Fork Creek in
McDowell County Catawba River Park using natural channel
design methods. Also develop riparian buffer and greenway plan
along Catawba River.
$189,000.00 03-08-30
2001
McDowell Co – Restoration
/ Upper Catawba River /
Catawba River Park
Stabilize 2,000 feet of riverbank along the mainstem of the Upper
Catawba River in the county’s Catawba River Park. $200,000.00 03-08-30
1997
Mecklenburg County EPD –
Stormwater Demonstration /
Edwards Branch
Construct and monitor BMPs in a "built out" 640-acre watershed
to demonstrate their effectiveness. Evaluate parking area BMPs,
riparian area restoration, wet detention ponds, and structural
BMPs (like sand filters, oil and water separators).
$750,000.00 03-08-34
1998
Mecklenburg County
Parks and Recreation –
Wetland Restoration /
McAlpine Creek
Restore pollutant removal of buffers in McAlpine Creek through a
20-acre demonstration site by rerouting direct drainage from
adjacent development through the wetland, so that short circuiting
in the wetland is minimized.
$209,000.00 03-08-34
2000
Mecklenburg County –
Stormwater /
Little Sugar Creek,
Belmont Branch
Construct stormwater wetland and retention basin for a highly
urban 400-acre drainage area on Belmont Branch, which is a
tributary to Little Sugar Creek. Includes plantings along buffer
and rerouting sanitary and stormwater sewers.
$1,200,000.00 03-08-34
2001
Mecklenburg County –
Restoration / Little Sugar
Creek Greenway Trail
Fund a stormwater management, stream restoration, and greenway
construction project along 5,000 linear feet of Little Sugar Creek. $400,000.00 03-08-34
2003
Mecklenburg County EPD –
Stormwater /
Little Sugar Creek
Design and construct a wetland and basin to treat stormwater from
1200 acres of residential neighborhoods, re-route existing
stormwater systems to treatment basins and re-vegetate riparian
buffers. Monitor results.
$940,000.00 03-08-34
2003
Mecklenburg County-
Haymarket Tract /
Mountain Island Lake
Easement
Acquire through a permanent conservation easement 100 acres
along Mountain Island Lake. CWMTF funds to purchase CE on
36 acres of riparian land. County to reinvest $1 grant to acquire
other riparian buffers and lands to protect Mountain Island Lake.
$1,000,000.00 03-08-33
1997
Mecklenburg County Storm
Water – Restoration and
Stormwater Wetlands /
Sugar Creek /
Hidden Valley Site
Expand existing grant for construction of 13-acre stormwater
treatment system and stream restoration. CWMTF funds to
relocate 1,500 feet of sewer line, disconnect storm drains, create
stormwater wetlands and ponds, vegetate buffers, and water
quality monitoring.
$1,300,000.00 03-08-34
2000
Mecklenburg County –
Storm / Mountain Island
Lake, McDowell Creek
Design and permit stormwater BMPs in the McDowell Creek
watershed to treat runoff from 918 acres. BMPs would include
four stormwater wetlands and a rain garden.
$200,000.00 03-08-33
2000
Mecklenburg Soil and
Water Conservation
District – Storm /
Briar Creek
Create an Urban Cost Share Program in the Briar Creek
watershed. Landowners would contribute 25 percent of the cost
for rain gardens, rain barrels, pet waste receptacles, riparian
buffers, impervious surface replacement and other BMPs.
$30,000.00 03-08-34
1998
Morganton –
Acquisition and Stormwater
/ Catawba River
Acquire 2-4 acre buffer. Land was leased by the NC Forest
Service until 2002. As part of match, city was to install wet
detention basins for site drainage and develop planned greenway
facilities.
$550,000.00 03-08-31
1998
NC Division Forest
Resources – Educational
Forest Restoration /
Mountain Island Lake
Stabilize eroding roads and close unnecessary roads and vegetate
and restore bare riparian buffers in the Mountain Island
Educational Forest.
$100,000.00 03-08-33
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 203

2003
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission –
Muddy Creek Restoration
Design and construct natural channel design stream restoration
project along 3,500 feet of stream (2,000 feet using CWMTF
funds). Conduct watershed assessment. Monitor the stream for
changes in sediment and biological aquatic community.
$169,000.00 03-08-30
2001
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission –
Restoration / Muddy Creek
Restore 2,400 feet of streambank at 10 worst sites. Also will
establish vegetated buffers of at least 50 feet (30 feet of trees and
shrubs adjacent to the stream) along the targeted 2,400 feet of
stream. Fencing will also be installed where needed.
$156,500.00 03-08-30
1997
Pilot View RC&D, Inc. –
Restoration /
Upper Linville River
Design, permit and prepare easements for natural channel stream
restoration on unstable stream reaches downstream of several
impoundments in the Upper Linville River watershed.
$257,000.00 03-08-30
2001
Southern Appalachian
Highlands Conservancy –
Acquisition /
Hemphill Tract /
Catawba River Headwaters
Protect 318 acres through the purchase of a permanent
conservation easement (181 acres) and donated easement (137
acres) in the headwaters of the Catawba River.
$444,000.00 03-08-30
1997
Western Piedmont COG –
Revolving Fund /
Failing Septic Systems
Capitalize a revolving fund for low-interest loans to low-income
families for the repair of failed or illegal on-site wastewater
discharges in a four county area. Initially funds should repair 100
units over two years.
$450,000.00 03-08-32

1.3.4 NC Construction Grants and Loans Program

The NC Construction Grants and Loans Section provides grants and loans to local government
agencies for the construction, upgrade and expansion of wastewater collection and treatment
systems. As a financial resource, the section administers two major programs that assist local
governments, the federally funded Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program, and the
NC Clean Water Revolving Loan and Grant Program. These programs can provide both low
interest loan and grant funds for wastewater treatment projects (Table C-4).

As a technical resource, the Construction Grants and Loans Section, in conjunction with the
Environmental Protection Agency, has initiated the Municipal Compliance Initiatives Program.
It is a free technical assistance program to identify wastewater treatment facilities that are
declining but not yet out of compliance. A team of engineers, operations experts and managers
from the section work with local officials to analyze the facility’s design and operation.

For more information, visit the website at http://www.nccgl.net/. You may also call [phone]
or email [e-mail].

Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 204

Table C-4 Projects in the Catawba River Basin Funded by the NC Construction Grants and
Loans Section

Funded Grant (Clean Water Bond or SRG) Projects
Applicant Grant Offered Project
Winton $2,600,000 Sewer Rehab
Troutman $3,000,000 Sewer Rehab
High Shoals $2,104,681 Sewer Rehab, WWTP upgrades
Burke County $1,533,600 Tie in
Burke County $1,466,400 New Collection lines
Catawba County $215,653 Tie in
Catawba County $1,200,000 Tie in
Old Fort $2,968,579 New Collection System
McDowell County $3,000,000 New collection lines
Funded Grant State Revolving Loan (SRL) Projects
Applicant Loan Offered Project
Conover $4,000,000 WWTP Expansion
Belmont $2,681,700 Various upgrades to WWTP
Claremont $2,749,350 New 0.3 MGD McLin WWTP
Hickory $14,200,000 Expand Henry Fork WWTP,
Connect Longview and East Burke County
Long View $3,925,000 Connect Hildebran and Longview to Henry Fork WWTP
Gastonia $7,500,000 Expand Long Creek WWTP from 8 to 16 MGD,
Outfall relocation and nitrogen upgrades
Stanley $1,508,400 Dechlorination and Standby Power
Lenoir $3,863,970 Lower Creek WWTP upgrade and expansion from
4 MGD to 6 MGD
Valdese $3,032,454 WWTP improvements, I/I repair
Troutman $1,892,881 Connection to Statesville’s Third Creek WWTP
Lincolnton $10,000,000 Upgrade to 6 MGD and addition of tertiary treatment

1.3.5 North Carolina Stream Watch

The realization that local residents are best suited to keep an eye on their nearby waterways is
what prompted North Carolina to begin project Stream Watch. With Stream Watch, citizens’
groups "adopt" a waterway, or a portion of one, and act on its behalf. Stream Watchers become
the adoptive parents of a stream and, as such, become its primary caretakers.

Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 205

With the help of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Division of Water
Resources, Stream Watchers become informed stewards, learning how to react to the changing
stream conditions. Local efforts combined with state support allow North Carolina’s 37,000
miles of waterways to be monitored by those with the best view—local residents. For more
information on Stream Watch, call [phone] or visit the website at
http://www.ncwater.org/Education_and_Technical_Assistance/Stream_Watch/.

1.3.6 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
In 1991, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
Bureau implemented the Watershed Water Quality Management Strategy in order to more
efficiently protect and improve the quality of South Carolina’s surface water resources. This
management strategy recognizes the interdependence of water quality and all the activities that
occur in the associated drainage basin. Under the watershed management approach, monitoring,
assessment, problem identification and prioritization, water quality modeling, planning,
permitting and other SCDHEC initiatives are coordinated by basin. A watershed water quality
assessment document is produced for each basin on a five-year rotating schedule. The first
Watershed Water Quality Assessment for the Catawba River basin was published in 1999 and
will be updated on a five-year rotational basis.
To obtain a copy of the Watershed Water Quality Assessment or for further information about
water quality in the Catawba River basin in South Carolina, contact Mark A. Giffin at (803) 898-
4022 or by email [e-mail] or visit the website at http://www.scdhec.net/water.

1.3.7 Bi-State Catawba River Commission

In an attempt to ensure that North and South Carolina cooperate on the management of the entire
Catawba River, legislators in both states approved bills to create the Bi-State Catawba River
Commission. Both bills call for a 14-member commission composed of legislators and
representatives of Duke Power, the Bi-State Catawba River Task Force, the economic
development agency Carolinas Partnership, the basin’s three marine commissions, a NC land
trust and a SC water-sewer utility. Although the bills were passed, no funding was allocated to
support the initiative. Until appropriate funding is provided, progress on this initiative is not
likely.

1.3.8 Catawba River Corridor Project

The SCDNR in cooperation with the SC Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism and the
Catawba Regional Planning Council initiated the Catawba River Corridor Planning process in
1992. The goal of this planning process was to create a vision for the Catawba River and its
adjacent lands, to manage future growth in a manner that will protect the natural beauty,
unspoiled character, and significant features that shape the Catawba River today. This planning
process was citizen-based, to ensure that the resulting plan was wholly produced by members of
the community in which it will be implemented.

The Catawba River Task Force was assembled, composed of people with the resources, expertise
and interest to provide a comprehensive overview of the river and the commitment to implement
a final corridor plan developed by community members. Task force members include local
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 206

government officials, landowners and representatives of conservation organizations, industries,
other local groups, and state agencies. Committees were formed for each of 15 critical issues
facing the river corridor, as identified by the task force. Each committee developed a set of
policy recommendations and presented them to the task force for discussion and approval. For
more information, visit the website at http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/water/envaff/river/catawbaplan.htm.

1.4 Local Initiatives

1.4.1 Mecklenburg County S.W.I.M. Program

On October 15, 1996, the Mecklenburg County Board of County Commissioners (Board) took a
stand in support of clean, usable surface waters through the adoption of the community’s first
"Creek Use Policy" calling for all Mecklenburg County surface waters to be "...suitable for
prolonged human contact and recreational opportunities and supportive of varied species of
aquatic life." At the direction of the Board, a panel of stakeholders was convened in February
1997, including representatives from development and environmental interest groups. This panel
worked with staff toward the development of a comprehensive strategy aimed at fulfilling the
Board’s policy statement. In January 1998, the panel reported back to the Board with a three (3)
phased approach for achieving its "Creek Use Policy". The Board approved the approach and
the implementation of Phase I began in FY 1998-1999. The approach, entitled Surface Water
Improvement and Management or S.W.I.M, prioritized creek basins and tasks using the intent to:

¾ Prevent further degradation
¾ Preserve the best waters
¾ Improve the good waters
¾ Remediate the worst waters
The following principles are used to guide S.W.I.M. efforts:
¾ Holistic approach to address the community’s water quality, quantity and green space
issues
¾ Use proven, scientifically sound watershed management techniques
S.W.I.M. Phase I is aimed at the implementation of measures to address the county’s worst
pollutants and prevent further water quality degradation. The program has been a tremendous
success resulting in significant improvements to water quality conditions in Mecklenburg County
including:
1. Enhancement of efforts to enforce erosion control ordinances and educate the development
community resulting in a reduction in sediment levels in some streams by as much as 79
percent.

¾ Basin level community involvement and support
¾ Basin specific analysis using modeling and stream assessment

2. Enhancement of measures to protect drinking water supply reservoirs by working in close
cooperation with developers to improve land development techniques and protect water
quality.
3. Establishment of vegetative stream buffers county wide through the adoption of ordinances.
These buffers serve to filter stormwater pollutants and protect water quality.
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 207

4. Enhancement of efforts to address elevated bacteria levels in surface waters resulting in
reductions in bacteria counts by as much as 76 percent in several urban streams.
5. Implementation of water quality modeling techniques for the development of watershed
based management plans aimed at maintaining and restoring water quality conditions.
6. Development of automated water quality monitoring techniques that provide water quality
data 24 hours a day, 7 days a week significantly enhancing capabilities for identifying and
eliminating pollution problems. This technique was employed in cooperation with NCDOT
to ensure the protection of Long Creek from sediment discharges from I-485 construction
activities and is being expanded to other locations around the county.
7. Improved coordination between city and county staff involved in stream related activities
through the development of the Creek Coordination Committee (CCC), which meets monthly
to coordinate stream improvement activities.
8. Implementation of stream inventory and assessment activities to better characterize current
stream conditions and identify threats to water quality.
9. Increased public education and involvement resulting in a 75 percent increase in volunteer
participation in several water quality restoration initiatives including "Adopt-A-Stream" and
"Storm Drain Marking".

S.W.I.M. Phase II was implemented beginning in fiscal year 2002-2003, starting a four-year
process aimed at maintaining and/or restoring water quality conditions in identified special
interest watersheds to fulfill Mecklenburg County’s goal of "swimmable/fishable" waters.
During its first year of implementation, S.W.I.M. Phase II made significant progress toward
achieving this goal. In general, S.W.I.M. Phase II utilizes the tools developed in S.W.I.M. Phase
I, such as water quality monitoring and modeling, to develop a comprehensive watershed based
management strategy focusing on the elimination of specific point and nonpoint source pollution
problems in special interest watersheds. During FY02-03, these special interest watersheds
included McDowell, Gar, Goose, Duck and Stevens Creeks in Mecklenburg County. One of the
most progressive water quality ordinances in the southeast was adopted for McDowell and Gar
Creeks upstream of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg drinking water intake in Mountain Island Lake as
well as those creeks draining to the Rocky River within the jurisdiction of the Town of
Huntersville in Mecklenburg County. The objective of this ordinance is to prevent further water
quality degradation from continued land development activities utilizing low impact
development (LID) techniques and water quality modeling capabilities. In addition,
Mecklenburg County is in the process of designing retrofitted structural best management
practices (BMPs) to reduce existing pollutant loads in McDowell Creek. For Goose, Duck and
Stevens Creeks, which are located within the Town of Mint Hill in Mecklenburg County, a post-
construction ordinance utilizing LID and modeling techniques is currently under development
with implementation planned for the spring of 2004.

S.W.I.M. Phase III is planned for implementation in 2006 for the purpose of applying the
techniques perfected in Phases I and II to the remaining waters county wide with the ultimate
goal of achieving the Board’s "swimmable/fishable" goal by 2015.

The S.W.I.M. Program is being used to fulfill the Phase II Stormwater Permit requirements for
Mecklenburg County and the six towns in the county including Cornelius, Davidson,
Huntersville, Matthews, Mint Hill and Pineville. Under the S.W.I.M. Program, a Stormwater
Management Program Plan was developed and a joint permit application submitted to the state in
February 2003. Implementation of the plan began on July 1, 2003.
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 208

1.4.2 The Lake James Task Force

The purpose of The Lake James Task Force is to mobilize public support to protect the existing
Burke County Lake James Land Use Ordinance and to educate the public about the issues
involved so that Lake James is protected for future generations. The task force participates in
legal actions to protect the watershed from development and has created a legal defense fund
from which to operate. For more information, visit the website at
http://www.savelakejames.org/index.html.

1.4.3 Catawba County

Catawba County, being surrounded by Lakes Hickory, Lookout Shoals and Norman, has taken
several proactive approaches to address water quality within the county. In an effort to
supplement the state’s water quality sampling program, Catawba County has conducted semi-
annual water sampling of seven tributaries to Lake Norman for over ten years. These samples
are analyzed for several different water quality parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, BOD,
nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal coliform. Any infractions found are reported to the NCDENR for
follow-up inspection.
In the area of land development ordinances, the county adopted a cluster/open space option for
residential subdivisions. This option requires a minimum of 30 percent of the proposed
development to be preserved in permanent open space. Priority areas to be preserved are
designated floodplains, buffers along streams and ponds, steep slopes and environmentally
sensitive areas where development may threaten water quality. Several developers have used the
cluster option to preserve approximately 50 percent of the land within their developments.

In an effort to educate its citizenry on the importance of being environmental stewards, Catawba
County sponsors a biannual Household Hazardous Waste Day. Citizens are encouraged to bring
their household hazardous waste, such as paints and household cleaners, to the collection site for
proper disposal (in lieu of disposing in the garbage or pouring down storm drains or in road
ditches). The county also operates used motor oil disposal sites at all five of its convenience
centers.

1.4.4 Caldwell County

Caldwell County, in cooperation with the municipalities of Granite Falls, Hudson, Cajah
Mountain, Sawmills and Gamewell, has begun development of an NPDES Phase II compliant
stormwater management program. Caldwell County has hired a professional engineer to oversee
the program and has formed the Stormwater Advisory Group (SWAG) to structure the emerging
program and tailor it to the community's needs. Caldwell County has begun a Public Education
program that targets elected officials and civic leaders, the development community, and
realtors. Caldwell County has also begun an inventory of its facilities and operations that could
potentially have a detrimental impact on water quality. Caldwell County's Environmental
Engineer will be developing Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) for priority
facilities over the next 12 months.

A preliminary draft of a Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance has
been prepared and will be reviewed by the SWAG in February and March 2004. That draft
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 209

ordinance envisions post-construction controls that are more effective than the minimum
requirements in the state's proposed permanent NPDES Phase II rules (15A NCAC 2H .0126 and
15A NCAC 2H .1014). It also includes provision for two-zone, 50-foot wide riparian buffers
along perennial streams and 30-foot wide buffers along intermittent streams. Finally, Caldwell
County staff will give a formal presentation to the Caldwell County Commissioners during 2004,
seeking approval for local delegation of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. Local
delegation of that program, combined with the remainder of Caldwell County's stormwater
management efforts, will ensure more effective review and enforcement, while potentially
reducing both the time and expense currently required of Caldwell County's development
community.

1.4.5 City of Newton

The City of Newton has conducted a local soil erosion sedimentation control program since
October 2001. The program is under the direction of the Planning Director/Assistant City
Manager and is administered by the current planner. The local program has fit in well with the
city’s code enforcement and development liaison approach by having one point of contact
throughout the development process. The current planner coordinates the development review
process for the city and also reviews all site plans and issues zoning permits and soil erosion
permits for projects that require them.

The city uses the standard one-acre disturbed benchmark for plan submittal and permitting, but
also requires permits for any project disturbing a half-acre or more up to the one-acre standard
that triggers plan submittal. By having the plan reviewer/coordinator as the point of contact, the
process works very well in terms of communication and compliance. It is felt that having a local
program is more responsive to the concerns for water quality and safety of the community and
ensures a higher level of water quality and development. The program has permitted 13 sites
since the program began.

1.4.6 Gaston County Projects

The Gaston County Natural Resources Department is responsible for planning and establishing
the county's natural resources' conservation programs and implementing county, state and federal
natural resource statues. Department staff help landowners, citizens, municipal and county
governments, and industry to control erosion and sedimentation for improved water quality,
obtain grants for stream and wetland restorations for stormwater management, assist
municipalities with bio-solids waste management, assist animal facility operators with animal
waste management, assist governments with watershed management issues to ensure quality
drinking water supplies, and present environmental conservation education programs to students,
groups, organizations, clubs and citizenry. GCNR has several water quality projects in progress,
all of which may be viewed at http://www.co.gaston.nc.us/NaturalResources/index.htm.

The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service helps citizens understand things they can do
to maintain and protect environmental quality. Extension offers conferences, courses, on-site
demonstrations and one-on-one consultations concerning water quality best management
practices (BMPs). The Quality of Natural Resources Commission (QNRC) advises county
commissioners on environmental issues and guides the development of county policies with
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 210

environmental impacts. Extension serves as staff to the QNRC. More information about the
work of the Gaston County Center can be found at http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/gaston/.

1.4.7 Morganton Greenway

The City of Morganton Comprehensive Long-Term Land Management Plan identifies a six-mile
greenway corridor along the Catawba River. An aggressive acquisition and development
program began in 1992. The city identified riparian parcels and has initiated negotiations for fee
simple acquisition or development of conservation easements. Prioritization of properties was
made based upon location, greenway values, and water quality benefit. The greenway is
currently a one-mile paved walkway that provides picnic areas, playground, canoe launch,
fishing pier, overlooks, and access to shopping and restaurants. It will expand to protect more
riparian habitat as funds becomes available.

1.4.8 Burke County

Burke County has several water quality programs underway. In addition to the county’s zoning
and subdivision ordinances that protect riparian habitat on Lake James, Lake Rhodhiss, Lake
Hickory and the mainstem Catawba River, a planning process is currently underway in
cooperation with local landowners, the National Park Service Overmountain Victory Trail, and
the US Forest Service to plan and establish multi-use trails throughout the Lake James area and
along the mainstem of the Catawba River to the Morganton Greenway. Finally, a planning
process, funded by the CWMTF, is underway to develop a water supply watershed model that
will result in specific recommendations for land use ordinance revisions. The jurisdictions of
Morganton and Glen Alpine are also involved in this project.

1.5 Regional Initiatives

1.5.1 Voices and Choices of the Central Carolinas

Voices and Choices of the Central Carolinas (V&C) is dedicated to ensuring a high quality of life
for our region's residents by promoting economic and environmental sustainability throughout
the 14-county Central Carolinas region. The organization believes that issues affecting quality of
life - such as economic prosperity, clean air and water, open pace, and transportation - are best
addressed at the regional level, with a diverse coalition of stakeholders involved. Since 1995,
V&C has sought to engage individual citizens, corporations, nonprofit organizations and elected
officials from city, county and state governments to cooperate on these issues that are so critical
to the future of our region.
To update and expand upon previous regional reports, V&C is preparing a publication entitled
The 2003 State of the Region Report. The report focuses on indicators that reveal favorable and
unfavorable growth-related trends in the areas of transportation, land use, environment (air,
water, solid waste) and economics. The 2003 State of the Region Report will be the first in what
will become an annual V&C publication. By highlighting issues affecting quality of life in the
four subject areas, V&C hopes to convert discussion into action. For more information, visit the
website at http://www.voicesandchoices.org/index.cfm.

Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 211

1.5.2 Sustainable Environment for Quality of Life

Centralina Council of Governments in cooperation with Catawba Regional Council of
Governments actively promotes regional solutions for regional issues. One of Centralina’s major
new programs is designed to address issues of environmental quality. Centralina COG has been
awarded a $275,000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to implement and expand
regional efforts to protect the quality of life in the bi-state metro Charlotte region. The program
is called Sustainable Environment for Quality of Life (SEQL).

The greater Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock Hill region encompasses 15 counties with over 75 political
jurisdictions and a population base of 2.1 million people. It is a highly desirable area to live in
but faces many challenges: sprawl, air quality problems, and concerns about being the "next
Atlanta". SEQL will address these challenges by:

¾ Allowing local governments the opportunity to work across jurisdictional lines in
regional cooperation and collaboration, setting a standard for the nation.
¾ Providing implementation assistance to local governments on environmental
"commitment action items" developed under the Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Sustainability Demonstration Project.
¾ Analyzing multiple air quality issues simultaneously, including ozone, particulate
matter and air toxics while also addressing transportation, water, land use, energy use
and economic development.

This project will support the region’s efforts to develop integrated, long-range plans to ensure
economic development and a positive quality of life for its future. The project is structured so
that it will be a cooperative undertaking with the Catawba Regional Council of Governments.
Centralina and Catawba Regional COGs will work to bring the metro area together.

SEQL will provide an integrated strategy that other local governments across the country could
use to address similar quality of life and environmental issues. This initial process began in the
fall of 2000, under the leadership of Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory and past Mecklenburg
County Board Chairman Parks Helms. The city received a $100,000 EPA grant for a
Sustainability Demonstration Project to bring together 26 of the region’s chief elected officials to
learn about air quality, water resource and land use issues. The group developed and
recommended "toolbox commitment action items" relating to air, water and land use measures
for implementation across the region. In spring 2002, EPA approached Charlotte regional and
local governments about expanding this partnership to develop a more integrated strategy and
refined tools to address air quality, water quality, transportation, land use planning, energy and
economic development. A summary of the SEQL project is as follows:

¾ Implementation of Sustainability Demonstration Project "commitment action items".
¾ Design of a regional database for improved decision-making.
¾ Government/public/stakeholder orientation to the concept of integrated cross-sectoral
planning and development of methods to implement it.
¾ Institutionalization of consideration of integrated environmental impacts in local and
regional planning and decision-making.
¾ Build bridges among elected officials, local government planners, environmental
advocates and business/development interests.
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 212

1.5.3 Catawba Lands Conservancy

Catawba Lands Conservancy is a nonprofit land trust which acquires and permanently protects
land and conservation easements in the lower Catawba River Basin and Southern Piedmont of
North Carolina, including all or portions of Catawba, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg and
Union counties. The conservancy’s projects include significant natural areas, stream and river
corridors, fields and forests, working farms, and other open and green spaces. The
conservancy’s land stewardship and community outreach programs also allow residents to learn
about land protection and how they can directly impact conservation and quality of life in the
region. The conservancy has protected more than 5,400 acres since 1991. For more information,
visit the website at http://www.catawbalands.org.

1.5.4 Foothills Conservancy

The Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina, a regional land trust, is dedicated to working
cooperatively with landowners and public and private conservation partners to preserve and
protect important natural areas and open spaces of the Blue Ridge Foothills region, including
watersheds, environmentally significant habitats, forests and farmland, for this and future
generations. The conservancy, a 501(c) 3 nonprofit, serves eight counties; Alexander, Burke,
Caldwell, Catawba, Cleveland, Lincoln, McDowell and Rutherford; and has succeeded in
protecting over 18,0000 acres in the Catawba River basin. For more information, visit the
website at http://www.foothillsconservancy.org/index.htm.

1.5.5 Catawba River Foundation

The Catawba River Foundation (CRF) is an environmental advocacy organization dedicated to
promoting the obligation to preserve, protect and restore the fragile ecosystem of our Catawba
River basin’s rivers, lakes and creeks. Through education, enforcement and coordinated efforts,
they are committed to halt present abuse, to restore past beauty, and to assure a watchful balance
of community and environmental needs for generations to come.

The primary objective of the CRF is the Catawba RIVERKEEPER© Program, which has grown
substantially since its inception in 1998. Their initial work has focused on water quality
monitoring, responding to reports of pollution events, and forming a solid corps of trained
volunteers. They achieve their goals by using a multi-pronged approach including: 1) a
volunteer network; 2) public education and collaborative efforts; and 3) legal initiatives and
enforcement actions. For more information, visit the website at http://www.catawbariverkeeper.org/.

1.5.6 Trout Unlimited

Trout Unlimited’s (TU) mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America's trout and
salmon fisheries and their watersheds. They accomplish this mission on local, state and national
levels with an extensive and dedicated volunteer network. The national office, based just outside
of Washington, DC, employs professionals who testify before Congress, publish TU's quarterly
magazine, intervene in federal legal proceedings, and work with TU's grassroots volunteers to
keep them active and involved in conservation issues. At the state level, TU works closely with
state agencies, conservation organizations, corporations, local volunteers and TU members to
organize stream clean-ups, public awareness activities and field trips to local streams.
Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 213

In the Catawba River basin, TU currently has two large restoration/protection projects underway
on Steels Creek in Burke County and Muddy Creek in Burke and McDowell counties. The
Steel’s Creek Watershed Improvement Project is intended to prevent vehicular stream crossings
where they occur and to restrict vehicles to designated parking areas nearest the road in order to
reduce existing traffic and disturbance in the floodplain. New designated parking areas will be
established using wood timbers and gravel. Areas where vehicles are accessing the camping
areas will be blocked with large boulders. Storm drainage and erosion issues will be addressed
with sediment traps and log ditch checks. Streambank erosion caused by continuous access will
be addressed by the creation of designated paths and stone or wood steps. In addition to the
watershed improvement activities, there will be removal of hazard trees and trees that fall within
the designated parking areas.

TU’s Muddy Creek Restoration Project is discussed in detail in Section B, Chapter 1, Part 1.4.4.
More information on TU’s activities in the basin can be found by visiting the website at
http://www.nctu.org/.

1.5.7 American Rivers

American Rivers is a national nonprofit conservation organization dedicated to protecting and
restoring healthy natural rivers and the variety of life they sustain for people, fish and wildlife.
In 2001, American Rivers rated the Catawba River the 13th most endangered river in America.
The associated report stated that explosive urban growth along the Catawba River in North and
South Carolina threatens to overwhelm the river's capacity to provide drinking water, assimilate
sewage, support wildlife, and serve the recreational needs of Charlotte and growing communities
throughout the basin. For the entire report and its recommendations, refer to the website at
http://www.amrivers.org/ and enter “Catawba” in the search box.

1.5.8 Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition

The Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition (CWRC) has been working for over three years to
facilitate a process to protect, enhance and restore the natural, cultural, recreational and
economic resources of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin during the relicensing of Duke Power’s
13 hydroelectric facilities and 11 dams. CWRC is dedicated to developing stakeholder
consensus on key issues related to this relicensing. The coalition works to achieve full benefit
from modern laws and standards that affects two million people, 14 counties, 30 municipalities,
two states (NC and SC), 300 miles of river, 1,500 miles of shoreline, and 5,000 square miles of
watershed. For more information, visit the website at http://www.cwrc.info/ or email
[e-mail].

The Catawba Bi-State Task Force’s mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of the
Catawba River from its headwaters in the mountains of North Carolina to Lake Wateree, South
Carolina as the primary drinking water source for citizens and businesses and as a unique
environment and recreational resource. It provides a forum for discussing issues among
stakeholders in the Catawba River basin. The Bi-State Task Force quarterly meetings are open
to the public. Meetings typically consist of experts addressing key topics and a "River
Roundtable" that allows anyone in the group to share concerns. The Task Force also sponsors an
1.5.9 Catawba Bi-State Task Force

Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 214

annual public conference at UNCC on such issues as water allocation, ecosystem management
and water quality management.
1.6.0 NC Wildlife Federation

Island Adoption Program
Sponsored by the NCWF and Duke Power, the Island Habitat Adoption Program is being
modeled in the rapidly developing Catawba River basin for other areas throughout the state. The
goal of the Island Habitat Adoption Program is to provide partnerships that will help keep river
and lake islands clean of litter, serve as an educational tool for raising public awareness of the
proper disposal of litter on public waters and lands, and work toward protecting and enhancing
wildlife habitats. The program seeks fishing clubs, duck hunting groups, conservation
organizations, and other wildlife enthusiasts to "adopt" an island. Participating groups agree to
periodically clean up the litter from their island while providing data on wildlife species that
inhabit their island and note positive and negative habitat characteristics and changes. Adopting
groups receive wood duck or blue bird nesting boxes to erect on the island, as well as a
handsome sign that denotes their participation in the program. More information is available on
the website at http://www.ncwf.org.

1.6.1 Volunteer Water Information Network Program (VWIN) and Lake James
Environmental Association

The Volunteer Water Information Network (VWIN) is a partnership of groups and individuals
dedicated to preserving water quality in western North Carolina. Organizations such as
RiverLink Inc., the Environmental Conservation Organization of Henderson County (ECO), the
Pacolet Area Conservancy (PAC), the Lake Lure Lakefront Owners Association, and the Lake
James Environmental Association provide administrative support. The UNC-Asheville
Environmental Quality Institute (EQI) provides technical assistance through laboratory analysis
of water samples, statistical analysis of water quality results, and written interpretation of the
data. Volunteers venture out once per month to collect water samples from designated sites
along streams and rivers in the region.

An accurate and on-going water quality database, as provided by VWIN, is essential for good
environmental planning. The data gathered by the volunteers provides an increasingly accurate
picture of water quality conditions and changes in these conditions over time. Communities can
use this data to identify streams of high water quality which need to be preserved, as well as
streams which cannot support further development without significant water quality degradation.
In addition, the information allows planners to assess the impacts of increased development and
the success of pollution control measures. Thus, this program provides the water quality data for
evaluation of current management efforts and can help guide decisions affecting future
management actions. The VWIN program also encourages involvement of citizens in the
awareness, ownership and protection of their water resources.

In May 2001, the Lake James Environmental Association began a VWIN program to monitor
five selected stream sites and six lake sites in order to assess water quality conditions in streams
flowing into Lake James and to provide continuous assessment of the health of the lake (see
Section B, Chapter 1, Part 1.4.1).

Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 215

As problems were noticed immediately at the site on the North Fork of the Catawba River, two
new sites were quickly added to assess this problem. With sedimentation and potential
eutrophication of the lake a growing concern, many citizens realize the need for continuous
monitoring of the streams flowing into the lake as a means of trying to pinpoint sources of
problems. Continuous monitoring of the lake itself is vital to understanding the lake cycles and
trends as well as identifying problems as they arise. For more information on VWIN and the
Lake James Environmental Association visit the website at http://ljea.org/index.html.

1.6.2 The Trust for Public Land

Founded in 1972, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a nonprofit working exclusively to protect
land for human enjoyment and well-being. TPL helps conserve land for recreation and spiritual
nourishment and to improve the health and quality of life of American communities. In the
Catawba River Basin, TPL initiated Phase I of the Mountain Island Lake (MIL) Initiative in 1998
with its partners, The Catawba Lands Conservancy, The Foundation for the Carolinas, and the
Gaston Community Foundation. The MIL Initiative intends to 80 percent of the shoreline and 80
percent of the major tributaries to Mountain Island Lake. Phase I of the MIL Initiative protected
approximately 2,700 acres in the watershed, including the area now known as The Mountain
Island Lake State Education Forest, managed by the North Carolina Division of Forest
Resources. TPL is now seeking funding to proceed with Phase II of the MIL Initiative.
TPL has recently published a 50-page booklet, Protecting the Source – Land Conservation and
the Future of America’s Drinking Water, in conjunction with the American Water Works
Association. TPL is distributing the report to all elected officials in the Mountain Island Lake
watershed and key government officials to illustrate the need to protect drinking water supply
watersheds. The report can be downloaded at http://www.tpl.org/download_protect_src_report.cfm.

Section C: Chapter1 – Current Water Quality Initiatives 216

References

Duke Energy Corporation. 2003. Catawba-Wateree Project FERC#2232 First Stage
Consultation Document. Charlotte, NC.

AWARE Environmental Inc. Results from the South Fork Catawba River Water Quality
Alliance Color Study. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Prepared on behalf of South Fork
Catawba River Water Quality Alliance, Inc. Charlotte, NC. March 2001.

Bales, Jerad D. and Mary J. Giorgino. Lake Hickory, North Carolina: Analysis of Ambient
Conditions and Simulation of Hydrodynamics, Constituent Transport, and Water-Quality
Characteristics, 1993-1994. USGS. 1998.

Bonham, A. 2001. Hydrilla Infestation Puts Lake James at a Crossroads. October 24, 2001.
Asheville Citizen-Times. Asheville, NC.

Creager, C.S. and J.P. Baker. 1991. North Carolina’s Basinwide Approach to Water Quality
Management: Program Description. Division of Environmental Management. Water
Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.
Crescent Resources, Inc. 1997. Johns River Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan. Charlotte,
NC.

Giorgino, M.J. and J.D. Bales. 1997. Rhodhiss Lake, North Carolina: Analysis of Ambient
Conditions and Simulation of Hydrodynamics, Constituent Transport and Water-Quality
Characteristics, 1993-94. US Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigations
Report 97-4131. Raleigh, NC.
Haupt, M., J. Jurek, L. Hobbs, J. Guidry, C. Smith and R. Ferrell. 2002. A Preliminary Analysis
of Stream Restoration Costs in the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program. Paper
presented at the conference Setting the Agenda for Water Resources Research. April 9,
2002. Raleigh, NC.

Howell, J.M., M.S. Coyne and P.L. Cornelius. 1996. Effect of Sediment Particle Size and
Temperature on Fecal Bacteria Mortality Rates and the Fecal Coliform/Fecal
Streptococci Ratio. J Environ Qual. 21:1216-1220.

Jaynes, M. L. 1994. Hydrologic, Water-Quality, and Meterologic Data From Selected Sites in
the Upper Catawba River Basin, North Carolina. January 1993 through March 1994.
US Geological Survey. Open-File Report 94-509. Raleigh, NC.

Line, D.E. and G.D. Jennings. 2002. Long Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Water Quality
Monitoring Project – Final Report. NC State University. Raleigh, NC.
Mass, Richard P., et al. 2002. Evaluation of Sediment and Pollutant sources to Lake James:
Year-One Report. Environmental Quality institute. University of North Carolina at
Asheville. Technical Report #02-100.
References 217

References

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
Environmental Sciences Branch. Ecosystems Analysis Unit. Biological Assessment
Group. 1997. Standard Operating Procedures: Biological Monitoring. Raleigh, NC.

____. 1992. North Carolina Lake Assessment Report. Report No. 92-02. Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of
Land Resources (DLR). Land Quality Section. July-September 1999. Sediments:
Newsletter of the North Carolina Sediment Control Commission. Vol. 6 No. 3. Raleigh,
NC.
____. DWQ. February 2003. North Carolina’s 2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report.
Raleigh, NC.

Sherer, B.M., J.R. Miner, J.A. Moore and J.C. Buckhouse. 1992. Indicator Bacterial Survival in
Stream Sediments. J Environ Qual. 21:591-595.

____. DLR. Land Quality Section. 1998. What is Erosion and Sedimentation? Raleigh, NC.

____. Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Assessment Report: Biological Impairment in the
Upper Swift Creek Watershed Neuse River Basin Wake County, NC. June 2003.
Prepared for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund.

____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Branch. June 2003. Basinwide Assessment Report,
Catawba River Basin. Raleigh, NC.

____. DWQ. February 2002. Buffers for Clean Water. Raleigh NC.

____. DWQ. Environmental Sciences Branch. Biological Assessment Unit. 2001. Standard
Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring, Stream Fish Community Assessment and
Fish Tissue. Raleigh, NC.

____. Division of Water Resources (DWR). January 2001. North Carolina State Water Supply
Plan. Raleigh, NC.
Orr, D.M., Jr. and A.W. Stuart. 2000. The North Carolina Atlas. The University of North
Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.

Roell, Michael J. June 1999. Sand and Gravel Mining in Missouri Stream Systems: Aquatic
Resource Effects and Management Alternatives. Missouri Department of Conservation.
Conservation Research Center. Columbia, MO.

Schillinger, J.E. and J.J. Gannon. 1985. Bacterial Adsorption and Suspended Particles in Urban
Stormwater. Journal WPCF. 57:384-389.

References 218

References 219
References

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDEHC). 2002. State of
South Carolina Section 303(d) List for 2002. Columbia, SC.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service. Updated June
2001. 1997 National Resources Inventory. North Carolina State Office. Raleigh, NC.

____. Forest Service. North Carolina’s Forests. 1990. Brown, Mark J. North Carolina’s
Southeastern Forest Experiment Stn Resource Bulletin SE-142.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001b. 2002 Integrated Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment Report.
____. 1999. Watershed Academy Website: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/.

____. 1997. Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection. EPA 841-B-97-
008. Office of Water (4503F). Washington, DC. 98 pp.

Weinkam, C., R. Shea, C. Shea, C. Lein and D. Harper. 2001. Urban Stream Restoration
Programs of Two Counties in the Baltimore-Washington DC Area. Paper Presented at
the Fourth Annual North Carolina Stream Restoration Conference, Stream Repair and
Restoration: A Focus on the Urban Environment. October 16-19, 2001. Raleigh, NC.

Western Piedmont Council of Governments (WPCOG). A Comprehensive-Based Modeling
Approach for Predicting Sediment and Nutrient Loads in the Rhodhiss Lake Watershed.
June 2003.

____. October 1998. Lower Creek Watershed Project. Hickory, NC.

Appendix I

NPDES Dischargers
and
Individual Stormwater Permits
in the
Catawba River Basin

Appendices

NPDES Dischargers for the Catawba River Basin (as of June 16, 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class Flow Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0006564 Baxter Healthcare Corporation Baxter Healthcare Corporation McDowell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 1.2 03-08-30 North Fork Catawba River
NC0080098 Blue Ridge Country Club Development LLC Blue Ridge Country Club Development WWTP McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.202 03-08-30 North Fork Catawba River
NC0055221 City of Marion Marion WTP McDowell Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-30 Nix Creek (Nicks Creek)
NC0071200 City of Marion Catawba River WWTP McDowell Asheville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.25 03-08-30 Catawba River
NC0004243 Coats American, Inc Marion Plant McDowell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 2.0 03-08-30 North Fork Catawba River
NC0087076 Columbia Forest Plywood Products Columbia Forest Plywood Products

McDowell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-30 Catawba River
NC0039934 Crane Resistoflex Crane Resistoflex McDowell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.016 03-08-30 Catawba River
NC0079481 Harmony Estates Inc Harmony Estates Incorporated McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 03-08-30 North Muddy Creek
NC0076180 Jeld-Wen Inc Jeld-Wen Fiber of NC McDowell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.012 03-08-30 Catawba River
NC0069965 Larry G. Scott Scotty's Mobile Village McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-08-30 Catawba River
NC0087751 Linville Heights LP Linville Heights WWTP Avery Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0612 03-08-30 Linville River
NC0086428 Marion Travel Plaza, Inc. Marion Travel Plaza Incorporated McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-08-30 North Muddy Creek
NC0035157 McDowell County Adult Care LLC Cedarbrook Resiential Center Corp McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.003 03-08-30 South Muddy Creek
NC0067148 McDowell County Schools Nebo Elementary School WWTP McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0075 03-08-30 Shadrick Creek
NC0077801 Pete Gibbs Gibbs Motel And Restaurant McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.009 03-08-30 Catawba River
NC0075353 Rocky Pass Adult Care LLC Rocky Pass Adult Care LLC McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-08-30 North Muddy Creek
NC0029831 Sugar Hill Truck Stop Sugar Hill Truck Stop McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 03-08-30 North Muddy Creek
NC0030996 The Switzerland Inn The Switzerland Inn McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-08-30 Buchanan Creek
NC0031879 City of Marion Corpening Creek WWTP McDowell Asheville Municipal , Large Major 3.0 03-08-30 Youngs Fork (Corpening Creek)
NC0023124 GGCC Utility Inc GGCC Utility Incorporated Avery Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.07 03-08-30 Linville River
NC0060224 Jonas Ridge Nursing Home Jonas Ridge Nursing Home Burke Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0075 03-08-30 Camp Creek
NC0022756 Linville Land Harbor Prop. Owners Assoc. Linville Land Harbor POA Avery Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.225 03-08-30 Linville River
NC0039446 Linville Resorts, Inc Linville Resorts Incorporated Avery Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.15 03-08-30 Linville River
NC0062413 Linville Ridge Country Club Linville Ridge Country Club Avery Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-08-30 West Fork Linville River
NC0040339 NC DENR Corpening Training Center Avery Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.018 03-08-30 Linville River
NC0026654 Town of Crossnore Crossnore WWTP Avery Asheville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.07 03-08-30 Mill Timber Creek
NC0021229 Town of Old Fort Old Fort WWTP McDowell Asheville Municipal , Large Major 1.2 03-08-30 Curtis Creek
NC0060208 Jai-Ambe Company, Inc. Super 8 Motel McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.019 03-08-30 Hicks Branch
NC0040291 Park Inn International Days Inn - Marion McDowell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 03-08-30 Hicks Branch
NC0040754 NC Outward Bound School NC Outward Bound School Burke Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0075 03-08-31 Roses Creek (Tablerock Creek)
NC0041696 Town of Valdese Lake Rhodiss WWTP Burke Asheville Municipal , Large Major 7.5 03-08-31 Catawba River
A-I-1
NPDES Dischargers for the Catawba River Basin (as of June 16, 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class Flow Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0030783 Caldwell County Schools Baton Elementary School Caldwell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-08-31 Stafford Creek
NC0050075 Caldwell County Schools Collettsville Elementary School Caldwell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-08-31

Johns River
NC0043231 Cedar Rock Country Club Cedar Rock Country Club Caldwell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.009 03-08-31 Lower Creek
NC0023981 City of Lenoir Lower Creek WWTP Caldwell Asheville Municipal , Large Major 4.08 03-08-31 Lower Creek
NC0026573 City of Morganton Catawba River Pollution Control Facility Burke Asheville Municipal , Large Major 13.0 03-08-31 Catawba River
NC0060194 City of Morganton Morganton WTP Burke Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-31 Catawba River
NC0040274 Green Mountain Park Resort Green Mountain Park Resort Caldwell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.05 03-08-31 Zacks Fork Creek
NC0047147 L A P Care Services Quality Care Assisted Living Caldwell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0066 03-08-31 Greasy Creek
NC0048755 Monte Carlo Trailer Park Monte Carlo Trailer Park Burke Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 03-08-31 Lower Creek
NC0047627 Sealed Air Corporation Warrior Plant Caldwell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.0095 03-08-31 Blair Fork
NC0005258 SGL Carbon Corporation SGL Carbon Corporation Burke Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major not limited 03-08-31 Silver Creek
NC0082546 Town of Granite Falls Granite Falls WTP Caldwell Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-31 Catawba River
NC0062456 Heater Utilities, Inc. Riverwood Estates WWTP Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.04 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0074535 Heater Utilities, Inc. Pier 16 Marina WWTP Iredell Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0185 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0023736 City of Lenoir Gunpowder Creek WWTP Caldwell Asheville Municipal , Large Major 2.0 03-08-32 Gunpowder Creek
NC0025542 Town of Catawba Town of Catawba WWTP Catawba Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.225 03-08-32 Lyle Creek
NC0021890 Town of Granite Falls Granite Falls WWTP Caldwell Asheville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.9 03-08-32 Gunpowder Creek
NC0024392 Duke Energy Corporation McGuire Nuclear Power Plant Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Major not limited 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0041157 Caldwell County Schools Gateway Alternate School Caldwell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.004 03-08-32 Upper Little River
NC0041220 Caldwell County Schools Oak Hill Elementary School Caldwell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.003 03-08-32 Mountain Run
NC0034967 Carolina Glove Company Carolina Glove Company Alexander Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-08-32 Lower Little River
NC0084565 Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC The Harbour WTP Iredell Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited

03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0086592 Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC The Point WTP Iredell Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0086606 Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC Harbour Well System WTP Iredell Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0044164 City of Lenoir Lake Rhodhiss WTP Caldwell Asheville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0062430 DENR - Division of Parks and Recreation Lake Norman State Park/Swimming Iredell Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-08-32 Hicks Creek
NC0062448 DENR - Division of Parks and Recreation Lake Norman State Park/Campground Iredell Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0056154 Heater Utilities, Inc. Bridgeport WWTP Iredell Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.08 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0067784 Heater Utilities, Inc. Governor's Island WWTP Lincoln Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0074772 Heater Utilities, Inc. Diamond Head WWTP Iredell Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.1 03-08-32 Balls Creek (Murrays Mill Lake)
NC0075205 Heater Utilities, Inc. Alexander Island WWTP Iredell Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0080691 Heater Utilities, Inc. Windemere WWTP Iredell Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.09 03-08-32 Catawba River
A-I-2
NPDES Dischargers for the Catawba River Basin (as of June 16, 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class Flow Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0025135 Huffman Finishing, Inc. Huffman Finishing Caldwell Asheville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 0.25 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0074900 Hydraulics LTD Hydraulics LTD Iredell Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.1 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0084573 Lincoln County Lincoln County WTP Lincoln Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0035211 Shuford Mills, Inc. Dudley Shoals Plant Caldwell Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0054 03-08-32 Upper Little River
NC0025917 Town of Rhodhiss Rhodhiss WWTP Burke Asheville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.096 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0026271 Town of Taylorsville Taylorsville WWTP Alexander Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.83 03-08-32 Lower Little River
NC0048712 Alcoa Extrusions Inc Alcoa Extrusions Inc - Catawba Catawba Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited

03-08-32 Terrapin Creek
NC0069345 Catawba County Historical Association Catawba Co Historical Association Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0125 03-08-32 Balls Creek
NC0044059 Catawba County Schools Bunker Hill High School Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-08-32 Lyle Creek
NC0045438 Catawba County Schools Sherrills Ford Elementary School Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.007 03-08-32 Mountain Creek
NC0051608 Catawba County Schools Bandys High School Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-08-32 Battle Run
NC0086304 Catawba County Schools Mill Creek Middle School Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0065 03-08-32 Balls Creek
NC0024252 City of Conover Northeast WWTP Catawba Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 1.5 03-08-32 Lyle Creek
NC0024279 City of Conover Southeast WWTP Catawba Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.6 03-08-32 McLin Creek
NC0020401 City of Hickory Northeast WWTP Catawba Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 6.0 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0044121 City of Hickory Hickory City/WTP Catawba Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0034754 Commscope Incorporated Commscope Incorporated Catawba Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.02 03-08-32 Terrapin Creek
NC0022497 Cross Country Campground Cross Country Campground Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.065 03-08-32 Reed Creek
NC0032972 Dogwood Hills Mobile Home Park C & C Mobile Home Park Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-08-32 Lyle Creek
NC0004987 Duke Energy Corporation Marshall Steam Station Catawba Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Major not limited 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0058742 Heater Utilities, Inc. Country Valley WWTP Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0265 03-08-32 Hagan Fork
NC0060593 Heater Utilities, Inc. Spinnaker Bay WWTP Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0125 03-08-32 Mountain Creek
NC0062481 Heater Utilities, Inc. Mallard Head WWTP Iredell Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-08-32 Reed Creek
NC0063355 Heater Utilities, Inc. Killian Crossroads WWTP Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.05 03-08-32 Reed Creek
NC0064599 Lake Norman Motel Lake Norman Motel Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0075 03-08-32 Mountain Creek
NC0071528 Lake Norman Woods Homeowners Assoc. Lake Norman Woods WWTP Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 03-08-32 Catawba River
NC0044253 NC Lions NC Lions/ Camp Dogwood Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-08-32 Mountain Creek
NC0026549 City of Claremont South WWTP Catawba Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.1 03-08-32 McLin Creek
NC0032662 City of Claremont North WWTP Catawba Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.1 03-08-32 Mull Creek
NC0081370 City of Claremont McLin Creek WWTP Catawba Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.3 03-08-32 McLin Creek
NC0034860 Schneider Mills Inc Schneider Mills Incorporated Alexander Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 0.78 03-08-32 Muddy Fork
NC0085545 Mooresville Oil Express Food Mart Catawba Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.0115 03-08-32 Mundy Creek
A-I-3
NPDES Dischargers for the Catawba River Basin (as of June 16, 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class Flow Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0036277 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities McDowell Creek WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 6.0 03-08-33 McDowell Creek
NC0084387 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities North Mecklenburg WTP Mecklenburg Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-33 McDowell Creek
NC0021156 City of Mount Holly City of Mount Holly WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 4.0 03-08-33 Catawba River
NC0084689 City of Mount Holly City of Mount Holly WTP Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor 0.1 03-08-33

Catawba River
NC0004961 Duke Energy Corporation Riverbend Steam Station Gaston Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Major not limited 03-08-33 Catawba River
NC0080781 Duke Energy Corporation Lincoln Combustion Turbine Plant Lincoln Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.4 03-08-33 Killian Creek
NC0072621 Fa Be Enterprises Inc Fa Be Enterprises Incorporated Lincoln Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.012 03-08-33 Forney Creek
NC0041360 Gaston County BOE East Gaston High School Gaston Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.025 03-08-33 Taylors Creek
NC0074012 Lincoln County Forney Creek WWTP Lincoln Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.75 03-08-33 Forney Creek
NC0086185 Lincoln County Schools Pumpkin Center Schools WWTP Lincoln Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.012 03-08-33 Ore Bank Branch
NC0024937 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Sugar Creek WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 20.0 03-08-34 Little Sugar Creek
NC0024945 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Irwin Creek WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 15.0 03-08-34 Irwin Creek
NC0086002 Livingstone Coating Corporation Livingstone Coating Corporation Mecklenburg Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.0216 03-08-34 Long Creek
NC0086673 SNL Corporation Aqua-Air Site Mecklenburg Mooresville

Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.0864 03-08-34 Steele Creek
NC0023540 Belmont Textile Machinery Co Belmont Textile Machinery Co Gaston Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.005 03-08-34 Fites Creek
NC0021181 City of Belmont Belmont WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 5.0 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0084549 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Franklin WTP Mecklenburg Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-34 Stewart Creek
NC0086517 Cousins Real Estate Charlotte Gateway Village, LLC Mecklenburg Mooresville

Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.05 03-08-34 Irwin Creek
NC0004979 Duke Energy Corporation Plant Allen Steam Station Gaston Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Major not limited 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0063789 Heater Utilities, Inc. Mint Hill Festival WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.035 03-08-34 Irvins Creek (McEwen Lake)
NC0029181 Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC Forest Ridge WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.15 03-08-34 Irvins Creek (McEwen Lake)
NC0059579 Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC Emerald Point WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.06 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0062383 Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC Queens Harbor WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.1 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0071242 Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC Riverpointe WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.1 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0029220 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities McDowell Park WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.03 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0004723 Charter Triad Terminals LLC Paw Creek Terminal Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-34 Paw Creek
NC0021962 CITGO Petroleum Corporation Paw Creek Terminal Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-34 Gum Branch
NC0083887 City of Charlotte Charlotte Douglas International Airport Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-34 Coffey Creek
NC0004375 Clariant Corporation Mount Holly East (MHE) Facility Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 3.9 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0031038 Colonial Pipeline Company Paw Creek Terminal Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-34 Gum Branch
NC0046531 Crown Central Petroleum Corporation Paw Creek Terminal Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.0432 03-08-34 Gum Branch
NC0004839 ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company Charlotte Terminal Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.057 03-08-34 Long Creek
A-I-4
NPDES Dischargers for the Catawba River Basin (as of June 16, 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class Flow Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0086886 First Union Commons First Union Commons Mecklenburg Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.086 03-08-34 Little Sugar Creek
NC0063860 Heater Utilities, Inc. Harbor Estates WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.075 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0057401 Hideways WWTP Hideways WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.2 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0046213 Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC Charlotte Terminal Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-34 Long Creek
NC0068705 Mariners Watch Homeowners Assoc. Mariners Watch WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0025 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0028711 Mecklenburg County Schools Berryhill Elementary School WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.006 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0022187 Motiva Enterprises LLC Paw Creek Terminal Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-34 Gum Branch
NC0046892 Motiva Enterprises LLC Charlotte South Terminal Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-34 Long Creek
NC0079758 National Welders Supply Co Inc National Welders Supply Co Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.0143 03-08-34 Taggart Creek (Taggard Creek)
NC0032891 Phillips Pipe Line Company Charlotte Terminal Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-34 Gum Branch
NC0084280 Plantation Pipe Line Company Stifford Ferry Road Site Mecklenburg Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.072 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0085731 Shorenstein Realty Investors Shorenstein Realty Investors Mecklenburg Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.0316 03-08-34 Irwin Creek
NC0005771 TransMontaigne Terminaling, Inc. Charlotte/Paw Creek Terminal #1 Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-34 Paw Creek
NC0021971 TransMontaigne Terminaling, Inc. Charlotte/Paw Creek Terminal #2 Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-34 Paw Creek
NC0085057 Unocal Corporation Orr Road Remediation Site Mecklenburg Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.0432 03-08-34 Brier Creek
NC0005185 Williams Terminals Holdings LP Charlotte II Terminal Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.259 03-08-34 Long Creek
NC0074705 Williams Terminals Holdings LP Charlotte/Southern Facilities Terminal Mecklenburg Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-34 Paw Creek
NC0084301 Celanese Acetate LLC Celanese Acetate LLC Mecklenburg Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.1152 03-08-34 Little Sugar Creek
NC0024970 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities McAlpine Creek WWTP Mecklenburg Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 64.0 03-08-34 McAlpine Creek (Waverly Lake)
NC0058084 Gough Econ Inc Gough Econ Incorporated Mecklenburg Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0012 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0085928 American Truetzschler Inc American Truetzschler Incorporated Mecklenburg Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.05 03-08-34 Catawba River
NC0087513 The Boulevard 715 N Church The Boulevard 715 N Church Mecklenburg Mooresville

Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.072 03-08-34 Little Sugar Creek
NC0072940 City of High Shoals State Street WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.0159 03-08-35 South Fork Catawba River
NC0025496 City of Lincolnton Lincolnton WWTP Lincoln Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 6.0 03-08-35 South Fork Catawba River
NC0080195 Forest Hills Mobile Home Estate Forest Hills Mobile Home Estate WTP Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-35 Hoyle Creek
NC0050920 Catawba Country Club Catawba Country Club Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0075 03-08-35 Henry Fork
NC0029297 Catawba County Schools Fred T. Foard High School Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.03 03-08-35 Pott Creek
NC0074233 Catawba County Schools Blackburn Elementary School Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.015 03-08-35 Haas Creek
NC0071447 Catholic Conference Center Catholic Conference Center Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.02 03-08-35 Camp Creek
NC0044440 City of Cherryville City of Cherryville WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 2.0 03-08-35 Indian Creek
NC0040797 City of Hickory Henry Fork WWTP Catawba Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 9.0 03-08-35 Henry Fork
NC0024155 City of High Shoals River Street WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.018 03-08-35 South Fork Catawba River
A-I-5
NPDES Dischargers for the Catawba River Basin (as of June 16, 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class Flow Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0039853 City of High Shoals High Shoals WTP Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor 0.008 03-08-35 South Fork Catawba River
NC0085588 City of Lincolnton Lincolnton WTP

Lincoln Water Plants and Water Conditioning Mooresville Minor not limited 03-08-35 South Fork Catawba River
NC0036196 City of Newton Clark Creek WWTP Catawba Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 7.5 03-08-35 Clark Creek (Shooks Lake)
NC0006190 Delta Apparel, Inc. Delta Apparel Incorporated Catawba Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 1.0 03-08-35 Clark Creek (Shooks Lake)
NC0076643 General Electric Co Hickory General Electric Co-Hickory Catawba Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.12 03-08-35 Cline Creek
NC0041246 Lincoln County Schools West Lincoln High School Lincoln Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-08-35 Indian Creek
NC0023761 National Fruit Product Company, Inc National Fruit Product Co Inc Lincoln Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-35 Carpenter Creek
NC0036935 Pine Mountain Property Owners Assoc. Pine Mountain Lakes WWTP Burke Asheville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.0696 03-08-35 Jacob Fork
NC0036871 Sherrill Furniture Sherrill Furniture - Precedent Catawba Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.008 03-08-35 Bills Branch (Bili Branch)
NC0022934 Sonoco Products Co Sonoco Products Co-Long Shoal Gaston Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.0053 03-08-35 South Fork Catawba River
NC0082694 Town of Dallas Dallas WTP Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-35 South Fork Catawba River
NC0039594 Town of Maiden Town of Maiden WWTP Catawba Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 1.0 03-08-35 Clark Creek
NC0080837 Town of Maiden Maiden WTP Catawba Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-35 Maiden Creek
NC0020036 Town of Stanley Lola Street WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal ,< 1MGD Minor 0.5 03-08-35 Mauney Creek
NC0032760 Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC Kings Grant WWTP Gaston Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.07 03-08-36 Duharts Creek
NC0033421 Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC College Park WWTP Gaston Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.022 03-08-36 Little Long Creek
NC0020184 City of Gastonia Long Creek WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 16.0 03-08-36 Long Creek
NC0040070 City of Gastonia Gastonia WTP Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor 1.2 03-08-36 Long Creek
NC0025861 City of Lowell Lowell WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.6 03-08-36 South Fork Catawba River
NC0004812 Pharr Yarns, Inc. Pharr Yarns Industrial WWTP Gaston Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 1.0 03-08-36 South Fork Catawba River
NC0056855 Pharr Yarns, Inc. Complex 46 WWTP Gaston Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor not limited 03-08-36 South Fork Catawba River
NC0006033 Town of Cramerton Eagle Road WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 4.0 03-08-36 South Fork Catawba River
NC0068888 Town of Dallas Dallas WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.6 03-08-36 Long Creek
NC0020052 Town of McAdenville Church Street WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.13 03-08-36 South Fork Catawba River
NC0020966 Town of Spencer Mountain Spencer Mountain WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , < 1MGD Minor 0.05 03-08-36 South Fork Catawba River
NC0066141 Town of Spencer Mountain Spencer Mountain WTP Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor 0.01 03-08-36 South Fork Catawba River
NC0005274 Yorkshire Americas Inc Yorkshire Americas Incorporated Gaston Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 0.4 03-08-36 South Fork Catawba River
NC0077763 City of Belmont Belmont WTP Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-36 South Fork Catawba River
NC0005177 FMC Corporation Lithium Division Plant Gaston Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Major 0.615 03-08-37 Abernethy Creek
NC0074799 Pines Mobile Home Park Pines Mobile Home Park Gaston Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.011 03-08-37 Crowders Creek
NC0062278 Berkley Oaks LLC Berkley Oaks LLC Gaston Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.036 03-08-37 McGill Branch
A-I-6
NPDES Dischargers for the Catawba River Basin (as of June 16, 2003)
Permit Owner Facility County Region Type Class Flow Subbasin Receiving Stream
NC0060755 Carolina Water Service, Inc. of NC Saddlewood WWTP Gaston Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.009 03-08-37 Crowders Creek
NC0074268 City of Gastonia Crowders Creek WWTP Gaston Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 6.0 03-08-37 Crowders Creek
NC0081744 D.R. Hoover, Inc. Hoover Machine Company Gaston Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.072 03-08-37 Catawba Creek
NC0069035 Heater Utilities, Inc. Southgate WTP Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-37

Catawba Creek
NC0072061 Heater Utilities, Inc. Fox Run WTP Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-37 Crowders Creek
NC0084468 Heater Utilities, Inc. Keltic Meadows WTP #2 Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-37 Catawba Creek
NC0086142 Heater Utilities, Inc. Oakley Park WTP Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor 0.001 03-08-37 McGill Branch
NC0086193 Heater Utilities, Inc. Maplecrest WTP Gaston Mooresville Water Plants and Water Conditioning Minor not limited 03-08-37 Catawba Creek
NC0084638 Rhodia Inc Rhodia Incorporated Gaston Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.1944 03-08-37 Crowders Creek
NC0069175 Ridge Community Sewer Association Ridge Community WWTP Gaston Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.01 03-08-37 Blackwood Creek
NC0004260 SKF USA, Inc. SKF Gastonia Facility Gaston Mooresville Industrial Process & Commercial Minor 0.0144 03-08-37 Crowders Creek
NC0084662 Textron, Inc. Textron Incorporated Gaston Mooresville Groundwater Remediation Minor 0.3 03-08-37 Crowders Creek
NC0028517 Union County Public Schools Parkwood Middle School Union Mooresville 100% Domestic < 1MGD Minor 0.012 03-08-38 Waxhaw Creek
NC0085359 Union County Public Works Department Twelve Mile Creek WWTP Union Mooresville Municipal , Large Major 2.5 03-08-38 Twelvemile Creek
A-I-7
NPDES Individual Stormwater Permits in the Catawba River Basin (as of July 3, 2003)
Permit
Number
Facility
Name
Receiving
Stream Subbasin County
NCS000359 Collins and Aikman - Old Fort Landfill UT Brevard Creek 03-08-30 McDowell
NCS000332 Borden Chemical, Inc. Little Silver Creek 03-08-31 Burke
NCS000009 SGL Carbon Corporation Silver Creek 03-08-31 Burke
NCS000066 Southeastern Adhesives UT Lower Creek 03-08-31 Caldwell
NCS000007 Synthron, Inc. UT Hunting Creek 03-08-31 Burke
NCS000051 Arcona Leather Company Little Gunpowder Creek 03-08-32 Caldwell
NCS000061 Lenoir Mirror Company Gun Powder Creek 03-08-32 Caldwell
NCS000020 McGuire Nuclear Site Catawba River & Lake Norman 03-08-32 Mecklenburg
NCS000041 Clariant Corporation Catawba River 03-08-33 Gaston
NCS000380 Acme Southern, Inc. Little Hope Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000322 AquaSol Corporation Sugar Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000315 Ashland Distribution Co. Charlotte MSSS to Stewarts Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000161 B F Goodrich Textile Chemicals, Inc. Paw Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000356 BASF Corporation Stewarts Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000361 Carolina Paper Board Corporation Stewart Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000083 Celanese Acetate, LLC Little Sugar Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000040 Charlotte Pipe & Foundry Irwin Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000037 Clariant Corp. Long Creek & Catawba River 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000313 Continental General Tire Inc. Big Sugar Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000343 Continental Industrial Chemicals, Inc. -
Mecklenburg
UT Stewarts Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000213 Detrex Corporation Little Sugar Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000339 Durable Wood Preserves, Inc. UT McAlpine Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000079 Forshaw Chemicals, Inc. Stewart Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000049 Henkel Corp. Steele Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000312 Heritage Environmental Ser. Stewart Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000176 INX International Ink Company Sugar Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000334 JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc. Paw Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000357 Monarch Color Corporation UT Stewart Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000045 National Welders UT Taggart Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000184 Radiator Specialty Company Irwin Creek 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000021 Siemens Westinghouse Turbine Generator
Plant
Lake Wylie 03-08-34 Mecklenburg
NCS000029 Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co. Cline Creek 03-08-35 Catawba
NCS000304 AmeriSteel Corporation UT of Long Creek 03-08-36 Mecklenburg
NCS000074 Globe Manufacturing Corp. UT Kaglar Creek 03-08-36 Gaston
NCS000321 B F Goodrich Performance UT Crowders Creek 03-08-37 Gaston
NCS000163 Color Mate, Inc. Crowder Creek Basin 03-08-37 Gaston
NCS000311 UniRoyal Chemical Company Inc Catawba Creek 03-08-37 Gaston

A-I-8

Appendix II

Biological Water Quality Data
Collected by DWQ

•
•
•
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collections

Fish Community Assessments

Lakes Assessments

Appendices

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods and Criteria

Freshwater Wadeable and Flowing Waters

Benthic macroinvertebrates can be collected from wadeable, freshwater, flowing waters using
two sampling procedures. The Division of Water Quality's standard qualitative sampling
procedure includes 10 composite samples: two kick-net samples, three bank sweeps, two rock or
log washes, one sand sample, one leafpack sample, and visual collections from large rocks and
logs (NCDEHNR, 1997). The purpose of these collections is to inventory the aquatic fauna and
produce an indication of relative abundance for each taxon. Organisms are classified as Rare (1-
2 specimens), Common (3-9 specimens), or Abundant (≥10 specimens).

Several data analysis summaries (metrics) can be produced to detect water quality problems.
These metrics are based on the idea that unstressed streams and rivers have many invertebrate
taxa and are dominated by intolerant species. Conversely, polluted streams have fewer numbers
of invertebrate taxa and are dominated by tolerant species. The diversity of the invertebrate
fauna is evaluated using taxa richness counts; the tolerance of the stream community is evaluated
using a biotic index.

EPT taxa richness (EPT S) is used with DWQ criteria to assign water quality ratings
(bioclassifications). "EPT" is an abbreviation for Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera,
insect groups that are generally intolerant of many kinds of pollution. Higher EPT taxa richness
values usually indicate better water quality. Water quality ratings also are based on the relative
tolerance of the macroinvertebrate community as summarized by the North Carolina Biotic Index
(NCBI).

Both tolerance values for individual species and the final biotic index values have a range of 0-
10, with higher numbers indicating more tolerant species or more polluted conditions. Water
quality ratings assigned with the biotic index numbers are combined with EPT taxa richness
ratings to produce a final bioclassification, using criteria for coastal plain streams. EPT
abundance (EPT N) and total taxa richness calculations also are used to help examine between-
site differences in water quality. If the EPT taxa richness rating and the biotic index differ by
one bioclassification, the EPT abundance value is used to determine the final site rating.

Benthic macroinvertebrates can also be collected using an EPT sampling procedure. Four rather
than 10 composite qualitative samples are taken at each site: 1 kick, 1 sweep, 1 leafpack and
visual collections. Only EPT groups are collected and identified, and only EPT criteria are used
to assign a bioclassification.

Both EPT taxa richness and biotic index values also can be affected by seasonal changes. DWQ
criteria for assigning bioclassification are based on summer sampling: June - September. For
samples collected outside summer, EPT taxa richness can be adjusted by subtracting out
winter/spring Plecoptera or other adjustment based on resampling of summer site. The biotic
index values also are seasonally adjusted for samples outside the summer season.

Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from Poor to Excellent to each
benthic sample. These bioclassifications primarily reflect the influence of chemical pollutants.
The major physical pollutant, sediment, is not assessed as well by a taxa richness analysis.
A-II-1

Flow Measurement

Changes in the benthic macroinvertebrate community are often used to help assess between-year
changes in water quality. Some between-year changes in the macroinvertebrates, however, may
be due largely to changes in flow. High flow years magnify the potential effects of nonpoint
source runoff, leading to scour, substrate instability and reduced periphyton. Low flow years
may accentuate the effect of point source dischargers by providing less dilution of wastes.
For these reasons, all between-year changes in the biological communities are considered in light
of flow conditions (high, low or normal) for one month prior to the sampling date. Daily flow
information is obtained from the closest available USGS monitoring site and compared to the
long-term mean flows. High flow is defined as a mean flow >140 percent of the long-term mean
for that time period, usually July or August. Low flow is defined as a mean flow <60 percent of
the long-term mean, while normal flow is 60-140 percent of the mean. While broad scale
regional patterns are often observed, there may be large geographical variation within the state,
and large variation within a single summer period.

Habitat Evaluation

The Division has developed a habitat assessment form to better evaluate the physical habitat of a
stream. The habitat score has a potential range of 1-100, based on evaluation of channel
modification, amount of instream habitat, type of bottom substrate, pool variety, bank stability,
light penetration and riparian zone width. Higher numbers suggest better habitat quality, but no
criteria have been developed to assign impairment ratings.

A-II-2

Table A-II-1 Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected in the Catawba River Basin, 1983 - 2002
(Current basinwide sites are in bold font.)

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT
BI Rating
03-08-30
Catawba R SR 1274 at end McDowell 11-(1) 8/8/02 --- 26 --- 2.75 Good-Fair
McDowell 8/7/97 --- 24 --- 2.88 Good-Fair
Catawba R SR 1273 McDowell 11-(1) 4/18/85 99 49 4.24 2.97 Good
Mill Cr at Graphite ab RR McDowell 11-7 8/7/97 --- 31 --- 1.63 Excellent
7/9/92 85 49 2.62 2.13 Excellent
2/10/92 --- 39 1.65 1.65 Good
Mill Cr SR 1400/1407 McDowell 11-7 1/12/98 --- 40 --- 2.49 Good
6/15/94 81 43 3.40 2.33 Excellent
Mill Cr SR 1401 McDowell 11-7 1/12/98 --- 37 --- 2.73 Good
8/7/97 --- 18 --- 3.26 Fair
Swannanoa Cr SR 1400/1407 McDowell 11-7-9 8/8/02 --- 31 --- 2.26 Excellent
1/12/99 --- 35 --- 2.75 Excellent
1/12/98 --- 16 --- 2.31 Fair
4/8/97 --- 18 --- 1.34 Fair
6/15/94 --- 35 --- 1.90 Excellent
Catawba R off SR 1234 McDowell 11-(8) 4/18/85 82 39 4.51 3.17 Good-Fair
Catawba R I-40, be Old Fort McDowell 11-(8) 7/23/87 74 30 5.75 4.66 Good-Fair
Catawba R SR 1234 McDowell 11-(8) 8/8/02 89 36 4.72 3.55 Good
8/7/97 70 31 5.32 4.18 Good-Fair
7/9/92 102 41 4.13 3.20 Good
7/26/90 84 38 4.43 3.71 Good
4/18/85 86 28 6.29 4.02 Fair
Catawba R SR 1221 McDowell 11-(8) 8/7/02 73 27 5.38 4.11 Good-Fair
8/6/97 75 35 4.46 3.89 Good
7/8/92 90 42 4.42 3.60 Good
7/26/90 77 43 4.27 3.77 Good
8/11/88 86 31 5.60 4.74 Good-Fair
7/28/88 --- 27 --- 3.88 Good-Fair
7/21/86 78 26 5.74 4.11 Good-Fair
8/15/85 73 24 5.50 4.38 Good-Fair
8/23/84 63 23 4.99 4.42 Good-Fair
8/9/83 70 27 5.64 4.61 Good-Fair
Curtis Cr off SR 1227 McDowell 11-10-(6) 8/8/02 --- 30 --- 3.35 Good
8/7/97 --- 34 --- 2.46 Good
2/10/92 --- 42 2.13 2.10 Good
4/19/85 97 44 3.86 2.37 Good
Curtis Cr US 70 below
WWTP
McDowell 11-10-(14) 6/15/94 --- 30 --- 2.65 Good
4/18/85 56 25 5.76 3.11 Fair
Crooked Cr SR 1135 McDowell 11-12 8/7/02 74 32 4.41 3.65 Good
8/6/97 69 38 4.25 3.74 Good
7/8/92 --- 32 --- 3.02 Good
Mackey Cr SR 1453 McDowell 11-15-(3.5) 8/8/02 --- 23 --- 3.32 Not
Impaired
8/6/97 --- 29 --- 2.92 Good
2/11/92 --- 45 --- 1.98 Excellent
Mackey Cr above US 70 McDowell 11-15-(3.5) 3/25/98 68 37 3.60 2.72 Good
10/2/96 68 30 4.36 3.82 Good
Mackey Cr below US 70 McDowell 11-15-(3.5) 8/6/02 67 30 4.24 3.68 Good
3/25/98 29 15 4.44 3.92 Fair
10/2/96 43 25 4.90 4.47 Good-Fair
Buck Cr off NC 80 McDowell 11-19-(1) 8/5/02 --- 31 --- 3.03 Good
8/6/97 --- 38 --- 2.58 Excellent
6/14/94 75 41 3.28 2.47 Excellent
2/10/92 --- 42 --- 2.19 Excellent
Buck Cr US 70 McDowell 11-19-(14) 6/14/94 58 20 4.64 3.40 Good-Fair
L Buck Cr SR 1436 McDowell 11-19-11 8/6/02 --- 35 --- 2.74 Good
8/6/97 --- 37 --- 2.44 Excellent
2/10/92 --- 43 --- 2.00 Excellent
7/9/91 60 37 2.75 2.31 Good
A-II-3

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT
BI Rating
Toms Cr SR 1434 McDowell 11-21-(2) 8/5/02 --- 26 --- 2.41 Not
Impaired
8/4/97 62 33 3.17 2.59 Good
7/7/92 75 37 3.54 2.68 Excellent
2/10/92 --- 49 --- 2.29 Excellent
N Fk Catawba R Linville Falls McDowell 11-24-(1) 1/9/91 --- 37 --- 1.89 Good
N Fk Catawba R US 221 McDowell 11-24-(1) 1/9/91 --- 42 --- 2.57 Good
N Fk Catawba R SR 1573 McDowell 11-24-(1) 8/6/02 --- 28 --- 3.78 Good
8/8/97 --- 37 --- 2.74 Excellent
1/9/91 --- 37 --- 2.83 Good
N Fk Catawba R SR 1560 McDowell 11-24-(1) 8/6/02 74 23 5.90 4.92 Fair
8/5/97 81 39 3.89 3.09 Good
7/7/92 95 41 4.19 3.30 Good
1/9/91 --- 44 --- 2.60 Excellent
N Fk Catawba R below Sevier McDowell 11-24-(1) 8/5/97 84 39 4.52 3.48 Good
7/7/92 88 43 4.03 3.27 Excellent
Laurel Br US 221 McDowell 11-24-3 1/8/91 --- 32 --- 1.37 Good
Pond Br SR 1560 McDowell 11-24-4 1/9/91 --- 24 --- 1.54 Good
Stillhouse Br SR 1560 McDowell 11-24-6 1/9/91 --- 25 --- 1.55 Good
Honeycutt Cr US 221 McDowell 11-24-8 1/9/91 --- 44 --- 2.60 Good
Pepper Cr US 221 McDowell 11-24-10 1/8/91 --- 42 --- 2.53 Good
Armstrong Cr end of FS Rd McDowell 11-24-14-(1.5) 8/6/02 --- 38 --- 2.80 Excellent
8/5/97 --- 36 --- 2.15 Excellent
7/7/92 --- 38 --- 2.10 Excellent
Three Mile Cr SR 1443 McDowell 11-24-14-10 6/14/94 --- 40 --- 2.17 Excellent
Cox Cr OFF NC 226 McDowell 11-24-14-12 6/14/94 --- 37 --- 2.89 Excellent
Armstrong Cr off NC 226 11-24-14-(13.5) 6/14/94 99 48 3.47 2.60 Excellent
Paddy Cr NC 126 Burke 11-29 5/19/99 --- 36 --- 2.80 Good
Linville R off NC 105 ab
golf course
Avery 11-29-(1) 6/9/97 60 32 2.90 1.86 Good
Linville R NC 105, near
Briery Knob
Avery 11-29-(1) 6/9/97 --- 32 --- 2.18 Good
11/8/89 --- 27 --- 3.30 Good-Fair
Linville R US 221 Avery 11-29-(1) 8/6/02 --- 28 --- 3.90 Good
8/5/97 --- 27 --- 3.25 Good-Fair
6/10/97 --- 24 --- 3.24 Good-Fair
7/6/92 --- 30 --- 3.27 Good
11/8/89 --- 22 --- 3.98 Good-Fair
L Grassy Cr off NC 105 ab
golf course
Avery 11-29-2 6/9/97 60 37 1.83 1.06 Excellent
W Fk Linville R SR 1349 Avery 11-29-4 11/8/89 --- 39 --- 1.76 Good
Grandmother Cr SR 1511 Avery 11-29-5-(2) 11/7/89 --- 30 --- 2.62 Good
Linville R NC 126 Burke 11-29-(23) 8/23/02 91 48 4.21 3.47 Excellent
8/7/02 90 47 3.98 3.20 Excellent
8/4/97 107 53 4.05 3.11 Excellent
7/7/92 108 48 4.14 3.14 Excellent
7/9/91 84 43 4.03 3.02 Excellent
1/8/91 --- 48 --- 2.51 Excellent
10/24/90 94 47 3.81 2.75 Excellent
7/27/90 104 46 4.22 3.13 Excellent
4/10/90 113 54 3.70 2.39 Excellent
1/22/90 --- 49 --- 2.14 Excellent
1/22/90 94 56 3.45 2.50 Excellent
11/7/89 100 54 3.42 2.62 Excellent
11/7/89 --- 48 --- 2.52 Excellent
8/8/89 --- 45 --- 3.10 Excellent
8/8/89 99 46 3.93 2.75 Excellent
3/29/89 89 43 3.67 3.18 Good
2/15/89 113 59 3.83 2.88 Excellent
2/15/89 --- 41 --- 2.77 Excellent
8/3/87 --- 42 --- 3.30 Excellent
7/23/87 113 48 4.52 3.32 Excellent
8/16/85 101 41 5.11 3.69 Good
8/10/83 105 45 4.61 3.45 Good
A-II-4

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT
BI Rating
Catawba R SR 1147 Burke 11-(31) 8/8/02 60 21 4.03 2.97 Good
8/8/97 66 30 4.25 3.21 Good
8/12/88 79 34 4.83 3.36 Good
N Muddy Cr SR 1750 McDowell 11-32-1-(0.5) 8/5/02 77 32 5.53 4.61 Good-Fair
8/4/97 63 33 4.76 4.26 Good
7/8/92 80 32 4.95 4.46 Good-Fair
4/17/85 85 35 5.48 4.16 Good-Fair
Youngs Fk SR 1819 McDowell 11-32-1-4 8/7/02 66 22 5.79 4.65 Good-Fair
4/9/01 52 15 5.36 4.73 Fair
8/8/97 --- 16 --- 5.02 Fair
9/12/90 55 17 6.11 5.36 Fair
4/17/85 64 19 6.67 4.80 Fair
Youngs Fk off NC 226 McDowell 11-32-1-4 4/9/01 30 5 7.46 6.52 Poor
Jacktown Cr US 226 McDowell 11-32-1-4-1 4/9/01 54 19 4.88 3.93 Fair
Youngs Fk SR 1794 McDowell 11-32-1-4 4/9/01 62 16 6.20 4.16 Fair
9/12/90 44 8 7.16 6.61 Poor
4/17/85 58 17 6.62 4.60 Fair
S Muddy Cr SR 1764 McDowell 11-32-2-(8.5) 8/5/02 --- 23 --- 4.21 Good-Fair
McDowell 8/4/97 --- 24 --- 3.67 Good-Fair
McDowell 7/8/92 --- 27 --- 3.64 Good-Fair
High Shoals Cr SR 1798 McDowell 11-32-2-6 7/22/86 76 32 4.30 2.91 Good
Canoe Cr SR 1250 Burke 11-33-(2) 8/21/02 --- 28 --- 3.50 Good
8/04/97 --- 19 --- 4.05 Good-Fair
8/03/92 --- 25 --- 3.13 Good-Fair
03-08-31
Catawba R NC 181 Burke 11-(31) 08/22/02 46 21 4.44 3.54 Good-Fair
08/04/97 57 23 4.56 3.12 Good-Fair
07/06/92 76 30 4.79 3.71 Good
Silver Cr SR 1127 Burke 11-34-(0.5) 08/21/02 --- 25 --- 3.74 Good-Fair
Silver Cr SR 1149 Burke 11-34-(0.5) 08/04/97 73 32 5.26 4.48 Good-Fair
08/03/92 71 29 5.53 4.46 Good-Fair
Clear Cr Ab Hospital
Reservoir
Burke 11-34-6-(1) 12/12/91 --- 30 --- 2.38 Good
Bailey Fork SR 1102 Burke 11-34-8-(2) 08/03/92 --- 24 --- 3.30 Good-Fair
Warrior Fk SR 1440 Burke 11-35-(1) 08/21/02 --- 34 --- 3.30 Good
08/04/97 --- 41 --- 3.25 Excellent
Upper Cr NC 181 Burke 11-35-2-(1) 09/22/88 --- 46 --- 2.38 Excellent
Upper Cr USFS Rd 128 Burke 11-35-2-(1) 03/29/89 --- 44 --- 2.53 Good
10/24/88 --- 34 --- 2.73 Good
09/21/88 --- 26 --- 3.37 Good-Fair
Upper Cr Ab USFS Rd 982 Burke 11-35-2-(1) 06/13/94 100 51 3.58 2.60 Excellent
06/08/93 94 47 3.54 2.61 Excellent
UT Upper Cr Ab Timbered Br Burke 11-35-2-(1) 06/13/94 56 27 3.30 2.20 Excellent
06/08/93 63 27 3.69 2.15 Excellent
Timbered Br USFS Road 982 Burke 11-35-2-9 06/13/94 79 47 2.86 2.28 Not Rated
06/08/93 74 38 3.15 2.10 Not Rated
09/21/88 --- 20 --- 2.98 Good-Fair
Upper Cr Be USFS Rd 982 Burke 11-35-2-(8.5) 06/13/94 103 57 3.45 2.63 Excellent
06/08/93 108 58 3.44 2.38 Excellent
Upper Cr At Optimist’s
Park
Burke 11-35-2-(10) 09/21/88 108 45 4.47 3.12 Excellent
Steels Cr USFS Rd 128 Burke 11-35-2-12-(1) 05/17/90 --- 48 --- 1.73 Excellent
09/22/88 --- 38 --- 2.70 Excellent
Gingercake Cr USFS Rd 496 Burke 11-35-2-12-3 05/17/90 --- 39 --- 1.68 Excellent
10/25/88 --- 31 --- 1.38 Excellent
Buck Cr Ab Steels Cr Burke 11-35-2-12-4 05/17/90 --- 40 --- 1.78 Excellent
Little Fork USFS Rd 128 Burke 11-35-2-12-6 09/21/88 --- 38 --- 2.45 Excellent
03/19/86 102 45 3.27 2.38 Excellent
Steels Cr Ab NC 181 Burke 11-35-2-12-(7) 05/17/90 --- 49 --- 2.12 Excellent
09/22/88 105 43 4.50 3.33 Good
Upper Cr SR 1407 Burke 11-35-2-(13) 10/25/88 --- 34 --- 3.35 Good
Upper Cr SR 1439 Burke 11-35-2-(13) 09/20/88 100 42 4.77 3.60 Good

A-II-5

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT
BI Rating
SR 1367 Caldwell 11-38-(1) 03/28/89 --- 45 --- 2.25 Good
Johns R Caldwell 11-38-(9) 08/22/02 --- 42 --- 3.46 Excellent
08/05/97 --- 49 --- 2.56 Excellent
08/03/92 --- 43 --- 3.15 Excellent
03/28/89 --- 40 --- 2.69 Good
10/30/84 108 48 4.10 2.85 Excellent
Gragg Pr SR 1462 11-38-10 03/27/89 --- 47 --- 2.34 Good
Anthony Cr Ab Gragg Pr 11-38-10-3 03/27/89 --- 30 --- 2.30 Good-Fair
Johns R SR 1438 11-38-(28) 08/22/02 --- 35 --- 3.44 Good
03/28/89 116 63 3.90 2.76 Excellent
08/10/83 89 43 4.04 3.31 Excellent
Mulberry Cr SR 1368 11-38-32-(11) 03/27/89 --- 53 --- 2.59 Excellent
Mulberry Cr SR 1310 11-38-32-(15) 03/27/89 --- 43 --- 2.86 Good
Wilson Cr US 221 11-38-34 07/23/90 65 32 2.65 1.32 Excellent
08/08/88 81 37 3.16 1.63 Excellent
07/24/86 67 36 2.58 1.54 Excellent
08/28/84 38 20 2.64 1.19 Good
Wilson Cr SR 1358 11-38-34 07/09/91 92 50 3.78 2.88 Excellent
03/29/89 --- 57 --- 2.14 Excellent
07/24/86 106 49 3.68 2.65 Excellent
Wilson Cr off SR 1328 Be
Mortimer
11-38-34 08/22/02 85 45 3.33 2.48 Excellent
Wilson Cr SR 1335 11-38-34 08/05/97 --- 47 --- 2.68 Excellent
Harper Cr SR 1328 11-38-34-14 08/22/02 --- 42 --- 2.78 Excellent
N Harper Cr USFS Rd 58 11-38-34-14-2 08/06/86 90 43 3.68 2.36 Excellent
Lower Cr NC 90
Johns R
SR 1356

Caldwell
Caldwell
Burke

Caldwell
Caldwell
Avery

Caldwell

Caldwell
Caldwell
Caldwell
Avery
Caldwell 11-39-(0.5) 09/09/02 45 9 6.46 5.35 Poor
06/10/97 51 22 5.21 4.50 Good-Fair
Lower Cr Harrisburg St,
Lenoir
Caldwell 09/15/87 65 22 5.92 4.73 Fair
Lower Cr SR 1303,
Fairview Rd
Caldwell 09/10/02 57 13 6.67 5.53 Fair
06/10/97 43 18 5.36 4.35 Fair
Zacks Fk Cr

11-39-(0.5)
11-39-(0.5)

SR 1531 Caldwell 11-39-1 09/09/02 54 19 5.67 5.02 Not
Impaired
Zacks Fk Cr NC 18/321A Caldwell 11-39-1 09/10/02 32 6 6.87 6.15 Not Rated
06/10/97 --- 18 --- 4.54 Fair
09/15/87 55 19 6.05 5.39 Fair
Spainhour Cr SR 1303 Caldwell 11-39-3 06/11/97 --- 14 --- 5.03 Fair
Spainhour Cr NC 18 Bus Caldwell 11-39-3 09/09/02 49 15 6.46 5.82 Fair
UT Spainhour Cr SR 1513 Caldwell 11-39-3 09/09/02 32 13 4.66 4.38 Not Rated
Blair Fk NC 90 Caldwell 11-39-3-1 09/09/02 24 5 6.42 5.58 Not Rated
Greasy Cr NC 18 Caldwell 11-39-4 09/10/02 45 14 5.70 5.19 Not Rated
06/11/97 --- 15 --- 4.31 Fair
Greasy Cr SR 1305 Caldwell 11-39-4 09/10/02 47 13 4.86 3.99 Not Rated
Abingdon Cr NC 18 Bypass Caldwell 11-39-6 09/10/02 57 20 5.60 5.11 Not
Impaired
Lower Cr SR 1142, Calico
Rd
Caldwell 11-39-(6.5) 09/10/02 50 11 6.52 5.54 Fair
06/11/97 39 16 5.91 4.86 Fair
Lower Cr SR 1501 Burke 11-39-(6.5) 09/11/02 55 14 6.14 4.96 Fair
06/10/97 46 19 5.52 4.87 Fair
08/03/92 55 20 5.85 4.80 Fair
07/10/90 62 19 6.59 5.23 Fair
07/23/87 61 18 6.82 4.85 Fair
08/07/84 60 20 6.39 5.00 Fair
Celia Cr Caldwell 11-39-7-1-(1) 09/11/02 39 10 5.78 4.77 Not Rated
Husband Cr Old NC 18 Caldwell 11-39-7-(2) 09/11/02 59 24 5.28 4.54 Not Impaired
Husband Cr NC 18 Caldwell 11-39-7-(2) 09/11/02 36 14 5.24 4.34 Not Rated
06/11/97 --- 20 --- 4.77 Good-Fair
Bristol Cr NC 18 Caldwell 11-39-8 09/11/02 55 12 5.56 4.39 Not Rated
06/10/97 --- 15 --- 4.61 Fair
White Mill Cr Piney Rd Caldwell 11-39-8-1-(2) 09/11/02 37 12 4.74 3.06 Not Rated
Smoky Cr SR 1515 Burke 11-41-1 08/21/02 --- 26 --- 3.55 Good-Fair
08/05/97 --- 32 --- 3.58 Good
08/04/92 --- 30 --- 3.22 Good
McGalliard Cr SR 1538 Burke 11-44-(0.5) 08/21/02 16 --- 5.09 Fair
08/05/97 --- 21 --- 4.81 Good-Fair
08/04/92 66 22 5.60 4.56 Good-Fair
A-II-6

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT
BI Rating
03-08-32
Huffman Br Sta 2, be
Huffman
Finishing
Burke 11-(51)-1 10/11/84 13 0 9.30 --- Poor
Huffman Br Sta 3 Burke 11-(51)-1 10/11/84 19 1 9.25 6.22 Poor
Huffman Br Sta 4 Burke 11-(51)-1 10/11/84 20 0 8.94 N/A Poor
Horseford Cr 16th Ave NW Catawba 11-54-(0.5) 09/12/02 32 8 6.58 6.34 Fair
Gunpowder Cr SR 1718 Caldwell 11-55-(1.5) 08/21/02 --- 23 --- 4.68 Good-Fair
Gunpowder Cr SR 1002 Caldwell 11-55-(1.5) 08/05/97 --- 25 --- 4.27 Good-Fair
Upper Little R SR 1740 Caldwell 11-58-(5.5) 08/20/02 83 33 4.91 3.93 Good
08/06/97 90 39 4.35 3.47 Good
08/04/92 74 38 4.17 3.55 Good
Middle Little R SR 1153 Alexander 11-62 08/20/02 18 --- 3.74
08/06/97 --- 26 --- 3.95 Good-Fair
08/04/92 32 32 4.14 4.14 Good
Duck Cr NC 127 Alexander 11-62-2-(4) 08/20/02 --- 33 --- 3.76 Good
08/06/97 --- 26 --- 3.93 Good-Fair
O8/04/92 --- 26 --- 3.42 Good-Fair
Lower Little R SR 1313 Alexander 11-69 07/28/88 87 32 5.19 3.51 Good-Fair
08/27/88 --- 29 --- 4.42 Good
08/08/85 53 18 5.78 5.42 Fair
Lower Little R SR 1131 Alexander 11-69 08/20/02 61 28 4.85 3.92 Good-Fair
08/06/97 74 34 4.94 4.19 Good
08/04/92 70 29 4.60 3.85 Good
Muddy Fk Ab Schneider
Mills
Alexander 11-69-4 06/17/92 70 19 5.53 4.46 Good-Fair
Muddy Fk NC 16, Be
WWTP
Alexander 11-69-4 06/16/92 66 19 6.79 4.92 Fair
Muddy Fk SR 1313 Alexander 11-69-4 08/19/02 --- 12 --- 6.05 Fair
08/06/97 76 22 6.26 5.42 Good-Fair
Elk Shoal Cr SR 1605 Alexander 11-73-(0.5) 08/20/02 --- 16 --- 5.03 Good-Fair
08/07/97 --- 18 --- 4.48 Good-Fair
08/05/92 --- 15 --- 4.92 Good-Fair
Lyle Cr US 64/70 Catawba 11-76-(3.5) 08/19/02 --- 22 --- 4.69 Good-Fair
09/07/97 51 23 4.95 4.22 Good-Fair
08/05/92 62 22 5.66 4.88 Good-Fair
McLin Cr SR 1722 Catawba 11-76-5-(0.7) 08/19/02 --- 23 --- 5.14 Good-Fair
08/07/97 57 27 5.17 4.33 Good-Fair
03-08-33
McDowell Cr SR 2128 Mecklenburg 11-115-(1) 8/20/02 48 8 6.6 5.7 Fair
9/13/90 54 17 6.2 5.4 Good-Fair
McDowell Cr SR 2136 Mecklenburg 11-115-(1.5) 9/13/90 55 15 6.5 5.8 Fair
Gar Cr SR 2074 Mecklenburg 11-116-(1) 8/20/97 --- 21 --- 4.9 Good
6/8/94 64 20 5.6 4.9 Good
8/20/92 87 24 5.5 4.6 Good
Dutchmans Cr SR 1918 Gaston 11-119-(0.5) 8/21/02 --- 19 --- 5.0 Good-Fair
8/19/97 73 33 5.2 4.5 Good
6/8/94 66 26 5.1 4.5 Good
8/6/92 77 33 5.6 4.7 Good
7/26/88 83 34 5.3 4.7 Excellent
Leepers Cr SR 1354 Lincoln 11-119-1-(1) 6/9/94 --- 31 --- 3.4 Excellent
Leepers Cr NC 73 Lincoln 6/9/94 71 30 5.0 4.3 Excellent
Leepers Cr NC 150 Lincoln 6/12/84 86 30 4.9 4.3 Excellent
Leepers Cr SR 1820 Gaston 11-119-1-(12) 6/8/94 --- 29 --- 4.3 Excellent
Killian Cr SR 1511 Lincoln 11-119-2-(0.5) 8/20/02 --- 12 --- 5.0 Fair
8/19/97 --- 24 --- 3.9 Good
6/8/94 82 33 5.1 4.9 Excellent
8/5/92 --- 28 --- 4.9 Excellent
A-II-7

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT
BI Rating
03-08-34
Long Cr SR 2042 Mecklenburg 11-120-(7) 7/12/879 65 17 6.1 5.7 Good-Fair
Sugar Cr SC 160 York, SC 11-137 8/19/02 34 7 6.4 6.1 Fair
8/21/97 57 12 6.9 6.1 Fair
8/19/92 58 21 6.7 5.6 Good-Fair
7/8/91 49 14 6.7 6.1 Fair
7/24/90 39 7 7.0 5.6 Fair
7/25/88 53 9 7.9 6.6 Poor
7/23/86 40 2 8.5 8.9 Poor
8/6/84 45 9 8.0 6.1 Poor
11/8/83 30 3 8.2 6.1 Poor
Sugar Cr SR 1156 Mecklenburg 11-137-1 8/20/02 --- 5 --- 7.0 Poor
8/21/97 --- 7 --- 6.1 Fair
Irwin Cr I-77 Mecklenburg 11-137-1 8/18/92 55 8 7.7 6.7 Poor
Irwin Cr SR 2523 Mecklenburg 11-137-1 2/28/90 52 17 6.0 5.0 Good-Fair
Irwin Cr Ab Landfill Mecklenburg 11-137-1 10/17/84 50 13 7.4 6.1 Fair
Irwin Cr Bel Landfill Mecklenburg 11-137-1 10/17/84 36 11 7.6 6.0 Fair
Irwin Cr Ab WWTP Mecklenburg 11-137-1 11/9/83 23 2 8.2 6.9 Poor
Stewart Cr SR 2050 Mecklenburg 11-137-1-2 2/27/90 37 14 6.6 3.9 Not Rated
McCullough Br NC 51 Mecklenburg 11-137-7 2/27/90 34 5 7.6 6.9 Not Rated
L Sugar Cr Polk Street Mecklenburg 11-137-8 8/19/02 --- 6 --- 6.7 Poor
L Sugar Cr NC 51 Mecklenburg 11-137-8 8/21/97 --- 7 --- 6.9 Fair
9/19/92 43 3 8.1 6.3 Poor
L Sugar Cr Archdale Rd Mecklenburg 11-137-8 11/9/83 15 1 8.8 7.4 Poor
UT Edwards Br Shefield Park Mecklenburg 11-137-8-2-1 8/10/00 10 0 7.1 0 Not Rated
Edwards Br Campbell St Mecklenburg 11-137-8-2-1 8/10/00 13 3 7.7 7.5 Not Rated
Edwards Br Shefield St Mecklenburg 11-137-8-2-1 8/10/00 14 3 7.8 6.7 Not Rated
McAlpine Cr NC 51 Mecklenburg 11-137-9 8/19/02 43 7 7.0 6.0 Fair
8/21/97 59 17 6.9 6.0 Fair
8/19/92 55 9 7.2 5.7 Fair
McAlpine Cr Dorman Rd York, SC 11-137-9 8/19/92 40 11 7.0 6.3 Fair
McAlpine Cr Ab WWTP Mecklenburg 11-137-9 3/26/87 33 5 7.5 5.3 Poor
McAlpine Cr Bel WWTP Mecklenburg 11-137-9 3/26/87 18 2 7.8 3.7 Poor
McAlpine Cr Sardis Rd Mecklenburg 11-137-9 3/26/87 45 12 6.1 5.0 Fair
11/9/83 61 12 6.7 5.8 Fair
McAlpine Cr NC 521 Mecklenburg 11-137-9 11/9/83 24 3 8.5 6.4 Poor
Walker Br NC 49 Mecklenburg 11-137-10-1 2/27/90 68 18 6.1 5.5 Good-Fair
03-08-35
S Fk Catawba R NC 10 Catawba 11-129-(0.5) 8/18/97 60 25 5.56 4.70 Good
8/17/92 75 24 6.20 5.05 Good-Fair
7/9/90 56 16 6.57 5.27 Fair
7/28/88 67 24 6.25 5.07 Good-Fair
7/21/86 49 12 6.59 4.68 Fair
8/7/84 67 26 5.28 4.15 Good-Fair
S Fk Catawba R NC 27 Lincoln 11-129-(3.5) 9/10/84 77 29 5.58 4.17 Good
Henry Fk SR 1854 Burke 11-129-1-(1) 9/13/01 38 18 5.5 5.2 Fair
Henry Fk SR 1803 Burke 11-129-1-(1) 9/12/01 79 33 5.1 4.3 Good-Fair
Henry Fk SR 1918 Burke 11-129-1-(1) 4/18/88 106 53 3.29 2.11 Excellent
Henry Fk SR 1922 Burke 11-129-1-(2) 4/19/88 116 62 3.59 2.52 Excellent
Henry Fk NC 18 Burke 11-129-1-(2) 4/20/88 127 65 3.84 2.68 Excellent
UT Henry Fk SR 1915 Burke 4/20/88 110 52 3.83 2.33 Good
He Cr Ab Water Intake Burke 11-129-1-4-(1) 4/20/88 --- 45 --- 2.01 Excellent
Ivy Cr SR 1919 Burke 11-129-1-6 4/19/88 --- 42 --- 2.36 Good
Long Br SR 1917 Burke 11-129-1-8 4/19/88 --- 46 --- 2.87 Excellent
Rock Cr SR 1915 Burke 11-129-1-12 4/19/88 --- 43 --- 2.84 Good
Henry Fk SR 1124 Catawba 11-129-1-(12.5) 8/22/02 95 38 4.7 3.3 Good
8/18/97 76 38 3.90 3.30 Good
8/22/92 74 38 4.58 3.75 Good
7/10/89 64 27 4.65 4.22 Good
7/22/87 73 25 5.09 4.01 Good-Fair
7/21/86 79 28 5.39 3.88 Good-Fair
Henry Fk SR 1008 Catawba 11-129-1-(12.5) 11/16/83 27 5 6.87 4.20 Poor
A-II-8

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT
BI Rating
UT Henry Fk SR 1213 Catawba 6/20/85 29 8 6.34 4.23 Fair
6/20/85 31 7 6.24 2.71 Fair
UT Henry Fk SR 1148 Burke 2/9/87 --- 36 --- 2.13 Excellent
UT Henry Fk US 64 Burke 2/9/87 --- 0 --- 0 Poor
UT Henry Fk Be Discharge Burke 2/9/87 --- 5 --- 5.96 Poor
UT Henry Fk I-40 Burke 2/9/87 --- 17 --- 3.40 Good-Fair
Jacob Fk S Mt St Pk Burke 11-129-2-(1) 5/18/90 --- 42 --- 2.49 Excellent
Jacob Fk SR 1904 Burke 11-129-2-(1) 5/18/90 --- 42 --- 2.31 Excellent
Jacob Fk SR 1924 Burke 11-129-2-(1) 8/22/02 --- 35 --- 3.3 Good
8/18/97 99 47 4.06 3.20 Excellent
8/20/92 104 48 4.48 3.32 Excellent
10/24/90 102 50 3.95 2.60 Excellent
7/10/90 92 45 4.77 4.01 Excellent
5/18/90 --- 48 --- 2.56 Excellent
1/25/90 86 55 3.41 2.87 Excellent
7/22/87 96 35 4.96 3.76 Good
8/6/85 75 32 5.14 3.99 Good-Fair
Shinny Cr S Mt St Pk Burke 11-129-2-3 5/18/90 --- 41 --- 2.13 Excellent
Jacob Fk NC 27 Catawba 11-129-2-(9.5) 11/16/83 79 35 --- --- Good
Jacob Fk SR 1139 Catawba 11-129-2-(9.5) 11/16/83 69 23 --- --- Good-Fair
Hop Cr SR 1131 Catawba 11-129-2-14 6/19/85 86 36 4.56 3.44 Good
Howards Cr SR 1200 Lincoln 11-129-4 8/21/02 --- 17 --- 4.5 Good-Fair
8/19/97 --- 25 --- 4.15 Good
8/17/92 --- 25 --- 4.33 Good
Clark Cr US 64 Catawba 11-129-5-(0.3) 9/12/84 57 15 6.14 5.15 Good-Fair
Clark Cr SR 1149 Catawba 11-129-5-(0.3) 4/17/01 49 20 5.6 4.6 Good-Fair
7/26/00 37 13 6.0 5.6 Fair
8/5/92 --- 16 --- 5.74 Good-Fair
9/12/84 60 16 6.65 5.81 Good-Fair
Clark Cr SR 2014 Catawba 11-129-5-(0.3) 9/12/90 50 13 7.16 6.46 Fair
9/12/84 59 15 6.79 6.17 Fair
6/12/84 59 16 6.25 5.80 Good-Fair
Clark Cr SR 2012 Catawba 11-129-5-(0.3) 7/26/00 38 13 6.0 5.6 Fair
9/12/90 40 6 7.11 5.33 Fair
9/12/84 64 19 7.11 6.26 Good-Fair
6/12/84 46 14 6.51 5.81 Good-Fair
Clark Cr SR 1274 Catawba 11-129-5-(9.5) 9/12/84 70 16 6.92 6.06 Fair
Clark Cr 16th St Catawba 11-129-5-(9.5) 4/17/01 28 9 7.2 5.7 Not Rated
Clark Cr Sweetwater Rd Catawba 11-129-5-(9.5) 4/17/01 19 3 7.6 6.5 Not Rated
7/18/00 22 8 6.6 6.4 Not Rated
Clark Cr 20th Ave Catawba 11-129-5-(9.5) 8/14/00 42 10 6.5 6.0 Fair
Clark Cr SR 1008 Lincoln 11-129-5-(9.5) 8/21/02 47 9 6.2 5.1 Fair
8/19/97 48 16 5.72 5.16 Good-Fair
8/5/92 48 10 6.67 5.63 Fair
7/27/88 54 11 6.78 6.11 Fair
8/5/85 48 13 7.14 6.25 Fair
9/11/84 79 27 6.62 5.40 Good
11/16/83 38 9 --- --- Fair
Cline Cr SR 1164 Catawba 11-129-5-2 7/26/00 37 16 5.5 5.2 Not Rated
9/12/84 50 11 7.16 6.21 Fair
Town Cr US 321 Catawba 11-129-5-4 8/14/00 49 14 5.6 5.4 Good-Fair
Pinch Gut Cr SR 2007 Catawba 11-129-5-7 4/17/01 76 29 5.3 4.3 Good
Maiden Cr SR 1858 Catawba 11-129-5-7-2-(1) 3/18/93 55 22 4.85 4.02 Good
Maiden Cr SR 1810 Catawba 11-129-5-7-2-(3) 8/21/02 31 5 7.1 6.4 Fair
3/18/93 67 26 4.93 4.26 Good
Maiden Cr SR 2007 Catawba 11-129-5-7-2-(3) 9/11/84 86 18 6.55 5.76 Good-Fair
Shady Br SR 2005 Catawba 11-129-5-7-3 9/11/84 32 1 8.86 7.37 Poor
Carpenter Cr US 321 Lincoln 11-129-5-9 4/17/01 57 27 4.6 4.4 Not Rated
Carpenter Cr US 301 Lincoln 11-129-5-9 6/9/94 64 28 4.47 3.90 Good
9/11/84 85 30 4.94 4.61 Excellent
Walker Cr SR 1405 Lincoln 11-129-5-10 9/11/84 75 18 7.09 6.11 Good-Fair
A-II-9

Waterbody County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT
BI Rating
Indian Cr SR 1177 Lincoln 11-129-8-(5) 8/21/02 --- --- 4.8 Fair
Indian Cr SR 1252 Lincoln 11-129-8-(5) 73 24 5.23 4.63 Good
8/17/92 79 29 6.06
Location
13
8/19/97
5.38 Good
7/22/87 67 18 6.33 5.52 Good-Fair
7/23/86 77 18 6.58 5.40 Good-Fair
11/16/83 50 6 6.90 5.36 Fair
8/12/83 51 12 6.39 6.00 Good-Fair
Hoyle Cr SR 1836 Gaston 11-129-15-(4) 11/15/83 50 15 6.12 4.88 Good-Fair
Mauney Cr SR 1831 Gaston 11-129-15-5 5/13/97 49 11 6.73 5.34 Fair
03-08-36
S Fk Catawba R SR 2003 Gaston 11-129-(15.5) 8/11/83 49 19 6.51 5.65 Good-Fair
S Fk Catawba R NC 7 Gaston 11-129-(15.5) 8/20/97 61 16 6.02 5.05 Good-Fair
8/18/92 63 18 6.70 5.40 Good-Fair
7/11/89 62 15 6.32 4.72 Good-Fair
7/20/87 65 23 6.50 5.43 Good-Fair
8//585 55 16 7.02 5.34 Fair
11/15/83 7 2 7.82 5.64 Poor
Limekiln Cr Kiser Dairy Gaston 11-129-16-2 5/21/01 60 6 7.4 3.2 Not Rated
Limekiln Cr SR 1409 Gaston 11-129-16-2 4/20/98 71 22 5.2 4.3 Good
Long Cr SR 1409 Gaston 11-129-16-(2.3) 4/18/95 67 14 5.84 4.78 Good-Fair
Long Cr SR 1408 Gaston 11-129-16-(2.3) 4/4/94 81 29 5.28 4.39 Good
Long Cr SR 1405 Gaston 11-129-16-(2.3) 4/5/93 83 31 5.21 3.80 Good
4/11/92 73 26 5.47 4.43 Good
4/3/91 63 24 5.53 4.55 Good
4/18/95 --- 22 --- 5.07 Good-Fair
4/4/94 89 29 5.63 4.70 Good
Long Cr NC 274 Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 4/5/93 75 28 4.90 3.95 Good
4/2/92 73 25 5.58 4.91 Good
4/3/91 63 21 5.69 4.90 Good-Fair
4/19/95 79 19 5.82 5.22 Good-Fair
4/5/95 90 24 6.35 4.92 Good-Fair
Long Cr SR 1443 Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 4/5/94 90 37 5.09 4.35 Good
Long Cr SR 1446 Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 4/6/93 98 35 5.22 4.40 Good
4/11/92 65 25 5.30 4.80 Good
4/4/91 54 20 5.58 4.87 Good-Fair
4/4/94 76 24 6.20 5.40 Good-Fair
4/3/93 70 23 5.52 4.68 Good
Long Cr SR 1448 Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 4/1/92 76 26 4.97 4.19 Good
4/4/91 62 22 5.57 4.89 Good-Fair
4/19/95 80 23 5.82 5.15 Good
4/4/94 86 30 5.83 5.04 Good
Long Cr NC 275 Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 4/5/93 89 31 5.51 4.54 Good
4/1/92 59 21 5.45 5.0 Good
4/5/91 51 21 5.55 5.07 Good-Fair
4/18/95 72 20 6.36 5.47 Good-Fair
4/4/94 84 21 6.26 5.17 Good-Fair
Long Cr SR 1456 Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 8/20/97 62 21 5.81 4.79 Good-Fair
7/25/90 67 18 6.42 5.39 Good-Fair
7/20/87 71 19 6.59 5.61 Good-Fair
8/6/84 62 17 6.25 5.44 Good-Fair
Long Cr SR 2003 Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 7/25/90 54 14 7.33 6.30 Fair
11/15/83 20 3 8.61 4.93 Poor
UT Long Cr SR 1446 Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 4/5/94 --- 26 --- 4.89 Good-Fair
4/4/91 76 25 5.46 4.39 Good
UT Long Cr SR 1456 Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 4/5/91 55 26 4.44 4.25 Good
UT Long Cr Dallas WWTP Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 6/17/92 42 10 6.45 6.11 Good-Fair
UT Long Cr SR 2275 Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 6/17/92 39 8 7.60 6.40 Fair
Kiser Br Kiser Dairy Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 5/21/01 60 6 7.4 3.2 Not Rated
4/20/98 60 10 6.7 4.0 Fair
6/13/96 59 8 7.09 6.13 Fair
Kaglor Br Rankin Park Gaston 11-129-16-5 4/20/98 33 9 6.3 5.4 Not Rated
6/13/96 55 8 6.29 5.8 Not Rated
A-II-10

Waterbody Location County Index No. Date ST EPT BI EPT
BI Rating
03-08-37
Catawba Cr SR 2446 Gaston 11-130 7/26/90 42 10 6.94 6.66 Fair
5/8/85 55 16 7.09 6.13 Fair
Catawba Cr SR 2439 Gaston 11-130 7/25/90 43 1 8.12 7.40 Poor
5/8/85 38 5 8.55 6.07 Poor
Catawba Cr SR 2435 Gaston 11-130 5/8/85 43 6 8.44 6.50 Poor
Crowders Cr SR 1118 Gaston 11-135 5/21/02 31 10 5.1 5.0 Not Rated
9/12/89 50 14 6.02 4.73 Good-Fair
Crowders Cr SR 1125 Gaston 11-135 5/21/02 63 21 5.4 5.1 Good-Fair
9/12/89 55 13 7.07 6.11 Fair
Crowders Cr SR 1131 Gaston 11-135 5/22/02 54 14 6.2 5.3 Fair
9/13/89 46 7 7.69 7.00 Fair
Crowders Cr NC 321 Gaston 11-135 9/13/89 46 10 6.81 5.64 Fair
Crowders Cr SR 2424 Gaston 11-135 9/13/89 51 15 6.86 5.87 Fair
Crowders Cr SC 564 York, SC 11-135 5/20/02 57 14 6.3 5.9 Fair
8/20/97 67 11 6.56 5.94 Fair
6.83 6.13 Fair
8.30 7.50 Poor
---
5.5
6.90 Poor
--- 1 --- 6.57
44
40
0
4.41 Good-Fair
5.56 Good-Fair
5.1 Good-Fair
6.62 Fair
8/18/92 66 18 6.55 5.65 Good-Fair
9/14/89 61 15
7/26/88 43 4
McGill Cr Ab WWTP Gaston 11-135-2 9/12/89 --- 4 7.43 Poor
McGill Cr SR 1300 Gaston 11-135-2 9/12/89 --- 6 --- 7.09 Poor
Abernethy Cr SR 1302 Ab UT Gaston 11-135-4 5/21/02 56 18 5.1 Not
Impaired
3/23/93 56 20 5.76 4.95 Good-Fair
9/12/89 --- 12 --- 4.93 Fair
6/10/87 67 13 7.40 5.81 Fair
Abernethy Cr SR 1302 Bel UT Gaston 11-135-4 5/21/02 38 12 6.4 5.7 Fair
3/23/93 51 19 6.49 5.39 Good-Fair
6/10/87 43 4 7.78 7.53 Poor
Abernethy Cr Ab WWTP Gaston 11-135-4 9/12/89 --- 3 ---
Abernethy Cr Bel WWTP Gaston 11-135-4 9/12/89 Poor
UT Abernethy Cr Bel Lithium Gaston 11-135-4 5/21/02 12 5.7 3.5 Not Rated
3/23/93 5 7.77 7.52 Poor
6/10/87 25 0 7.90 Poor
Blackwood Cr Davis Park Rd Gaston 11-135-7 5/21/02 35 8 6.3 6.2 Not Rated
S Fk Crowders Cr SC 148 York, SC 11-135-10 5/20/02 --- 13 --- 4.7 Fair
S Fk Crowders Cr SC 79 York, SC 11-135-10 5/20/02 --- 19 --- 4.3 Good-Fair
S Crowders Cr SR 1103 Gaston 11-135-10-1 5/9/85 89 31 5.31
S Crowders Cr SR 1109 Gaston 11-135-10-1 5/20/02 59 18 5.7 5.1 Good-Fair
9/13/89 --- 16 ---
UT Crowders Cr SR 2416 Gaston 5/20/02 67 15 6.2
9/13/89 --- 11 ---
03-08-38
Twelvemile Cr NC 16 Union 11-138 2/27/90 --- 30 --- 4.93 Good-Fair
7/11/89 71 20 6.25 5.37 Good-Fair
11/8/83 50 7 7.15 6.33
3.58
5.53
5.39
Fair
Sixmile Cr SR 3445 Mecklenburg 11-138-3 3/26/87 67 22 5.26 Good-Fair
Waxhaw Cr SR 1103 Union 11-139 8/19/92 --- 14 --- Good-Fair
11/8/83 38 6 6.82 Fair

A-II-11

Fish Community Sampling Methods and Criteria

Wadeable Stream Sampling Methods

At each sample site, a 600-foot section of stream was selected and measured. The fish in the
delineated stretch of stream were then collected using two backpack electrofishing units and two
persons netting the stunned fish. After collection, all readily identifiable fish were examined for
sores, lesions, fin damage, or skeletal anomalies, measured (total length to the nearest 1 mm),
and then released. Those fish that were not readily identifiable were preserved and returned to
the laboratory for identification, examination and total length measurement. Detailed
descriptions of the sampling methods may be found at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.html.

NCIBI

NCIBI Analysis

The assessment of biological integrity using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
(NCIBI) is provided by the cumulative assessment of 12 parameters or metrics. The values
provided by the metrics are converted into scores on a 1, 3 or 5 scale. A score of 5 represents
conditions which would be expected for undisturbed reference streams in the specific river basin
or ecoregion, while a score of 1 indicates that the conditions deviate greatly from those expected
in undisturbed streams of the region. 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. Finally, the score (an even number between 12 and 60) is then used to determine the
ecological integrity class of the stream from which the sample was collected.

The NCIBI has recently been revised (NCDENR, 2001). Currently, the focus of using and
applying the NCIBI has been restricted to wadeable streams that can be sampled by a crew of
four persons. The bioclassifications and criteria have also been recalibrated against regional
reference site data (Biological Assessment Unit Memorandum 09222000) (Table 1).

Table 1 Revised Scores and Classes for Evaluating the Fish Community of a Wadeable
Stream Using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) in the Broad,
Catawba, Savannah and Yadkin River Basins
Scores
NCIBI
Classes
> 54 Excellent
48 - 52 Good
42 - 46 Good-Fair
36 - 40 Fair
≤ 34 Poor
A-II-12

Table 2 Fish Community Structure Data Collected in the Catawba River Basin, 1993 –
2002 (Current basinwide sites are in bold font.)

Subbasin/Waterbody Location County Index No. Date NCIBI Score NCIBI Rating
03-08-30
Catawba R SR 1110 McDowell 11-1 04/29/02 46 Good-Fair

McDowell 11-7-(0.5)
60
Mackey Cr
11-15-(3.5)
Poor

04/15/99
11-32-1 04/30/02 48
05/07/97 52 Good
SR 1764 McDowell 11-32-2
Good

05/05/97 54 Excellent
05/07/97 50 Good
Mill Cr SR 1400 06/08/99 58 Excellent
Curtis Cr US 70 McDowell 11-10 04/30/02 Excellent
Crooked Cr SR 1135 McDowell 11-12 04/30/02 56 Excellent
US 70/SR 1413 McDowell 11-15-(3.5) 03/25/98 48 Good
Mackey Cr US 70 McDowell 04/29/02 52 Good
03/25/98 18
Armstrong Cr SR 1456 McDowell 11-24-14-(1) 09/23/99 54 Excellent
06/22/99 56 Excellent
54 Excellent
05/07/97 56 Excellent
Paddy Cr NC 126 Burke 11-28 05/01/02 46 Good-Fair
05/05/97 40 Fair
North Muddy Cr SR 1760 McDowell Good
Corpening Cr SR 1794 McDowell 11-32-1-4 09/23/02 40 Fair
South Muddy Cr 05/01/02 48 Good
07/02/97 50
06/28/93 50 Good
Canoe Cr SR 1250 Burke 11-33-(2) 05/02/02 50 Good

05/10/93 46 Good-Fair
03-08-31
Silver Cr SR 1149 Burke 11-34-(0.5) 05/01/02 60 Excellent
Upper Cr

Excellent
SR 1439
58

Good-Fair
SR 1515 11-41-(1)
SR 1439 Burke 11-35-2-(13) 09/22/99 56 Excellent
06/21/99 54 Excellent
04/16/99 56
07/01/97 54 Excellent
Irish Cr Burke 11-35-3-(2) 05/02/02 38 Fair
Hunting Cr SR 1512 Burke 11-36-(0.3) 05/01/02 38 Fair
Gragg Prong SR 1367 Caldwell 11-38-10 05/25/99 56 Excellent
10/01/98 56 Excellent
Mulberry Cr NC 90 Caldwell 11-38-32-(15) 09/22/99 60 Excellent
06/21/99 Excellent
04/16/99 56 Excellent
05/08/97 60 Excellent
Lower Cr SR 1142 Caldwell 11-39-(6.5) 05/10/93 44 Good-Fair
Lower Cr SR 1501 Burke 11-39-(6.5) 05/02/02 42
10/24/97 44 Good-Fair
Smoky Cr Burke 05/03/02 58 Excellent
McGalliard Cr SR 1538 Burke 11-44-(0.5) 05/03/02 40 Fair
05/06/97 48 Good
05/10/93 38 Fair
03-08-32
SR 1786 Caldwell 11-58-(5.5) 05/24/02 42 Good-Fair
Middle Little R SR 1002 Alexander 56 Excellent
05/08/97 52 Good
Duck Cr NC 90 Alexander 11-62-2-(1) 05/23/02 48 Good
05/08/97
05/11/93 40 Fair
SR 1318 Alexander 11-69-(0.5) 05/23/02 38 Fair
05/09/97 48 Good
05/11/93 28 Poor

Upper Little R
11-62 05/23/02
05/11/93 46 Good-Fair
48 Good
Lower Little R
A-II-13

Subbasin/Waterbody Location County Index No. Date NCIBI Score NCIBI Rating
Elk Shoal Cr SR 1605 Alexander 11-73-(0.5) 05/23/02 48 Good
05/09/97 54 Excellent
05/11/93 48 Good
Lyle Cr US 70 Catawba 11-76-(3.5) 07/01/97 48 Good
05/11/93 50 Good
Buffalo Shoals Cr SR 1503 Iredell 11-78-(0.5) 06/04/97 58 Excellent
03-08-33
McDowell Cr SR 2136 Mecklenburg 11-115-(1.5) 05/20/02 22 Poor

Good
05/20/97
06/12/97 40 Fair
Dutchmans Cr SR 1918 Gaston 11-119-(0.5) 06/30/93 50 Good
Leepers Cr NC 73 Lincoln 11-119-1-(1) 05/20/97 52
06/29/93 56 Excellent
Killian Cr NC 73 Lincoln 11-119-2-(0.5) 05/21/02 46 Good-Fair
52 Good
Killian Cr SR 1511 Lincoln 11-119-2-(0.5) 06/29/93 56 Excellent
03-08-34
Sugar Cr SR 1156 Mecklenburg 11-137-1 04/15/99 28 Poor
06/30/97 32 Poor
06/30/93 18 Poor
Little Sugar Cr NC 51 Mecklenburg 11-137-8 04/15/99 42 Good-Fair
06/30/97 40 Fair
03-08-35
Henry Fork SR 1922 Burke 11-129-1-(2) 09/28/98 52 Good
Henry Fork SR 1916 Burke 11-129-1-(2)
11-129-3-(0.7) 05/21/02
off SR 1892
48
05/06/97 46 Good-Fair
Jacob Fork SR 1924 Burke 11-129-2-(4) 05/03/99 54 Excellent
09/28/98 52 Good
05/06/97 56 Excellent
Pott Cr SR 1217 Lincoln 50 Good
05/21/97 50 Good
Maiden Cr SR 1858 Catawba 11-129-5-7-2-(1) 03/18/93 42 Good-Fair
Maiden Cr Catawba 11-129-5-7-2-(1) 03/18/93 30 Poor
Indian Cr SR 1252 Lincoln 11-129-8-(6.5) 05/21/02 38 Fair
07/01/97 38 Fair
Beaverdam Cr SR 1609 Gaston 11-129-9-(0.7) 05/21/02 50 Good
Hoyle Cr SR 1836 Gaston 11-129-15-(1.5) 05/22/02 42 Good-Fair
06/12/97 Good
03-08-36
Long Cr US 321 Gaston 11-129-16-(4) 05/22/02 46 Good-Fair

05/20/97 40 Fair
06/30/93 30 Poor
03-08-37
Catawba Cr SR 2435 Gaston 11-130 05/22/02 40 Fair
05/19/97 42 Good-Fair
Crowders Cr SR 1108 Gaston 11-135 05/22/02 38 Fair
05/19/97 36 Fair
03-08-38
Twelvelmile Cr NC 16 Union 11-138 05/20/02 42 Good-Fair
06/11/97 48 Good
Sixmile Cr SR 1312 Union 11-138-3 05/20/02 38 Fair
06/11/97 40 Fair
Waxhaw Cr SR 1103 Union 11-139 06/11/97 56 Excellent

A-II-14

Lake Assessment Program

Lakes Monitored

Ten lakes in the basin were monitored as part of the Lakes Assessment Program in 2002 (Table
3). Surface physical and photic zone chemistry data collected from 1997 through 2002 (from
1992 for Newton City and Bessemer City Lakes) are presented in Table 5.

The North Carolina water quality standards per 15A NCAC 2B .0200 are used in determining if
a lake is meeting its designated uses. In addition to data collected through field sampling efforts,
lake water quality assessments are also based on information obtained from other lake
monitoring programs such as those implemented by municipalities and major hydroelectric
companies. Observations and comments from citizens, local government personnel, water
treatment facility staff, and others are also considered in the assessment process.

Lake Sampling Methods
Lake monitoring stations are sited to provide representative samples of lake water quality based
on morphology, size and site-specific features such as coves and tributaries. Physical field
measurements (dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature and conductivity) are made with a
calibrated HydrolabTM. Readings are taken at the surface of the lake (0.15 meters) and at one-
meter increments to the bottom of the lake. Secchi depths are measured at each sampling station
with a weighted Secchi disk attached to a rope marked off in centimeters. Surface water samples
are collected for chloride, hardness, fecal coliform bacteria and metals.

A LablineTM sampler is used to composite water samples within the photic zone (a depth equal
to twice the Secchi depth). Nutrients, chlorophyll a, solids, turbidity and phytoplankton are
collected at this depth. Nutrients and chlorophyll a from the photic zone are used to calculate the
North Carolina Trophic State Index score. The LablineTM sampler is also used to collect a grab
water samples near the bottom of the lake for nutrients. Water samples are collected and
preserved in accordance with specified protocols (NCDEHNR, 1996; and subsequent updates).

Data Interpretation

A-II-15

Table 3 Lakes Monitored in the Catawba River Basin during the 2001 – 2002 Sampling Effort

Subbasin/
Lake

County

Classification
Surface
Area (ac)
Mean
Depth (ft.)
Volume
(X106m3)
Watershed
(mi2)
Mean
Retention
Time (days)
03-08-30
Lake Tahoma McDowell WS-II, B Tr, HQW 1,61 30 0.7 23
Lake James Burke WS-IV, V, B Tr 6,510 46 36.9 380 208
03-08-31
Lake Rhodhiss Burke-
Caldwell WS-IV, B, CA 3,515 20 36.7 1,090 21
03-08-32
Lake Hickory Alexander-
Catawba WS-IV, V, B, CA 4,100 33 17.0 1,310 33
Lookout Shoals Lake Catawba
Iredell WS-IV, V, B, CA 1,270 30 4.6 1,450 7
Lake Norman Mecklenburg -
Lincoln WS-IV, B, CA 32,510 33 131.5 1,790 239
03-08-33
Mountain Island Lake Mecklenburg -
Gaston WS-IV, B, CA 3,235 16 71.0 1,860 12
03-08-34
Lake Wylie Mecklenburg -
York, SC WS-IV, V, B, CA 12,450 23 35.3 3,020 39
03-08-35
Newton City Lake Catawba WS-III, CA 17 10 0.1 100
03-08-36
Bessemer City Lake Gaston WS-II, HQW, CA 15 10 0.02 0.4

In addition to determining use support, data collected during ambient lakes monitoring are used to
evaluate the trophic state of lakes. An index was developed specifically for North Carolina lakes as
part of the state's original Clean Lakes Classification Survey of 1982. The North Carolina Trophic
State Index (NCTSI) is based on total phosphorus (TP in mg/L), total organic nitrogen (TON in
mg/L), Secchi depth (SD in inches), and chlorophyll a (CHL in µg/L). Lakewide means for these
parameters are used to produce a NCTSI score for each lake, using the equations:

TON Score = ((Log (TON) + 0.45)/0.24)*0.90
TPScore = ((Log (TP) + 1.55)/0.35)*0.92
SDScore = ((Log (SD) – 1.73)/0.35)*-0.82
CHLScore = ((Log (CHL) – 1.00)/0.48)*0.83
NCTSI = TONScore + TPScore + SDScore + CHLScore

A-II-16

In general, NCTSI scores relate to trophic classifications (Table 4). When scores border between
classes, best professional judgment is used to assign an appropriate classification. Scores may be
skewed by highly colored water typical of dystrophic lakes. Some variation in the trophic state
between years is not unusual because of the variability of data collections, which usually involve
sampling a limited number of times during the growing season.

Table 4 Lakes Classification Criteria

NCTSI
Score
Trophic
Classification
< -2.0 Oligotrophic
-2.0 – 0.0 Mesotrophic
0.0 – 5.0 Eutrophic
> 5.0 Hypereutrophic

Oligotrophic lakes are characteristically found in the mountains or in undisturbed watersheds. Many
mesotrophic and eutrophic lakes are found in the central piedmont. There are a few hypereutrophic
lakes where point or nonpoint sources of pollution contribute to high levels of nutrients.

A-II-17

References

Chutter, F. M. 1972. An Empirical Biotic Index of the Quality of Water in South African
Streams and Rivers. Water Research. 6:19-30.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1977. Use of Arthropods to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources. Technical Bulletin No. 100.

Lenat, D. L. 1993. A Biotic Index for the Southeastern United States: Derivation and List of
Tolerance Values, with Criteria for Assigning Water Quality Ratings. J. North American
Benthological Society. 12:279-290.

NCDEHNR. 1996. Standard Operating Procedures Manual. Physical and Chemical
Monitoring. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Division of Water Quality. Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.

NCDENR. 2001. Standard Operating Procedures Manual. Biological Monitoring. Stream
Fish Community Assessment and Fish Tissue. Ibid. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality. Water Quality Section.
Raleigh, NC.

A-II-18

Appendix III

Use Support Methodology
and
Use Support Ratings

Appendices

Introduction to Use Support

All surface waters of the state are assigned a classification appropriate to the best-intended uses
of that water. Waters are assessed to determine how well they are meeting the classified or best-
intended uses. The assessment results in a use support rating for the use categories that apply to
that water.

Use Support Categories

Beginning in 2000 with the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, DWQ assesses
ecosystem health and human health risk through the use of five use support categories: aquatic
life, recreation, fish consumption, water supply, and shellfish harvesting. These categories are
tied to the uses associated with the primary classifications applied to NC rivers and streams.
Waters are Supporting if data and information used to assign a use support rating meet the
criteria for that use category. If these criteria are not met, then the waters are Impaired. Waters
with inconclusive data and information are Not Rated. Waters where no data or information are
available to make an assessment are No Data. The table below specifies which use support
categories apply to which primary classifications.

A single water may have more than one use support rating corresponding to one or more of the
use support categories, as shown in the following table. For many waters, a use support category
will not be applicable (N/A) to the classification of that water (e.g., shellfish harvesting is only
applied to Class SA waters). 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 (15A NCAC 2b .0100 and .0200). Information can also be found at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqs/.

Use Support Categories

Primary
Classification
Ecosystem
Approach
Human Health
Approach
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption Recreation Water
Supply
Shellfish
Harvesting
C X X X N/A N/A
SC X X X N/A N/A
B X X X N/A N/A
SB X X X N/A N/A
SA X X X N/A X
WS I – WS IV X X X X N/A

Assessment Period

Data and information are used to assess water quality and assign use support ratings using a five-
year data window that ends on August 31 of the year of basinwide biological sampling. For
example, if biological data are collected in a basin in 2004, then the five-year data window for
A-III-1

use support assessments would be September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2004. There are
occasionally some exceptions to this data window, especially when follow up monitoring is
needed to make decisions on samples collected in the last year of the assessment period.

Assessment Units

DWQ identifies waters by index numbers and assessment unit numbers (AU). The AU is used to
track defined stream segments or waterbodies in the water quality assessment database, for the
303(d) Impaired waters list, and in the various tables in basin plans and other water quality
documents. The AU is a subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number).
A letter attached to the end of the AU indicates that the AU is smaller than the DWQ index
segment. No letter indicates that the AU and the DWQ index segment are the same.

Interpretation of Data and Information

When interpreting the use support ratings, it is important to understand the associated limitations
and degree of uncertainty. Although these use support methods are used for analyzing data and
information and determining use support ratings, best professional judgment is applied during
these assessments. Use support ratings are intended to provide an assessment of water quality
using a five-year data window, to describe how well surface waters support their classified uses,
and to document the potential stressors contributing to water quality degradation and the sources
of these contributions.

Use support methods continue to improve over time, and the information and technology used to
make use support determinations also continue to become more accurate and comprehensive.
These improvements sometimes make it difficult to make generalizations comparing water
quality between basin plans. However, technology and methods improvements result in more
scientifically sound use support assessments.

Assessment Methodology

Introduction

Many types of data and information are used to determine use support ratings and to identify
stressors and sources of water quality degradation. All existing data pertaining to a stream
segment for each applicable use support category are entered into a use support database and
may include its use support ratings, basis of assessment, biological and ambient monitoring data,
stressors and potential sources. Data used in the use support assessments include biological data,
chemical/physical data, lakes assessment data, fish consumption advisories from the NC
Department of Health and Human Services, swimming advisories and shellfish sanitation
growing area classifications from the NC Division of Environmental Health (as appropriate), and
available land cover and land use information.

The following describes the data and methodologies used to conduct use support assessments.
These methods will continue to be refined as additional information and technology become
available.
A-III-2

Basis of Assessment

Assessments are made on an overall basis of either monitored (M) or evaluated (E), depending
on the level of information available. A monitored rating is based on the most recent five-year
data window and site-specific data and is therefore treated with more confidence than an
evaluated rating.

Rating
Basis
Use Support
Category
Assessment
Applicability*
S/M AL Biological community data or ambient water quality parameters do not exceed criteria in
AU during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are independently applied.
S/M REC Ambient fecal bacteria parameter does not exceed criteria in AU or AU with RECMON
sites is posted with advisories for 61 days or less during assessment period.
S/M FC AU does not have site-specific advisory and is not under a mercury advice or drains to
areas within a mercury advice, or fish tissue data do not exceed criteria.
S/M SH AU is a DEH Approved shellfish growing area.

I/M AL Biological community data or ambient water quality parameters exceed criteria in AU
during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are independently applied.
I/M REC Ambient fecal bacteria parameter exceeds criteria in AU or AU with RECMON sites is
posted with advisories for more than 61 days during assessment period.
I/M FC Fish tissue data collected in AU during assessment period and basin are under mercury
advice or site-specific advisory.
I/M SH AU is a DEH Conditionally-Approved, Prohibited or Restricted shellfish growing area.

NR/M AL Biological community is Not Rated or inconclusive, or ambient water quality parameters
are inconclusive in AU during assessment period. Biological and ambient data are
independently applied.
NR/M REC Ambient fecal bacteria parameter exceeds annual screening criteria, but does not exceed
assessment criteria of five samples in 30 days in AU during assessment period.
S/E AL AU is a tributary to a S/M AU and land use is similar between AUs.
S/E WS AU is classified as WS, and DEH report notes no significant closures at time of
assessment.

I/E FC AU is in basin under a mercury advice or drains to areas within a mercury advice and has
no fish tissue data.

NR/E AL AU is tributary to I/M AU, or AU is in watershed with widespread and changing land
use, or other information suggests negative water quality impacts to AU. Discharger in
AU has noncompliance permit violations or has failed three or more WET tests during
the last two years of the assessment period.
NR/E REC Discharger has noncompliance permit violations of fecal bacteria parameter during last
two years of assessment period.

ND AL, REC,
FC, SH
No data available in AU during assessment period.
Note: S/M = Supporting/Monitored I/M = Impaired/Monitored NR/M = Not Rated/Monitored
S/E = Supporting/Evaluated I/E = Impaired/Evaluated NR/E = Not Rated/Evaluated
ND = No Data
AL = Aquatic Life REC = Recreation FC = Fish Consumption
SH = Shellfish Harvesting WS = Water Supply
AU = Assessment Unit WET = Whole Effluent Toxicity
DEH = Division of Environmental Health * = for lakes assessments
A-III-3

Supporting ratings are extrapolated up tributaries from monitored streams when there are no
problematic dischargers with permit violations or changes in land use/cover. Supporting ratings
may also be applied to unmonitored tributaries where there is little land disturbance (e.g.,
national forests and wildlife refuges, wilderness areas or state natural areas). Problem stressors
or sources (except general NPS) are not generally applied to unmonitored tributaries. Impaired
ratings are not extrapolated to unmonitored tributaries.

Stressors

Biological and ambient samplings are useful tools to assess water quality. However, biological
sampling does not typically identify the causes of impairment, and ambient sampling does not
always link water quality standards to a biological response. Linking the causes of impairment
and the biological response are a complex process (USEPA, 2000) that begins with an evaluation
of physical, chemical or biological entities that can induce an adverse biological response. These
entities are referred to as stressors. A stressor may have a measurable impact to aquatic health.
Not all streams will have a primary stressor or cause of impairment. A single stressor may not
be sufficient to cause impairment, but the accumulation of several stressors may result in
impairment. In either case, impairment is likely to continue if the stressor or the various
cumulative stressors are not addressed. Use support assessments evaluate the available
information related to potential stressors impacting water quality.

A stressor identification process may be initiated after a stream appears on the 303(d) list in
order to address streams that are Impaired based on biological data. Intensive studies are
required to summarize and evaluate potential stressors to determine if there is evidence that a
particular stressor plays a substantial role in causing the biological impacts. Intensive studies
consider lines of evidence that include benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community data,
habitat and riparian area assessment, chemistry and toxicity data, and information on watershed
history, current watershed activities and land uses, and pollutant sources. These studies result in
decisions regarding the probable stressors contributing to or causing impairment. The intensity
of a stressor study may be limited due to a lack of resources. In these cases, it may still be
appropriate to include stressors in use support assessments, but to also note where additional
information is needed in order to evaluate other stressors.

Where an ambient parameter is identified as a potential concern, the parameter is noted in the
DWQ database and use support summary table. Where habitat degradation is identified as a
stressor, DWQ and others attempt to identify the type of habitat degradation (e.g., sedimentation,
loss of woody habitat, loss of pools or riffles, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation,
streambed scour and bank erosion). Habitat evaluation methods are being developed to better
identify specific types of habitat degradation.

Aquatic Life Category

The aquatic life category is an ecosystem approach to assessing the biological integrity of all
surface waters of the state. The biological community data and ambient water quality data are
used in making assessments in this category. These represent the most important monitoring
data for making water quality assessments in the aquatic life category. Evaluation information
such as compliance and whole effluent toxicity information from NPDES dischargers, land
cover, and other more anecdotal information are also used to identify potential problems and to
A-III-4

refine assessments based on the monitoring data. The following is a description of each
monitoring data type and the criteria used in assigning use support ratings. Criteria used to
evaluate the other information and assign use support ratings are also described. Refer to page
14 for lakes and reservoir assessment methods as applied in the aquatic life category.

Biological Data

Benthic macroinvertebrate (aquatic insects) community and fish community samples are the best
way to assess the biological integrity of most waterbodies. Unfortunately, these community
measures cannot be applied to every stream size and are further limited by geographic region.
These community measures are designed to detect current water quality and water quality
changes that may be occurring in the watershed. However, they are only directly applied to the
assessment unit where the sample was collected.

Where recent data for both benthic macroinvertebrates and fish communities are available, both
are evaluated for use support assessments. When two biological monitoring data types conflict,
best professional judgment is used to determine an appropriate use support rating. Where both
ambient monitoring data and biological data are available, biological data may be given greater
weight; however, each data type is assessed independently.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Criteria

Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications to most benthic macroinvertebrate
samples based on the number of taxa present in the pollution intolerant aquatic insect groups of
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPTs); and the Biotic Index (BI), which
summarizes tolerance data for all taxa in each sample. Because these data represent water
quality conditions with a high degree of confidence, use support ratings using these data are
considered monitored.

If a Fair macroinvertebrate bioclassification is obtained under conditions (such as drought or
flood conditions, recent spills, etc.) that may not represent normal conditions or is borderline Fair
(almost Good-Fair), a second sample should be taken within 12-24 months to validate the Fair
bioclassification. Such sites will not be Not Rated until the second sample is obtained.

Use support ratings are assigned to assessment units using benthic macroinvertebrate
bioclassifications as follows.

A-III-5

Waterbody Sample
Type or Criteria Bioclassification Use Support
Rating
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Excellent Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Good Supporting
Swamp1 Natural Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Good-Fair Supporting
Smaller than criteria but Good-Fair2 Not Impaired Supporting
Swamp1 Moderate Stress Supporting
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Fair Impaired
Swamp1 Severe Stress Impaired
Mountain, piedmont, coastal A Poor Impaired
Criteria not appropriate to assign bioclassification Not Rated Not Rated
1 Swamp streams for benthos sampling are defined as streams in the coastal plain that have no visible flow for a part of the year,
but do have flow during the February to early March benthic index period.
2 This designation may be used for flowing waters that are too small to be assigned a bioclassification (less than three square
miles drainage area), but have a Good-Fair or higher bioclassification using the standard qualitative and EPT criteria.

Fish Community Criteria

The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for assessing a stream’s
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The NCIBI
incorporates information about species richness and composition, indicator species, trophic
function, abundance and condition, and reproductive function. Because these data represent
water quality conditions with a high degree of confidence, use support ratings using these data
are considered monitored. Use support ratings are assigned to assessment units using the NCIBI
bioclassifications as follows:

NCIBI Use Support Rating
Excellent Supporting
Good Supporting
Good-Fair Supporting
Fair Impaired
Poor Impaired

If a Fair macroinvertebrate bioclassification is obtained under conditions (such as drought or
flood conditions, recent spills, etc.) that may not represent normal conditions or is borderline Fair
(almost Good-Fair), a second sample should be taken within 12-24 months to validate the Fair
bioclassification. Such sites will not be given a use support rating until validation is obtained.

The NCIBI was recently revised (NCDENR, 2001), and the bioclassifications and criteria have
also been recalibrated against regional reference site data (NCDENR, 2000a, 2000b and 2001a).
NCIBI criteria are applicable only to wadeable streams in the following river basins: Broad,
Catawba, Savannah, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, French Broad,
Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and Watauga. Additionally, the NCIBI criteria are only
A-III-6

applicable to streams in the piedmont portion of the Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar-Pamlico
River basins. The definition of "piedmont" for these four river basins is based upon a map of
North Carolina watersheds (Fels, 1997). Specifically:

In the Cape Fear River basin -- all waters except for those draining the Sandhills in Moore,
Lee and Harnett counties, and the entire basin upstream of Lillington, NC.
•
•
•
•
In the Neuse River basin -- the entire basin above Smithfield and Wilson, except for the
south and southwest portions of Johnston County and eastern two-thirds of Wilson County.
In the Roanoke River basin -- the entire basin in North Carolina upstream of Roanoke
Rapids, NC and a small area between Roanoke Rapids and Halifax, NC.
In the Tar-Pamlico River basin -- the entire basin above Rocky Mount, except for the lower
southeastern one-half of Halifax County and the extreme eastern portion of Nash County.

NCIBI criteria have not been developed for:

• Streams in the Broad, Catawba, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Savannah, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little
Tennessee, New and Watauga River basins which are characterized as wadeable first to third
order streams with small watersheds, naturally low fish species diversity, coldwater
temperatures, and high gradient plunge-pool flows. Such streams are typically thought of as
"Southern Appalachian Trout Streams".
• Wadeable streams in the Sandhills ecoregion of the Cape Fear, Lumber and Yadkin-Pee Dee
River basins.
• Wadeable streams and swamps in the coastal plain region of the Cape Fear, Chowan,
Lumber, Neuse, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico and White Oak River basins.
• All nonwadeable and large streams and rivers throughout the state.

Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Criteria

Chemical/physical water quality data are collected through the DWQ Ambient Monitoring
Program statewide and NPDES discharger coalitions in some basins. All samples collected
(usually monthly) during the five-year assessment period are used to assign a use support rating.
Ambient water quality data are not direct measures of biological integrity, but the
chemical/physical parameters collected can provide an indication of conditions that may be
impacting aquatic life. Because these data represent water quality conditions with a high degree
of confidence, use support ratings assigned using these data are considered monitored. Where
both ambient data and biological data are available, each data type is assessed independently.

The parameters used to assess water quality in the aquatic life category include dissolved
oxygen, pH, chlorophyll a and turbidity. Criteria for assigning use support ratings to assessment
units with ambient water quality data of a minimum of ten samples are as follows:

Ratings Criteria Rating
Numerical standard exceeded in ≤10% of samples Supporting
Numerical standard exceeded in >10% of samples Impaired
Less than 10 samples collected Not Rated
DO and pH standard exceeded in swamp streams Not Rated

A-III-7

Multiple Monitoring Sites

There are assessment units with more than one type of monitoring data. When the data from
multiple biological data types are not in agreement, best professional judgment is used to assign
a bioclassification and use support rating for that assessment unit. Biological monitoring is
typically assessed independent of ambient monitoring data and either may be used to assign a use
support rating for an assessment unit. Monitoring data are always used over the evaluation
information; however, evaluation information can be used to lengthen or shorten monitored
assessment units and to assign use support ratings on an evaluated basis to non-monitored
assessment units.

NPDES Wastewater Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Information

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests are required for all major NPDES discharge permit
holders, as well as those minor NPDES dischargers with complex effluent (defined as not being
of 100 percent domestic waste). WET tests are evaluated to determine if the discharge could be
having negative water quality impacts. If a stream with a WET test facility has not been sampled
for instream chronic toxicity, biological community data or has no ambient water quality data,
and that facility has failed three or more WET tests in the last two years of the assessment
period, the assessment unit is Not Rated. Because this information is not a direct measure of
water quality and the confidence is not as high as for monitoring data, this use support rating is
considered evaluated rather than monitored. Problems associated with WET test failures are
addressed through NPDES permits.

NPDES Discharger Daily Monitoring Report Information

NPDES effluent data monthly averages of water quality parameters are screened for the last two
years of the assessment period. If facilities exceed the effluent limits by 20 percent for two or
more months during two consecutive quarters, or have chronic exceedances of permit limits for
four or more months during two consecutive quarters, then the assessment unit is Not Rated if no
biological or ambient monitoring data are available. If biological or ambient data are available,
that data will be used to develop a use support rating for appropriate stream segments. Because
this information is not a direct measure of water quality and the confidence is not as high as for
monitoring data, this use support rating is considered evaluated rather than monitored.

Fish Consumption Category

The fish consumption category is a human health approach to assess whether humans can safely
consume fish from a waterbody. This category is applied to all waters of the state. The use
support rating is assigned using fish consumption advisories or advice as issued by the NC
Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS). The fish consumption category is
different from other categories in that assessments are based on the existence of a DHHS fish
consumption advice or advisory at the time of assessment. The advice and advisories are based
on DHHS epidemiological studies and on DWQ fish tissue data, so a fish tissue monitoring site
will constitute a monitored assessment unit (AU) and all other AUs will be evaluated. DWQ
fish tissue data are used to inform DHHS of potential fish tissue toxicity. DHHS is responsible
for proclaiming a fish tissue advisory for any waterbody. Fish tissue monitoring data are not
used directly for assigning a use support rating in this category.
A-III-8

If a limited site-specific fish consumption advisory or a no consumption advisory is posted at the
time of assessment, the water is Impaired. If there are no site-specific advisories posted or the
stream is not in a basin where mercury advice is applied, then the assessment unit will be
Supporting in this category.
The NCDHHS has developed regional fish consumption advice (all waters south and east of I-
85) for certain fish species shown to have elevated levels of mercury in their tissue. DWQ
applies the DHHS fish consumption advice for mercury on a basinwide scale rather than an AU
scale in recognition that fish move up and downstream regardless of the presence of I-85. All
AUs draining below or intersecting I-85 are Impaired in the fish consumption category. AUs
with monitoring data are considered Impaired/Monitored, and AUs with no monitoring data are
considered Impaired/Evaluated. When a DHHS site-specific advisory is in place for a parameter
other than mercury, the assessment is based on that advisory and the mercury advice will take a
lower ranking in the assessment. Therefore, when a site-specific advisory is in place in a basin
with a mercury advice and the AU has fish tissue monitoring data, the AU will be considered
Impaired/Monitored for the specific parameter, rather than Impaired/Evaluated for mercury.

Basins under the mercury advice are the Cape Fear, Chowan, Lumber, Neuse, Pasquotank,
Roanoke, White Oak and Yadkin-Pee Dee. All waters in these basins are Impaired in the fish
consumption category, even when there is a site-specific advisory. All waters are also
considered Monitored or Evaluated, dependent upon the availability of monitoring data.

Only a small portion of the Catawba River basin is intersected by I-85 (lower Mecklenberg,
Union and Gaston counties). Due to the presence of dams that impede fish travel throughout the
Catawba River basin, only those waters draining to and entering the mainstem Catawba below I-
85 and are not impeded by dams are considered Impaired/Evaluated.
Basins not under the mercury advice are the Broad, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee,
New, Savannah and Watauga. All waters in these basins are Supporting the fish consumption
category if there is no site-specific advisory; waters are Impaired if there is a site-specific
advisory. All waters are also considered Monitored or Evaluated, dependent upon the
availability of monitoring data.
In order to separate this regional advice from other fish consumption advisories and to identify
actual fish populations with high levels of mercury, only waters with fish tissue monitoring data
are presented on the use support maps.

Recreation Category

This human health related category evaluates waters for the support of primary recreation
activities such as swimming, water-skiing, skin diving, and similar uses usually involving human
body contact with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent
basis. Waters of the state designated for these uses are classified as Class B, SB and SA. This
category also evaluates other waters used for secondary recreation activities such as wading,
boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with water, and activities involving
human body contact with water where such activities take place on an infrequent, unorganized or
incidental basis. Waters of the state designated for these uses are classified as Class C, SC and
WS.
A-III-9

The use support ratings applied to this category are currently based on the North Carolina fecal
coliform bacteria water quality standard where ambient monitoring data are available or on the
duration of local or state health agencies posted swimming advisories. Use support ratings for
the recreation category may be based on other bacteriological indicators and standards in the
future.

DWQ conducts monthly ambient water quality monitoring that includes fecal coliform bacteria
testing. The Division of Environmental Health (DEH) tests coastal recreation waters (beaches)
for bacteria levels to assess the relative safety of these waters for swimming. If an area has
elevated bacteria levels, health officials will advise that people not swim in the area by posting a
swimming advisory and by notifying the local media and county health department.

The North Carolina fecal coliform bacteria standard for freshwater is: 1) not to exceed the
geometric mean of 200 colonies per 100 ml of at least five samples over a 30-day period; and 2)
not to exceed 400 colonies per 100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples during the same
period. The AU being assessed for the five-year data window is Supporting in the recreation
category if neither number (1) nor (2) of the standard are exceeded. The AU being assessed is
Impaired in the recreation category if either number (1) or (2) is exceeded. Waters without
sufficient fecal coliform data are Not Rated, and waters with no data are noted as having No
Data.

Assessing the water quality standard requires significant sampling efforts beyond the monthly
ambient monitoring sampling and must include at least five samples over a 30-day period.
Decades of monitoring have demonstrated that bacteria concentrations may fluctuate widely in
surface waters over a period of time. Thus, multiple samples over a 30-day period are needed to
evaluate waters against the North Carolina water quality standard for recreational use support.
Waters classified as Class SA, SB and B are targeted for this extra sampling effort due to the
greater potential for human body contact. Therefore, some waters will be Not Rated in this
category based on a DWQ yearly screening of all waters where an AU is above 200 colonies per
100 ml, or more than 20 percent of samples are above 400 colonies per 100 ml, and where the
extra sampling effort has not been conducted.

Waters with beach monitoring sites will be Impaired if the area is posted with an advisory for
greater than 61 days of the assessment period. Waters with beach monitoring sites with
advisories posted less than 61 days will be Supporting. Other information can be used to Not
Rate unmonitored waters.

DWQ Ambient Monitoring Fecal Coliform Screening Criteria

As with other information sources, all available information and data are evaluated for the
recreation category using the assessment period. However, DWQ conducts an annual screening
of DWQ ambient fecal coliform data to assess the need for additional monitoring or immediate
action by local or state health agencies to protect public health.

Each March, DWQ staff will review bacteria data collections from ambient monitoring stations
statewide for the previous sampling year. Locations with annual geometric means greater than
200 colonies per 100 ml, or when more than 20 percent of the samples are greater than 400
colonies per 100 ml, are identified for potential follow-up monitoring conducted five times
A-III-10

within 30 days as specified by the state fecal coliform bacteria standard. If bacteria
concentrations exceed either portion of the state standard, the data are sent to DEH and the local
county health director to determine the need for posting swimming advisories. DWQ regional
offices will also be notified.

Due to limited resources and the higher risk to human health, primary recreation waters (Class B,
SB and SA) will be given monitoring priority for an additional five times within 30 days
sampling. Follow-up water quality sampling for Class C waters will be performed as resources
permit. Any waters on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters for fecal coliform will receive a low
priority for additional monitoring because these waters will be further assessed for TMDL
development.

DWQ attempts to determine if there are any swimming areas monitored by state, county or local
health departments or by DEH. Each January, DEH, county or local health departments are
asked to list those waters which were posted with swimming advisories in the previous year.

Shellfish Harvesting Use Support

The shellfish harvesting use support category is a human health approach to assess whether
shellfish can be commercially harvested and is therefore applied only to Class SA waters. The
following data sources are used to assign use support ratings for shellfish waters.

Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Shellfish Sanitation Surveys

DEH is required to classify all shellfish growing areas as to their suitability for shellfish
harvesting. Estuarine waters are delineated according to DEH shellfish management areas (e.g.,
Outer Banks, Area H-5) which include Class SA, SB and SC waters. DEH samples growing
areas regularly and reevaluates the areas by conducting shellfish sanitation surveys every three
years to determine if their classification is still applicable. DEH classifications may be changed
after the most recent sanitary survey. Classifications are based on DEH bacteria sampling,
locations of pollution sources, and the availability of the shellfish resource. Growing waters are
classified as follows.

A-III-11

DEH
Classification
DEH
Criteria
Approved
(APP)
Fecal Coliform Standard for Systematic Random Sampling:
The median fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) or the geometric mean MPN of
the water shall not exceed 14 per 100 milliliters (ml), and the estimated 90th percentile
shall not exceed an MPN of 43 MPN per 100 ml for a 5-tube decimal dilution test.

Fecal Coliform Standard for Adverse Pollution Conditions Sampling:
The median fecal coliform or geometric mean MPN of the water shall not exceed 14 per
100 ml, and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed 43 MPN per 100 ml for
a 5-tube decimal dilution test.
Conditionally
Approved-Open
(CAO)
Sanitary Survey indicates an area can meet approved area criteria for a reasonable period
of time, and the pollutant event is known and predictable and can be managed by a plan.
These areas tend to be open more frequently than closed.
Conditionally
Approved-Closed
(CAC)
Sanitary Survey indicates an area can meet approved area criteria for a reasonable period
of time, and the pollutant event is known and predictable and can be managed by a plan.
These areas tend to be closed more frequently than open.
Restricted
(RES)
Sanitary Survey indicates limited degree of pollution, and the area is not contaminated to
the extent that consumption of shellfish could be hazardous after controlled depuration or
relaying.
Prohibited
(PRO)
No Sanitary Survey; point source discharges; marinas; data do not meet criteria for
Approved, Conditionally Approved or Restricted Classification.

Assigning Use Support Ratings to Shellfish Harvesting Waters (Class SA)

DWQ use support ratings may be assigned to separate segments within DEH management areas.
In assessing use support, the DEH classifications and management strategies are only applicable
to DWQ Class SA (shellfish harvesting) waters. It is important to note that DEH classifies all
actual and potential growing areas (which includes all saltwater and brackish water areas) for
their suitability for shellfish harvesting. This will result in a difference of acreage between DEH
areas classified as CAC, PRO and RES, and DWQ waters rated as Impaired. For example, if
DEH classifies a 20-acre area CAC, but only 10 acres are Class SA, only those 10 acres of Class
SA waters are rated as Impaired.

The DEH "Closed" polygon coverage includes CAC, RES and PRO classifications, and it is not
currently possible to separate out the PRO from the RES areas. Therefore, these areas are a
combined polygon coverage, and DWQ rates these waters as Impaired.

Sources of fecal coliform bacteria are more difficult to separate out for Class SA areas. DEH
describes the potential sources in the sanitary surveys, but they do not describe specific areas
affected by these sources. Therefore, in the past, DEH identified the same sources for all Class
SA sections of an entire management area (e.g., urban runoff and septic systems). Until a better
way to pinpoint sources is developed, this information will continue to be used. A point source
discharge is only listed as a potential source when NPDES permit limits are exceeded.

DWQ and DEH are developing the database and expertise necessary to assess shellfish
harvesting frequency of closures. In the interim, DWQ has been identifying the frequency of
closures in Class SA waters using an interim methodology based on existing databases and GIS
A-III-12

shapefiles. There will be changes in reported acreages in future assessments using the permanent
methods and tools that result from this project.

Past Interim Frequency of Closure-Based Assessment Methodology

The interim method was used for the 2001 White Oak, 2002 Neuse and 2003 Lumber River
basin use support assessments. Shellfish harvesting use support ratings for Class SA waters
using the interim methodology are summarized below.

Percent of Time Closed
within Basin Data Window
DEH
Growing Area Classification
DWQ
Use Support Rating
N/A Approved* Supporting
Closed ≤10% of data window Portion of CAO closed ≤10% of data window Supporting
Closed >10% of the data window Portion of CAO closed >10% of data window Impaired
N/A CAC and PRO/RES** Impaired
* Approved waters are closed only during extreme meteorological events (hurricanes).
** CAC and P/R waters are rarely opened to shellfish harvesting.

For CAO areas, DWQ worked with DEH to determine the number of days and acreages that
CAO Class SA waters were closed to shellfish harvesting during the assessment period. For
each growing area with CAO Class SA waters, DEH and DWQ defined subareas within the CAO
area that were opened and closed at the same time. The number of days these CAO areas were
closed was determined using DEH proclamation summary sheets and the original proclamations.

The number of days that APP areas in the growing area were closed due to preemptive closures
because of named storms was not counted. For example, all waters in growing area E-9 were
preemptively closed for Hurricane Fran on September 5, 1996. APP waters were reopened
September 20, 1996. Nelson Bay (CAO) was reopened September 30, 1996. This area was
considered closed for ten days after the APP waters were reopened.

Current Assessment Methodology

Use support assessment for the 2005 Cape Fear River basin will be conducted such that only the
DEH classification will be used to assign a use support rating. By definition, CAO areas are
areas that DEH has determined do not, or likely do not, meet water quality standards and these
areas will be rated Impaired, along with CAC and PRO/RES areas. Only APP areas will be rated
Supporting.

Growing areas that have been reclassified by DEH during the assessment period from a lower
classification to APP will be rated Supporting. Areas that are reclassified from APP to any other
classification during the assessment period will be rated Impaired.

Over the next few years, DWQ, DEH, Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMF) will be engaged in developing a fully functionally database with related
georeferenced (GIS) shellfish harvesting areas. The new database and GIS tools will be valuable
for the above agencies to continue to work together to better serve the public. Using the new
A-III-13

database with georeferenced areas and monitoring sites, DEH will be able to report the number
of days each area was closed excluding closures related to named storms.

Water Supply Use Support

This human health related use support category is used to assess all Class WS waters for the
ability of water suppliers to provide potable drinking water. Many drinking water supplies in NC
are drawn from human-made reservoirs that often have multiple uses.

Water supply use support is assessed using information from the seven DEH regional water
treatment plant (WTP) consultants. Each January, the WTP consultants are asked to submit a
spreadsheet listing closures and water intake switch-overs for all water treatment plants in their
region. This spreadsheet describes the length and time of the event, contact information for the
WTP, and the reason for the closure or switch.

The WTP consultants’ spreadsheets are reviewed to determine if any closures/switches were due
to water quality concerns. Those closures/switches due to water quantity problems and reservoir
turnovers are not considered for use support. The frequency and duration of closures/switches
due to water quality concerns are considered when assessing use support. In general, North
Carolina’s surface water supplies are currently rated Supporting on an Evaluated basis. Specific
criteria for rating waters Impaired are yet to be determined.

Use of Outside Data

DWQ actively solicits outside data and information in the year before biological sampling in a
particular basin. The solicitation allows approximately 60 days for data to be submitted. Data
from sources outside DWQ are screened for data quality and quantity. If data are of sufficient
quality and quantity, they may be incorporated into use support assessments. A minimum of ten
samples for more than a one-year period is needed to be considered for use support assessments.

The way the solicited data are used depends on the degree of quality assurance and quality
control of the collection and analysis of the data as detailed in the 303(d) report and shown in the
table below. Level 1 data can be use with the same confidence as DWQ data to determine use
support ratings. Level 2 or Level 3 data may be used to help identify causes of pollution and
stressors. They may also be used to limit the extrapolation of use support ratings up or down a
stream segment from a DWQ monitoring location. Where outside data indicate a potential
problem, DWQ evaluates the existing DWQ biological and ambient monitoring site locations for
adjustment as appropriate.

A-III-14

Criteria Levels for Use of Outside Data in Use Support Assessments
Criteria Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Monitoring frequency of at least 10 samples for
more than a one-year period Yes Yes/No No
Monitoring locations appropriately sited and
mapped Yes Yes No
State certified laboratory used for analysis
according to 15A NCAC 2B .0103 Yes Yes/No No
Quality assurance plan available describing
sample collection and handling
Yes, rigorous
scrutiny Yes/No No

Lakes and Reservoir Use Assessment

Like streams, lakes are classified for a variety of uses. All lakes monitored as part of North
Carolina’s Ambient Lakes Monitoring Program carry the Class C (aquatic life) classification,
and most are classified Class B and SB (recreation) and WS-I through WS-V (water supply).
The surface water quality numeric standard specifically associated with recreation is fecal
coliform. For water supplies, there are 29 numeric standards based on consumption of water and
fish. Narrative standards for Class B and Class WS waters include aesthetics such as no odors
and no untreated wastes. There are other numeric standards that also apply to lakes for the
protection of aquatic life and human health. These standards also apply to all other waters of the
state and are listed under the Class C rules.

When possible, lake use support assessments are made using standards based methodologies
similar to those used for free-flowing waters. Parameters with sufficient (ten or more
observations), quality-assured observations are compared to surface water quality standards.
When standards are exceeded in more than 10 percent of the assessment period, portions or all of
the waterbody are rated Impaired. However, in many cases, the standards based approach is
incapable of characterizing the overall health of a reservoir.

For nutrient enrichment, one of the main causes of impacts to lakes and reservoirs, a more
holistic or weight of evidence approach is necessary since nutrient impacts are not always
reflected by the parameters sampled. For instance, some lakes have taste and odor problems
associated with particular algal species, yet these lakes do not have chlorophyll a concentrations
above 40 µg/l frequently enough to impair them based on the standard. In addition, each
reservoir possesses unique traits (watershed area, volume, depth, retention time, etc.) that
dramatically influence its water quality, but that cannot be evaluated through standards
comparisons. In such waterbodies, aquatic life may be Impaired even though a particular
indicator is below the standard. Where exceedances of surface water quality standards are not
sufficient to evaluate a lake or reservoir, the weight of evidence approach can take into
consideration indicators and parameters not in the standards to allow a more sound and robust
determination of water quality.

A-III-15

The weight of evidence approach uses the following sources of information to determine the
eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) level as a means of assessing lake use support in the aquatic
life category:

• Quantitative water quality parameters - dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, pH, etc.
• Algal bloom reports
• Fish kill reports
• Hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics – watershed size, lake volume, retention time,
volume loss, etc.
• Third party reports – citizens, water treatment plant operators, state agencies, etc.
¾ Taste and odor
¾ Sheens
¾ Odd colors
¾ Other aesthetic and safety considerations

One of the major problems associated with lakes and reservoirs is increasing eutrophication
related to nutrient inputs. Several water quality parameters help to describe the level of
eutrophication. In implementing the weight of evidence approach for eutrophication, more
consideration is given to parameters that have water quality standards. Each parameter is
assessed for percent exceedance of the state standard. The eutrophication-related parameters and
water quality indicators without numeric standards are reviewed based on interpretation of the
narrative standards in 15A NCAC 2B .0211(2) and (3). The following table lists the information
considered during a lake/reservoir use assessment, as well as the criteria used to evaluate that
information.

A modification to lake use assessment is the evaluation and subsequent rating of a lake or
reservoir by segments. In some portions of a waterbody, such as shallow coves, there may be
documented water quality problems while other areas of that waterbody do not demonstrate
significant problems. In such cases, the portion with documented problems (sufficient data,
ambient data above standards, and supporting public data) will be rated as Impaired while the
other portions are rated as Supporting or Not Rated. The following table highlights the weight of
evidence approach for assessing lake water quality.

A-III-16

Lake/Reservoir Weight of Evidence Use Assessment for Aquatic Life Category
Assessment Type Criteria
EUTROPHICATION
Water Quality Standards
Chl a >10% above standard (N>9) = P; exceeding 40 µg/l but not 10% of time = C
DO Below or above standard >10% of samples (N>9)
pH Below or above standard >10% of samples (N>9)
Turbidity >10% above standard (N>9)
% Total Dissolved Gases >10% above standard (N>9)
Temperature Minor and infrequent excursions of temperature standards due to anthropogenic
activity. No impairment of species evident (N>9).
Metals (excluding copper,
iron and zinc) >10% above standard (N>9)
Other Data
% Saturation DO >10% above >120%
Algae Blooms during 2 or more sampling events in 1 year with historic blooms.
Fish Kills related to eutrophication.
Chemically/
Biologically Treated For algal or macrophyte control - either chemicals or biologically by fish, etc.
Aesthetics Complaints Documented sheens, discoloration, etc. - written complaint and follow-up by a state
agency.
TSI Increase of 2 trophic levels from one 5-year period to next.
Historic DWQ Data Conclusions from other reports and previous use support assessments.
AGPT Algal Growth Potential Test 5-9 mg/l = C
10 or more mg/l = P
Macrophytes Limiting access to public ramps, docks, swimming areas; reducing access by fish and
other aquatic life to habitat; clogging intakes.
Taste and Odor Public complaints = P; Potential based on algal spp = C
Sediments Clogging intakes - dredging program necessary.
Note: C = of notable Concern or productive P = Problematic or highly productive
E = parameter is Exceeded, but in less than 10 percent of the measurements

A-III-17

A-III-18
References

Fels, J. 1997. North Carolina Watersheds Map. North Carolina State University Cooperative
Extension Service. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2000a. Fish
Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the Inner Piedmont,
Foothills, and Eastern Mountains (Broad, Catawba, Savannah, and Yadkin River
Basins). September 22, 2000. Biological Assessment Unit. Environmental Sciences
Branch. Water Quality Section. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
____. 2000b. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the
Outer Piedmont (Cape Fear, Neuse, Roanoke and Tar River Basins). October 17, 2000.
Ibid.
____. 2001a. Standard Operating Procedure. Biological Monitoring. Stream Fish
Community Assessment and Fish Tissue. Biological Assessment Unit. Environmental
Sciences Branch. Water Quality Section. Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
____. 2001b. Fish Community Metric Re-Calibration and Biocriteria Development for the
Western and Northern Mountains (French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, New and
Watauga River Basins). January 05, 2001. Ibid.
USEPA. 2000. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. EPA/822/B-00/025. Office of
Water. Washington, DC.
Catawba River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life September 2004
Name
Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin Length / Area Rating Basis
Problem
Parameters
Potential
Sources
Abernethy Creek 11-135-4b From First Creek to Crowders Creek C 03-08-37 1.8 mi.I M Cause Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Abernethy Creek 11-135-4a From source to First Creek C 03-08-37 3.2 mi.SM
Abingdon Creek 11-39-6 From source to Lower Creek C 03-08-31 5.6 mi.SM
Armstrong Creek 11-24-14-(1)From source to Hickory Botton Creek C Tr HQW 03-08-30 10.8 mi.SM
Beaverdam Creek 11-129-9-(0.7)
From a point 0.3 mile upstream of
Gaston County SR 1626 to South Fork
Catawba River WS-IV 03-08-35 8.3 mi.SM
Blackwood Creek 11-135-7 From source to Crowders Creek C 03-08-37 4.4 mi.NR M
Blair Fork 11-39-3-1 From source to Spainhour Creek C 03-08-31 2.6 mi.NR M
Bristol Creek 11-39-8 From source to Lower Creek WS-IV 03-08-31 5.6 mi.NR M
Buck Creek (Lake Tahoma)11-19-(1)From source to Dam at Lake Tahoma WS-II & B Tr 03-08-30 166.4 ac.SM
Canoe Creek 11-33-(2)
From Burke County SR 1248 to Catawba
River WS-IV 03-08-30 5.6 mi.SM
Carpenter Creek
(Horseshoe Lake)11-129-5-9 From source to Clark Creek C 03-08-35 3.6 mi.NR M
Catawba Creek 11-130c From SR 2439 to Lake Wylie C 03-08-37 4.9 mi.I M Cause Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
CATAWBA RIVER 11-(1)
From source to Old Fort Finishing Plant
Water Supply Intake C Tr 03-08-30 7.6 mi.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(including backwaters of
Lake James below
elevation 1200)11-(8)
From Dam at Old Fort Finishing Plant
Water Supply Intake to North Fork
Catawba River C 03-08-30 23.5 mi.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(including backwaters of
Rhodhiss Lake below
elevation 995)11-(31.5)
From a point 0.6 mile upstream of
Muddy Creek to a point 1.2 mile
upstream of Canoe Creek WS-IV 03-08-30 9.8 mi.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(including backwaters of
Rhodhiss Lake below
elevation 995)11-(32.7)
From a point 0.7 mile upstream of Canoe
Creek to a point 0.6 mile upstream of
Warrior Fork WS-IV 03-08-31 3.9 mi.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Hickory below
elevation 935)11-(51)
From Rhodhiss Dam to US Highway 321
Bridge WS-IV & B CA 03-08-32 263.1 ac.NR M
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Hickory below
elevation 935)11-(53)
From US Highway 321 Bridge to NC
Highway 127 WS-IV & B CA 03-08-32 1232.8 ac.NR M
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Hickory below
elevation 935)11-(59.5)From NC Highway 127 to Oxford Dam WS-V & B 03-08-32 2093.6 ac.NR M
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake James below
elevation 1200)11-(23)
From North Fork Catawba River to
Bridgewater Dam WS-V & B 03-08-30 2040.9 ac.SM
A-III-19
Catawba River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life September 2004
Name
Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin Length / Area Rating Basis
Problem
Parameters
Potential
Sources
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake James below
elevation 1200)11-(27.5)
From North Fork Catawba River to
Bridgewater Dam WS-V & B 03-08-30 3769.5 ac.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Norman below
elevation 760)11-(74)From Lookout Shoals Dam to Lyle Creek WS-IV CA 03-08-32 265.3 ac.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Norman below
elevation 760)11-(75)From Lyle Creek to Cowan’s Ford Dam WS-IV & B CA 03-08-32 31331.6 ac.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below
elevation 570)11-(117)
From Mountain Island Dam to Interstate
Highway 85 Bridge at Belmont WS-IV CA 03-08-33 375.3 ac.NR M Organic Enrichment Source Unknown
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below
elevation 570)11-(122)
From I-85 bridge to the upstream side of
Paw Creek Arm of Lake Wylie, Catawba
River WS-IV & B CA 03-08-34 601.1 ac.I M Organic Enrichment Source Unknown
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below
elevation 570) North
Carolina portion 11-(123.5)
From the upstream side of Paw Creek
Arm of Lake Wylie to North Carolina-
South Carolina State Line WS-V & B 03-08-34 3418.5 ac.I M Organic Enrichment Source Unknown
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lookout Shoals Lake
below elevation 845)11-(67)
From Oxford Dam to a point 0.6 mile
upstream of mouth of Lower Little River WS-IV 03-08-32 182.7 ac.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lookout Shoals Lake
below elevation 845)11-(68.5)
From a point 0.6 mile upstream of mouth
of Lower Little River to Elk Shoal Creek
(East Side)WS-IV CA 03-08-32 95.4 ac.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lookout Shoals Lake
below elevation 845)11-(72)
From Elk Shoal Creek (East Side) to a
point 0.5 mile upstream of Lookout
Shoals Dam WS-IV & B CA 03-08-32 577.8 ac.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lookout Shoals Lake
below elevation 845)11-(73.5)
From a point 0.5 mile upstream of
Lookout Shoals Dam to Lookout Shoals
Dam WS-IV & B CA 03-08-32 175.4 ac.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(Mountain Island Lake
below elevation 648)11-(112)
From Cowan’s Ford Dam to Water Intake
at River Bend Steam Station WS-IV CA 03-08-33 389.4 ac.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(Mountain Island Lake
below elevation 648)11-(114)
From Water Intake at River Bend Steam
Station to Mountain Island Dam
(Town of Mount Holly water supply
intake)WS-IV & B CA 03-08-33 1937.1 ac.SM
CATAWBA RIVER
(Rhodhiss Lake below
elevation 995)11-(37)From Johns River to Rhodhiss Dam WS-IV & B CA 03-08-31 1848.5 ac.I M Organic Enrichment Source Unknown
A-III-20
Catawba River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life September 2004
Name
Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin Length / Area Rating Basis
Problem
Parameters
Potential
Sources
Celia Creek 11-39-7-1-(2)
From a point 0.5 mile upstream of
Caldwell County SR 1325 to Husband
Creek WS-IV 03-08-31 1.3 mi.NR M
Clark Creek 11-129-5-(9.5)
From a point 0.9 mile upstream of
Walker Creek to South Fork Catawba
River WS-IV 03-08-35 1.8 mi.I M Copper Industrial Point Sources
Clark Creek (Shooks Lake)11-129-5-(0.3)b Source to Sweetwater Rd C 03-08-35 14.3 mi.I M Unknown toxicity Industrial Point Sources
Clark Creek (Shooks Lake)11-129-5-(0.3)a From source to Miller Branch C 03-08-35 3.3 mi.NR M
Cline Creek 11-129-5-2 From source to Clark Creek C 03-08-35 3.1 mi.SM
Crooked Creek 11-12 From source to Catawba River C 03-08-30 16.0 mi.SM
Crowders Creek 11-135b
From State Route 1118 to State Route
1122 C 03-08-37 3.1 mi.SM
Crowders Creek 11-135a From source to SR 1118 C 03-08-37 1.9 mi.NR M
Crowders Creek 11-135g
From State Route 2424 to North Carolina-
South Carolina State Line C 03-08-37 1.5 mi.I M Fecal Coliform Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Crowders Creek 11-135c
From State Route 1122 to State Route
1131 C 03-08-37 3.3 mi.I M Cause Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Crowders Creek 11-135d
From State Route 1131 to State Route
1108 C 03-08-37 7.3 mi.I M Cause Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Curtis Creek 11-10 From source to Catawba River C Tr 03-08-30 9.7 mi.SM
Duck Creek 11-62-2-(4)
From NC Highway 90 to Middle Little
River C 03-08-32 4.4 mi.SM
Dutchmans Creek 11-119-(0.5)
From source to a point 0.8 mile
downstream of Taylors Creek WS-IV 03-08-33 7.4 mi.SM
Elk Shoal Creek
(East Side)11-73-(0.5)
From source to a point 1.4 miles
upstream of mouth WS-IV 03-08-32 7.8 mi.SM
Gragg Prong 11-38-10 From source to Johns River C Tr 03-08-31 4.0 mi.SM
Greasy Creek 11-39-4 From source to Lower Creek C 03-08-31 4.6 mi.NR M
Gunpowder Creek
(Old Mill Pond)11-55-(1.5)
From a point 0.5 mile downstream of
Caldwell County SR 1127 to a point 0.8
mile downstream of Billy Branch WS-IV 03-08-32 13.4 mi.SM
Harper Creek 11-38-34-14 From source to Wilson Creek C Tr ORW 03-08-31 9.1 mi.SM
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(2)
From Morganton Water Intake to Laurel
Creek C ORW 03-08-35 19.5 mi.SM
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(12.5)a From Laurel Creek to State Route 1124 C 03-08-35 10.3 mi.IM
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(12.5)c From State Route 1143 to Jacob Fork C 03-08-35 8.6 mi.SM
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(12.5)b
From State Route 1124 to State Route
1143 C 03-08-35 4.8 mi.SM
Horseford Creek 11-54-(0.5)
From Frye Creek to a point 0.7 mile
upstream of mouth WS-IV 03-08-32 0.4 mi.I M Unknown toxicity Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Howards Creek 11-129-4
From source to South Fork Catawba
River C 03-08-35 13.8 mi.SM
A-III-21
Catawba River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life September 2004
Name
Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin Length / Area Rating Basis
Problem
Parameters
Potential
Sources
Hoyle Creek 11-129-15-(6)
From a point 0.2 mile downstream of
Mauney Creek to South Fork Catawba
River WS-IV CA 03-08-35 0.5 mi.SM
Hunting Creek 11-36-(0.7)
From a point 1.0 mile upstream of Burke
County SR 1940 to a point 0.4 mile
downstream of Pee Dee Branch WS-IV 03-08-31 7.4 mi.I M Cause Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Husband Creek 11-39-7-(1)
From source to a point 0.5 mile upstream
of Celia Creek C 03-08-31 6.0 mi.SM
Indian Creek 11-129-8-(6.5)
From a point 0.3 mile upstream of
Lincoln County SR 1169 to South Fork
Catawba River WS-IV 03-08-35 6.0 mi.I M Cause Unknown
Irish Creek 11-35-3-(2)b From Roses Creek to Warrior Fork WS-III 03-08-31 3.0 mi.I M Habitat degradation Crop-related Sources
Irwin Creek 11-137-1 From source to Sugar Creek C 03-08-34 11.8 mi.I M Fecal Coliform Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Jacktown Creek 11-32-1-4-1 From source to Youngs Fork C 03-08-30 2.4 mi.I M Cause Unknown Land Development
Jacob Fork 11-129-2-(4)From Little River to Camp Creek WS-III ORW 03-08-35 6.8 mi.SM
Johns River 11-38-(35.5)
From a point 0.5 mile upstream of Sims
Branch to a point 0.7 mile downstream of
NC Highway 18 WS-IV HQW 03-08-31 6.9 mi.SM
Killian Creek 11-119-2-(0.5)b
From Anderson Creek to a point 1.2
miles upstream of mouth C 03-08-33 3.2 mi.I M Cause Unknown Land Development
Killian Creek 11-119-2-(0.5)a From source to Anderson Creek C 03-08-33 11.6 mi.SM
Limekiln Creek 11-129-16-2 From source to Long Creek WS-II 03-08-36 1.9 mi.SM
Linville River 11-29-(4.5)
From Grandmother Creek to Linville
Falls B Tr 03-08-30 15.3 mi.SM
Linville River 11-29-(19)
From southern Boundary of Daniel
Boone Wildlife Management Area to
Lake James, Catawba River B HQW 03-08-30 7.1 mi.SM
Little Buck Creek 11-19-11
From source to Lake Tahoma, Buck
Creek WS-II & B Tr 03-08-30 4.4 mi.SM
Little Sugar Creek 11-137-8b From Arcdale Road to NC 51 C 03-08-34 5.5 mi.I M Fecal Coliform Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Long Creek 11-120-(2.5)
From a point 0.6 mile downstream of
Mecklenburg County SR 2074 to a point
0.4 mile upstream of Mecklenburg
County SR 1606 WS-IV 03-08-34 11.3 mi.I M Habitat degradation Breached Mill Dam
Long Creek 11-129-16-(4)
From Mountain Creek to South Fork
Catawba River C 03-08-36 15.3 mi.SM
Lower Creek 11-39-(0.5)a From source to Zack’s Fork C 03-08-31 8.8 mi.I M Habitat degradation Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Lower Creek 11-39-(0.5)b
From Zack’s Fork to Caldwell County SR
1143 C 03-08-31 5.1 mi.I M Habitat degradation Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Lower Creek 11-39-(6.5)
From Caldwell County SR 1143 to a
point 0.7 mile downstream of Bristol
Creek WS-IV 03-08-31 6.8 mi.I M Habitat degradation Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
A-III-22
Catawba River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life September 2004
Name
Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin Length / Area Rating Basis
Problem
Parameters
Potential
Sources
Lower Little River 11-69-(0.5)
From source to a point 0.5 mile upstream
of mouth of Stirewalt Creek C 03-08-32 14.0 mi.I M Habitat degradation Source Unknown
Lower Little River 11-69-(5.5)
From a point 0.5 mile upstream of of
mouth Stirewalt Creek to a point 0.8 mile
upstream of mouth WS-IV 03-08-32 8.6 mi.SM
Lyle Creek 11-76-(3.5)
From Bakers Creek to US Highways 64
and 70 WS-IV 03-08-32 6.3 mi.SM
Mackey Creek 11-15-(3.5)a From Laurel Fork Creek to US 70 C 03-08-30 1.8 mi.SM
Mackey Creek 11-15-(3.5)b From US 70 to Catawba River C 03-08-30 0.8 mi.SM
Maiden Creek 11-129-5-7-2-(1)
From source to a point 0.7 mile upstream
from backwaters of Maiden Reservoir WS-II 03-08-35 4.9 mi.I M Cause Unknown
McAlpine Creek
(Waverly Lake)11-137-9c From NC 51 to NC 521 C 03-08-34 4.6 mi.I M turbidity Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
McDowell Creek 11-115-(1.5)b
From SR 2136 Mecklengurg Co to a
point 0.7 mile upstream of mouth WS-IV 03-08-33 2.9 mi.I M Cause Unknown Land Development
McDowell Creek 11-115-(1.5)a
From US Highway 21 to SR 2136
Mecklenburg Co WS-IV 03-08-33 4.4 mi.I M Cause Unknown Land Development
McGalliard Creek 11-44-(3)
From a point 0.6 mile upstream of mouth
to Rhodhiss Lake, Catawba River WS-IV CA 03-08-31 3.9 mi.I M Cause Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
McLin Creek 11-76-5-(3)
From a point 0.2 mile upstream of
Catawba County SR 1722 to Lyle Creek WS-IV CA 03-08-32 0.7 mi.SM
Middle Little River 11-62 From source to Duck Creek C 03-08-32 21.5 mi.SM
Mill Creek 11-7-(0.5)From source to Swannanoa Creek C Tr HQW 03-08-30 5.0 mi.SM
Muddy Fork 11-69-4 From source to SR 1409 C 03-08-32 6.8 mi.SM
Mulberry Creek 11-38-32-(15)
From Dam at Mulberry Beach to Johns
River C 03-08-31 5.4 mi.SM
North Fork Catawba River 11-24-(2.5)a
From mouth of Laurel Branch to
Stillhouse Branch B Tr 03-08-30 7.1 mi.SM
North Fork Catawba River 11-24-(2.5)b
From Stillhouse Branch to Armstrong
Creek B Tr 03-08-30 3.5 mi.IM
North Fork Catawba River 11-24-(13)
From Armstrong Creek to Lake James,
Catawba River C 03-08-30 7.0 mi.NR M
North Muddy Creek 11-32-1 From source to Muddy Creek C 03-08-30 18.4 mi.SM
Paddy Creek 11-28
From source to 1.5 mi upstream of Lake
James C Tr 03-08-30 4.6 mi.SM
Pinch Gut Creek 11-129-5-7 From source to Clark Creek C 03-08-35 7.2 mi.SM
A-III-23
Catawba River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life September 2004
Name
Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin Length / Area Rating Basis
Problem
Parameters
Potential
Sources
Pott Creek 11-129-3-(0.7)
From a point 0.3 mile upstream of
Lincoln County SR 1217 to South
Catawba Fork River WS-IV 03-08-35 3.2 mi.SM
Silver Creek 11-34-(0.5)
From source to a point 1.3 miles
downstream of Clear Creek C 03-08-31 15.4 mi.SM
Silver Creek 11-56-(2)
From a point 0.7 mile upstream of mouth
to Lake Hickory, Catawba River WS-IV CA 03-08-32 0.8 mi.SM
Sixmile Creek 11-138-3
From source to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line C 03-08-38 8.8 mi.I M Cause Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Smoky Creek 11-41-(1)
From source to a point 0.6 mile upstream
of mouth WS-IV 03-08-31 7.5 mi.SM
South Fork Catawba River 11-129-(0.5)
From source to Catawba-Lincoln County
Line WS-V 03-08-35 8.4 mi.SM
South Fork Catawba River 11-129-(15.5)
From a point 0.4 mile upstream of Long
Creek to Cramerton Dam and Lake
Wylie at Upper Armstrong Bridge WS-V 03-08-36 18.1 mi.SM
South Fork Crowders Creek 11-135-10 North Carolina Portion C 03-08-37 5.7 mi.NR M
South Muddy Creek 11-32-2 From source to Muddy Creek C 03-08-30 16.1 mi.SM
Spainhour Creek 11-39-3 From source to Lower Creek C 03-08-31 4.7 mi.I M Cause Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Sugar Creek 11-137a
From source to below WWTP, SR 1156,
Mecklenburg C 03-08-34 0.3 mi.I M Cause Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Sugar Creek 11-137b
From SR 1156 Mecklenburg to Highway
51 C 03-08-34 10.9 mi.NR M Cause Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Swannanoa Creek 11-7-9 From source to Mill Creek C Tr 03-08-30 3.2 mi.SM
Toms Creek 11-21-(2)
From Harris Creek to McDowell County
SR 1434 C HQW 03-08-30 6.6 mi.SM
Town Creek 11-129-5-4 From source to Clark Creek C 03-08-35 3.8 mi.SM
Twelvemile Creek 11-138
From source to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line C 03-08-38 3.0 mi.SM
Upper Creek 11-35-2-(13)
From Dam at Clear Water Beach Lake to
Warrior Fork WS-III Tr HQW 03-08-31 4.3 mi.SM
Upper Little River
(Cedar Creek)11-58-(5.5)
From Morris Creek to a point 0.5 mile
upstream of mouth WS-IV 03-08-32 9.8 mi.SM
Warrior Fork 11-35-(1)
From source to a point 0.6 mile upstream
of City of Morganton water supply intake WS-III 03-08-31 4.9 mi.SM
White Mill Creek 11-39-8-1-(2)
From a point 0.6 mile downstream of
Burke County-Caldwell County Line to
Bristol Creek WS-IV 03-08-31 3.4 mi.NR M
A-III-24
Catawba River Basin Use Support Aquatic Life September 2004
Name
Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin Length / Area Rating Basis
Problem
Parameters
Potential
Sources
Wilson Creek 11-38-34 From source to Johns River B Tr ORW 03-08-31 23.3 mi.SM
Youngs Fork
(Corpening Creek)11-32-1-4a From source to Marion WWTP C 03-08-30 3.6 mi.I M Cause Unknown Major Municipal Point Source
Youngs Fork
(Corpening Creek)11-32-1-4b
From Marion WWTP to North Muddy
Creek C 03-08-30 1.9 mi.I M Cause Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Zacks Fork Creek 11-39-1 From source to Lower Creek C 03-08-31 8.0 mi.SM
NOTES
"Rating" = Use Support Rating
"Basis" = Rating Basis
"Habitat degradation" is identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or change in habitat quality. This term includes sedimentation,
bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and stream bed scour.
ABBREVIATION KEY
p = Point Source Pollution (Major source)
np = Nonpoint Source Pollution
M = Monitored
S = Supporting
I = Impaired
NR = Not Rated
A-III-25
Catawba River Basin Use Support Recreation September 2004
Name
Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin Length / Area Rating Basis
CATAWBA RIVER
(including backwaters of Lake James
below elevation 1200) 11-(8)
From Dam at Old Fort Finishing Plant Water
Supply Intake to North Fork Catawba River C 03-08-30 23.5 mi. S M
North Fork Catawba River 11-24-(13)
From Armstrong Creek to Lake James,
Catawba River C 03-08-30 7.0 mi. S M
Linville River 11-29-(19)
From southern Boundary of Daniel Boone
Wildlife Management Area to Lake James,
Catawba River B HQW 03-08-30 7.1 mi. S M
CATAWBA RIVER
(including backwaters of Rhodhiss
Lake below elevation 995) 11-(31)
From Bridgewater Dam (Linville Dam) to a
point 0.6 mile upstream of Muddy Creek WS-V 03-08-30 1.1 mi. S M
CATAWBA RIVER
(including backwaters of Rhodhiss
Lake below elevation 995) 11-(31.5)
From a point 0.6 mile upstream of Muddy
Creek to a point 1.2 mile upstream of Canoe
Creek WS-IV 03-08-30 9.8 mi. S M
Wilson Creek 11-38-34 From source to Johns River B Tr ORW 03-08-31 23.3 mi. S M
Lower Creek 11-39-(6.5)
From Caldwell County SR 1143 to a point 0.7
mile downstream of Bristol Creek WS-IV 03-08-31 6.8 mi. NR M
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Hickory below elevation 935) 11-(53)
From US Highway 321 Bridge to NC
Highway 127 WS-IV&B CA 03-08-32 1232.8 ac. S M
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Hickory below elevation 935) 11-(59.5) From NC Highway 127 to Oxford Dam WS-V&B 03-08-32 2093.6 ac. S M
Lower Little River 11-69-(0.5)
From source to a point 0.5 mile upstream of
mouth of Stirewalt Creek C 03-08-32 14.0 mi. NR M
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Norman below elevation 760) 11-(74) From Lookout Shoals Dam to Lyle Creek WS-IV CA 03-08-32 265.3 ac. S M
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Norman below elevation 760) 11-(75) From Lyle Creek to Cowan’s Ford Dam WS-IV&B CA 03-08-32 31331.6 ac. S M
CATAWBA RIVER
(Mountain Island Lake below
elevation 648) 11-(114)
From Water Intake at River Bend Steam
Station to Mountain Island Dam (Town of
Mount Holly water supply intake) WS-IV&B CA 03-08-33 1937.1 ac. S M
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below elevation 570) 11-(117)
From Mountain Island Dam to Interstate
Highway 85 Bridge at Belmont WS-IV CA 03-08-33 375.3 ac. S M
Dutchmans Creek 11-119-(0.5)
From source to a point 0.8 mile downstream
of Taylors Creek WS-IV 03-08-33 7.4 mi. S M
A-III-26
Catawba River Basin Use Support Recreation September 2004
Name
Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin Length / Area Rating Basis
Long Creek 11-120-(2.5)
From a point 0.6 mile downstream of
Mecklenburg County SR 2074 to a point 0.4
mile upstream of Mecklenburg County SR
1606 WS-IV 03-08-34 11.3 mi. NR M
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below elevation 570) 11-(122)
From I-85 bridge to the upstream side of Paw
Creek Arm of Lake Wylie, Catawba River WS-IV&B CA 03-08-34 601.1 ac. S M
CATAWBA RIVER
(Lake Wylie below elevation 570)
North Carolina portion 11-(123.5)
From the upstream side of Paw Creek Arm of
Lake Wylie to North Carolina-South Carolina
State Line WS-V&B 03-08-34 3418.5 ac. S M
South Fork Catawba River 11-129-(0.5) From source to Catawba-Lincoln County Line WS-V 03-08-35 8.4 mi. S M
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(12.5)c From State Route 1143 to Jacob Fork C 03-08-35 8.6 mi. S M
Henry Fork 11-129-1-(12.5)b From State Route 1124 to State Route 1143 C 03-08-35 4.8 mi. S M
Clark Creek 11-129-5-(9.5)
From a point 0.9 mile upstream of Walker
Creek to South Fork Catawba River WS-IV 03-08-35 1.8 mi. NR M
Indian Creek 11-129-8-(5)
From a point 0.4 mile upstream of mouth of
Lick Fork to a point 0.3 mile upstream of
Lincoln County SR 1169 C 03-08-35 2.6 mi. S M
South Fork Catawba River 11-129-(15.5)
From a point 0.4 mile upstream of Long
Creek to Cramerton Dam and Lake Wylie at
Upper Armstrong Bridge WS-V 03-08-36 18.1 mi. S M
Long Creek 11-129-16-(4)
From Mountain Creek to South Fork Catawba
River C 03-08-36 15.3 mi. NR M
Crowders Creek 11-135e From State Route 1108 To NC 321 C 03-08-37 1.5 mi. I M
Crowders Creek 11-135b From State Route 1118 to State Route 1122 C 03-08-37 3.1 mi. I M
Crowders Creek 11-135a From source to SR 1118 C 03-08-37 1.9 mi. I M
Crowders Creek 11-135g
From State Route 2424 to North Carolina-
South Carolina State Line C 03-08-37 1.5 mi. I M
Crowders Creek 11-135f From State Route 321 to State Route 2424 C 03-08-37 1.4 mi. I M
Crowders Creek 11-135c From State Route 1122 to State Route 1131 C 03-08-37 3.3 mi. I M
Crowders Creek 11-135d From State Route 1131 to State Route 1108 C 03-08-37 7.3 mi. I M
Blackwood Creek 11-135-7 From source to Crowders Creek C 03-08-37 4.4 mi. I M
Sugar Creek 11-137a
From source to below WWTP, SR 1156,
Mecklenburg C 03-08-34 0.3 mi. NR M
A-III-27
Catawba River Basin Use Support Recreation September 2004
Name
Assessment
Unit Number Description Class Subbasin Length / Area Rating Basis
Sugar Creek 11-137b From SR 1156 Mecklenburg to Highway 51 C 03-08-34 10.9 mi. NR M
Irwin Creek 11-137-1 From source to Sugar Creek C 03-08-34 11.8 mi. NR M
Little Sugar Creek 11-137-8b From source to Arcdale Road C 03-08-34 5.5 mi. NR M
McAlpine Creek (Waverly Lake) 11-137-9a From source to SR 3356, (Sardis Road) C 03-08-34 8.5 mi. NR M
Twelvemile Creek 11-138
From source to North Carolina-South
Carolina State Line C 03-08-38 3.0 mi. NR M
NOTES
"Rating" = Use Support Rating
"Basis" = Rating Basis
"Habitat degradation" is identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or change in habitat quality. This term includes sedimentation,
bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and stream bed scour.
ABBREVIATION KEY
p = Point Source Pollution (Major source)
np = Nonpoint Source Pollution
M = Monitored
S = Supporting
I = Impaired
NR = Not Rated
A-III-28

Appendix IV

303(d) Listing
and
Reporting Methodology

Appendices

Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report Summary

The North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List is an integrated report
that includes both the 305(b) and 303(d) reports of previous years. The 305(b) Report is
compiled biennially to update the assessment of water quality in North Carolina and to meet the
Section 305(b) reporting requirement of the Clean Water Act. The 305(b) reports present how
well waters support designated uses (e.g., swimming, aquatic life support, water supply), as well
as likely causes (e.g., sediment, nutrients) and potential sources of impairment. The term "Use
Support" refers to the process mandated by 305(b). The 303(d) List is a comprehensive public
accounting of all Impaired waterbodies that is derived from the 305(b) Report/Use Support. An
Impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality uses, such as water supply, fishing or
propagation of aquatic life. Best professional judgement along with numeric and narrative
standards criteria and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131 is considered when
evaluating the ability of a waterbody to serve its uses.

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) which Congress enacted in 1972 required
States, Territories and authorized Tribes to identify and establish a priority ranking for
waterbodies for which technology-based effluent limitations required by Section 301 are not
stringent enough to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards, establish total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the pollutants causing impairment in those waterbodies, and
submit, from time to time, the list of Impaired waterbodies and TMDLs to the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Current federal rules require states to submit 303(d) lists biennially,
by April 1st of every even numbered year. EPA is required to approve or disapprove the state-
developed 303(d) list within 30 days. For each water quality limited segment Impaired by a
pollutant and identified in the 303(d) list, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be
developed. TMDLs are not required for waters Impaired by pollution.

The Integrated Report includes descriptions of monitoring programs, the use support
methodology, and the Impaired waters list. New guidance from EPA places all waterbody
assessment units into one unique assessment category (EPA, 2001b). Although EPA specifies
five unique assessment categories, North Carolina elects to use seven categories. Each category
is described in detail below:

Category 1: Attaining the water quality standard and no use is threatened. This
category consists of those waterbody assessment units where all applicable use support
categories are rated " Supporting". Data and information are available to support a
determination that the water quality standards are attained and no use is threatened.
Future monitoring data will be used to determine if the water quality standard continues
to be attained.

Category 2: Attaining some of the designated uses; no use is threatened; and
insufficient or no data and information are available to determine if the remaining
uses are attained or threatened. This category consists of those waterbody assessment
units where at least one of the applicable use support categories are rated " Supporting"
and the other use support categories are rated "Not Rated" or “No Data”. Also included
in this category are waters where at least one of the applicable use support categories,
except Fish Consumption, are rated "Supporting"; the remaining applicable use support
categories, except Fish Consumption, are rated "Not Rated"; and the Fish Consumption
category is rated "Impaired-Evaluated". Data and information are available to support a
A-IV-1

determination that some, but not all, uses are attained. Attainment status of the
remaining uses is unknown because there are insufficient or no data or information.
Future monitoring data will be used to determine if the uses previously found to be in
attainment remain in attainment, and to determine the attainment status of those uses for
which data and information were previously insufficient to make a determination.

Category 3: Insufficient or no data and information to determine if any designated
use is attained. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units where all
applicable use support categories, except Fish Consumption, are rated "Not Rated", and
the Fish Consumption category is rated "Impaired-Evaluated". Measured data or
information to support an attainment determination for any use are not available.
Supplementary data and information, or future monitoring, will be required to assess the
attainment status.

Category 4: Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses but does not
require the development of a TMDL. This category contains three distinct sub-
categories:

Category 4a: TMDL has been completed. This category consists of those
waterbody assessment units for which EPA has approved or established a TMDL
and water quality standards have not yet been achieved. Monitoring data will be
considered before moving an assessment unit from Category 4a to Categories 1 or
2.

Category 4b: Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected
to result in the attainment of the water quality standard in the near future.
This category consists of those waterbody assessment units for which TMDLs
will not be attempted because other required regulatory controls (e.g., NPDES
permit limits, Stormwater Program rules, etc.) are expected to attain water quality
standards within a reasonable amount of time. Future monitoring will be used to
verify that the water quality standard is attained as expected.

Category 4c: Impairment is not caused by a pollutant. This category consists
of assessment units that are Impaired by pollution, not by a pollutant. EPA
defines pollution as "The man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical,
physical, biological and radiological integrity of the water." EPA staff have
verbally stated that this category is intended to be used for impairments related to
water control structures (i.e., dams). Future monitoring will be used to confirm
that there continues to be an absence of pollutant-caused impairment and to
support water quality management actions necessary to address the cause(s) of the
impairment.

Category 5: Impaired for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s) and
requires a TMDL. This category consists of those waterbody assessment units that are
Impaired by a pollutant and the proper technical conditions exist to develop TMDLs. As
defined by the EPA, the term pollutant means "dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator
residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar
dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into the water." When
A-IV-2

more than one pollutant is associated with the impairment of a single waterbody
assessment unit in this category, the assessment unit will remain in Category 5 until
TMDLs for all listed pollutants have been completed and approved by the EPA.

Category 6: Impaired based on biological data. This category consists of waterbody
assessment units historically referred to as "Biologically Impaired" waterbodies; these
assessment units have no identified cause(s) of impairment although aquatic life impacts
have been documented. The waterbody assessment unit will remain in Category 6 until
TMDLs have been completed and approved by the EPA.

Category 7: Impaired, but the proper technical conditions do not yet exist to
develop a TMDL. As described in the Federal Register, "proper technical conditions”
refer to the availability of the analytical methods, modeling techniques and data base
necessary to develop a technically defensible TMDL. These elements will vary in their
level of sophistication depending on the nature of the pollutant and characteristics of the
segment in question" (43 FR 60662, December 28, 1978). These are assessment units
that would otherwise be in Category 5 of the integrated list. As previously noted, EPA
has recognized that in some specific situations the data, analyses or models are not
available to establish a TMDL. North Carolina seeks EPA technical guidance in
developing technically defensible TMDLs for these waters. Open water and ocean
hydrology fecal coliform Impaired shellfishing waters are included in this category.

For this integrated list, Categories 1 and 2 are considered fully supporting any assessed uses.
This portion of the integrated list is extensive (thousands of segments); thus, a printed copy is
not provided. A table of waters on Categories 1 through 3 is available for downloading on the
DWQ website (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d.htm). Categories 5, 6 and 7 constitute the
2004 North Carolina 303(d) List for the State of North Carolina.

Delisting Waters

In general, waters will move from Categories 5, 6 or 7 when data show that uses are fully
supported or when a TMDL has been approved by EPA. In some cases, mistakes have been
discovered in the original listing decision and the mistakes are being corrected. Waters
appearing on the previously approved Impaired waters list will be moved to Categories 1, 2, 3 or
4 under the following circumstances:

ƒ An updated 305(b) use support rating of Supporting, as described in the basinwide
management plans.
ƒ Applicable water quality standards are being met (i.e., no longer Impaired for a given
pollutant) as described in either basinwide management plans or in technical memoranda.
ƒ The basis for putting the water on the list is determined to be invalid (i.e., was mistakenly
identified as Impaired in accordance with 40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(iv) and/or National Clarifying
Guidance for State and Territory 1998 Section 303(d) Listing Decisions. Robert Wayland,
III, Director. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Aug 27, 1997).
ƒ A water quality variance has been issued for a specific standard (e.g., chloride).
ƒ Removal of fish consumption advisories or modification of fish eating advice.
ƒ Typographic listing mistakes (i.e., the wrong water was identified).
ƒ EPA has approved a TMDL.

A-IV-3

Scheduling TMDLs

Category 5 waters, those for which a TMDL is needed, are at many different stages on the path
to an approved TMDL. Some require additional data collection to adequately define the problem
in TMDL terms. Some require more outreach to increase stakeholder involvement. Others need
to have a technical strategy budgeted, funded and scheduled. Some are ready for EPA submittal.

North Carolina has prioritized TMDL development for waters Impaired due to bacteria or
turbidity. The approach of prioritizing TMDL development based on pollutant has been
successfully used in other states. Limited resources are used more effectively with a focus on a
particular pollutant. Waters Impaired by other pollutants (i.e., not bacteria) are not excluded
from the schedule. However, the majority of waters prioritized for the next few years are
associated with bacterial contamination. Compliance with TMDL development schedules
provided in the Integrated Report depends upon DWQ and EPA resources.

North Carolina uses biological data to place the majority of waterbody assessment units on the
303(d) list. Additional consideration and data collection are necessary if the establishment of a
TMDL for waters on Category 6 is to be expected. It is important to understand that the
identification of waters in Category 6 does not mean that they are low priority waters. The
assessment of these waters is a high priority for the State of North Carolina. However, it may
take significant resources and time to determine the environmental stressors and potentially a
cause of impairment. Assigning waters to Category 6 is a declaration of the need for more data
and time to adequately define the problems and whether pollution, pollutants or a combination
affects waters.

According to EPA guidance (EPA 2004), prioritization of waterbody assessment units for
TMDLs need not be reflected in a “high, medium or low” manner. Instead, prioritization can be
reflected in the TMDL development schedule. Generally, North Carolina attempts to develop
TMDLs within 10 years of the original pollutant listing. Other information for each assessment
unit is also utilized to determine the priority in the TMDL development schedule. This
information includes the following:

• Year listed. Assessment units that have been on the 303(d) list for the longest period of
time will receive priority for TMDL development and/or stressor studies.
• Reason for listing. (Applicable to Category 5 AUs only) AUs with an impairment due to
a standard violation will be prioritized based on which standard was violated. Standard
violations due to bacteria or turbidity currently receive priority for TMDL development.
• Classification. AUs classified for primary recreation (Class B), water supply (Class WS-I
through WS-V), trout (Tr), high quality waters (HQW), and outstanding resource waters
(ORW) will continue to receive a higher priority for TMDL development and/or stressor
studies.
• Basinwide Planning Schedule. (Applicable to Category 6 AUs only). The basinwide
schedule is utilized to establish priority for stressor studies.

Revising TMDLs

Current federal regulations do not specify when TMDLs should be revised. However, there are
several circumstances under which it would seem prudent to revisit existing TMDLs. The
A-IV-4

A-IV-5
TMDL analysis of targets and allocations is based upon the existing water quality standards,
hydrology, water quality data (chemical and biological), and existing, active NPDES wastewater
discharges. Conditions related to any of these factors could be used to justify a TMDL revision.
Specific conditions that the Division will consider prior to revising an existing, approved TMDL
include the following:

• A TMDL has been fully implemented and the water quality standards continue to be
violated. If a TMDL has been implemented and water quality data indicate no
improvement or a decline in overall water quality, the basis for the TMDL reduction
or the allocation may need to be revised.
• A change of a water quality standard (e.g., fecal coliform to Echerichia coli). The
Division will prioritize review of existing TMDLs and data to determine if a revision
to TMDLs will be required.
• The addition or removal of hydraulic structures to a waterbody (e.g., dams).
Substantial changes to waterbody hydrology and hydraulics have the potential to
change many aspects of target setting, including the water quality standard upon
which the TMDL was developed, the water quality data, and the water quality
modeling.
• Incorrect assumptions were used to derive the TMDL allocations. This would
include errors in calculations and omission of a permitted discharge.

Should a TMDL be revised due to needed changes in TMDL targets, the entire TMDL would be
revised. This includes the TMDL target, source assessment, and load and wasteload allocations.
However, the Division may elect to revise only specific portions of the TMDL. For example,
changes may be justifiable to the load and wasteload allocation portions of a TMDL due to
incorrect calculations or inequities. In these cases, revisions to the TMDL allocations would not
necessarily include a revision of TMDL targets.
Appendices

Appendix V

Catawba River Basin
Workshop Summaries

A-V-1
Issues Associated with Specific Waters of the Catawba River Basin

Water or Area Subbasin Issue Workshop
Hidden Creek 03-08-30 Sand Removal and Odor at River Road WWTP Hickory
Muddy Creek 03-08-30 Bank Erosion Hickory
Lower Creek 03-08-31 Cattle in Creek - Impervious Surface Hickory
McDowell 03-08-33 Erosion Dallas
Beaver Dam 03-08-32 Erosion Dallas
Tributaries to Lake Wylie
03-08-33
03-08-34
03-08-36
03-08-37
Erosion Dallas
South Prong Stanly Creek 03-08-33 Erosion Dallas
Dutchmans Creek 03-08-33 Erosion Dallas
Lakes All Package Plants Dallas
Lake James 03-08-30 Development and Associated erosion Dallas
South Fork Catawba River 03-08-35
03-08-36 Color and Sediment Dallas
Crowders Creek 03-08-37 Sediment and Fecal Coliform Bacteria Dallas
Little Toe River 03-08-30 Food Dye, Fertilization and Algae Dallas
Lakes Norman and Lookout Shoals 03-08-32 Aquatic Weeds Dallas
Stanly Creek 03-08-33 Erosion Dallas
Lake Hickory and Rhodhiss 03-08-31
03-08-32 Public Access Newton
Lakes Hickory and James 03-08-30
03-08-32 Aquatic Weeds Newton
Lake Hickory and Rhodhiss 03-08-31
03-08-32 Nutrients and Algal Blooms Newton
Lower Creek 03-08-31 Sediment and Nutrients Newton
Clark Creek 03-08-35 Sediment and Nutrients Newton
Silver Creek 03-08-31 Sediment and Nutrients Newton
Snow Creek 03-08-32 Sediment and Nutrients Newton
Waxhaw Creek 03-08-38 Sediment Newton

A-V-2
Issues Related to Enforcement, Permitting, Rule Making and Monitoring

Specific Issue Recommendation Workshop
Sewer Overflows Investigate locations and permit review. Hickory
Development Land use ordinances. Hickory
Aquatic Weeds Develop management plan. Hickory
Stormwater Monitor stormwater quality, compile list of local ordinances. Hickory
Stormwater Require BMPs at all parking lots. Dallas
Abandoned Industrial Sites Ensure proper clean up. Hickory
Straight Piping Fund removal. Hickory
General Enforcement Enforce laws as written, focus on large corporations and landowners. Hickory
General Enforcement Focus on large corporations and landowners. Dallas
Sediment Control State should provide money for maintenance and enforcement. Hickory
Sediment Control Close one-acre lot size loophole. Newton
Buffers Expand buffer width. Provide local incentive to make stronger rules. Dallas
Package Plants Plants should be combined into regional system. Dallas
Road Construction DOT must restrict runoff. Newton
Shoreline Development Restrict Growth. Newton

A-V-3
Issues Related to Funding Sources and Education

Specific Issue Recommendation Workshop
Fertilizer Application Educate lawn care and residential users on application process. All
Stormwater/Urban Runoff Educate citizens/homeowners on the benefits of BMPs. All
Riparian Buffers Educate landowners. All
Low Impact Development Educate citizens and local governments on benefits. All
Cattle in Streams Provide more funding to cost share program. Dallas, Newton
Septic Systems Educate public. Newton
Implement Long-Term Planning Dallas
Fines Fine revenue should go directly to enforcement fund, not general fund. Dallas
Funding for Enforcement Provide more. Hickory
Tourism Educate leaders on value of pristine environments and fund their protection. Hickory
Optimize Spending Increase in water quality should be proportional to spending. Hickory

Appendix VI

Catawba River Basin
Nonpoint Source Program
Description and Contacts

Appendices

Statewide Nonpoint Source Management Program Description

The North Carolina Nonpoint Source Management Program consists of a broad framework of
federal, state and local resource and land management agencies. More than 2,000 individuals
administer programs that are directly related to nonpoint source pollution management within the
state. A range of responsibilities have been delegated to county or municipal programs including
the authority to inspect and permit land clearing projects or septic system performance. In the
field of agriculture, a well established network of state and federal agricultural conservationists
provide technical assistance and program support to individual farmers.

Staff in the DWQ Water Quality Section’s Planning Branch lead the Nonpoint Source
Management Program, working with various agencies to insure that program goals are
incorporated into individual agencies’ management plans. The goals include:

1. Coordinate implementation of state and federal initiatives addressing watershed protection
and restoration.
2. Continue to target geographic areas and waterbodies for protection based upon best available
information.
3. Strengthen and improve existing nonpoint source management programs.
4. Develop new programs that control nonpoint sources of pollution not addressed by existing
programs.
5. Integrate the NPS Program with other state programs and management studies (e.g.,
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program).
6. Monitor the effectiveness of BMPs and management strategies, both for surface water and
groundwater quality.

Coordination between state agencies is achieved through reports in the North Carolina Nonpoint
Source Management Program Update. Reports are intended to keep the program document
current and develop a comprehensive assessment identifying the needs of each agency to meet
the state nonpoint source program goals. Annual reports are developed to describe individual
program priorities, accomplishments, significant challenges, issues yet to be addressed, and
resource needs. A copy of the latest Annual Report is available online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/nps_mp.htm.

The nature of nonpoint source pollution is such that involvement at the local level is imperative.
Basinwide water quality plans identify watersheds that are impaired by nonpoint sources of
pollution. Identification, status reports and recommendations are intended to provide the best
available information to local groups and agencies interested in improving water quality. The
plans also make available information regarding federal, state and local water quality initiatives
aimed at reducing or preventing nonpoint source pollution.

The following table is a comprehensive guide to contacts within the state’s Nonpoint Source
Management Program. For more information, contact Alan Clark at [phone], ext. 570.
Most employees of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, including the
Division of Water Quality, Division of Land Resources and Division of Forest Resources, can be
reached by email using the following formula: [e-mail].
A-VI-1

Agriculture
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Part of the US Department of Agriculture, formerly the Soil Conservation Service. Technical specialists certify waste management plans for
animal operations; provide certification training for swine waste applicators; work with landowners on private lands to conserve natural
resources, helping farmers and ranchers develop conservation systems unique to their land and needs; administer several federal agricultural
cost share and incentive programs; provide assistance to rural and urban communities to reduce erosion, conserve and protect water, and solve
other resource problems; conduct soil surveys; offer planning assistance for local landowners to install best management practices; and offer
farmers technical assistance on wetlands identification.
Area 1 Conserv. Carol S. Litchfield 828-456-6341 589 Raccoon Road, Suite 246, Waynesville 28786-3217
Area 2 Conserv. Mike Sugg 704-637-2400 530 West Innes Street, Salisbury 28144

County Contact Person Phone Address
Alexander James Propst 828-632-2708 Box 10, Taylorsville 28681
Avery David Tucker 828-264-3857 971 West King Street, Boone 28607
Burke Russell Lyday 828-439-9727 130 Ammons Drive, Suite 3, Morganton 28655
Caldwell Russell Lyday 828-439-9727 130 Ammons Drive, Suite 3, Morganton 28655
Catawba Richard Grant 828-464-1382 1175 Sourth Brady Avenue, Newton 28658
Gaston Shawn Smith 704-922-3956 1303 Cherryville Hwy, Dallas 28034
Iredell James Summers 704-873-6761 Ag. Resource Center, 444 Bristol Drive, Statesville 28677
Lincoln Elton Barber 704-736-8501 115 Main Street, Lincolnton 28092
McDowell Albert Moore 828-287-4220 121 Laurel Drive, Rutherfordton 28139-2952
Mecklenburg Matthew Kinane 704-792-0400 715 Cabarrus Avenue West, Concord 28027
Union Mark Ferguson 704-289-3212 604 Lancaster Avenue, Monroe 28112
Soil & Water Conservation Districts:
Boards and staff under the administration of the NC Soil and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC). Districts are responsible for:
administering the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control at the county level; identifying areas needing soil
and/or water conservation treatment; allocating cost share resources; signing cost share contracts with landowners; providing technical
assistance for the planning and implementation of BMPs; and encouraging the use of appropriate BMPs to protect water quality.
County Board Chairman Phone Address
Alexander Larry Payne 828-632-2708 255 Liledoun Road, Taylorsville 28681
Avery Edward Storey 828-733-2291 PO Box 190, Newland 28657
Burke Don Abernethy 828-439-9727 130 Ammons Drive, Morganton 28655
Caldwell Boyd Wilson 828-758-1111 120 Hospital Avenue NE, Suite #2, Lenoir 28645
Catawba Charles Wike 828-464-1382 PO Box 389, Newton 28658
Gaston William Craig 704-922-3956 1303 Cherryville Hwy, Dallas 28034
Iredell Wade Carrigan 704-873-6761 444 Bristol Drive, Statesville 28677-2942
Lincoln Blair Goodson 704-736-8501 115 Main Street, Citizen Center, Lincolnton 28092
McDowell C. A. Buckner 828-652-4434 15 North Garden Street, Marion 28752
Mecklenburg Owen Furuseth 704-336-6265 700 North Tryon Street, Charlotte 28202
Union Warren Case 704-289-3212 604 Lancaster Avenue, Monroe 28112
Division of Soil and Water Conservation:
State agency that administers the Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control (ACSP). Allocates ACSP funds to
the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and provides administrative and technical assistance related to soil science and engineering.
Distributes Wetlands Inventory maps for a small fee.
Central Office David Williams 919-715-6103 5th Floor Archdale Bldg, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh 27626
Asheville* David Ferguson 828-251-6208 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville 28801
Mooresville** Ralston James 704-663-1699 919 North Main Street, Mooresville 28115
A-VI-2

Agriculture (con’t)
NCDA Regional Agronomists:
The NC Department of Agriculture technical specialists: certify waste management plans for animal operations; provide certification training
for swine waste applicators; track, monitor, and account for use of nutrients on agricultural lands; operate the state Pesticide Disposal
Program, and enforce the state pesticide handling and application laws with farmers.
Central Office Richard Reich 919-733-2655 1040 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-1040
Region 12 Lynn Howard 828-313-9982 604 Pine Mountain Road, Hudson 28638
Region 14 Steven Dillon 704-742-9933 242 at East Acres Farm Road, Ellenboro 28040
Education
NC Cooperative Extension Service:
Provides practical, research-based information and programs to help individuals, families, farms, businesses and communities.
County Contact Person Phone Address
Alexander Lenny Rogers 828-632-4451 621 Liledoun Road, Taylorsville 28681
Avery Michael Pitman 828-733-8270 PO Box 280, Newland 28657
Burke Spring Williams 828-439-4460 130 Ammons Drive, Morganton 28655
Caldwell Allen Caldwell 828-757-1290 120 Hospital Avenue NE , Suite 1, Lenoir 28645
Catawba Fred Miller 828-465-8240 1175 South Brady Avenue, Newton 28658
Gaston David Fogarty 704-922-0301 PO Box 1578, Gastonia 28053
Iredell Kenneth Vaughn 704-873-0507 PO Box 311, Statesville 28677
Lincoln Kevin Starr 704-736-8458 115 West Main Street, Lincolnton 28092
McDowell Daniel Smith 828-652-7121 10 East Court Street, Marion 28752
Mecklenburg Deborah Myatt 704-336-2561 700 North Tryon Street, Charlotte 28202
Union Jerry Simpson 704-283-3801 500 North Main Street, Room 506, Monroe 28112
Forestry
Division of Forest Resources:
Develop, protect, and manage the multiple resources of North Carolina's forests through professional stewardship, enhancing the quality of
our citizens while ensuring the continuity of these vital resources.
Districts 12 Howard Williams 704-827-7576 1933 Mountain Island Hwy, Mount Holly 28120
Central Office Moreland Gueth 919-733-2162 1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-1616
Construction/Mining
DENR Division of Land Resources:
Administers the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program for construction and mining operations. Conducts land surveys and studies,
produces maps, and protects the state's land and mineral resources.
Central Office Mel Nevills 919-733-4574 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh 27626
Asheville* Richard Phillips 828-251-6208 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville 28801
Mooresville** Doug Miller 704-663-6040 919 North Main Street, Mooresville 28115
Local Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinances:
Several local governments in the basin have qualified to administer their own erosion and sedimentation control ordinances.
Avery County Tommy Burelson 828-733-8204 PO Box 596, Newland 28657
Cabarrus County Tony Johnson 704-920-2835 ext. 2835 PO Box 707, Concord 28026
Mecklenburg County Kia Whittlesey 704-336-7783 700 North Tryon Street, Charlotte 28202
A-VI-3

General Water Quality
DWQ Water Quality Section:
Coordinate the numerous nonpoint source programs carried out by many agencies; administer the Section 319 Grants Program statewide;
conduct stormwater permitting; model water quality; conduct water quality monitoring; perform wetlands permitting; conduct animal
operation permitting and enforcement; and conduct water quality classifications and standards activities.
NPS Planning Alan Clark 919-733-5083 x570 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-1617
Urban Stormwater Bradley Bennett 919-733-5083 x525 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-1617
Modelling Michelle Woolfolk 919-733-5083 x505 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-1617
Monitoring Jimmie Overton 919-733-9960 x204 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-1621
Wetlands John Dorney 919-733-1786 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-1621
Animal Operations Kim Colson 919-733-5083 x540 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-1617
Classifications/Standards Tom Reeder 919-733-5083 x557 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-1617
DWQ Regional Offices:
Conduct permitting and enforcement field work on point sources, stormwater, wetlands, and animal operations, conduct enforcement on
water quality violations of any kind, and perform ambient water quality monitoring.
Asheville Region* Forrest Westall 828-251-6208 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville 28801
Mooresville Region** Rex Gleason 704-663-1699 919 North Main Street, Mooresville 28115
Wildlife Resources Commission:
To manage, restore, develop, cultivate, conserve, protect, and regulate the wildlife resources of the state, and to administer the laws enacted
by the General Assembly relating to game, game and non-game freshwater fishes, and other wildlife resources in a sound, constructive,
comprehensive, continuing, and economical manner.
Central Office Frank McBride 919-733-7123 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh 27604
Central Office David Cobb 919-733-7291 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh 27604
US Army Corps of Engineers:
Responsible for: investigating, developing and maintaining the nation's water and related environmental resources; constructing and
operating projects for navigation, flood control, major drainage, shore and beach restoration and protection; hydropower development; water
supply; water quality control, fish and wildlife conservation and enhancement, and outdoor recreation; responding to emergency relief
activities directed by other federal agencies; and administering laws for the protection and preservation of navigable waters, emergency flood
control and shore protection. Responsible for wetlands and 404 Federal Permits.
Asheville Field Office Steve Chapin 828-271-4014 151 Patton Avenue, Room 143, Asheville 28801
DWQ Groundwater Section:
Groundwater classifications and standards, enforcement of groundwater quality protection standards and cleanup requirements, review of
permits for wastes discharged to groundwater, issuance of well construction permits, underground injection control, administration of the
underground storage tank (UST) program (including the UST Trust Funds), well head protection program development, and ambient
groundwater monitoring.
Central Office Carl Bailey 919-733-3221 PO Box 29578, Raleigh 27626-0578
Asheville* Landon Davidson 828-251-6208 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville 28801
Mooresville** Andrew Pitner 704-663-1699 919 North Main Street, Mooresville 28115

A-VI-4

Solid Waste
DENR Division of Waste Management:
Management of solid waste in a way that protects public health and the environment. The Division includes three sections and one program --
Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste, Superfund, and the Resident Inspectors Program.
Central Office Brad Atkinson 919-733-0692 401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150, Raleigh 27605
Asheville* Jesse Wells 828-251-6208 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville 28801
Mooresville** Robert Krebs 704-663-1699 919 North Main Street, Mooresville 28115
On-Site Wastewater Treatment
Division of Environmental Health and County Health Departments:
Safeguard life, promote human health, and protect the environment through the practice of modern environmental health science, the use of
technology, rules, public education, and above all, dedication to the public trust.
Services include:
• Training of and delegation of authority to local environmental health specialists concerning on-site wastewater.
• Engineering review of plans and specifications for wastewater systems 3,000 gallons or larger and industrial process wastewater systems
designed to discharge below the ground surface.
• Technical assistance to local health departments, other state agencies, and industry on soil suitability and other site considerations for on-
site wastewater systems.
Central Office Barbara Grimes 919-715-0141 2728 Capital Boulevard, Raleigh 27604
Asheville* Joe Lynn 828-397-5152 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville 28801

County Primary Contact Phone Address
Alexander Doug Ferguson 828-632-9704 322 First Avenue, SW, Taylorsville 28681
Avery Thomas Singleton 828-733-6031 PO Box 325, Newland 28657
Burke David Rust, Jr. 828-438-5430 200 Avery Avenue, Morganton 28655
Caldwell Douglas Urland 828-426-8579 1966-B Morganton Boulevard SW, Lenoir 28645
Catawba Barry Blick 828-695-5800 3070 11th Avenue SE, Hickory 28602
Gaston Coleen Bridger 704-853-5262 991 West Hudson Boulevard, Gastonia 28052
Iredell Raymond Rabe 704-878-5303 318 Turnersburg Hwy, Statesville 28625
Lincoln Margaret Dollar 704-736-8634 151 Sigmon Road, Lincolnton 28092
McDowell Joyce Sluder 828-652-6811 140 Spaulding Road, Marion 28752
Mecklenburg Peter Safer 704-336-3100 249 Billingsley Road, Charlotte 28211
Union Lorey White, Jr. 704-296-4800 1224 West Roosevelt Boulevard, Monroe 28110

• DENR Regional Offices involved
* Asheville Region Office covers the following counties:
Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, McDowell,
Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania and Yancey.

** Mooresville Region Office covers the following counties:
Alexander, Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Stanly and Union.

A-VI-5

Appendices

Appendix VII

Glossary
of
Terms and Acronyms

A-VII-1
Glossary

§ Section.
30Q2 The minimum average flow for a period of 30 days that has an average recurrence of one in
two years.
7Q10 The annual minimum 7-day consecutive low flow, which on average will be exceeded in 9
out of 10 years.
B (Class B) Class B Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C. Primary recreational activities
include frequent and/or organized swimming and other human contact such as skin diving
and water skiing.
basin The watershed of a major river system. There are 17 major river basins in North Carolina.
benthic Aquatic organisms, visible to the naked eye (macro) and lacking a backbone (invertebrate),
macroinvertebrates that live in or on the bottom of rivers and streams (benthic). Examples include, but are not
limited to, aquatic insect larvae, mollusks and various types of worms. Some of these
organisms, especially aquatic insect larvae, are used to assess water quality. See EPT index
and bioclassification for more information.
benthos A term for bottom-dwelling aquatic organisms.
best management Techniques that are determined to be currently effective, practical means of preventing or
practices reducing pollutants from point and nonpoint sources, in order to protect water quality.
BMPs include, but are not limited to: structural and nonstructural controls, operation and
maintenance procedures, and other practices. Often, BMPs are applied as system of
practices and not just one at a time.
bioclassification A rating of water quality based on the outcome of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling of a
stream. There are five levels: Poor, Fair, Good-Fair, Good and Excellent.
BMPs See best management practices.
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the
decomposition of biological matter or chemical reactions in the water column. Most
NPDES discharge permits include a limit on the amount of BOD that may be discharged.
C (Class C) Class C Water Quality Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and
others uses.
channelization The physical alteration of streams and rivers by widening, deepening or straightening of the
channel, large-scale removal of natural obstructions, and/or lining the bed or banks with
rock or other resistant materials.
chlorophyll a A chemical constituent in plants that gives them their green color. High levels of
chlorophyll a in a waterbody, most often in a pond, lake or estuary, usually indicate a large
amount of algae resulting from nutrient overenrichment or eutrophication.
coastal counties Twenty counties in eastern NC subject to requirements of the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). They include: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan,
Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico,
Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington.
Coastal Plain One of three major physiographic regions in North Carolina. Encompasses the eastern two-
fifths of state east of the fall line (approximated by Interstate I-95).
conductivitiy A measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. It is dependent on the
concentration of dissolved ions such as sodium, chloride, nitrates, phosphates and metals in
solution.
degradation The lowering of the physical, chemical or biological quality of a waterbody caused by
pollution or other sources of stress.

A-VII-2
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
DO Dissolved oxygen.
drainage area An alternate name for a watershed.
DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality, an agency of DENR.
dystrophic Naturally acidic (low pH), "black-water" lakes which are rich in organic matter. Dystrophic
lakes usually have low productivity because most fish and aquatic plants are stressed by low
pH water. In North Carolina, dystrophic lakes are scattered throughout the Coastal Plain
and Sandhills regions and are often located in marshy areas or overlying peat deposits.
NCTSI scores are not appropriate for evaluating dystrophic lakes.
EEP Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
effluent The treated liquid discharged from a wastewater treatment plant.
EMC Environmental Management Commission.
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency.
EPT Index This index is used to judge water quality based on the abundance and variety of three orders
of pollution sensitive aquatic insect larvae: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies).
eutrophic Elevated biological productivity related to an abundance of available nutrients. Eutrophic
lakes may be so productive that the potential for water quality problems such as algal
blooms, nuisance aquatic plant growth and fish kills may occur.
eutrophication The process of physical, chemical or biological changes in a lake associated with nutrient,
organic matter and silt enrichment of a waterbody. The corresponding excessive algal
growth can deplete dissolved oxygen and threaten certain forms of aquatic life, cause
unsightly scums on the water surface and result in taste and odor problems.
fall line A geologic landscape feature that defines the line between the piedmont and coastal plain
regions. It is most evident as the last set of small rapids or rock outcroppings that occur on
rivers flowing from the piedmont to the coast.
FS Fully supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that fully supports its designated uses and
generally has good or excellent water quality.
GIS Geographic Information System. An organized collection of computer hardware, software,
geographic data and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate,
analyze and display all forms of geographically referenced information.
habitat degradation Identified where there is a notable reduction in habitat diversity or change in habitat quality.
This term includes sedimentation, bank erosion, channelization, lack of riparian vegetation,
loss of pools or riffles, loss of woody habitat, and streambed scour.
headwaters Small streams that converge to form a larger stream in a watershed.
HQW High Quality Waters. A supplemental surface water classification.
HU Hydrologic unit. See definition below.
Hydrilla The genus name of an aquatic plant - often considered an aquatic weed.
hydrologic unit A watershed area defined by a national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council. This system divides the country into 21 regions, 222
subregions, 352 accounting units and 2,149 cataloging units. A hierarchical code consisting
of two digits for each of the above four levels combined to form an eight-digit hydrologic
unit (cataloging unit). An eight-digit hydrologic unit generally covers an average of 975
square miles. There are 54 eight-digit hydrologic (or cataloging) units in North Carolina.
These units have been further subdivided into eleven and fourteen-digit units.
hypereutrophic Extremely elevated biological productivity related to excessive nutrient availability.
Hypereutrophic lakes exhibit frequent algal blooms, episodes of low dissolved oxygen or
periods when no oxygen is present in the water, fish kills and excessive aquatic plant
growth.

A-VII-3
impaired Term that applies to a waterbody that has a use support rating of partially supporting (PS) or
not supporting (NS) its uses.
impervious Incapable of being penetrated by water; non-porous.
kg Kilograms. To change kilograms to pounds multiply by 2.2046.
lbs Pounds. To change pounds to kilograms multiply by 0.4536.
loading Mass rate of addition of pollutants to a waterbody (e.g., kg/yr)
macroinvertebrates Animals large enough to be seen by the naked eye (macro) and lacking backbones
(invertebrate).
macrophyte An aquatic plant large enough to be seen by the naked eye.
mesotrophic Moderate biological productivity related to intermediate concentrations of available
nutrients. Mesotrophic lakes show little, if any, signs of water quality degradation while
supporting a good diversity of aquatic life.
MGD Million gallons per day.
mg/l Milligrams per liter (approximately 0.00013 oz/gal).
NCIBI North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity. A measure of the community health of a
population of fish in a given waterbody.
NH3-N Ammonia nitrogen.
nonpoint source A source of water pollution generally associated with rainfall runoff or snowmelt. The
quality and rate of runoff of NPS pollution is strongly dependent on the type of land cover
and land use from which the rainfall runoff flows. For example, rainfall runoff from
forested lands will generally contain much less pollution and runoff more slowly than runoff
from urban lands.
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NPS Nonpoint source.
NR Not rated. A waterbody that is not rated for use support due to insufficient data.
NS Not supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that does not support its designated uses and
has poor water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and NS are called
impaired.
NSW Nutrient Sensitive Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended for waters
needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Waters classified as NSW include the Neuse, Tar-
Pamlico and Chowan River basins; the New River watershed in the White Oak basin; and
the watershed of B. Everett Jordan Reservoir (including the entire Haw River watershed).
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units. The units used to quantify turbidity using a turbidimeter.
This method is based on a comparison of the intensity of light scattered by the sample under
defined conditions with the intensity of the light scattered by a standard reference
suspension under the same conditions.
oligotrophic Low biological productivity related to very low concentrations of available nutrients.
Oligotrophic lakes in North Carolina are generally found in the mountain region or in
undisturbed (natural) watersheds and have very good water quality.
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters. A supplemental surface water classification intended to
protect unique and special resource waters having excellent water quality and being of
exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance. No new or expanded
wastewater treatment plants are allowed, and there are associated stormwater runoff
controls enforced by DWQ.
pH A measure of the concentration of free hydrogen ions on a scale ranging from 0 to 14.
Values below 7 and approaching 0 indicate increasing acidity, whereas values above 7 and
approaching 14 indicate a more basic solution.

A-VII-4
phytoplankton Aquatic microscopic plant life, such as algae, that are common in ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries.
Piedmont One of three major physiographic regions in the state. Encompasses most of central North
Carolina from the Coastal Plain region (near I-95) to the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge
Mountains region.
PS Partially supporting. A rating given to a waterbody that only partially supports its
designated uses and has fair water quality and severe water quality problems. Both PS and
NS are called impaired.
riparian zone Vegetated corridor immediately adjacent to a stream or river. See also SMZ.
river basin The watershed of a major river system. North Carolina is divided into 17 major river
basins: Broad, Cape Fear, Catawba, Chowan, French Broad, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee,
Lumber, Neuse, New, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Savannah, Tar-Pamlico, Watauga, White Oak
and Yadkin River basins.
river system The main body of a river, its tributary streams and surface water impoundments.
runoff Rainfall that does not evaporate or infiltrate the ground, but instead flows across land and
into waterbodies.
SA Class SA Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters that have sufficient
water quality to support commercial shellfish harvesting.
SB Class SB Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality for frequent and/or organized swimming or other human contact.
SC Class SC Water Classification. This classification denotes saltwaters with sufficient water
quality to support secondary recreation and aquatic life propagation and survival.
sedimentation The sinking and deposition of waterborne particles (e.g., eroded soil, algae and dead
organisms).
silviculture Care and cultivation of forest trees; forestry.
SOC Special Order by Consent. An agreement between the Environmental Management
Commission and a permitted discharger found responsible for causing or contributing to
surface water pollution. The SOC stipulates actions to be taken to alleviate the pollution
within a defined time. The SOC typically includes relaxation of permit limits for particular
parameters, while the facility completes the prescribed actions. SOCs are only issued to
facilities where the cause of pollution is not operational in nature (i.e., physical changes to
the wastewater treatment plant are necessary to achieve compliance).
streamside The area left along streams to protect streams from sediment and other pollutants, protect
management streambeds, and provide shade and woody debris for aquatic organisms.
zone (SMZ)
subbasin A designated subunit or subwatershed area of a major river basin. Subbasins typically
encompass the watersheds of significant streams or lakes within a river basin. Every river
basin is subdivided into subbasins ranging from one subbasin in the Watauga River basin to
24 subbasins in the Cape Fear River basin. There are 133 subbasins statewide. These
subbasins are not a part of the national uniform hydrologic unit system that is sponsored by
the Water Resources Council (see hydrologic unit).
Sw Swamp Waters. A supplemental surface water classification denoting waters that have
naturally occurring low pH, low dissolved oxygen and low velocities. These waters are
common in the Coastal Plain and are often naturally discolored giving rise to their nickname
of “blackwater” streams.
TMDL Total maximum daily load. The amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate
and maintain its uses and water quality standards.
TN Total nitrogen.
TP Total phosphorus.
tributary A stream that flows into a larger stream, river or other waterbody.

A-VII-5
trophic classification Trophic classification is a relative description of a lake’s biological productivity, which is
the ability of the lake to support algal growth, fish populations and aquatic plants. The
productivity of a lake is determined by a number of chemical and physical characteristics,
including the availability of essential plant nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), algal growth
and the depth of light penetration. Lakes are classified according to productivity:
unproductive lakes are termed "oligotrophic"; moderately productive lakes are termed
"mesotrophic"; and very productive lakes are termed "eutrophic".
TSS Total Suspended Solids.
turbidity An expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather
than transmitted in straight lines through a sample. All particles in the water that may
scatter or absorb light are measured during this procedure. Suspended sediment, aquatic
organisms and organic particles such as pieces of leaves contribute to instream turbidity.
UT Unnamed tributary.
watershed The region, or land area, draining into a body of water (such as a creek, stream, river, pond,
lake, bay or sound). A watershed may vary in size from several acres for a small stream or
pond to thousands of square miles for a major river system. The watershed of a major river
system is referred to as a basin or river basin.
WET Whole effluent toxicity. The aggregate toxic effect of a wastewater measured directly by an
aquatic toxicity test.
WS Class WS Water Supply Water Classification. This classification denotes freshwaters used
as sources of water supply. There are five WS categories. These range from WS-I, which
provides the highest level of protection, to WS-V, which provides no categorical restrictions
on watershed development or wastewater discharges like WS-I through WS-IV.
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant.