WSMU_JONE_WSWP Ordinance_20220412

ELKIN & JONESVILLE
WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION PLAN
The Piedmont Triad Regional Council is is working with stakeholders to ensure Ion -term ecological health and
public use of the the water supply for the Towns of Elkin & Jonesville. While waters in Big Elkin Creek and
around the Yadkin River intake are not rated as impaired, both fail to meet their full potential as public and
ecological resources, and have opportunities to be restored to greater function as natural and recreational
resources.
PIEDMONT TRIAD
REGIONAL COUNCIL
deanwater
MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND

Water Supply Protection Plan
Town of Elkin
Town of Jonesville
February 2015
PIEDMONT TRIAD
REGIONAL COUNCIL
Cy Stober, Senior Regional Planner
Joy Fields, Planner I
Marc Allred, GIS Planner
Elizabeth Jernigan, Planner II
With Support From
A
deanwater
MANAGEMENT TRUST FUN❑

Table of Contents
ELKIN& JONESVILLE...........................................................................................................
WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION PLAN....................................................................................
Tableof Contents..................................................................................................................................... v
Figures& Tables.................................................................................................................................... viii
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1
WATERSHED CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 7
Background................................................................................................................................................7
WaterQuality.......................................................................................................................................7
Elkin.......................................................................................................................................................
11
Jonesville..............................................................................................................................................
19
CurrentConditions.................................................................................................................................21
Elkin.......................................................................................................................................................
21
Jonesville..............................................................................................................................................
26
Present & Future Watershed Needs..................................................................................................32
Programs.................................................................................................................................................
37
Update Emergency Response Plans................................................................................................37
Improved Water Quality Monitoring Network.............................................................................37
AnnualWater Audit...........................................................................................................................38
Academic Investigation of Jonesville's Vegetative Mats.............................................................38
Target Primary Non -Point Sources of Sediment Pollution...........................................................38
Policies.....................................................................................................................................................
39
UtilityFinancing...................................................................................................................................39
WatershedStewardship...................................................................................................................40
StormwaterOrdinance......................................................................................................................42
Partnershipsand Funding.....................................................................................................................42
Yadkin Valley Heritage Corridor Partnership..............................................................................42
NCEnvironmental Finance Center...................................................................................................43
NCRural Water Association............................................................................................................43
NCDivision of Water Resources......................................................................................................43
NorthCaolrina Universities...............................................................................................................44
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund....................................................................................44
DukeEnergy Water Resources Fund...............................................................................................44
NCParks and Recreation Trust Fund..............................................................................................44
NCDivision of Water Infrastructure...............................................................................................44
AGRICULTURE...................................................................................................................
46
Issuesof Concern...................................................................................................................................47
Sedimentation......................................................................................................................................
47
NutrientPollution.................................................................................................................................47
Pathogens.............................................................................................................................................
48
HazardousWaste..............................................................................................................................48
Livestock..................................................................................................................................................48
Poultry...................................................................................................................................................
49
GrazingLivestock...............................................................................................................................53

Crops........................................................................................................................................................ 54
TillagePractices..................................................................................................................................55
CoverCrops.........................................................................................................................................56
Conversioncrops.................................................................................................................................56
PotentialConcerns.................................................................................................................................57
NontraditionalOperations................................................................................................................ 58
Viticulture.............................................................................................................................................. 58
Partnerships& Programs.......................................................................................................................58
Voluntary Agricultural District Program.........................................................................................58
PartnersOrganizations........................................................................................................................ 58
CaseStudies...........................................................................................................................................60
Funding North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services...................62
FarmlandPreservation Planning.........................................................................................................63
Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 63
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................ 65
FORESTS& FORESTRY....................................................................................................... 66
Programs................................................................................................................................................. 67
Forestryprograms..............................................................................................................................67
LandownerEducation Programs......................................................................................................67
Regenerationof Forest Lands.......................................................................................................... 68
NATURAL ASSETS & RECREATION....................................................................................
69
Natural Resources Assessment.............................................................................................................69
Trout......................................................................................................................................................
69
BogTurtles...........................................................................................................................................
72
Rare Aquatic Species and Other Species of Concern.................................................................74
NativePlants.......................................................................................................................................74
RecreationalCapacity..........................................................................................................................76
Blueways..............................................................................................................................................
76
Greenways/Trails...............................................................................................................................
76
BirdWatching.....................................................................................................................................77
Programs.................................................................................................................................................
80
GreenGrowth Toolbox.....................................................................................................................80
Increasing Recreational Opportunities...........................................................................................
80
Marketing Campaign to Highlight Ecotourism Potential..............................................................81
WatershedCoordinator....................................................................................................................82
Policies.....................................................................................................................................................
82
OpenSpace Preservation.................................................................................................................82
Partnerships............................................................................................................................................
84
NC Wildlife Resources Commission.................................................................................................84
TrailsAssociations...............................................................................................................................84
LocalLand Conservancies.................................................................................................................84
YadkinRiverkeeper............................................................................................................................85
Funding....................................................................................................................................................
85
NC Wildlife Resources Commission.................................................................................................85
Grants...................................................................................................................................................
86
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................
87

WATERSHED PROTECTION & REHABILITATION................................................................ 88
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Watershed Priorities Atlas...............................................................90
Policies...................................................................................................................................................1
02
Partnerships....................................................................................................................................102
NC Wildlife Resources Commission.....................................................................................102
TrailsAssociations......................................................................................................................103
Local Land Conservancies........................................................................................................103
YadkinRiverkeeper.....................................................................................................................103
Funding..................................................................................................................................................104
North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services..................................104
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund..................................................................................1
05
DukeEnergy Water Resources Fund.............................................................................................1
05
NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund............................................................................................1
05
Wildlife Resources Commission......................................................................................................1
05
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................
106
PROJECTATLAS..............................................................................................................
108
Big Elkin Creek Watershed Priorities: Restoration........................................................................1
10
Big Elkin Creek Watershed Priorities: Conservation.....................................................................1
19
Jonesville Intake Watershed Priorities: Restoration......................................................................1
27
Jonesville Intake Watershed Priorities: Conservation...................................................................1
63
WORKSCITED.................................................................................................................. 184

`-figures & Tables
Figure 1: Riparian Buffer Protection Along Big Elkin Creek............................................................................................ 1
Figure2: PTRC 201 A..............................................................................................................................................................
A
Figure3: PTRC 201 A..............................................................................................................................................................
5
Figure4: elkin creek March 2013 .......................................................................................................................................7
Figure5: PTRC 201 A..............................................................................................................................................................
9
Figure6: High Country COG, 2012 ..................................................................................................................................10
Figure7: NLCD 2006...........................................................................................................................................................1
2
Figure 8: Big Elkin Creek, February 2014. ......................................................................................................................
13
Figure9: PTRC 201 A............................................................................................................................................................I
A
Figure10: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................15
Figure1 1: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................16
Figure12: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................17
Figure13: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................1
8
Figure 14: runoff upstream & Downstream of a Tobacco Farm, Surry County. Photo Courtesy of Joe Mickey,
201 A........................................................................................................................................................................................
20
Figure 15: Elkin's Water Rate Profile, UNC Environmental Finance Center, March 201 A......................................21
Figure 16: Jonesville's Water Rate Profile, (UNC EFC 201 A)......................................................................................26
Figure 17: (Yadkin County Land Use Plan Committee 201 1).......................................................................................27
Figure 1 8: Green Infrastructure at a Lowe's Store in Wilkesboro;
http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/lasn/2014/02/img/25194/25194-1.ipg......................................29
Figure19: Corn Field View in Jonesville...........................................................................................................................32
Figure20: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................33
Figure21: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................34
Figure22: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................35
Figure23: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................36
Figure 24: Impacts of Tobacco Farming on Local Streams in Mitchell River Watershed, Surry County. Photo
Courtesyof Joe Mickey, 201 A...........................................................................................................................................39
Figure 25: Big Elkin Creek 2012 Source PTRC................................................................................................................47
Figure26: Cattle Accessing Creek.....................................................................................................................................48
Figure 27: Total Cash Receipts per County (201 2)........................................................................................................48
Figure 28: Broilers PRoduced per County (201 2)..........................................................................................................49
Figure 29: Poultry Operations Documented by the Yadkin Riverkeeper, 201 A......................................................50
Figure30: Poultry House......................................................................................................................................................51
Figure 31 : Agricultural Map - Yadkin Riverkeeper Data.............................................................................................52
Figure32: Livestock BMPs....................................................................................................................................................53
Figure 33: Total Cattle per County(2013)......................................................................................................................53
Figure34: No -till Soy beans...............................................................................................................................................55
Figure35: Strip Tilled Corn................................................................................................................................................55
Figure36: Viticulture............................................................................................................................................................56
Figure37: Prime Farmland Soils........................................................................................................................................57
Figure38: No -till corn..........................................................................................................................................................61
Figure 39: Runoff from a Tobacco Farm, Surry County. Photo Courtesy Joe Mickey, 201 A.................................69
Figure40: BROOK TROUT..................................................................................................................................................69
Figure41: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................71
Figure42: Bog Turtle...........................................................................................................................................................72
Figure43: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................73
FigureAA: Native Cardinal flower....................................................................................................................................74
Figure45: Tour -De -Yadkin 201 A......................................................................................................................................76

Figure46: Elkin trail 201 A..................................................................................................................................................77
Figure47: Blue bird..............................................................................................................................................................78
Figure48: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................79
Figure49: Fishing Access....................................................................................................................................................80
Figure50: Elkin creek..........................................................................................................................................................82
Figure 51 : EVTA bridge project Source Joe Mickey.....................................................................................84
Figure52: Quail and chicks.................................................................................................................................................85
Figure53: Elkin Municipal Park..........................................................................................................................................86
Figure54: ptrc 201 A............................................................................................................................................................88
Figure55: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................89
Figure56: PTRC, 2013.........................................................................................................................................................91
Figure57: PTRC 2013..........................................................................................................................................................92
Figure58: PTRC, 201 A.........................................................................................................................................................93
Figure59: PTRC, 201 A.........................................................................................................................................................94
Figure 60: Category 1 Stream (blue), Stone Mountain Headwaters..........................................................................95
Figure 61 : Category 2 Streams, Moravian Creek Watershed....................................................................................96
Figure 62: CATEGORY 3 STREAMS (yellow), SWAIN CREEK WATERSHED..............................................................96
Figure 63: Category 4 Streams (orange), Mulberry Creek Watershed, PTRC 201 A.............................................97
Figure 64: Category 5 Stream (red), Big Elkin Creek Watershed, PTRC 201 A.......................................................97
Figure65: PTRC 201 A..........................................................................................................................................................99
Figure66: PTRC 201 A.......................................................................................................................................................
100
Figure67: PTRC 201 A.......................................................................................................................................................
101
Figure 68: Relative Proportion of Stream Types by Subwatershed........................................................................
102
Figure 69: From (High Country Council of Governments 201 2)................................................................................
130
Figure 70:: From (High Country Council of Governments 2012)..........................................................................
136
Figure 71 :: From (High Country Council of Governments 201 2)..........................................................................
142
Figure 72: From (High Country Council of Governments 201 2)............................................................................
150

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
INTRODUCTION
The value of water as a public utility and resource is becoming more apparent in North Carolina as the state's
population grows and affects its natural environment. Clean, safe, and reliable water supplies are vital for
communities to grow their populations and economies, and are increasingly being demanded by the private
sector and the public. The State of North Carolina has long recognized the value of restoring impaired waters
so that they meet such standards, but, recently the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) and
the NC Division of Water Resources (NC DWR) Water Supply Protection Unit have collaborated to protect
public water supplies, regardless of their water quality status. Relying upon a watershed -based perspective
over a long timeline, the State is investing resources and support for communities willing to assess the status to
their water supplies and any risks that jeopardize a clean and safe status.
The Piedmont Triad Regional Council (PTRC)
received a grant from the NC CWMTF in
2013 to proactively plan for long-term
water supply protection for both the Towns
of Elkin and Jonesville. This Water Supply
Protection Plan and its recommendations are
the result of this twelve-month planning
process. This planning effort includes an
assessment of historic and current land uses
and policies; recommended policies and
ordinances that can better protect water
quality conditions; and a project atlas that
identifies conservation and restoration
projects that can best protect water quality
conditions for the Towns of Elkin and
Jonesville for the foreseeable future.
The NC Department of Environment and
FIGURE 1: RIPARIAN BUFFER PROTECTION ALONG BIG ELKIN CREEK
'Tt
SOURCE: JOE MICKEY
Natural Resources (DENR) DWR Source Water Protection Unit has an existing Source Water Assessment
program that determines potential risks for public water supplies. It was created in response to the Safe
Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996 as well as to some protective measures required by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (NC DENR 2012). It primarily assesses this risk based upon land
use, land coverage, and identification of "potential contaminants", which are defined broadly. They desire
more robust protection plans for public water supplies and collaborated with the NC CWMTF on this effort to
serve these needs. NCDWR staff has completed source water assessment plans for all public water supplies in
the state to satisfy these needs, but few planning efforts to assess and protect water supplies have been done
since. The DWR has encouraged more detailed source water protection planning such as this effort, but there
has been minimal support at the state and federal levels.
This Water Supply Protection Plan is designed to update the source water assessments of both Elkin and
Jonesville (last done in 2001 ), characterize and describe potential water supply risks, and develop a plan to
protect these water supplies for the foreseeable future with a combination of programs, policies, practices,
and partnerships. The Town of Elkin relies on two water supplies: the Big Elkin Creek watershed is a 34-square

mile Class II water supply watershed, and currently rated "Good" for aquatic life by the NC Division of
Water Quality; the Yadkin River (hereafter referred to as the "Jonesville Intake watershed" to distinguish it
from the Yadkin River) is a 354.5-square mile Class IV water supply watershed (Figure 2) (NCDENR 2007a;
NCDENR 2007b). These watersheds are located in a transition zone between the Piedmont and Blue Ridge
Mountain ecoregions of North Carolina, and have many steep slopes and an elevation peak of 5,210 feet
above sea level. These classes of watersheds refer to their level of protection, as specified by NCDENR to
protect drinking water supplies in North Carolina.
Water Supply II (WS-II): Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes where a WS-I classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C
uses. WS-II waters are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds. All WS-II waters are HQW by
supplemental classification. These watersheds limit developments to one dwelling unit (home) per two acres at
<6% of the total area within a half -mile of the water intake and one home per acre at <1 2% of the total
area for the remainder of the watershed. Multi -family units are also permitted, so long as the structures
occupy <30% of the parcel, or <24% of the parcel within a half -mile of the intake. New industrial
wastewater discharges are also prohibited in these watersheds, and 30 — 100-foot riparian buffers are
required.
Water Supply IV (WS-IV): Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes where a WS-I, II or III classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for
Class C uses. WS-IV waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas.
These watersheds limit developments to one dwelling unit (home) per half -acres at <24% of the total area in
the watershed. Multi -family units are also permitted, so long as the structures occupy <70% of the parcel.
New industrial wastewater discharges are also permitted in these watersheds, and 30 — 1 00-foot riparian
buffers are required (NC DENR 201 1 ).
While the waters that drain to both the Elkin and Jonesville water supply intakes are not rated as impaired,
both supplies are failing to meet their full potential as public and ecological resources. This plan identifies
opportunities to restore these waters and watersheds to greater function as recreational resources, including
paddling, tubing, hiking, and, in the case of Big Elkin Creek, as a trout fishery.
The PTRC approached the needs of the Towns of Elkin and Jonesville with a three -fold approach: relying upon
stakeholder input and resources; analyzing local ordinances and policies for water quality protections
strengths and weaknesses; and assessing historic and current land uses through written records and GIS tools.
GIS can allow users to display multiple pieces of information on one map so their potential relationships can
be observed. It can also be used to simplify and improve the management of a watershed, as it was used
here to subdivide these two large watersheds into twenty-two smaller subwatersheds that permit higher
resolutions of description and analysis (Figure 3). These relationships can be measured and analyzed for their
impacts — potential and real — to water quality conditions using a diverse set of tools that are included with
the mapping software.
The stakeholder group that guided this planning effort was composed of local environmental and recreation
groups, local government staff from both municipalities and counties, and state staff from recreation and
environmental agencies (Table 1 ). The initial stakeholder engagement was at two large meetings, but those
proved less productive than hoped. The main topics of discussion (detailed here in individual chapters) require
too much detailed discussion from many different stakeholders to attempt to cover them all in one, 3-hour
meeting with all stakeholders present. These watersheds feature up to seven separate local governments, let
alone the highly -vested environmental, recreation, and regulatory entities. Consequently, three discussion
Page 2

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
groups began meeting for an hour or so to have focused conversations on these topics: Agriculture, Forestry,
Natural Resources & Recreation, and Watershed Characterization (which includes infrastructure management).
The PTRC also dedicated individual staff to each one of these topics to permit stakeholders better access to
the project support staff and ensure great attention to detail. These groups met on the some days but at
different times. Some stakeholders participated in all of these discussions — many did not. In total, the
stakeholders met four times: twice as a large group and twice as smaller topic groups.
This Plan is organized to assess the water supply watersheds for both Elkin and Jonesville by examining the
four topics that are of highest concern to the stakeholders: agriculture, forestry, natural resources and
recreation, and the watersheds' features, which include policies and infrastructure assessments. The PTRC has
planned for long-term water resource sustainability by employing tools that represent current, historic, and
potential future land uses that are related to the quality of water in both Big Elkin Creek and the Yadkin River
and its tributaries that drain to the Town of Jonesville's intake. Recommendations on how to ensure the
sustainability of the four topic areas and to serve the water resources' needs are recommended within each
chapter and summarized at the end of the Plan. This is complemented by a project atlas that details projects
that can assist in stabilizing the present watersheds, which are plagued by seasonal but recurring sediment
concerns. These projects will both address sites in need of restoration (e.g. streambank stabilization and
riparian buffer restoration) and those in need of protection (e.g. pristine forests on steep slopes) that will
ensure the long-term health and safety of these waters.
Page 3

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
_ Overview
L ALLEGMANY CpU1NTY
1
K �
11NT
i
YwLKESC UKTY--�k
t.
ps
r_I T I
7:��
�iP 1
101
ARE bEL L !;OU HT
COUNTY
Elkin Creek Watershed 0 Yadkin River VVaterst,ed I :W . ' ' ''
FIGURE 2: PTRC 2014
Page 4
F
w ..m
J

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
FIGURE 3: PTRC 2014
Page 5

TABLE 1
Elkin & Jonesville Source Water Protection Stakeholders
ame
kEdie
Entjtyrnes
Wilkes County, Planning Department
Bill Blackley
Elkin Valley Trails Association
Scott Buffkin
Town of Jonesville, Manager
Leigh Calloway
Yadkin County, Soil & Water Conservation District
Duncan Cavanaugh
High Country Council of Governments
Colleen Church
Yadkin County, Cooperative Extension Service
Kacy Cook
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mark Fowlkes
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Nathan Gatlin
NC Forest Service
Bill Hainlin
Wilkes County, Cooperative Extension Service
Andrea Leslie
NC Natural Heritage Program
Adam McComb
Town of Elkin, Parks & Recreation Department
Joe Mickey
Elkin Valley Trails Association
Dean Naujoks
Yadkin Riverkeeper
Mike Pardue
Wilkes County, Soil & Water Conservation District
Michael Poston
Yadkin County, Planning Department
Rebecca Sadosky
NC Division of Water Resources, Source Water Protection Unit
Bryan Tompkins
US Fish & Wildlife
Jason Walker
Yadkin County, Soil & Water Conservation District
Page 6

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
WATERSHED CONDITIONS
Background
Water Quality
Both the Yadkin River and Big Elkin Creek are rated "Good" or "Good -Fair" for fish community and benthic
macroinverteb rates through 2012 (NCDENR 2012). These ratings reflect determinations made by NC DWR
staff scientists who took field samples and judged them against reference streams that are rated "Excellent."
The chemical data for both waters are similar, though there are seasonal peaks in sediment levels (NCDENR
2007). These reflect assertions by all stakeholders that high sediment levels plague both waters in the late
winter through summer. However, both waters remain rated as "Good" for chemical parameters and are
supportive of their current ecological and human uses, as determined by the NC DWR. However, the NC DWR
does not consider either water body as being used for "primary recreation" (swimming, wading, etc.) or trout
habitat. The Roaring River — one of the most FIGURE 4: ELKIN CREEK MARCH 2O13
significant tributaries in the Jonesville Intake
watershed — is rated for primary recreation by NC
F r
DENR (NC DENR 2014). t
I
1 �
The Upper Yadkin River Subbasin does not have
many water quality monitoring sites for either` -
chemical or biological parameters. The chemical."" Y -
water quality data collected has mostly been done
by the Towns of Elkin, Jonesville, and Wilkesboro to
satisfy their monitoring requirements under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPPES) that regulates wastewater and stormwater
r
discharges. The biological data is collected only at SOURCE: JOE MICKEY
three (3) stations over nearly 400-square miles. The Jonesville Intake watershed in particular has very little
data to characterize the health of its waters other than that collected for NDPES purposes by the local
dischargers like Louisiana Pacific. Significant water systems like Roaring River and Swain Creek have never
been monitored by regulatory staff. NC DWR currently does not utilize data collected and submitted by
citizen groups for guidance or use support decision making.
The NC DWR Source Water Protection Unit has developed a comprehensive list of potential water
contaminants for the entire state. These include highly regulated sources such as wastewater treatment plants,
legacy sources of pollution like Superfund sites that were regulated after they were identified, and sites such
as underground storage sites that are inspected less than once a year (Figure 3). These potential contaminant
sites are a key input to DWR's Source Water Assessment Plans (SWAPS) that are currently used to assess the
current risks to water supplies (NC DENR 1999).
The project stakeholders have noted the risk of these irregularly monitored and poorly characterized buried
waste sites. When working with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC), Joe Mickey was called to a
NC Department of Transportation construction project where forty -year old oil drums had been uncovered
and were leaking into the trout waters of the East Prong of the Roaring River. This surprising find led to a
$1 20,000 grant that then required Wilkes County to clean up the polluted soils (personal communication with
Joe Mickey; see 04/29/14 meeting minutes). Based upon the available data collected by and reported to
Page 7

DWR, these potential sites do not appear to be having an adverse effect on water quality conditions in either
the Big Elkin Creek or Jonesville Intake watersheds. Without further water quality monitoring data in the
watershed, though, it is impossible to know if this is accurate for much of the Jonesville Intake watershed.
It should be noted that these healthy water quality conditions can only be stated confidently for the water
quality parameters regularly monitored and reported to and by the NC DWR. There are many other organic
and inorganic agents like flame retardants or lead that are currently not monitored by the State of North
Carolina. Metals have historically been monitored, but have not been since 2007 (NCDENR 2007c). Without
these records, it is impossible and irresponsible to conclude whether these two drinking water sources are
impacted by these potential contaminant sources.
Page 8

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Elkin
& Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
Potential Contaminant
Sources
ALLEGHA"y COUNTY
'
1
1
. `•HE cou►iT
rY �
SL'RAr f"itl r•iTY
i
■
r
wvu 1�..
.n
r
K
- �
OF
*
-- •41kib -.
1
S
- r
W1L11ESC 1Y
116
!S
Isom AIIL**�
71 19
K
)
rA0KIN COUw
70.
-
Supertund Sites
®
Hazardous Waste Generators- Transporters
Waslerraler D scherge
7�r
Groundwaler Contamination
Solid ftste Fdeihty
Hazardous Storage Sites
FONDER COUNTY
"j
Underground Oelentmi System
V
Underground Storage Tank
"
Elkin Creek Watershed OJonesville Intake Watershed
FIGURE 5: PTRC 2014
Page 9

Yadkin River Study on the Impacts of Chicken Litter
The Yadkin Riverkeeper has invested significant time and resources to assessing the impacts of poultry
operations upon local water quality conditions. As detailed in the Agriculture chapter, it is estimated that the
dense presence of poultry operations in Wilkes County are not a significant risk to the water quality
conditions of both watersheds though they likely are having impacts upon High Rock Lake due to high nutrient
levels. Aerial assessments of the watersheds shows that several of these poultry operations also are not
maintaining riparian buffers, directly exposing the local streams to the chicken litter as well as any other
sediment sources that run from these facilities (personal communication with Justin Quinlivan; see 04/29/14
meeting minutes). Even considering the documentation of improper storage of litter piles, Dr. Shea Tuberty's
laboratory at Appalachian State University has shown that the Yadkin River's assimilative capacity renders
metals and other pollutants in the litter a non -risk for ecological and human health purposes (Pack 2009).
Restoration of buffers would assist in addressing the local sediment reduction needs of these watersheds as
well as the much larger nutrient reduction needs of High Rock Lake, which both of these watersheds drain to
and is undergoing a nutrient management strategy development process to address its eutrophication issues.
Dr. Tuberty's work also shows a separate disturbing trend in how chicken litter is used as a fertilizer in Wilkes
County. Poultry litter is a potent agricultural fertilizer that is rich in both nitrogen, potassium, and, especially,
phosphorous. In order to be cost-effective, the litter must be applied within a 100 square mile local area.
With 669,236 tons of litter possibly being produced in these watersheds, it leads to over -application of the
litter on farmlands. While a rich source of nitrogen, the extremely high phosphorous levels of the litter will
effectively strip the soils of other necessary minerals and nutrients in a short amount of time, rendering them
unproductive for most crops. Dr. Tuberty has determined that, at current application rates, this watershed's
farmlands could be stripped of their productive potential within the next forty years (Brower 2013). As
unproductive farmland, these areas will either be biologically -poor ecosystems or developed into residential
areas, adding to the watersheds' stormwater burdens. They could also be developed into tobacco farms,
which generally do not use low- or no -till farming practices and often produce large amounts of sediment.
Tobacco farms appear to be having significant impacts upon the Big Elkin Creek reservoir as an affordable
water supply.
High Country Water Quality Initiative
too Cvunlry Winer 0080ty Irrdaff"
"MMIn
r V­
ip.
H 10 rO, Al ry Cwn c 11 of
s�ysKneer7011
FIGURE 6: HIGH COUNTRY COG, 2012
Page 10
The High Country Council of Governments (HCCOG) published the High
Country Water Quality Initiative in 2012, in an effort to identify sites in all
of their seven -county regions' communities that could be retrofitted to
improve local and regional water quality conditions (Figure 4). HCCOG
recognized the need to address non -point sources of water pollution
through local stormwater controls, despite few municipalities having NPDES
Phase II stormwater regulations. A key motivation for this planning effort
was economic development, both in regard to protecting natural and
recreational resources and safe and plentiful water supplies. Through this
robust community outreach and planning effort, they worked with Wilkes
County, Ronda, and Wilkesboro to identify one site in each community —
though Wilkesboro has two — and catalogue them in a report. All of these
sites have modeled load reductions for the proposed projects to determine
their added value for water quality conditions. They all drain to the
Jonesville Intake on the Yadkin River and will be featured in this Plan's

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Project Atlas. Their individual pollutant load reductions, including sediment, are provided.
Elkin
The Town of Elkin, NC, has two water supplies: a primary water supply in an impoundment on Big Elkin Creek
and emergency water supply intake on the Yadkin River across the river from the Town of Jonesville. The Big
Elkin Creek watershed is 34.5 square miles in area, with predominantly rural residential and agricultural land
uses (Figure 5). Big Elkin Creek is generally a third- or fourth -order stream that runs in a moderately
southwestern direction that has no significant named tributaries. It extends from the Town of Elkin's reservoir
nearly to Stone Mountain State Park to the north. Big Elkin Creek reaches the Yadkin River at the Route 268
bridge in downtown Elkin. However, the creek is impounded at the town's reservoir, and for the purposes of
this source water protection plan, the more urbanized landscape downstream of the reservoir will not be
considered. Elkin's emergency water supply intake effectively has the same watershed as the Town of
Jonesville's intake on the Yadkin River, which is described in detail below. The town also shares an
interconnection with the Town of Jonesville, NC, for emergency conditions such as drought. This interconnection
was a joint effort between the two municipalities costing over $1 million (personal communication with Robert
Fuller, Director of Public Works, Town of Elkin).
The watershed provides over $3 million in annual ecosystem services, according to the Trust for Public Land
(Table 2). These values are largely derived from the watershed's forests, which cover about half of this
watershed and stabilize soils, add to local property values, provide habitat for many plants and animals
(including game), and provide water filtration. The few wetlands and open waters — especially the town's
reservoir — provide disproportionate values for the small areas they occupy in this watershed (Figure 6).
Elkin Creek
VALUE
CLASS
ACRES
PERCENTAGE
Annual
Value Per
Acre (1)
Annual Value
11
Open Water
29.36
0.13%
$224
$6,575.74
21
Developed, Open Space
1,736.23
7.88%
$0
$0.00
22
Developed, Low Intensity
171.47
0.78%
$0
$0.00
23
Developed, Medium Intensity
78.95
0.36%
$0
$0.00
24
Developed, High Intensity
32.25
0.15%
$0
$0.00
31
Barren Land
1.78
0.01%
$0
$0.00
41
Deciduous Forest
8,881.08
40.29%
$300
$2,664,324.04
42
Evergreen Forest
829.53
3.76%
$300
$248,858.83
43
Mixed Forest
1,360.61
6.17%
$300
$408,181.86
52
Shrub/Scrub
723.45
3.28%
$5
$3,617.24
71
Herbaceous
527.52
2.39%
$5
$2,637.59
81
Hay/Pasture
7,626.33
34.60%
$5
$38,131.67
82
Cultivated Crops
41.14
0.19%
$5
$205.71
90
Woody Wetlands
2.22
0.01%
$1,150
$2,557.53
95
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
0.00
0.00%
$1,150
$0.00
22,041.91 $3,375,090.23
TABLE 2: THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: CONSERVATION ECONOMICS, NORTH CAROLINA'S RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT IN LAND
CONSERVATION, EXHIBIT A-1, PAGE 29
Page 1 1

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
Land Cover
..J
ALLEGH.ANYCDUN TY
ASHE COUNTY
I
SVHRYCOUNI'Y r i
s,
7 �
Q s r
� 3
g. i Y-
1i
EA_z.
% x:
WIUbESC UNTr
78 7ii
17
-� ii•rilr:SY+-:lx�o pc
YADON COEIN TYj
22 777
Land Cover
Ind Open Water (11) Grassland (71)
© Developed (21, 22, 23, 24) - Pasture (61)
Barren Land (31) Cropland (62)
_ Forest (41, 42,43) 0 Wetlands (90, 95)
u 0 Shrub (52)
I
]Elkin Creek Watershed QJonesville Intake Watershed 411Prrmun
FIGURE 7: NLCD 2006
Page 12

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
FIGURE 8: BIG ELKIN CREEK, FEBRUARY 2014,
SOURCE: JOE MICKEY
The Big Elkin Creek watershed is somewhat naturally unstable
due to moderately erodible soils on stream banks, a high
density of Group C soils, and steep slopes (Figures 7 — 10).
There are periodic high elevations in the watershed that
descend quickly to streams, especially in the headwaters near
Stone Mountain State Park. This landscape largely serves
agricultural purposes, some which can have high impacts on
water quality conditions, especially if riparian buffers are not
maintained along streams. In particular, tobacco farming
appears to be contributing significant amounts of sediment to
Big Elkin Creek and its tributaries every year.
Like many Piedmont Triad communities, the Town of Elkin has a history as a textile mill town. These communities
focused their economies on the mill(s), which are almost always along major water features so that they can
use them for power generation and/or wastewater discharge. Many of the residences are clustered around
these mills for walkable access. A compact, efficient downtown or uptown commercial district is often the
urban core of these former industrial communities. The effect of this pattern of development has been to focus
impervious cover in the commercial and industrial sectors of town and creating residential districts that meet
many of the desired needs of Americans: a single-family home on a 1/4 - 1/2-acre grassed lawn with easy
access to major roads. The legacy of this development pattern focuses stormwater and brownfield sites while
also creating homes that have a relatively low stormwater impact. In Elkin, many of these areas are
downstream of the reservoir. The other legacy of many of these mill towns is an infrastructure that has not
been maintained in decades, especially once the industries left and the local tax base dried up.
Page 13

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
Land Use
L ALLEGHANY CWNTY '
1
4E COUr+r r
T 1 ,
_ 7 F<'Y .-III '1T'=
II:.
• - _ ` iJ' S !, {I + I.- All, t
wILIc> sc. uKrY, s�.
:ee a
_ V
mo f w
711
r n• `. ' YAt)KlNCbUVY
_ Ladd Use
Agrx"Iihure Recreation
z rl Commercial Single -Family
- Induslrrdl Unknown
- Institulrpnal Ulildy
OCANDERCCUHTr Mull -Family Vacant
kx Mobile Honws
Elkin Creek Watershed I=Jonesville Intake Watershed � +.
FIGURE 9: PTRC 2014
Page 14

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
Erodible Sails
A LL ECJi ANY CCvf'f`� ,
- 1
HE COUNT
• � �_ SiIRRY Call ��1T'+
t
i
u
1�1
J 1 J
I I •�
WHAESC HTY J l wa
I.i2.
ti rrt� �lll�r.xn
21 48'
YA DKI H Cou N '
�a
"' ' _ l Erodible Soil Type
IREDEU 5119Mly Erodclt
iEIUNDER CCi3HTY
_ tllOdere�0'y Ero3�hl�_
►� !4 jh I•, F-nri. �..r
Elkin Creek Watershed [=Jonesville Intake Watershed 4 k
FIGURE 10: PTRC 2014
Page 15

Elkin & Janesville Water Supply Watershed
Hydric Sails
( A r ;
NSM15 ;
a' 17 _ y
20
+� �ji
lb
am
WEDELI
Hydric 5nh,
' r YLANDER COUNTY r
sue: WI
1 -• - � 4+! � FdfYW Ily 11YQ11C
Q EIk n Creek Watershed QJonesville Intake Watershed drAr +[�t
FIGURE 1 1: PTRC 2014
Page 16

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
11.1 -1- .. .1.1-- -
i -F- 1....1,
Page 17
Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
Runoff
r
f t �SU RYICOUNT4
1
5 �
1
}
1 t..
f
- Y .
� • h
Relative Runoff Potential
' Group A. Low
GroupAlD Low• very high where developed
1�
Group B. Moderate.
Group &D. Moderate, very h;gh where developed
Group C. High.
- Group D. Very Hlgh
Elkin Creek Watershed Q Jonesville Intake Watershed c
FIGURE 12: PTRC 2014

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
Floodplains & Elevation
I
irk
L4
r ^ Floo Zone
Sleep Slope 20`;4, or greater
Elevation (Feet):
Iii Ir 5; 1 ;
-... '� A {ii3
©Julll'3ilV'i �I
FIGURE 13: PTRC 2014
Page 18

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Jonesville
The Town of Jonesville's water supply watershed drains 354.5 square mile of the Upper Yadkin River
Subbasin between the Town of Wilkesboro and Jonesville. This watershed is literally ten times the area of
Elkin's primary watershed, presenting many more potential risks and management challenges to ensure the
long-term sustainability and health of the Town's public water supply. Nearly all this watershed lies under the
jurisdiction of Wilkes County, Wilkesboro, North Wilkesboro, and Ronda (Figure 5). In order to protect its
water supply, the Town of Jonesville must coordinate with these other communities and develop
interjurisdictional relationships that will protect its water supply. The Town of Elkin has a stake in these
management strategies as well, as it has an interconnection with Jonesville to provide it with water in
emergency situations such as drought. Jonesville's secondary water supplies come from two sources: if there is
a problem with their primary treatment technologies, they have direct intake from the Yadkin River to their
water treatment plant in addition to an interconnection with the Town of Elkin, which can provide them with
treated water from the reservoir on Big Elkin Creek.
TABLE 3: THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: CONSERVATION ECONOMICS, NORTH CAROLINA'S RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT IN LAND
CONSERVATION, EXHIBIT A-1, PAGE 29
Yadkin River (Jonesville)
VALUE
CLASS
ACRES
PERCENTAGE
Annual
Value
Per Acre
(1)
Annual Value
11
Open Water
400.98
0.18%
$224
$89,818.69
21
Developed, Open Space
11,593.40
5.11%
$0
$0.00
22
Developed, Low Intensity
3,174.90
1.40%
$0
$0.00
23
Developed, Medium Intensity
1,175.35
0.52%
$0
$0.00
24
Developed, High Intensity
323.36
0.14%
$0
$0.00
31
Barren Land
58.71
0.03%
$0
$0.00
41
Deciduous Forest
121,087.73
53.38%
$300
$36,326,317.67
42
Evergreen Forest
11,603.18
5.12%
$300
$3,480,954.64
43
Mixed Forest
14,974.90
6.60%
$300
$4,492,469.06
52
Shrub/Scrub
7,929.01
3.50%
$5
$39,645.06
71
Herbaceous
5,258.06
2.32%
$5
$26,290.30
81
Hay/Pasture
48,298.63
21.29%
$5
$241,493.15
82
Cultivated Crops
596.02
0.26%
$5
$2,980.08
90
Woody Wetlands
340.04
0.15%
$1,150
$391,046.41
95
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
15.79
0.01%
$1,150
$18,158.47
226A30.05 $45,109,173.53
The watershed provides over $45 million in annual ecosystem services, according to the Trust for Public Land
(Table 3). These values are largely derived from the watershed's forests, which cover over 60% of this
watershed and stabilize soils, add to local property values, provide habitat for many plants and animals
(including game), and provide water filtration. Hay and pasture cover another fifth of the watershed,
providing some soil stability and absorbing runoff from surrounding impervious surfaces and steep slopes.
They also can be groundfowl habitat that gamesmen find highly valuable. The 350 acres of wetlands provide
Page 19

disproportionate values for the small areas they occupy in this watershed and should be prioritized for
permanent protections by the local governments and conservation groups (Figure 6).
The Jonesville Intake watershed is somewhat naturally unstable due to moderately erodible soils on stream
banks, a high density of Group C soils, some highly -impervious Group D soils, and steep slopes (Figures 6 —
9). Given these conditions and the high potential for natural surface runoff, the stability and health of these
subwatersheds and streams are remarkable. There are periodic high elevations in the watershed that descend
quickly to streams, especially in the headwaters near Stone Mountain State Park and to the south of
Wilkesboro. This landscape largely serves agricultural purposes, some which can have high impacts on water
quality conditions, especially if riparian buffers are not maintained along streams. In particular, tobacco
farming and improper forestry practices appear to be contributing significant amounts of sediment to
Mulberry Creek and its tributaries every year (Figures 10 & 14). Furthermore, the Town of Wilkesboro
directly discharges to the Yadkin River, granting it great responsibility as a water quality steward. As
detailed below, this discharge has been carefully managed to protect water quality conditions on the Yadkin
River.
FIGURE 14: RUNOFF UPSTREAM & DOWNSTREAM OF A TOBACCO FARM, SURRY COUNTY. PHOTO COURTESY OF JOE MICKEY, 2014.
The Town of Jonesville has a history as a Piedmont Triad mill town, with infrastructure focused on supplying its
former industries and current residents with water. These communities focused their economies on the mill(s),
which are almost always along major water features so that they can use them for power generation and/or
wastewater discharge. Many of the residences are clustered around these mills for walkable access. A
compact, efficient downtown or uptown commercial district is often the urban core of these former industrial
communities. The effect of this pattern of development has been to focus impervious cover in the commercial
and industrial sectors of town and creating residential districts that meet many of the desired needs of
Americans: a single-family home on a 1/4 - 1/2-acre grassed lawn with easy access to major roads. Much of this
area is downstream of Jonesville's water intake.
As it has adjusted to a new economy following the globalization of the textile industry and the Great
Recession of 2008, the Town of Jonesville is planning on supplying water for new growth. However, the
development patterns of the past century have focused impervious cover in the Town's commercial center close
to the Yadkin River and not attended to the local water infrastructure. The Town has invested millions of
dollars to address these needs and ensure a healthy, safe water supply from the large Yadkin River in the
future.
Page 20

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Current Conditions
Elkin
Supply & Demand
Big Elkin Creek provides the Town of Elkin with 3 million gallons a day (MGD) of drinking water. Its daily
average demand, however, is 0.8 MGD. This includes providing some areas of Wilkes County — especially the
Pleasant Hill community — and the Town of Ronda with water. The town's large excess capacity is mostly due
to the loss of manufacturing facilities since the water treatment system was originally constructed. The Town
currently has two (2) significant industrial users; its primary customer is residential. The Town provides all
4,1 18 people living there with water through fifty (50) miles of pipe (personal communication with Robert
Fuller, Public Works Director, Town of Elkin).
The Town of Elkin is recovering from the effects of the recession following the globalization of industry and the
Great Recession of 2008. According to the 2010 US Census, Elkin had an unemployment rate of 1 1 .4% and a
poverty rate of 1 1.3%, both higher than state and federal averages but lower than some of its neighbors
(U.S. Census Bureau 2013). Surry County was recently rated as a Tier 1 county by the NC Department of
Commerce (DOC), meaning that it is among the forty most economically -distressed counties in the state. Its
2010 unemployment rate was 9.5% and its poverty rate was 1 8.3%, when the county was rated a Tier 2
county by the NC DOC (NC DOC 201 A, U.S. Census Bureau 2013).
urgc 14C Water and Wastewater Rates Dashboard to
Rates as or February 2014
soft
Awrl !w
Mt vemb" be wo
• ■ M4 rrW IMg$
�.14n7 (iilpa1lMP yl W �
r�
.
wr
� .rry� .` / ..M.� ��� >a r/� r r+. stir.
� �y^■'
#
C+4! Rae wry
a.w us4elff"Ge"-.!
4IPM ("I
.�..�
Af)l M
M H•. sH��■
Apr�iA•lY
Rom, Ink -be
Iv
1-
0
FIGURE 15: ELKIN'S WATER RATE PROFILE, UNC ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE CENTER, MARCH 2O14
The Town of Elkin water utility is currently debt free, having raised monthly residential and commercial rates
significantly over the past few years, from $3.50 to $6 per thousand gallons for residents and from $10 to
$1 5 per thousand gallons for businesses (personal communication with Robert Fuller, Public Works Director,
Town of Elkin). However, the Town of Elkin is currently operating its utility in an uncomfortable position: it has
an operating ratio of 0.91 (it is slightly losing money) and its rates are approaching unaffordability for those
on fixed incomes (Figure 15) (UNC EFC 201 A). Its residential and commercial rates are comparable to other
Page 21

public water utilities in the Foothills/High Country region, but they need to be raised by 15% to meet an
operating ratio of 1 .
Historic rate increases were necessary for the Town to address enormous water loss rates — documented in
1998 at 88%. Through annual audits from the NC Rural Water Association (NCRWA) and strategic
investments such as the installation of electronic water meters, the Town has been able to spend $300,000 to
reduce this loss rate to about 30%. For a utility with a total 2013 operating budget of $873,000, these are
enormous costs, which were offset in part by a 2002 $500,000 urgent needs grant that required a $50,000
match. They remain dedicated to reducing this loss rate further, continuing their annual audits with the NCRWA
and attempting to identify specifically where the leaks persist and originate (personal communication with
Robert Fuller, Public Works Director, Town of Elkin).
The Town is also investing in a raw water line that will pipe water from the Town's emergency water supply
on the Yadkin River to the Big Elkin Creek reservoir rather than directly to its water treatment plant. This $1 .2
million project will effectively mix the two water supplies and use the reservoir as a sort of settling pond for
the significant sediment found in the Yadkin River. Filtration of this sediment at the water treatment plant is a
significant cost and can exhaust machinery quickly. However, it may add to the Town's seasonal utility
management stresses to address excess sediment flowing to the reservoir from upstream sources (Figure 8).
They are also investing in an elevated storage tank for the Town's West End so that its pump station will not
have continuously operate to provide those residents with water as well as the county and Pleasant Hill
community residents with water.
Policies
The watershed that drains to Elkin's reservoir lies on the border of Surry and Wilkes Counties, which have
similar histories but significantly different policies for land use. Most notably is that Wilkes County has very
little land use zoning, considering most proposed uses within the County "by -right" and permissible. Restrictions
exist for some land uses, and are relevant for all lands in this plan, as they are overlain with a water supply
watershed designation, which places density restrictions on developments and requires mandatory fifty (50)
foot riparian buffers along all bodies of water (Wilkes County 201 A).
The Creek has historically served as the Town's drinking water supply and is upstream of many of the
industries and commercial districts the Town relied upon for its economy. The Town has a Land Use Plan that
was written in 2000 and addresses a number of long-term sustainability and security concerns for the Town's
primary and secondary water supplies. The potential for stormwater impacts to degrade water quality
conditions is addressed in its "Growth and Development/Community Identity" policy, which recognizes that
"Careful planning discourages growth at any cost while encouraging quality growth that enhances community
character". It also addresses the environmental and economic impacts of sprawl, encouraging all new
residential development to occur where existing infrastructure is already present so that utilities are used and
the Town optimizes its return on investment. This same policy encourages the use of "innovative subdivision and
site design that protects sensitive environmental areas..." This same policy recommended the establishment of
housing standards that minimize environmental impacts to local soils, water, and the environment. The Plan also
advises the creation of a utility extension policy that will allow water and sewer extensions on conditional
terms (Town of Elkin 2000).
The Town also has an Environmental Protection policy that "...[p]romote[s] growth that respects and
accommodates environmental limitations for development." Water quality conditions are clearly a priority in
this section of the Land Use Plan, with two of the three reasons for protecting the environment in Elkin being the
Page 22

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
prevention of floods and the threats to "...important public resources such as water supplies and the water
quality of lakes and rivers." This is further addressed in its Natural Features section, where it identifies soil
species, steep slopes, and water supply watersheds as being the least appropriate areas of the Town for
development. The focus on soils is less on their erodibility and more on their suitability to stably host a
foundation and a structure (Town of Elkin 2000).
Perhaps most encouraging for the future of Elkin's water supply is its Intergovernmental Cooperation section,
which recognizes that growth is regional and relies upon steady and clear communication with its neighboring
communities of Surry County, Wilkes County, and Jonesville (Town of Elkin 2000). With its other
recommendations and concerns, this is an encouraging sign for the water quality of Big Elkin Creek and the
Yadkin River. However, it requires tangible follow up to benefit the watershed and its residents.
The majority of both the Jonesville Intake and the Big Elkin Creek watersheds lie in Wilkes County. Wilkes
County has very little zoning, deeming most development as "by -right" and permissible. This watershed
includes the West Elkin zoning district, which permits a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial
development. The areas of the County that are addressed in this plan are presided by the water supply
watershed overlay districts mandated by the NCDWR. This has especially had an impact in the Big Elkin
Creek watershed, which is a highly protected WS-II watershed that allows minimal density. However, most
agricultural lands are exempt from these regulations except the riparian buffers, as the structures they use
are not for residential purposes. There is not a history of land use impairing the drinking water supplies of
either of these watersheds since hog operations became less common in the area, with the exception of high -
impact forestry operations. However, without specific language prioritizing these waters as drinking water
supplies and protecting them from pollution, it remains a risk that must be considered. As noted by the
stakeholders, some of the legacies of these land uses can pose risks to water quality conditions, with old and
undocumented underground storage tanks and oil barrels rusting and leaking to soils, groundwater, and
surface waters.
Wilkes County does rely upon a Growth Management Plan that reflects much of the county's history and how
this heritage can be best carried forward to the twenty-first century. Significant to this Plan is the observation
that over half of the County's population live in Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro, both which largely lie in
the Yadkin River Intake watershed. These towns are also the largest employers in Wilkes County. The Growth
Management Plan does prohibit the installation of septic tanks on slopes >65%, which provides protection
from a primary source of potential residential pollution in both watersheds. The Plan also encourages the use
of cluster development for residential communities; the use of municipal utilities to minimize the installation and
maintenance costs and problems associated with residential septic tanks; that the County wants to minimize
sprawl; that the County wants to optimize recreation; and that it wishes to protect water quality, farmland,
and environmentally -sensitive areas. It also recommends the creation of High Impact Land Use, Voluntary
Farmland Conservation, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, and Riparian Buffer Ordinances. None of these
ordinances have been passed in the past thirteen years. A new Growth Management Plan is being prepared
by the High Country Council of Governments for Wilkes County.
Emergency Contingency Plan
The Town of Elkin's Emergency Operations Plan relies upon a close working relationship with Surry County
Emergency Medical Services. The Town Manager is the designated Emergency Management Coordinator, and
is responsible for implementing the emergency operations plan. They are also the designated Incident
Commander. The manager is permitted to delegate these responsibilities to other individuals as they see fit.
Page 23

Should a water quality emergency such as the spill of oil or hazardous chemicals occur within the water supply
watershed of the Town of Elkin, the appropriate municipal staff and emergency agencies would be notified.
Wilkes County, which occupies most of the Town's watershed, has a similar agreement with its neighbors that
obligates it to notify them of a hazardous waste spill.
Should a major oil or chemical spill occur within the Source Water Protection Area, appropriate emergency
staff and agencies would be notified. The first of these includes the Surry County Emergency Services and the
Elkin Police Department, which serves as the town's Emergency Command Post. Neither Elkin nor Wilkes County
recognize a need to explicitly contact each other, which makes them both vulnerable in an event that
contaminates the Town's water supply.
Elkin Rescue Squad
National Guard Armory
Hugh Chatham Hospital
John Shelton, Director
Surry County Human Services Director
1218 State Street
Mount Airy, NC 27030
336-783-9000 (0)
336-783-9010 (F)
sheltonjoa-co.surry.nc.us
The Town of Elkin relies directly upon the Public Works Director's involvement in this project, but does not have
a specific plan for the contamination of its drinking water. It does identify the steps necessary to take should
its sanitary sewer be affected by an incident in a way that could negatively affect the treatment facility
operated by the Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority. It also has an Emergency Water Shortage Response
Handbook that is applicable for when the water supply is "...declining due to conditions which may adversely
affect the continued availability of water..." which may be construed to include contamination of the water
supply. However, much of the Handbook is a regulatory framework for the restrictions placed upon water
consumption during drought events.
The town does not have an iterative strategy for addressing contamination of its drinking water supply other
than its interconnection with the Town of Jonesville. This approach is one in which the risk of these two local
water supplies being simultaneously contaminated or a drought restricting the volume of water that maybe
transferred from Jonesville is not assessed. No relationship between the Town and the staff at the regional NC
DENR office in Winston-Salem is codified within the emergency operation plan. It is presumed that the Town
would issue public notifications if its water supply was contaminated, but has no stated strategy that
addresses this contingency, nor a plan to directly address this situation.
Short and Long Term Contingency Plan
The Town of Elkin's reservoir provides it with 3 MGD. It has little storage for the town's residents, relying
instead upon its interconnection with the Town of Jonesville, which treats up to 1 MGD, but has a potential
capacity of twice that. If both treatment facilities were compromised, the Yadkin River provides the towns with
what is effectively a limitless supply of water for their combined populations of about 6,000 people. The
town is also host to a National Guard Armory and a Walmart super store that can both supply water supplies
to residents should the municipal utilities be unavailable. Unlike the Town of Jonesville, though, Elkin has not
formalized an agreement or relationship with either entity guaranteeing this service during emergency
conditions.
Page 24

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
TABLE 4: TOWN OF ELKIN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CONTACTS
Name
Resource
Primary Person responsible for implementing emergency
Emergency Response & Incident Command
response plan
Town Manager
Lloyd Payne
336-794-6464
Secondary Person
Emergency Response
Chief of Police
Monroe Wagoner
336-794-6471
Utility Management
Emergency Response; Water System Management
Public Works Director
Robert Fuller
336-794-6479
Local Emergency Planning Committee
Emergency Response; Technical Support
Surry County Environmental Health
Johnny Easter
336-401-8410
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Regional Water Resources section; Public Water
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Supply Section; UST Section; Groundwater Section;
450 West Hanes Mill Road
Hazardous Waste Section; Regulatory Guidance;
Suite 300
Technical Assistance
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
336-776-9800
Walmart
Bottled Water Supplier
Elkin, NC
336-536-2636
National Guard
Bulk Water Supplier; Emergency Assistance; Security
1775 Bridge
Elkin, NC 28621
336-835-3018
High Chatham Memorial Hospital
Emergency Response
180 Parkwood Drive
Elkin, NC 336-527-7217
Duke Energy
Energy Utility
Charlotte Office
800-777-9898
800-769-3766
G&B Energy Company
Gas Utility
P.O. Box 81 1
Elkin, NC 28621
33-835-3607
Page 25

Jonesville
Supply & Demand
Jonesville's permitted water intake on the Yadkin River is 1 MGD, and it uses only 0.36 MGD of that on an
average day. Similar to Elkin, this demand was much higher prior to the effects of globalization upon the local
textile mills. Through sixty (60) miles of pipes, Jonesville provides water to 1,200 residents and an additional
100 residents in Yadkin County. Much of this infrastructure is fifty (50) years old or older, and often
undersized to reliably supply water for both residents and industry. The Town has 1.2 MGD available for
water storage in three (3) tanks and a clear well at its water treatment plant.
The Town of Jonesville is recovering from the effects of the recession following the globalization of industry
and the Great Recession of 2008. According to the 2010 US Census, Jonesville had an unemployment rate of
14.9% and a poverty rate of 29.2%, both much higher than state and federal averages. Yadkin County's
2010 unemployment rate was 5.6% and its poverty rate was 17.6% (U.S. Census Bureau 2013).
The current monthly average residential water bill ($36.75) is unaffordable for many residents of Jonesville
(Figure 16). While these rates are needed to balance the utility's financial needs, and its residential and
commercial rates are comparable to other public water utilities in the Foothills/High Country region, they
remain unaffordable for many of the town residents. The Town of Jonesville water utility is currently operating
at a nearly perfect cost recovery rate and is debt free, with its revenues balancing with its expenses. Such an
approach does not create a rainy day fund, nor does it plan for new capital expenses. A strategy on creative
financing that does not further burden the town's ratepayers is necessary for it to grow, let alone continue to
address the needs of aging infrastructure.
*�� NC water and Wastewater Rats Dashboard
um Rates as o1 February 2011
pal Sn� elll Yralr • 3K�
1i.s00 MNw.n
M sss cMr. ►wa
.Ms a ast.n
56W [w+nut.r+�wr
ONAPM 10ANN&
M1M iu
w comp om
wns M is &AW
pkw
pY • Y w
i+wr�rwataw a+�rl
now woe 3 AM c]aaw
a-w >. as
S ^ /r��■r
41r.W ti M \ fM4 f
APE2
FIGURE 16: JONESVILLE'S WATER RATE PROFILE, (UNC EFC 2014)
Jonesville is anticipating greater demand for their water supply at Yadkin County's primary growth area at
the intersection of 1-77 and US-421, which is largely zoned for industry (Figure 17). The Town is investing $4.2
million in water treatment upgrades, largely at its water treatment plant, although $750,000 was also spent
to secure the interconnection with Elkin. These are the first plant upgrades since 1950, and rely upon a newer
Page 26

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
technology called Kruger ACTIFLO units that utilize microsand in a centrifuge to provide secondary and
greater water treatment. While a less tested technology in the United States, this system could also be easily
and cheaply upgraded to accommodate up to 2 MGD of demand (personal communication with Scott Buffkin
Manager, Town of Jonesville).
Jonesville has some persistent but minimal leak concerns in its system. The Town conducts an annual audit with
the NCRWA. Their greater concern is water loss due to the need to intentionally flush the system for the
extra jurisdictionaI residents to eliminate stagnant water, which can create trihalomethanes. An elevated
storage tank for this population would eliminate economic and water safety concerns over the long-term.
FIGURE 17: (YADKIN COUNTY LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE 2011)
Of priority concern to the Town of Jonesville is the persistent presence of an organic mat that they find in their
settling lagoons nearly every summer. It began appearing about five years ago and can only be eliminated
through chemical flocculation. The mats resemble algae but remain largely uncharacterized, despite
investigation by the NCRWA and researchers at NCSU. It appears to be a single -celled organism, but
whether it is a plant or fungus and where it comes from are frustratingly unclear. The growth is unresponsive to
chemical treatment like copper sulfate and actually denitrifies water in the ponds, requiring chemical
treatment at the water treatment plant to eliminate algal species. Under these circumstances, it is often simpler
for the Town to directly pump water from the Yadkin River to its WTP and conduct primary treatment there
(personal communication with Scott Buffkin, Manager, Town of Jonesville).
Page 27

Policies
The Jonesville Zoning Ordinance is over twenty years old, predating the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) that regulates wastewater and stormwater discharges to surface waters, but it
does feature some water quality protections. It has the NCDWR's required water supply watershed
regulations for affected areas, which includes only a fraction of the Town and its extraterritorial jurisdiction.
While the Town does permit cluster development in the watershed, it does not have a 10/70 density provision
for this watershed, applying a consistent density standard throughout the affected areas of the Town. It also
recognizes water quality threats within its Health and Sanitation ordinance, declaring them nuisances that
have a stepwise violation compliance protocol for individuals to follow. The Town prohibits the construction of
any new septic tanks within its jurisdiction, guaranteeing that all new businesses and residents in Jonesville will
be on its municipal sewer system (Town of Jonesville 1985).
The majority of both the Yadkin River Intake and the Big Elkin Creek watersheds lie within Wilkes County.
Wilkes County has very little zoning, deeming most development as "by -right" and permissible. The Jonesville
Intake watershed includes the Rock Creek zoning district, which only permits residential development. The
areas of the County that are addressed in this Plan are also presided by the water supply watershed overlay
districts mandated by the NCDWR. This has had the effect of limiting density, building footprints, and impacts
to riparian buffers (Wilkes County 2014). The lack of regulation on the specific land uses does not have a
history of impairing the drinking water supplies of either of these watersheds. However, without specific
language prioritizing these waters as drinking water supplies and protecting them from pollution, it remains a
risk that must be considered.
Wilkes County relies upon a Growth Management Plan that does provide some land use zoning regulations in
the Wilkes Industrial Park, which is outside of this watershed. The Growth Management Plan prohibits the
installation of septic tanks on slopes >65%, which provides protection from a primary source of potential
residential pollution. The Plan also encourages the use of cluster development for residential communities; the
use of municipal utilities to minimize the installation and maintenance costs and problems associated with
residential septic tanks; minimizing urban sprawl; optimizing recreation; and protecting water quality,
farmland, and environmentally -sensitive areas. It also recommended the creation of High Impact Land Use,
Voluntary Farmland Conservation, Sedimentation and Erosion Control, and Riparian Buffer Ordinances
(Wilkes County 2014). None of these ordinances have been passed in the past thirteen years. A new Growth
Management Plan is being prepared by the High Country Council of Governments for Wilkes County.
The Growth Management Plan states that over half of the County's population live in Wilkesboro and North
Wilkesboro, both which largely lie in the Yadkin River Intake watershed. These towns are also the largest
employers in Wilkes County (Wilkes County 2014). According to the US Census, Wilkes County had an
unemployment rate of 9.3% and a poverty rate of 22.4% (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). The Town of
Wilkesboro had an unemployment rate of 1 0.1 % and a poverty rate of 35.1 % (City -Data 2013). These
unemployment figures are slightly higher than those of North Carolina's; the poverty figures are much higher
than state or federal rates.
The Town of Wilkesboro has a great responsibility in ensuring the health and safety of Jonesville water
supply. While there are other, smaller wastewater dischargers such as Louisiana Pacific, Wilkesboro operates
the largest wastewater discharge facility in this watershed, with a permit for discharging 4.9 MGD. With a
significant industrial base, it uses 3.9 MGD of this on an average day. Residential consumption only makes up
0.171 MGD of this demand (personal communication with Sam Call, Utilities Director, Town of Wilkesboro). Due
Page 28

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
to this large industrial use, the Town is able to keep residential utility rates very low, at an average bill of
$23.17 per house for both water and sewer (UNC EFC 2014).
The Town has invested $9 million in recent years to upgrade its wastewater facilities to ensure peak
performance of its wastewater discharge. It also anticipates $3 million in upgrades to accommodate growth,
anticipating a 5.0 MGD demand and 7.5 MGD in available capacity. These capital investments have largely
been borne by ratepayers, with 7.5% annual increases in wastewater rates since 2003. It has a close
relationship with the NC DWR regional office, reporting violations of their wastewater discharge permit when
they occur, which is now rare (personal communication with Sam Call, Utilities Director, Town of Wilkesboro).
FIGURE 18: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AT A LOWE'S
STORE IN WILKESBORO;
HTTP://WWW.LANDSCAPEONLINE.COM/RESEARCH/L
ASN/2014/02/IMG/25194/25194-1.JPG
The Town of Wilkesboro has also invested significant time and
resources in developing local ordinances and programs to manage
non -point pollution to the Yadkin River and other local waters. Its
zoning ordinance includes flexibility for developers to increase
density while protecting streams and open space. Similarly, its
subdivision ordinance prioritizes "natural buffers," "mature trees,"
and stormwater management throughout its text, encouraging
growth that does not impact the local environment. Its robust tree
ordinance provides the Town with a resource that is designed to
enhance its urban canopy and protect its older trees. All of these
documents can be instructive to both Elkin and Jonesville on how to
have economic growth while not creating more regulatory and
capital expenses in the future.
Yadkin County is the Town of Jonesville's county of residence and their policies interact in some small but
significant ways. However, Yadkin County only occupies a small area of the Jonesville Intake watershed.
Yadkin County utilizes a Land Use Plan last updated in 201 1 to guide growth within their jurisdiction, including
the non -incorporated areas around Jonesville. These suburban areas are rated as one of the county's two
primary growth areas, largely due to the available infrastructure and the water services provided by the
Town. Few details are available for how the land should be developed. The county identifies its agricultural
heritage and the Yadkin River as critical economic and cultural resources, but no regulations or guidance have
been drafted to protect these assets. Partnerships have been identified but not yet capitalized upon within the
Plan, leaving Jonesville much of the decision making power in how its suburban areas are developed, if at all
(Yadkin County Land Use Plan Committee 2011 ).
Emergency Contingency Plan
The Town of Jonesville's Emergency Response Plan relies upon a close working relationship with Yadkin County
Environmental Health. The Town Manager is the designated Emergency Management Coordinator, and
responsible for implementing the emergency response plan. The secondary staff to the manager are the
mayor, who serves as system spokesperson, and the utilities director. The manager is permitted to delegate
responsibilities to other individuals as they see fit.
Should a water quality emergency such as the spill of oil or hazardous chemicals occur within the water supply
watershed of the Town of Jonesville, the appropriate municipal staff and emergency agencies would be
notified. Wilkes County, which occupies most of the Town's watershed, has a similar agreement with its
neighbors that obligates it to notify them of a hazardous waste spill but no explicit obligation to notify
Jonesville should a spill occur within its water supply watershed.
Page 29

Should a major oil or chemical spill occur within the Source Water Protection Area, appropriate emergency
staff and agencies would be notified. The first of these includes the regional office of the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources in Winston-Salem and the regional office of the US Environmental
Protection Agency in Atlanta. More locally, the town will contact the Greensboro Hazmat Response Team and
the Yadkin County Department of Environmental Health.
NC DENR Regional Office
US EPA Region IV Office
NC Division of Emergency Management
Gary Hayes, Director
Director of Inspections and Environmental Services
1218 State Street
Mount Airy, NC 27030
336-783-9000 (0)
336-783-9010 (F)
sheltonjo(@co.surry.nc.us
The Town of Jonesville has clearly policies and procedures should its water supply be contaminated or its
infrastructure compromised in its ability to deliver drinking water to residents. Following consultation with the
NC Rural Water Association, local governments, and/or state agencies, the town will determine if it should
issue a public notice advising residents of the condition of their water and if it may be used and if that use is
conditional. Residents will be notified using all media outlets while "high priority facilities" such as school will
be notified directly. The Jonesville Town Hall will serve as the Incident Command Center. The water treatment
plant it will have access control provided by the town's police patrol and may be shut down at the discretion
of the utility director. The Town has a protocol for sample collection and retains the services of Tritest Labs to
collect and analyze samples for biological contaminants, chemical contaminants, radionuclides. There is no
protocol for system rehabilitation once a contaminant has been identified, though it is likely that the town will
proceed with best practices in consultation with the NC DENR and US EPA staffs.
Short and Long Term Contingency Plan
The Town of Jonesville has limited water supply storage. It does have an interconnection with the Town of
Elkin, which treats up to 3 MGD in its reservoir. If both treatment facilities were compromised, the Yadkin River
provides the towns with what is effectively a limitless supply of water for their combined populations of about
6,000 people. The Town also has a formal agreement with Walmart to supply the town with bottled water
and the National Guard to supply the town with bulk water, if necessary. The town also has a back up power
generator that can supply the plant with electricity if needed.
Page 30

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
TABLE 5: TOWN OF JONESVILLE EMERGENCY RESPONSE CONTACTS
Name
Resource
Primary Person responsible for implementing emergency
Emergency Response
response plan
Public Utilities Director
Tim Collins
336-835-4068
Secondary Person
Emergency Response
Water System Operator
Billy Wood
336-835-2250
System Spokesperson
Emergency Response; Public Notification
Mayor
Lindbergh Swaim
336-835-3426
Local Emergency Planning Committee
Emergency Response; Technical Support
Yadkin County Environmental Health
Dale Trivette
336-469-0210
Public Water Supply Section
Technical Assistance; Regulatory Guidance
1 634 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NV 27699-1 634
www.ncwater.org/pws
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Regional Water Resources section; Public Water
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Supply Section; UST Section; Groundwater Section;
450 West Hanes Mill Road
Hazardous Waste Section; Regulatory Guidance;
Suite 300
Technical Assistance
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
336-776-9800
Walmart
Bottled Water Supplier
Elkin, NC
336-536-2636
National Guard
Bulk Water Supplier; Emergency Assistance; Security
1775 Bridge
Elkin, NC 28621
336-835-3018
NC Division of Emergency Management
Technical Assistance
H. Douglas Hoell
4713 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
919-733-3867
Duke Energy
Energy Utility
Charlotte Office
800-777-9898
Page 31

800-769-3766
G&B Energy Company
Gas Utility
P.O. Box 81 1
Elkin, NC 28621
33-835-3607
Dixie Electro Mechanical Services
Ump Supplier
21 15 Freedom Drive
Charlotte, NC 28208
704-332-1 1 16
Present & Future Watershed Needs
Despite being home to five municipalities, these watersheds are rural and sparsely populated, with most of
the watersheds having populations of <200 people per square mile (Figures 20 & 23). The largest
municipality is Elkin, which has a population of 4,1 18. Some of these areas have also declined in population,
especially in the non -municipal suburban FIGURE 19: CORN FIELD VIEW IN JONESVILLE
areas, relocating to jobs centers in the -
Piedmont Triad and elsewhere (Figure 21 ). hL -M
Elkin, Jonesville, and Wilkesboro all
"Cohr LM4P
anticipate industrial and residential growth,
'7f
but only Wilkesboro foresees the need for
r
infrastructure expansion. Both Elkin and
Jonesville currently utilize a small fraction of
their available capacity. They can readily -
supply new businesses of nearly any size
with water without new capitals
4;
improvements. This includes robust growth�-
.
(32%) in Ronda to which Elkin is
interconnected. Furthermore, their utilities a
must mostly be supported with residential ,
rates, which are nearing unaffordability �u' �>
when compared to the local median
SOURCE: PTRC
household incomes for both towns. The towns have used available grants and loans
from state and federal resources, but their infrastructure demands may require further
consultation with the NCRWA and/or the UNC Environmental Finance Center as to how best leverage
available assets with other financial resources.
Thus for, the towns have invested funds into the development of the Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority. With the
nutrient management strategy stakeholder process beginning for High Rock Lake that will likely require
upgrades at this regional wastewater facility, these investments appear wise and will continue to be the
towns' priority. Expansions of the existing water treatment infrastructure are unnecessary; maintenance and
efficient upgrades should be prioritized while also attempting to guarantee residents affordability.
Page 32

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed -i
Population Density (2010)
t
SURmy COUNTY
MEDELL COUNT*
PersonslSq. MF. (By Census Block Group)
NAER CCIUtITr
FL ao - 180 %a
5:i
r k n Creek Watershed [=Jonesville Intake Watershed �
FIGURE 20: PTRC 2014
Page 33

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
Population Change from 2000 to 2010
L ALLEGNA14Y COUNTY
l
7 1 _ �Cpl)Nri"
N rrw K1fRMaxa
1
2T f8
1.=lle.ew�
�2
.,c
%.I
L J
Page 34
A
li
I
1S _ Etl
- 1s
S - rabK,h N
REDEU COt1N71+
X,
People per Census Black Group
EXIAN ER CGL14TY
l� --�A 10 -150 :6 to `.75 _ 475 10 9D0
L'-14910+21", 176to475
E. k,r1 Creek Watershed 0 Janesville Intake Watershed
FIGURE 21: PTRC 2014

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
Median Household Income
r �
pill
L
r -
14
VYILKE5 C UH i Y _
eft
13
YADKIN WUH
r�i
Dollars per Census Tract
Less than $28,0010
r $28.000 - $32,000
$32.001 - $38.000
OAHLERCCUHTr $38.001-$44,000
kr - $44.001 $53,000
Elkin Creek Watershed I=JonesvlHe Intake Watershed
FIGURE 22: PTRC 2014
Page 35

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
Population Density (2010)
r�
^HE COUNT
SURR+' COUNTY
t
r. !I
QiEDEI L' COUNT'*
PersonslSq. Mr. (By Census Block Group)
NDER CrPUNTr
WJ t 9f] - 355 - ? 550
L 80 - 180 2 ai - %0
r k n Creek Watershed [=Jonesville Intake Watershed �
FIGURE 23: PTRC 2014
Page 36

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Programs
Update Emergency Response Plans
Both the Towns of Jonesville and Elkin have emergency planning documents that empower them to respond to
extraordinary circumstances to protect their residents. Notable in both the Town of Jonesville's Emergency
Response Plan and the Town of Elkin's Emergency Operations Plan is the absence of any mention of Wilkes
County. As the most significant political entity in the water supply watersheds for both communities' primary
water sources, this appears to be a gross oversight that should be addressed immediately. Should a spill
occur on one of the many roads in Wilkes County or at one of their industrial properties, there needs to be an
established mode and method of communication between the staffs of these two towns with the staff of the
county. The best departments in Wilkes County to establish this communication are the Sheriff's Office and/or
the Department of Environmental Health. It is appropriate and necessary for this communication to be
formalized and codified by all three of these jurisdictions to protect the water supplies and safety of both
towns' residents.
The Town of Elkin should also update its Emergency Operations Plan to specify water supply emergencies. Its
Emergency Water Shortage Response Handbook can be made to support actions following the contamination of
its supply on Big Elkin Creek, but it was not written for this purpose and only addresses such a situation
indirectly. The Town could incorporate much of its introductory language from the Handbook into its Plan, but it
needs to explicitly address a threat to water supply and identify its secondary water resources. This would be
a project that could be done simply and would use resources within the Town. It may require a more specific
definition of the Public Works Director's responsibilities in the Plan, especially in monitoring water quality
conditions and how the public can be notified of this situation, but it will permit the Town to address a
contamination event as the specific incident it is, as opposed to a more universal disaster emergency. The
Town of Jonesville's Emergency Response Plan offers good guidance on better addressing this need.
Improved Water Quality Monitoring Network
The public water supply watersheds covered by this plan collectively have three ambient monitoring stations
for water chemistry and four water quality monitoring stations for biology over a 400-square mile area. Both
Big Elkin Creek and the Jonesville Intake watersheds have multiple tributaries with varying land uses; the
Jonesville Intake watershed has large tributaries that drain to the Yadkin River. Only two of these tributaries
(including Big Elkin Creek) have water quality monitoring stations. While the available data provides
confidence that small sections of these water bodies are meeting water quality standards, there is a need for
more robust data to responsibly manage and protect the watersheds. This is especially true if these streams
and creeks are going to host primary recreation and/or trout habitats in the near future.
Unlike other states, the NC DWR does not utilize water quality data that has been collected by citizen groups
for guidance or use support decision making. Consequently, there is little incentive for groups outside of the
state institutions to develop a training and monitoring program for volunteers to collect water quality samples.
Until this internal policy changes, the NC DWR needs to provide additional water quality monitoring stations
on the Yadkin River, Big Elkin Creek, and their respective significant tributaries in order to manage and
protect their identified uses and the water supplies of Jonesville and Elkin. The US Geologic Survey may be
willing to assist in establishing these monitoring stations for their purposes and mission. There are local
stakeholders groups that would also be interested in providing such assistance, but not until NC DWR's internal
policy on data collected by citizen monitoring groups matures.
Page 37

Annual Water Audit
Both the Towns of Elkin and Jonesville currently contract with the NC Rural Water Association (NC RWA) to
conduct annual water loss audits on their systems. This has assisted both municipalities in addressing losses of
revenue for their systems as well as any infiltration to the water supply system from undesired or potentially
hazardous sources. Mostly significantly, it has permitted the Town of Elkin to reduce its water loss rate from
88% to under 30% in less than a decade. The less water lost to leaks, the more water that is available for
growth in both the residential and business sectors.
This practice must continue to ensure the sustainability of the towns' respective infrastructures and related fiscal
health. It should also be commended and recognized by the State of North Carolina in applications for
infrastructure grants and loans offered by the NC Division of Water Infrastructure.
Academic Investigation of Jonesville's Vegetative Mats
The Town of Jonesville's primary concern with the health and safety of its water supply is the presence of the
vegetative mats on the surface of their settling lagoons every summer. The Town must chemically flocculate
these mats to eliminate the growth or directly route water from the Yadkin River and perform primary
filtration within their water treatment plant. Should the organism causing these growths be described, it could
be directly addressed and ideally eliminated.
There are researchers at many of North Carolina's academic institutions who not only could be of assistance in
this matter, but would gladly look into the matter for their own research needs. The PTRC will work with the
town to make scientists with careers in water safety and health as well as aquatic botanists aware of
Jonesville's ongoing concern. This growth needs to be fully characterized, identified, and eliminated. The
academic community is likely the most capable stakeholder to support the town in this matter, they just need to
be made aware of the issue.
Target Primary Non -Point Sources of Sediment Pollution
The primary concern of all watershed stakeholders for the health and safety of both water supplies is the
persistently high levels of sediment in both Big Elkin Creek and the Yadkin River. This influx of sediment has
been determined to largely originate on farms without maintained vegetated stream buffers and forestry
operations that fail to use forestry practice guidelines, as required by state law. The turbid waters challenge
the successful establishment of trout fisheries in the area, impair the use of both the creek and river as
recreational waters, and increase treatment costs to filter out these large masses of sediment. In particular, the
Town of Elkin contends with the annual infill to its reservoir, losing days of potential supply capacity due to
sedimentation displacing water volumes. It requires the town to settle the water before pumping it to its water
treatment plant and gives its public water supply reservoir a muddy appearance that alarms the town's
residents. The town is investing in a direct line to draw water from its emergency intake on the Yadkin River to
dilute these high sediment levels, but this is also a capital cost that is avoidable if best management practices
are used upstream.
Page 38

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
FIGURE 24: IMPACTS OF TOBACCO FARMING ON LOCAL STREAMS IN MITCHELL RIVER WATERSHED, SURRY COUNTY. PHOTO COURTESY OF JOE
MICKEY, 2014
The PTRC will work with both towns to develop partnerships with Surry, Wilkes, and Yadkin Counties' Soil &
Water Conservation District staffs, Cooperative Extension staffs, foresters, and the regional DENR office to
reduce these sediment sources. All cost -share programs are being used to their full capacity, but grants offer
opportunities to enhance these programs and achieve greater gains. The PTRC water resources planning staff
have earned about $1 million in water resource grants over the past six years, and will pursue further funds
to address these issues in partnership will all vested partners. Other funding options and alternatives —
including greater attention to the lack of compliance with the use of FPGs in this area — will be sought with all
stakeholders.
Policit_
Utility Financing
Currently, both the Towns of Elkin and Jonesville water utilities have operating ratios just under 1, meaning
that they are operating at small deficits. The cause of these situations has been the loss of industry and
commerce from the Triad and Yadkin Valley regions over the past few decades. Both municipalities have over
50% of their potential supply capacity available for new customers or residents; this capacity used to be in
much higher demand, with use revenues from industry supporting the water utilities of both towns.
While both municipalities are operating with small deficits, they are only in this position after years of regular
rate hikes necessary to support the needs of their aging water systems. Currently, these some fees are barely
affordable for some residents, as based upon the median household incomes. Therefore, though rate hikes are
necessary for the utilities' financial security, future hikes could unreasonably burden low-income households.
The UNC-Chapel Hill School of Government has an Environmental Finance Center (EFC) that assesses and
addresses such utility finance concerns. It is recommended that both municipalities work with the EFC to
determine a 25-year financial strategy to ensure the stability and sustainability of their respective water
utilities. The EFC will work with the towns' utility, financial, and administrative staffs on developing a finance
strategy that utilizes rates, bonds, grants, loans, and other tools to ensure that residents and businesses will
have reliable and affordable water for the near -term future.
Page 39

Watershed Stewardship
Throughout this planning effort, the indispensable role of water in Elkin, Jonesville, and their watershed
neighbors has been apparent. It is clear in Surry County's Economic Development Strategy and the Town of
Elkin's Economic Development Plan as well as the Yadkin Valley Heritage Corridor Strategic Plan. The Yadkin
River and its tributaries are central to the identities of all communities in this area — urban and rural. It defines
the area's setting, agriculture, economic future based upon ecotourism and industrial growth, and as home to
many valuable animals and plants that are central to the identities, ecosystems, and economies of the area.
However, while these waters are central to life in Elkin, Jonesville, and their surrounding counties, there are
limited efforts by local groups to actively protect and restore the watershed and water quality conditions. This
despite that the ecosystems of both watersheds provide nearly $50 million in public services such as flood
prevention and air pollution treatment every year for the area residents; an average value of nearly
$200/acre (Table 6).
TABLE 6: THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: CONSERVATION ECONOMICS, NORTH CAROLINA'S RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT IN LAND
CONSERVATION, EXHIBIT A-1, PAGE 29
Combined
VALUE
CLASS
ACRES
PERCENTAGE
Annual
Value Per
Acre (i)
Annual Value
11
Open Water
430.33
0.17%
$224
$96,394.44
21
Developed, Open Space
13,329.63
5.36%
$0
$0.00
22
Developed, Low Intensity
3,346.36
1.34%
$0
$0.00
23
Developed, Medium Intensity
1,254.30
0.50%
$0
$0.00
24
Developed, High Intensity
355.61
0.14%
$0
$0.00
31
Barren Land
60.49
0.02%
$0
$0.00
41
Deciduous Forest
129,968.81
52.22%
$300
$38,990,641.72
42
Evergreen Forest
12,432.71
5.00%
$300
$3,729,813.48
43
Mixed Forest
16,335.50
6.56%
$300
$4,900,650.93
52
Shrub/Scrub
8,652.46
3.48%
$5
$43,262.30
71
Herbaceous
5,785.58
2.32%
$5
$28,927.89
81
Hay/Pasture
55,924.96
22.47%
$5
$279,624.81
82
Cultivated Crops
637.16
0.26%
$5
$3,185.79
90
Woody Wetlands
342.26
0.14%
$1,150
$393,603.94
95
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
15.79
0.01%
$1,150
$18,158.47
248,871.96
$48,484,263.76
With no stormwater regulations in the area, neither municipality is required to have a water quality education
program. Many of the soil and water conservation districts do promote low- or no -till agricultural practices,
but their limited staff and resources constrains their abilities to reach everyone. Similarly, forestry operations
appear to be eluding their required FPGs through a lack of reporting by an underinformed public and a lack
of enforcement capacity at the regional DENR office in Winston-Salem. The main environmental group active
in this area is the Yadkin Riverkeeper, which has a responsibility to all 7,000+ square miles of the Yadkin
Page 40

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
River basin, and cannot dedicate inordinate amounts of time to individual cases on private properties. Without
state investments to improve programs to protect and improve water quality conditions, grass root actions are
needed to protect the watershed and address concerns about potential impacts to it.
There are significant stewardship actions taking place within Elkin's water supply watershed. The Elkin Valley
Trails Association (EVTA) has led the way with their astounding progress at creating the Elkin Valley Trail that
connects Stone Mountain State Park to the Yadkin River along Elkin Creek. Within a short three years, this
group has laid down miles of trails, built a bridge, and had the trail declared a birding hotspot. They are
exploring paddling opportunities on Big Elkin Creek and the Roaring River and promoting these to the public,
cementing the Wilkes County and the Yadkin River Valley as an ecotourism destination.
There are needs for greater stewardship efforts throughout both watersheds, though. Certainly, leading with
positive (and tangible) results such as the Elkin Valley Trail are the best and most engaging approach for the
broader public. The NC WRC is currently assessing and intending to stock tributaries within both Jonesville and
Elkin's watersheds with trout on a seasonal basis. These trout will need clear, cool water that requires
consistent stream buffers and low sediment loads. These needs (and their associated economic benefits) may
be enough to increase support for the use of BMPs on farms and FPGs on forestry operations. However, there
needs to be greater institutional support to shepherd these practices into reality. The soil and water
conservation districts and the county cooperative extension offices are utilizing their cost -share and community
assistance resources to their capacity; they need greater funding and support to get more farmers enrolled in
these effective programs. With the tobacco buy-out program, these program needs become greater, as the
more lucrative, yet more environmentally -intensive, tobacco will be more competitive with other crops.
In regard to forestry operations, there is anecdotal evidence and aerial data of an historic lack of use of
FPGs in these watersheds. There are two issues that must be addressed here: the lack of reporting and the
lack of enforcement. The public needs a venue in which they can be aware of what timber operations are
required to do by law and that they can contact someone to enforce these laws. The Yadkin Riverkeeper and
the EVTA have offered to lead this outreach effort. The enforcement of these laws requires both greater
capacity by the DENR staff to investigate potential violators of state law as well as an environmental
advocate to alert the DENR office that they must investigate every registered concern promptly; many of
these operations are conducted in very short amounts of a time such as a week or a weekend, successfully
evading regulators with hefty work loads. The Yadkin Riverkeeper is the appropriate environmental advocate
for this role, but has limited staff with which to do it; greater participation by the public is needed. However,
the Waterkeeper Alliance's Muddy Water Watch gives a good example of how to accomplish these ends,
simply by shifting the focus from development sites to timber operations.
A permanent watershed stewardship coordinator that can serve these diverse needs and work with the
appropriate partners on each of these issues (and more) is needed to shepherd this plan into reality. While all
of the project stakeholders could invest in their own coordinators, a more neutral coordinator who can work
with all of the political entities, the non-profit community, and the private sector would be more effective at
implementing this plan. The Yadkin Valley Heritage Partnership is a tourism and economic development
organization that has the support of all three counties and the municipalities featured in this watershed plan,
and is the best home for this coordinator position. By seeding this position with public and private funds, the
project could reap large rewards over a short time. The model used to create the Haw River Trail coordinator
position in Alamance County provides a good model for how to achieve similar progress in this large
watershed, as well as any other related water quality concerns of the involved parties.
Page 41

Stormwater Ordinance
Both Elkin and Jonesville are too small to fall under the jurisdiction of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System's Phase II program,
which regulates stormwater discharges from large urban areas.
However, both towns are already fulfilling many of the program's
requirements: a construction stormwater control program, a post -
construction stormwater control program, a mapped stormwater
system, and good housekeeping practices by municipal staff to
prevent illicit discharges from entering the respective stormwater
systems. While both towns largely drain downstream of their water
intakes, Elkin's runoff does partially drain to the Yadkin River
upstream of Jonesville's intake. Lastly, both towns' stormwater runoff
drain to waters considered critical for the development of the Yadkin
River Valley's ecotourism economy. Furthermore, any nutrient
OK�
�1 z
, %-%a R �
management strategy arising from the High Rock Lake special study
currently being done by NC DWR will almost certainly require municipalities of all sizes in the lake's
watershed to effectively institute the Phase II program.
It would be in the interests of both towns to invest in the final elements of a comprehensive stormwater
program: illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE), community outreach and education, and public
involvement. The largest expense with an IDDE program is mapping the stormwater system, which both towns
have done. Otherwise, the program requires the town to inspect its stormwater infrastructure and creeks to
find and stop non -permitted discharges like washing machines straight -piped to local streams or auto repair
shops dumping oils down the storm drains. A benefit of surveying the stormwater system is that it also allows
public works staffs to identify possible or likely inflow and infiltration instances, where stormwater is invading
the wastewater infrastructure and burdening it with additional volume.
The public involvement and community outreach requirements are straight -forward and are likely already
being done to some degree through other municipal programs like beautification or parks and recreation.
Certainly the EVTA's activities in Elkin would largely satisfy these requirements, if officially supported by the
Town of Elkin. However, the PTRC also offers these services through Stormwater SMART, which can customize
services for both Elkin and Jonesville so that they can address the towns' concerns regarding water quality
and engender a greater stewardship ethic among school children, master gardeners, civic associations,
planning board, and/or the general public. These services can also be provided to counties to reach out to
rural communities and serve all upstream and downstream stakeholders of watershed concerns.
Partnerships and ending
Yadkin Valley Heritage Corridor Partnership
This partnership is a collaboration among Surry, Wilkes, Yadkin, and
Caldwell Counties focusing on improving recreational and tourism
infrastructure in the Yadkin River Valley. It is committed to capitalizing
upon the wealth of cultural and ecological resources in the area
yadkino& central to the region's future economy. They have been central to the
valleygrowth of the Yadkin Valley wineries and their economic boost to the
region. The Partnership has a strategic plan that relies upon the two
Page 42

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
watersheds discussed in this plan being healthy and stable, capable of supporting fisheries, paddling, hiking,
and other activities that focus on the river corridor and its significant tributaries. The stakeholders have
identified the Partnership as the most appropriate entity to house a watershed conservation coordinator who
would implement this plan and protect the quality of the two towns' water supplies.
NC Environmental Finance Center
T � T� The UNC:Chapel Hill School of Government houses the
l{�`+j
I �► �Environmental Finance Center, which has a mission of
ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE CENTER ..work[ing] to enhance the ability of governments and other
organizations to provide environmental programs and
services in fair, effective and financially sustainable ways." They may be most notable for local governments in
North Carolina due to their annual analysis of public water and sewer utility rates, their affordability, and
their long-term fiscal health, all of which may be compared to other local governments in the state using a
menu of different filters. They serve the needs of many states with this easily -accessible "dashboard"
interface (featured in this plan), and build upon this knowledge by providing a sort of extension service for
local governments that specializes in financial management. They are an excellent resource and a necessary
partner to ensure the long-term stability and sustainability of both towns' water utilities.
NC Rural Water Association
NCRWA is a "...non-profit organization dedicated to helping... members
_. R A
attain the highest standard in drinking water and wastewater service."
NCRWA has already been a vital stakeholder in the management of both
Elkin and Jonesville's water systems, performing annual leak assessments
and addressing those leaks. They perform a suite of other technical assistance services for utilities as well as
private wells for rural communities. Their role as a partner to these municipalities is necessary for the long-
term health and function of their water utilities, but they could provide greater assistance in the counties of
these two large watersheds. The stakeholders' concerns about under -documented underground storage tanks
and landfills and their potential risk to private drinking water wells could be better characterized by the
NCRWA through their Wellhead Protection program.
NC Division of Water Resources
E!MA
NCDENR
The NC DWR Drinking Water Protection Program played a fundamental
role in realizing this planning project, and will play a similar role in
implementing this plan. The program has supported and facilitated the
creation of the statewide Source Water Collaborative, a diverse body of
drinking water supply stakeholders including federal, state, and local
governments, non-profit organizations, and academic institutions that are
dedicated to working at a local scale with general public, utility operators,
and local government staff and elected officials to ensure the long-term
health and safety of their water supplies. The Drinking Water Protection Program has historically managed
and staffed the Source Water Assessment Program, which authored the Source Water Assessment Plans
required by the US EPA. This some staff will be assisting in implementing these more detailed source water
protection plans, supporting local governments pursuing grant assistance to implement these plans.
Page 43

North Carolina Universities
The Town of Jonesville is plagued by a vegetative growth that covers its settling ponds in the summers and has
a spore stage in its life cycle that has proven resistant to chemical treatment, desiccation, and physical
removal from the water's surface. This growth has largely been uncharacterized by the scientific research
community. North Carolina is wealthy in universities with researchers who can assist the town in characterizing
and identifying this growth, as well as possibly permanently eliminating it from the water supply. NC State
University, UNC-Chapel Hill, UNC-Charlotte, Appalachian State University, Wake Forest University, and Duke
University all have research faculty who could assist in addressing this issue.
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund
The NC CWMTF is dedicated to protecting and rehabilitating the water
resources of the state. It has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to
local governments, non-profit entities, and private firms to develop
watershed plans, restore streams and stream buffers, build greenways,
develop innovative stormwater technologies, and acquire sensitive and
deanwater
valuable ecological habitats. The CWMTF funded this planning grant in
an effort to address water quality concerns before they become water
quality problems. They are key partner in implementing this plan,
MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND
especially in protecting sensitive areas of the watershed, restoring
streams and buffers, and assisting with the construction of the Elkin Valley
Trail.
Duke Energy Water Resources Fund
In 2014, Duke Energy's Dan River power plant in Eden, NC, spilled over 38 million tons of coal ash into the
Dan River, immediately degrading the ecological, recreational, and agricultural uses of that water system for
its residents and ecosystems. In an effort to show a commitment to protecting and improving water quality
conditions throughout its service region, it is dedicating $10 million annually for water resource projects. While
there is not a Duke Energy power plant near this watershed, many of the projects recommended in this plan fit
the requirements of projects requested by the fund.
NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund
The NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) is dedicating to fully
matching the efforts of local governments for recreation projects. If
North Carolinas cash and/or human capital can be accrued by the stakeholders in
these watersheds, PARTF could be a valuable funding source for
realizing greenway, blueways, and parks throughout these
watersheds.
NC Division of Water Infrastructure
The NC DWI was created by the NC General Assembly in 2014 to consolidate the state's infrastructure
support programs. It includes the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Clean Water State Revolving
Fund loan programs as well as the Community Development Block Grant and Appalachian Regional
Commission programs. The four programs are independently administered, but are all dedicated to the
improvement and rehabilitation of water and sewer infrastructure in North Carolina.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Page 44

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
In 2014, the State of North Carolina dedicated all of its federal CDBG support for water and sewer
infrastructure projects. These projects must be located in areas with below -average income levels and outside
of "entitlement" communities such as Greensboro that receive direct allocations of CDBG monies. These grants
are awarded twice a year for a total of $25 - $30 million of projects per year. The water infrastructure of
both Jonesville and Elkin would generally qualify for these funds and should consider supplementing their
capital needs with this revenue source.
Appalachian Regional Commission
The ARC is dedicated to improving the economies and communities of the United States' Appalachian
Mountains region. It has four program focuses that it supports with annual grants. All four programs emphasize
economic development and better connecting Appalachia with the global economy and the nation. The
Piedmont Triad has five counties (and their municipalities) that are eligible for ARC grants: Davie, Forsyth,
Stokes, Surry, and Yadkin. Wilkes County is also under ARC jurisdiction. Supporting improvements to local
water and sewer infrastructures are an historic legacy of this program, and one that both municipalities have
used. This should and will continue to be a financial resource for these communities, provided their projects can
deliver economic benefits locally and regionally.
Page 45

AGRICULTURE
Agriculture is North Carolina's number one industry. Unfortunately, the loss of farmland to development poses
a threat to sustaining the long-term viability of agriculture (CTNC 2014). If well managed, farmland in the
watershed study area can protect and improve water quality. Because our water quality and soils are
intrinsically linked, many best management practices (BMPs) protect both resources. A BMP is structured for
delivering a conservation measure or series of measures that is useful, proven, cost-effective, and generally
accepted among conservation experts (Texas Water Development Board 2005). When done correctly, BMPs
can improve water quality while also improving the farmer's bottom line. This chapter addresses current
concerns in the watershed study area and viable best manage practices including tillage, conservation, and
regulatory practices, as well as current and potential partner organizations and resources.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000), agriculture is the primary source of pollution
for half of the impaired river and stream miles and 40% of impaired lake and reservoir areas. Agricultural
sources of pollution include cropland and livestock production. Almost 42% of land in the watershed study
area is designated farmland making farmers and livestock producers major participants in plans to reduce
impacts to surface waters.
Depending on the practices used, agriculture can have significant positive or negative impacts on water
quality. Because of the potential for runoff to become contaminated with sediment, pesticides, and fertilizers,
agricultural operations can pose a number of risks to water quality and public health. Similarly, these
practices directly affect the ecology of these areas, which often benefit from minimal management of lands,
such as grazing. However, working lands are important parts of local histories and economies, and when
properly managed, agricultural activities can be compatible with healthy water quality and aquatic habitat
(UNRBA 2007).
In general, local governments cannot apply restrictions other than lot size to agriculturally zoned districts.
Within agricultural zones, USDA -Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) standards and guidance may
affect where facilities are located. Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) designations can help ensure that
rezoning decisions factor in existing agricultural operations and local Soil and Water Conservation Districts
(SWCD) and NRCS personnel can assist farmers with siting agricultural activities on their lands (UNRBA 2007).
TABLE 7: COMMON AGRICULTURAL BMPS
Common Aaricultural Rest Management Practices
Permanent Vegetative Cover
Animal Waste Management System
Conservation Tillage Systems
Stream Protection System
Striperopping Systems
Permanent Vegetative Cover On Critical Areas
Terrace System
Sediment Retention, Erosion, or Water Control Structures
Diversion System
Improving An Irrigation And Or Water Management System
Grazing Land Protection System
Tree Planting
Waterway System
Fertilizer Management
Cropland Protection System
Pesticide Management
SOURCE: NORTH CAROLINA WATER QUALITY PROGRAM
Page 46

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Issues of Concern
Sedimentation
Well managed soil can improve water quality by infiltrating water into the ground and preventing runoff. If
improperly managed, however, water may run off the surface carrying soil particles with it. Sediment is the
leading source of water pollution in both the United States and North Carolina and is a major contributor to
the degradation of waters in the Yadkin River and Big Elkin Creek. Sediment comes from many sources:
agricultural fields, construction sites and eroded stream banks are a few of the contributors the watershed
study area. FIGURE 25: BIG ELKIN CREEK 2012 SOURCE PTRC
When streams and rivers and riverbeds change from clean
gravel to muddy, many native fish and animals will
disappear. These gravel beds provide important spawning
areas for many aquatic species. Soil particles also cover
spawning areas, smother fish eggs, aquatic insects and
oxygen producing plants. High turbidity levels (suspended
soils) in a stream also increase water temperatures, reduce
light penetration and plant growth, prevent fish from
capturing pray by reducing visibility, and clog fish gills. In
addition to impacting the aquatic habitat, excess sediment
reduces the storage capacity of reservoirs, can cause
excessive flooding, and degrades the quality of water for
municipal, industrial, and recreational uses (U.S. EPA 2014).
Nutrient pollution is the result of fertilizer over application,
improper storage of chicken litter, degraded stream buffers,
and livestock access to waters.
Nutrient Pollution
Nutrient pollution is rapidly becoming one of the most costly
and challenging environmental programs in the region. Too much
cause algae to grow faster than ecosystems can handle. Large growths of algae, or algal blooms, reduce or
eliminate oxygen in the water leading to fish kills and other ecological disasters. Some algal blooms produce
elevated levels of toxins and bacterial growth that can make people or animals sick if they come into contact
with contaminated waters (U.S. EPA 2014). High Rock Lake, downstream of both of these watersheds, is
currently undergoing a regulatory review for high nutrient levels that have persisted there since the 1 970s.
Similar to the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategies, this process could lead to more
direct regulation of land use roughly 4,000 square miles of the Upper Yadkin River Subbasin (NC DENR
2014).
Nutrient pollution is the result of agriculture, stormwater and wastewater as well as practices in and around
the home including fertilizer use, pet waste, and use of detergents and other cleaners containing phosphorous.
In addition to causing major environmental damage and health problem, nutrient pollution can take a toll on
the economy, hurting industries and sectors that depend on clean water.
Page 47

FIGURE 27: TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS PER COUNTY (2012)
Total Cash Receipts per County (2012)
(Livestock, Dairy & Povktry/CropsCGov+t Payments)
$ 303,10b,365
W llkas Cnurif y
Hazardous Waste
$142,241,23a
0
Surry Count;:
$1 1 1,48 2A-63
E_
Yadkin C,ph my
(NC DA&CS 2012)
Pathogens
Pathogens are disease -causing
organisms generally transmitted via
rainwater flowing over the ground,
picking up waste and depositing it
into a nearby stream. Failing septic
systems are another common source,
especially in rural communities.
Fecal coliform is a common indicator
organism and is often used to
indicate the possibility of fecal
matter in surface waters. Testing
for indicator organisms is more
efficient and less expensive than
testing for pathogens derived from
specific sources (U.S. EPA 2013).
Many products used around the home and farm contain hazardous materials. Improper disposal of hazardous
waste can pose significant environmental and human health concerns. In rural locations, wastes are often
disposed of by throwing in the trash, pouring in a ditch, dumping on a vacant lot or burning. When working
with the NC WRC, Joe Mickey was called to a NC Department of Transportation construction project where
forty -year old oil drums had been uncovered and were leaking into the trout waters of the East Prong of the
Roaring River. This surprising find led to a $1 20,000 grant that required Wilkes County to clean up the
polluted soils (personal communication with Joe Mickey; see 04/29/14 meeting minutes).
Hazardous waste can move down through the soil and contaminate groundwater or be washed into surface
water bodies killing aquatic plants and wildlife. Carefully assessing which products need to be used, how to
use them safely, and how to properly dispose of hazardous waste can safely keep hazardous waste out of
surface and groundwater. If groundwater becomes contaminated, it is nearly impossible to clean up and well
water is permanently compromised (Farm*A*Syst
2000) FIGURE 26: CATTLE ACCESSING CREEK
via ctnrIt
Over the past 60 years, farm operations in the United
States have become fewer in number but larger in
size particularly in livestock and poultry production.
While production has more than doubled since the
1950s, the number of operations has decreased by
80%. More concentrated facilities with animals raised
in confined conditions has the potential to significantly
degrade environmental quality, particularly surface
and ground water conditions (U.S. EPA 2013).
Sediment is currently the largest source of concern in
the watershed. Sediment is the result of both
SOURCE: JOE MICKEY
Page 4b

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
construction practices (including construction runoff from farmland) and livestock grazing operations. In
addition to increasing turbidity, sediment can carry nutrients and pathogens into surface waters, all of which
creates poor conditions from aquatic life. Manure discharges to surface waters caused by rain events,
equipment failure or improper application may deplete oxygen or ammonia toxicity causing fish kills.
Nutrients from livestock and poultry manure also cause harmful algal blooms that may produce cyanotoxins
which are harmful to animals and aquatic life as well as to humans when exposed in recreational or drinking
water supplies. Pathogens from livestock and poultry operations can reach surface water or groundwater
through runoff, spills, or infiltration and may pose a risk to human health. There are additional human health
concerns with the overuse of antimicrobials and artificial hormones in livestock and poultry operations (U.S.
EPA 2013).
While the drinking water supply watersheds addressed in this study area are not currently listed as impaired
through the NC DWR, proactively addressing potential impacts from livestock operations is paramount to
ensuring water supplies remain protected. While a combination of source water protection, manure
management, and water treatment processes can help reduce surface water pollution and remove
contaminants from drinking water, two major challenges facing the watershed: size and scope of operations
and enforcement. The majority of the watershed is made up of small to mid -sized farms and relies on
voluntary compliance from farmers to minimize water pollution. While more heavily regulated, many of the
large-scale farms lack the enforcement necessary to ensure waste is being properly managed.
Poultry
Managing poultry litter (a combination of wood shavings/ other bedding materials, chicken urine and feces,
feathers, and dead birds) can be challenging for poultry producers. If properly handled, these by-products
can be a valuable resource as fertilizer and a source of organic matter. However, if handled improperly,
excess nutrients, pathogens and bacteria can pollute surface or groundwater or may cause public nuisances.
North Carolina legislation governs how poultry producers and contractors can apply poultry litter on farms
and other land without discharging pollutants into surface waters. Animal waste management plans are
applicable to all farms that raise at least 30,000 birds and use dry litter waste management systems. In
addition to these requirements, manure haulers that apply 100 tons or less of animal waste per year are
deemed permitted if they do not have a discharge of waste to the surface waters; land apply the waste at
no greater than agronomic nitrogen rates; and
FIGURE 28: BROILERS PRODUCED PER COUNTY (2012)
Btailers Produced per County (201 )
73,000,000
Wilkcs County
Page 49
20,000,000
W"
5urry County
4,700, 00D
Yadkin County
(NC DA&CS 2012)
do not apply the waste closer than 25 feet
from perennial streams or perennial
waterbodies. Manure haulers that apply more
than 100 tons of waste per year must also not
stockpile animal waste uncovered for more
than 15 days; not stockpile animal waste within
100 feet of a perennial stream or waterbody;
and only apply waste on fields that have a soil
fertility analysis completed within the past 3
years. Manure haulers also have reporting
requirements depending on how much waste
they haul. (Crouse, David A., and Karl Shaffer
2010).

The watershed is host to a number of poultry operations, particularly in Wilkes County. As of 2012, Wilkes
County was ranked second in North Carolina in broiler production, with a total of 73 million chickens (NC
DA&CS 201 2) Dealing with poultry operations in the watershed, particularly in Wilkes County is vital to the
local economy. While there is a need for more data and information regarding poultry farms, too much
regulation could result in the industry moving to a less regulated area, causing significant economic impacts.
Wilkes County is ranked ninth in its production of egg -laying chickens (430,000) (NCDACS 2012). While the
larger, permitted operations are easy to track and have a strong compliance record with watershed
regulations, there are many smaller, undocumented farms that are likely contributing high levels of fecal
coliform bacteria to the waters. Without a long-term water quality monitoring program, it is difficult to know
where and when these waters are most impacted. The Yadkin Riverkeeper Association used aerial
photography to document the number of chicken houses, each of which can hold approximately 25,000 birds.
There are 182 separate poultry farms with 701 houses in the watershed. Conservatively, this adds up to
about 87,625,000 birds that produce between 473,000 and 670,000 tons of waste per year (Quinlivan
2014). Unfortunately, there is no mechanism to determine how many of these are in use and whether they are
following dry litter operations as required by the state. The organization has also been able to document
illegally stored litter piles within 100 feet of perennial streams.
FIGURE 29: POULTRY OPERATIONS DOCUMENTED BY THE YADKIN RIVERKEEPER, 2014
Page 50

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Chicken litter may also contain trace
metals from both naturally occurring
and anti-coccidial treatments and
growth supplements. If these trace
metals leach into rivers and streams,
aquatic organisms like fish and
aquatic invertebrate species are at
risk. Metals taken up through the
digestive tract or through the gills
can accumulate in fish and impact
human and other predators. A recent
study in the Bugaboo Creek
watershed in Wilkes County provides
very little evidence these metals are
currently contributing to aquatic
toxicity. If spreading continues,
however, soil and streams may reach
the toxic threshold for copper and
zinc and severely impact agriculture
as a viable economic driver in the
region (Pack 2009).
FIGURE 30: POULTRY HOUSE
STOCK IMAGE
A separate study indicates many pastures in Wilkes County have reached the threshold for phytotoxicity from
chicken litter applications. The heavy metals and arsenic added to poultry feed do not break down and
remain in soils indefinitely, and may impact agricultural production. While trace amounts of metals are
essential to plant metabolism, excessive levels have the potential to become toxic to plants. Continued
application of chicken litter and increasing copper and zinc levels pose a threat to both crop production and
consumption. While there is no immediate threat to human health, trace element accumulation in edible crops is
also a concern. Chicken litter applications have also been shown to impact groundwater quality (Brower
2013).
Page 51

Elkin Water Supply Watershed
Agricultural Map - Yadkin Riverkeeper Data= ALL
,ECOUNr-
r- sifrrxr c ouMTr OL40
- M A, l ■
■ _ ■
S a
� � ;�■ ■ `fir` � ��. ,
- 4
"
ti w
r.L.
A
Jor
_ ..
V ■ _ •A
A K
AA,■
w r tt
■
'•iikr+hr •. -- `.. M YIS�lClir GL�LtHf �1l
Animal Operations
Cattle
L J
I
Lrvostock
r
i Poultry
;Ir �ti ► Yadkin Riverkcoper Data
Voluntary AU District
EXANDER CDVN
Farmland
Elkin Creek Watershed QYadkm River Vulatomhed y • k+� 7 1.,
FIGURE 31: AGRICULTURAL MAP - YADKIN RIVERKEEPER DATA
Page 52

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Grazing Livestock
Wilkes County is home to 31,500 cattle, the
third -largest county population in North
Carolina (NCDACS 2012). Over the last
several years, there has been a significant
increase in turbidity in the watershed study
area, due in part to cattle grazing operations.
BMPs such as stream buffer and cattle
exclusion fencing have the potential to reduce
erosion and sedimentation by 20 to 90 percent
from cattle grazing operations (U.S. EPA
2014). While Wilkes County is aggressively
pursuing cost share funds to implement these
practices, the need for outweighs available
funding. The Wilkes County Soil and Water
Conservation District requested $1,007,124 in
fiscal year 2015 but only received 7% of the
requested amount, $69,294 (NC DA&CS
2014).
FIGURE 32: LIVESTOCK BMPS
� tit.
SOURCE: NC.WATER.USGS.GOV
Uncontrolled, or overgrazing presents a number of disadvantages. Overgrazing exposes soils, increases
erosion, encourages invasion by undesirable plants, destroys fish habitat, and reduces the filtration of
sediment necessary for building stream banks, wet meadows, and floodplains (U.S. EPA 2014). The loss of
vegetative cover weakens root systems and exposes and compacts soil, increasing erosion and increasing
pollution from stormwater runoff (Farm*A*Syst 2001 ).
Planned grazing, rotational grazing or management -intensive grazing systems reduce the time that livestock
spend in each pasture. This practice increases the nutritional value and uniformity of vegetation and nutrient
cycling is more rapid. Controlled grazing can be implemented by using separate pastures or portable electric
fences to make pastures smaller. Good grazing management optimizes animal production while maintaining
vegetative cover by ensuring high nutritional value for peak lactation or optimal weight gain. Intensively
managed grazing, on the other hand, causes some plants to mature and lose their high nutritional
FIGURE 33: TOTAL CATTLE PER COUNTY (2013) characteristics while others die from over
grazing, resulting in declining animal
Total Cattle per County (2013) performance (Farm*A*Syst 2001).
31,500
27,500
19,900
W11kos County 5urry Cz-unty Yadkh County
(NC DAM 2012)
Page 53
Taking time to routinely assess pastures
and evaluate how well a grazing program
is working is important for both short-term
management decisions and long-term
profitability as it relates not only to animal
health but the need for hay production
and other cost considerations. Instead of
having a dedicated area for feeding
livestock, different feeding locations within
the pasture can allow more efficient

feeding and better distribution of manure across pastures. If it is beneficial to have a dedicated feeding area
for feeding, ensuring it is carefully managed for rainwater and runoff will reduce the potential for pollution
(Farm*A*Syst 2001).
Limiting livestock access to riparian areas is one of the most critical methods of reducing water pollution from
livestock operations. A riparian area is the ecosystem along a stream, ditch, creek, river, pond, or lake.
Preventing livestock from standing in the water, walking down the banks, or depositing manure in the stream
decreases the amount of sediment and manure entering surface waters. This also prevents soil compaction and
degradation of vegetation and undergrowth allowing water to absorb more easily into the soil reducing
runoff and erosion. Providing alternative water supplies for livestock away from stream banks and riparian
areas is a key management technique for maintaining these critical areas (Farm*A*Syst 2001 ).
Agricultural lands, especially field borders and grazing lands are historically an important habitat for many
native plants and animals. As these lands are converted to development or more intensive use such as crop
lands, these important open early successional habitats are lost. This loss of habitat is of special concern for
the federally endangered bog turtle which benefits from appropriate grazing regimes that keep open wet
meadows and shrub dominated bogs from going through natural succession and becoming forested (NC WRC
2005). Cattlemen and farmers can conserve these habitats by planting native grasses, keeping bogs free of
trees and following a grazing plan that avoids impacts to bog turtles, with the assistance of a wildlife
biologist (NC WRC 2012).
Utilizing source water contamination preventing measures related to livestock and poultry manure can improve
water quality and reduce the burden on drinking water treatment utilities. Management strategies include
preventing animal manure from coming into contact with runoff and water sources, properly applying manure
as fertilizer on crop or pastures, and appropriately managing pastures (U.S. EPA 2013).
Crops
Soils in the Piedmont region of North Carolina have been intensively farmed since the founding of our country.
Wilkes County is currently the second-largest producer of hay in North Carolina, yielding 63,200 tons in
2012 (NC DACS 2012). The watershed is host to soybean, tobacco and corn operations, many of which utilize
best management practices suited to the region and protect and improve water quality. Specific farms have,
however, been identified as using poor management systems and ultimately contributing to degrading water
quality conditions in the watershed. Conventional tillage impacts the health of our soil, our water and
contributes to poor air quality. The following practices have a significant impact on stream health in the study
area.
In 2004 the federal government instituted the Tobacco Transition Payment Program to help fund the transition
for tobacco farmers as the tobacco quota and price support programs ended (USDA 2005). At the end of
2014 this funding source ends and the tobacco farmers enter into a free market system that lacks quotas and
federal support. This may increase or decrease the price of tobacco which will determine how much farmland
is put into tobacco production. Since tobacco is a crop that requires heavy tillage it often is a source of
sediment if the field is not well buffered. This sediment impacts many of the native wildlife use surface waters
for habitat.
Page 54

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
FIGURE 35: STRIP TILLED CORN
SOURCE: STOCK IMAGE
r
(NCSU 2010 and Furr 2014).
ge Practices
1,
Conservation Tillage
Conservation tillage is any tillage or cropping
sequence that leaves 30 percent of the soil
surface covered with plant residue to protect the
soil from erosion year round (NCSU 2010).
Conservation tillage increases infiltration, while
reducing evaporation, runoff and erosion.
Increased infiltration allows plants to have
greater access to rainfall and reduces runoff and
erosion. Residue also reduces the impact of
aindrops on the soil surface minimizing the
creation of a hard surface layer. Within
conservation tillage are many practices including
no -till, strip -till, minimum till and cover crops
Research in North Carolina suggests that no -tillage or tillage with minimal soil disturbance on well -draining
soils is most productive for large -seeded crops like corn and soybean. Two studies over a 25 year period
provide insight on crop yield, crop residue ground cover, and infiltration compared to average non -irrigated,
upland yields of the Piedmont (NCSU 2012). However, conservation tillage practices are not as cost-effective
for tobacco, the predominant crop in the watershed. Poor weed control and inconsistent yields have made
tobacco producers hesitant in adopting the practice. The best results from no -till practices have been shown
with low residue cover crops which may not leave adequate cover for erosion control (Denton, Paul, Justin
Bryant & John Morrison 2010).
Strip Tillage
Strip Tillage is considered a hybrid of conventional and no -till practices and yields appear to be comparable.
Strip -tillage systems provide less soil erosion control than conservation tillage, but more than conventional
practices. However, strip -tillage systems may also open up ground previously unsuitable for tobacco
production. Weed control remains the biggest
FIGURE 34: NO -TILL SOY BEANS
concern with strip -tillage practices (Bailey 201 1 ).
The Wilkes Soil and Water Conservation District
has a popular no -till drill rental program which
was made possible through a grant secured
through the NC Foundation for Soil and Water
Conservation. The drill makes it easier for farmers
to plant cool season grasses and small grains,
fluffier seeds such as warm season grasses, and
smaller seeds such as legumes (Wilkes County Soil
and Water Conservation District 2014). The no -till
drill program is popular with the community and
usually has a waiting list.
The Agricultural Cost Share program identifies a
Page 55
� r �
SOURCE: FURR (2014)

long term no -till practice as "planting all crops for five
consecutive years with at least eighty percent (80%) of
the at -plant soil surface covered by plant residue from
proceeding crops to improve water quality" (NC SWCD
2012). The program provides incentive payments up to
$25,000 for long-term no till practices.
Cover Crops
Cover crops are grasses, legumes or forbs planted to
provide seasonal soil cover on cropland when the soil
would otherwise be bare (i.e., before the crop emerges
in spring or after fall harvest). There are several
important benefits of using cover crops including erosion
control, the addition of nitrogen (N) to the soil while
simultaneously preventing nutrient loading, buildup of
FIGURE 36: VITICULTURE
STOCK IMAGE
soil organic matter and buildup of residue which acts as
a mulch, increasing infiltration and runoff. They also restore the soil's natural "glues" that give it aggregate
stability and improves the soils resilience to heavy rainfall and compaction. Native grasses and forbs also
increase cattle production by providing the cattle with nutritious vegetation that is drought tolerant and has
limited management requirements. Increasing native grasslands in agricultural landscapes also improves
habitat for native wildlife such as bobwhite quail. Cover crops ensure that the soil structure is retained and
increases infiltration reducing runoff and the associated loss of valuable top soil and nutrients (NC
Cooperative Extension Service 2011, NC WRC 2014).
Conversion crops
While conventional farming systems vary, most conventional crops profoundly affect the ecological system.
Erosion contributes to the decline of soil productivity and runoff carries sediment, salts, fertilizers, pesticides
and manure into our waters impacting drinking water supplies, fishery production, loss of wetlands and
wildlife habitat and contributing to water scarcity (Gold 2007). Converting to crops that are less intensive and
more suited to the natural environment increases soil health, reduces erosion, improves biodiversity and
enhances productivity.
Page 56

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
Prime Farmland Soils
ALLEG01MY COUNTY '
,SHE COUNT
'1 r
�tE - i
10 1 i
76 I � 1� •��� . i yy _.'�' Z'1�
WKXE
�7 IoneNlYe
12 �o
U00
73
�, I 1 � Nsi Klketwa 4 [.IdaX •/ _
18. ILA ��
of
IL
1
dw
Prime Farmland Sails
Elkin Creek Watershed QJonesville Intake Watershed ► „+
FIGURE 37: PTRC 2014
Page 57

Potential Concerns
Nontraditional Operations
Nontraditional agricultural operations such as horse boarding, nurseries, dirt stockpiling, and community -
supported agriculture are on the rise and these industries are likely to continue growing as development
encroaches on rural lands, rural lands become more fragmented, and/or some agricultural lands are
converted to low -density residential developments with agricultural components (UNRBA 2007). These
nontraditional agricultural operations present management challenges because even though they are
considered agriculture (and therefore cannot be regulated by the local government other than to protect
public health), they may have significant amounts of impervious cover, fertilizer or pesticide use, or land
disturbance and because local SWCDs may not have been made aware of them (UNRBA 2007).
Viticulture
Viticulture as an agricultural operation may have runoff containing sediment and nutrients. Similar to other
types of agriculture, viticulture can use cover crops in the pathways and under trellises to meet multiple goals.
Viticulture may be a source of erosion if a groundcover is not maintained between the rows. In addition to
minimizing soil loss, maintaining a ground cover will reduce soil compaction, reduce weed growth and allow
machinery movement sooner after rains. When utilized under -trellises cover crop species can be selected to
reduce nematodes and reduce vine competition with weeds. To reduce the loss of nitrogen fertilizer
application should be guided by soil tests and applied during periods where the vines will uptake more
nitrogen such as during root development (Virginia Tech 2012).
Voluntary Agricultural District Program
Landowners of agricultural land (including forest management, livestock, and crops) can participate in the
voluntary agriculture district (VAD) program authorized under the Agricultural Development and Farmland
Preservation Enabling Act (N.C.G.S. §§ 106-735 through 106-749). Land with this designation is dedicated to
the management of the land for rural uses with a conservation agreement between the landowner, county or
local municipality that limits non -farm use or development. These voluntary districts give farmers who enroll the
benefit of letting new neighbors know that agricultural operations will be occurring within a short distance of
their property and protect the farmers from nuisance suits due to normal agricultural operations. VAD lands
must be certified by the County Tax Department in order to receive a property tax deferment or credit and
are inspected regularly to ensure that they are meeting VAD requirements. To be considered an Enhanced
Voluntary Agricultural District the landowner waives their right to withdraw from the VAD program for a
period of ten years and in return is eligible for higher cost share benefits. Within the watershed, there are
approximately 35 registered VADs. As Elkin and Jonesville grow, conserving open spaces and agricultural
land will be necessary to preserving the area's agrarian heritage and maintaining high quality waters.
Partners Organizations
• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to Districts and their cooperating land users. NRCS
assistance includes helping land users plan and install conservation systems, collecting natural resources
information, and helping communities reduce flood damage and enhance economic opportunities.
Page 58

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
NRCS also works to improve water quality and the natural environment through voluntary programs
and technical assistance.
• North Carolina Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
The Association is an independent, nonpartisan conservation organization created in 1944 to
represent the interests of the 96 local soil and water conservation districts and the 492 district
supervisors who direct the District conservation programs in the state. Specifically, it; (a) promotes soil
and water conservation through its member Districts, cooperating agencies, and organizations as well
as the media, (b) represents the interests of member Districts in the creation, cultivation, and full
realization of locally led conservation programs with state and federal agencies, interested
organizations, and the public, and (c) coordinates the conservation partnership work for the common
interests of all Districts.
• North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission
The commission is a body created by state statute, charged by law with carrying out a comprehensive
statewide campaign to promote the conservation of soil, water, and related resources. The Commission
is responsible for keeping local Districts organized according to the State's general statutes. The
Commission also has responsibility for implementing specific state programs such as the North Carolina
Agricultural Cost -share Program. A seven -person board governs the Commission. The North Carolina
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, in the State's Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, administers a comprehensive statewide program for conserving soil and water resources. It
serves as staff for the Commission and assists the 96 Districts and the Association in providing
technical, financial, and educational assistance to the public.
• North Carolina Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (NCASWCD)
NCASWCD is one of the oldest conservation organizations in the state and represents 96 local soil
and water conservation districts and district supervisors.
• North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Partnership (NCSWCP)
NCSWCP is one of the nation's top soil and water conservation programs for private lands. The
Partnership is comprised of the state division, local conservation districts and the United States
Department of Agriculture —Natural Resource Conservation Service as well as private and nonprofit
entities.
• NC Cooperative Extension
NC Cooperative Extension is another instrumental resource for NC farmers. With offices in every
county of the state, the Cooperative Extension offers the expertise and resources developed by
NCSU's agricultural and conservation programs — especially the Department of Biological and
Agricultural Engineering — providing unbiased, research -based information to local governments and
interested property owners. It provides comprehensive non -point source programs and training
opportunities with these resources, often working closely with Soil and Water Conservation staff to
best meet the needs of farmers.
• Conservation Trust for North Carolina (CTNC)
CTNC is a land trust working to protect natural resources through direct protection efforts along the
Blue Ridge Parkway and promoting assisting other land trusts in the state through loans, advocacy and
distributing grants.
• Piedmont Land Conservancy (PLC)
PLC permanently protects important lands to conserve our region's rivers and streams, natural and
scenic areas, wildlife habitat, and farmland that make the Piedmont a healthy and vibrant place to
live, work and visit for present and future generations.
• Blue Ridge Conservancy (BRC)
BRC permanently protects land and water resources with agricultural, ecological, cultural, recreational
and scenic value in northwest North Carolina.
Page 59

• Land for Tomorrow
A coalition of state and national conservation and environmental groups, local government
associations and wildlife organizations that advocates for funding the state's conservation trust funds,
including the ADFPTF.
• NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS).
Works with CTNC and other land trusts to administer the ADFPTF and implement other statewide
agricultural policies.
• NC Sustainable Local Foods Advisory Council (NCSLFAC).
Created by a 2010 law, its goal is to promote the development of the local foods infrastructure.
• Carolina Farm Stewardship Association (CFSA) and Sustainable Foods NC (SFNC) — CFSA promotes
the transition of farms to organic production and more sustainable agricultural practices. The SFNC
coalition advocates for policies and programs that support local food systems. CTNC is an advisory
member to SFNC.
Case Studies
Haw Rivers Land Stewards
This project fosters a conservation ethic among Haw River landowners through recruitment for and
participation in the Haw River Land Stewards (HRLS) program. HRLS provides educational opportunities and
resources through direct contact with the landowners. It also reduces pollution loading to the Haw River from
riparian areas through land purchases for conservation and promotes public awareness of the need to protect
regional water quality related to the Haw River by prominently visible signage designating "Haw River Land
Steward." The conservation outcomes of this project are a community and social network of riverfront
landowners interested in the welfare of the river, recruitment and identification of a group of landowners who
are interested in becoming HRLS, and the ability to make additional presentations on conservation
opportunities and benefits to landowners. A final intent is to foster the willingness of some of the landowners
to enter their land into permanent conservation programs either through sale or donation of land to an
appropriate agency (EPA 2008).
4euse Education Team
The Neuse Education Team (NET) is a successful nutrient and pesticide management program in the Neuse
River Watershed. The watershed is 6,200 square miles and entails over 3,000 stream miles. Housed at NC
State University, NET was initiated to inform citizens, farmers, agencies, officials, and industry officials on how
they could achieve a nutrient reduction goal of 30% over a five-year period. NET used four main
management strategies: demonstration and implementation, partnerships and communication, nutrient
management training, and evaluation. A series of demonstration farms encouraged widespread adoption of
best management practices (BMPs) by farmers. Basin -wide partnerships were developed to promote BMPs.
Various materials were developed to improve citizens' understanding of nutrient management and BMP
impacts. NET successfully won more than $2 million in outside grants, developed a train -the -trainer agriculture
nutrient education program for county staff to deliver farmers, wrote nutrient management plans for more
than 150,000 acres and reduced N fertilizer application rates by 23%, saved farmers $20-$40 per acre by
using nutrient management, fostered collaboration among diverse stakeholders and changed farmer behavior
(National Water Program 2013).
Page 60

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Big Bear Creek Farms, Inc.
In Stanly County, NC, farmer Curtis Furr has utilized a
system of farming that combines no -till farming and
cover crops. By planting covercrops under his cotton
and corn he has reduced erosion and increased corn
yield with no increase in pests. By increasing the water
holding capacity of the soil thorugh no -till and cover
crops, Furr estimates a significantly higher yield than
neighboring farmers who did not use cover crops. Furr
has also seen an increase in organic matter in the soil,
further contributing to higher yields. Covercrops include
FIGURE 38: NO -TILL CORN
a mixture of legumes, vetch and winter rye. In addition SOURCE: FURR (2014)
to the nitrogen fixing legumes that helps fertilize corn,
Like many Piedmont farmers, Curtis uses chicken litter as fertilizer, storing it in sheds until it is needed. Big Bear
Creek Farm is a local example of using conventional corn and cotton with no -till and cover crops to reduce
water pollution from sediment and nutrients while increasing yield (Fury 2014).
Soil Carbon Cowboys
Soil Carbon Cowboys demonstrates how farmers around North America have taken a new approach to cattle
grazing and increased rainfall infiltration from 1/2 inch rainfall in an hour under conventional grazing
techniques to 8 inches of rainfall infiltrating in one hour. They succeeded in reducing runoff and capturing
precipitation by growing a variety of legumes, corn, and forbs for cattle to graze instead of fescue grass.
Using a rotational grazing method of moving the cattle every couple of days, the plants are able to
regenerate and the cattle get fresh food. This system reduces the cattle sickness, runoff from the farm, the cost
of planting and harvesting feed for the cattle, increases the presence of pollinators and puts carbon back into
the soil. A short video "Solar Carbon Cowboys: Arizona State Professor and Filmmaker Showcases Drought -
Resilient Soil Practices" can be viewed here: http://ecowatch.us7.list-
manacle.com track/click?u=214ab5fbb3f6015d74ffab4ec&id=a88eb0447e&e=6928771 Cf5 (Baker 2014).
Randolph County Zoning
Randolph County's zoning code protects agricultural lands and promotes development and may have useful
applications in the watershed study area. Parcels zoned as rural/agricultural can be developed, but only if at
least 30% is protected as open space. These areas include the mandatory riparian buffer, and are
encouraged to be continuous. Randolph County also requires all new developments that adjoin agricultural or
open space areas to preserve a viewshed buffer, maintaining the rural aesthetic of the landscape. These
ordinances reflect the investment the County has in preserving and promoting its agrarian heritage.
Page 61

North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
• NC Aaricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund (NCADFPTF)
NCADFPTF supports the farming, forestry, and horticulture communities within the agriculture industry
through providing funding to support the purchase of agricultural conservation easements (on farm,
forest, and horticulture lands), including transaction costs, build public and private enterprise programs
that will promote profitable and sustainable family farms through assistance to farmers in developing
and implementing plans for the production of food, fiber, and value-added products, agritourism
activities, marketing and sales of agricultural products produced on the farm, and other agriculturally
related business activities, and fund conservation agreements (on farm, forest, and horticulture lands)
targeted at the active production of food, fiber and other agricultural products.
• North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program (ACSP)
The Agricultural Cost Share Program addresses nonpoint source pollution by providing technical and
financial resources to landowners or renters of an existing agricultural operation that has been
operating for more than three years. Up to 75% cost share assistance is provided to aid in the
installation of best management practices.
• Aaricultural Resource Assistance Program (AgWRAP)
AgWRAP primarily addresses water use issues including efficiency, availability and storage. Funding
is used to conserve and protect water resources, increase efficiency and increase water storage and
availability for agricultural resources. In FY201 5, AgWRAP received a state appropriation in the
amount of $1,477,500.
• Community Conservation Assistance Program (CCAP)
CCAP is a voluntary, incentive -based program designed to improve water quality through the
installation of various BMP's on urban, suburban and rural lands. This program provides cost share
and technical assistance for the installation of stormwater best management practices on non-
agricultural land. Approved community conservation BMPs that are eligible include: Backyard rain
gardens, cisterns, impervious surface conversion, riparian buffers, stream bank protection, pet waste
receptacles, backyard wetlands, vegetation establishment and abandoned well closure.
• Conservation Reserve Enhancement Proaram (CREP)
CREP is a voluntary program utilizing federal and state resources to achieve long-term protection of
environmentally sensitive cropland and marginal pasture land. These voluntary protection measures
are accomplished through 10-, 15-, 30-year and permanent conservation easements. CREP
encourages farmers to place environmentally sensitive land near streams or other approved water
bodies into a vegetative cover for a period of time. In return, landowners receive annual payments
and are reimbursed for establishing conservation practices.
United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Services
• Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
CSP helps agricultural producers maintain and improve their existing conservation systems and adopt
additional conservation activities to address priority resources concerns. Participants earn CSP
payments for conservation performance —the higher the performance, the higher the payment.
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
EQIP provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers in order to address natural
Page 62

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
resource concerns and deliver environmental benefits such as improved water and air quality,
conserved ground and surface water, reduced soil erosion and sedimentation or improved or created
wildlife habitat.
• Aaricultural Conservation Easement Proaram (ACEP)
ACEP provides financial and technical assistance to help conserve agriculture was created in the 2014
Farm Bill which consolidated the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program with the Grassland
Reserve Program. This program provides matching funds to help purchase development rights to keep
productive land in agricultural uses. Working through existing programs, USDA partners with State,
tribal, or local governments and non -governmental organizations to acquire conservation easements or
other interests in land from landowners. USDA provides up to 50 percent of the fair market easement
value of the conservation easement.
The Piedmont Land Conservancy is currently assisting Yadkin County in completing a Farmland Protection Plan.
PLC assisted Surry County in completing a Farmland Protection Plan in 2012. Wilkes County would also
benefit by completing a Farmland Preservation Plan. Having an adopted farmland preservation plan allows
the County to be eligible for preferential funding from the NC Agricultural Development and Farmland
Preservation Trust Fund.
mecommenoutions
Support voluntary implementation of BMPs by working with counties, municipalities and other
organizations to provide match funding for cost -share programs.
While cost -share programs provide a good incentive to invest in BMPs, many farmers are still struggling to
make ends meet and often cannot afford to cover the additional 25 percent. A committee should be formed
to work with counties, municipalities and other partner agencies to assess the feasibility of such a program. If
the program is deemed feasible and supported through the participating agencies, a system should be put
into place to ensure funds are spend in the most vulnerable portions of the watershed.
Improve monitoring efforts to identify point sources of agricultural pollution.
In -stream monitoring plays a critical role in targeting sources of agricultural pollution. Not only can monitoring
help pinpoint where pollution is coming from, it can assess whether water quality and/or biological condition
related to nutrients, sediment, or livestock -related pathogens are changing due to conservation practices.
Agencies and organizations should consider seeking grant funds or collectively establishing a fund dedicated
to improving monitoring efforts in the watershed. While an in -stream monitoring program may take a while
to be implemented, a citizen monitoring group can be started quickly with little overhead. Providing citizens
with a toolbox of what to look for and how to report issues can be equally effective. A citizen monitoring
program has the added investment of building awareness in the watershed and establishing conservation
farming as a social norm.
Develop a stewardship recognition program specifically targeting farmers within the Yadkin Valley
area.
A farmers' perception towards conservation strongly impacts their decision on whether to pursue
implementation of a practice. Establishing conservation practices as the social norm without the use of
Page 63

regulatory action is critical to the long-term health of our waters. Such a program should be housed in an
organization respected by the farming community (aka, Soil and Water Conservation Districts) and key
leaders in the community should be central to establishing such an organization. This outreach would be ideal
for a watershed conservation coordinator housed at the Yadkin Valley Heritage Corridor Partnership.
Investigate potential manure - to- fertilizer and manure -to -energy options.
Perdue AgriRecycle currently has a plant in Sussex County, DE, that pelletizes poultry litter and sells it as an
additive to fertilizer. Poultry litter can also be turned into fuel, enhancing water quality and contributing to
energy independence in the region. Wilkes County would be an ideal location for such a facility. Wilkes
County, its municipalities and state economic development programs should pursue conversations with large-
scale operators to assess the feasibility of establishing such a plant in Wilkes County.
Improve chicken litter storage facilities.
The amount of chicken litter produced for outweighs the amount that can safely be land applied at agronomic
rates. However, transportation costs are a limiting factor in exporting poultry waste outside the watershed.
Poultry farmers should work with local Soil and Water and Cooperative Extension offices to address storage
needs and find applications for the surplus litter.
Consider implementing a policy preventing industrialized feeding operations within three miles of a
natural resource designated area.
These areas are critical to protecting the biological integrity of our waters as well as providing wildlife
habitat and opportunities for recreation. The area is building a reputation based on the potential for
recreation and must take this growth into account when approving such facilities.
Ensure waste utilization plans are reviewed and kept up to date.
Implementation of a waste utilization plan ensures nutrients are applied at agronomic rates. Investigate
pursuing a program designed to ensure poultry farmers are complying with the plan. Also ensure owners,
truck drivers, and third party applicators are aware of regulations pertaining to the application of poultry
waste.
Ensure farmers have the opportunity to properly dispose of hazardous waste.
Provide farmers with the means to properly collect and dispose of pesticides and other hazardous waste
through well publicized collection sites and/or special events.
Identify partners and develop programs to support young farmers.
Ensure farming remains a central component of the local economy by providing young farmers with the
training and resources needed to successfully maintain the agricultural heritage of the region. Work with
nearby colleges and universities and leverage grant funding to build a successful program.
Consider addressing the previous recommendations through the creation of an agricultural focus
group.
These and other key issues are most effectively addressed by those who have the potential to be impacted
the most. Identifying and bringing together key players from the agricultural community to address water
quality related issues and establishing non -regulatory measure by which to improve water quality
Page 64

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Conclusion
Agriculture defines life for many of the citizens in Surry, Wilkes and Yadkin counties. The Yadkin Valley is
fortunate to have rich farmland soils, plentiful water supplies and generations of farming heritage. While
agriculture is a vital part of the local economy, many farmers are struggling to make a profit and younger
generations are not as prone to continuing the farming traditions of previous generations. The region is
located on the fringe of one of the largest, fastest growing urban areas in North Carolina and farmland
preservation and protection is vital not only to protecting water quality, but to preserving quality of life
(McIntyre, Palmer et al. 2012).
While many farmers have traditionally produced commodity crops, improvements in transportation, the
dismantling of trade barriers and increase in global conditions have made it increasingly challenging for
North Carolina farmers to compete. Some of the crops and associated farming techniques have also had
negative impacts on water quality. Through education and funding incentives, the region, particularly in the
watershed study area, can diversify operations using best management practices and potentially increase
their revenue streams, protect water quality, and ensure the agricultural heritage of the area remains intact
(McIntyre, Palmer et al. 2012).
The agricultural community has more potential to improve water quality conditions than any other group.
Through creative funding, stewardship, and enforcement of existing regulations, the waters of Big Elkin Creek
and the Yadkin River can support the agricultural, recreational and community needs of the region.
Page 65

FORESTS & FORESTRY
Forests serve as open spaces that can be an important source of profit for landowners who choose to timber
or they can provide important water treatment benefits if left intact. Increasing forest cover by 10% in a
drinking water source area provides a 20% -50% reduction in treatment and chemical costs, at least up to
60% tree cover, at which point the relationship weakens (Poste) and Thompson Jr. 2005) (Ernst and Gullick
2002). Even with the benefit of reducing treatment costs in southeastern drinking water watersheds at least
1 % of the land with natural vegetation is being lost annually to urbanization and agriculture (Wickham,
Wade and Riitters 2011 ). Keeping the forested landscape in the watershed can therefore benefit water
quality and be a potential economic resource. Landowners can protect the water quality by following the
forestry best management practices (BMPs) that are designed to limit changes in sediment load, nutrient
levels, water temperatures, stream flow, chemicals and dissolved oxygen levels caused by timbering.
TABLE 8: FOREST INDUSTRY ECONOMIC IMPACT
Forest Industry Economic Impact
Total Impact
NC
Surry
Yadkin
Wilkes
Output ($mill.)
$23,400.0
$106.4 (0.64%)
$10.9 (0.05%)
$225.2 (0.96%)
Labor income ($mill.)
$6,100.0
$30.7 (0.50%)
$2.4 (0.04%)
$60.1 (0.99%)
Employment
123,000
680 (0.55%)
78 (0.06%)
1,242 (1.01%)
SOURCE: NC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION 2012
Logging operations in Wilkes, Yadkin and Surry counties are minimal and not having a significant impact on
water quality. Just underl .5% ($342.5 million) of North Carolina's total economic output (Table 3) from the
forestry industry comes from the three counties, collectively studied in this watershed (NC Cooperative
Extension Service 2012).
However, the Southeastern United States is forecasted to be one of the top lumber producers in the states and
one of the top in the world. North Carolina in particular, is estimated to have approximately 2.8 million dry
tons of lumber, versus 1.8 million in South Carolina and 1.3 million in Virginia (Galick, Christopher, Robert Abt,
& Yun Wu 2009). With increased demands for electricity, the biomass resource stream has implications for the
economic vitality of the region but could also be detrimental to water quality if required guidelines are not
properly enforced. While water quality in the study area is not considered impaired by the state, recent
increases in turbidity have raised concerns among stakeholders. If not managed properly, sediment impacts
from future logging operations in the watershed may have significant impacts on the economy as the public
water supply and treatment costs. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tools such as the Soil & Water
Assessment Tool (SWAT) or SPAtially Referenced Regressions on Watershed attributes (SPARROW) could aid
in developing a scenario most effective for protecting water quality.
Following the forestry BMP guidelines has the potential to reduce sedimentation by half (Stober, Fields, et al.
2013). These forestry BMPs, otherwise known as forestry practice guidelines (FPGs), are required in North
Carolina, but are enforced by the overtasked NCDENR rather than NCFS staff (NC Forestry BMP Manual
2006). Due to a lack of resources and staff, these voluntary regulations are not always enforced and their
compliance is irregular. Therefore, if a landowner chooses to ignore the recommendations of the NC forester
there is limited recourse available to the forester to ensure that the forestry practices are modified to protect
water quality.
The one forestry practice guideline that NCFS staff can enforce are the mandatory 50-foot stream buffers.
Riparian buffers are areas along waterways that are forested. There is broad scientifically -based consensus
Page 66

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
that contiguous, intact riparian areas are essential for the healthy functioning of streams (McNaught and Spalt
2013). Forested buffer zones provide the service of filtering debris, nutrients, and sediment from surface flow
before it reaches catchment waters. Perhaps most importantly, riparian buffers have the ability to slow the
velocity and disperse the volume of stormwater runoff before it reaches streams and erodes their banks and
beds.
The trees provide shade to cool streams and people, critical for supporting trout, which begin to die in water
temperatures above 78' F. A forested buffer along waterways are important for water quality and provide
habitat for songbirds, deer, frogs and other wildlife people enjoy viewing or hunting (NC WRC 2007).
"Younger riparian forests can also lack dead wood on the ground, which is important for some songbirds (e.g.,
Kentucky warbler), many reptiles, amphibians, and some small mammals. Habitat disturbance can be
important for creating canopy gaps which create small pockets of dense, low growth (valuable for nesting for
Swainson's warbler, hooded warbler, Kentucky warbler and wood thrush), provide cover for American
woodcock, and are valuable foraging areas for many juvenile birds (WRC draft 2016 WAP). These forested
buffers that are contiguous with floodplain forests are especially important to protect when the surrounding
topography includes steep slopes and the soils are highly erodible.
Turbidity appears to be a top concern of these two watersheds and, indeed, the entire Yadkin River.
Restoration of the stream buffers will be critical to mitigating these impacts and restoring healthy water
conditions for habitat, recreation, and drinking water safety. In an effect to reflect the value of stream buffers
for managing runoff and protecting streams' water quality, the PTRC conducted a stream buffer assessment
for this plan. The PTRC staff used satellite imagery of the watershed's land cover to assess the quality of the
buffers along all of the streams, ranking them on a five -point scale, with 1 being pristine conditions and 5
being conditions where the buffer is absent. The methodology of this assessment is detailed in the Watershed
Protection and Rehabilitation chapter, and its findings directly inform the plan's project atlas.
Programs
Forestry programs
In the Piedmont region of NC the NC WRC recommends protecting 75 acres or more of upland forest blocks
to provide habitat for priority species that include the Worm -eating Warbler, Black -throated Green
Warbler, Yellow -billed Cuckoo, and Eastern Fox Squirrel. Using clustered development, a bond referendum,
or fee -in -lieu systems may enable the City and the County to conserve forest land for recreation potential as
well as wildlife habitat, which ultimately ensures water quality by protecting forested land use.
Protecting the rural landscape through the use of conservation easements is another strategy that can support
local landowners by reducing the taxes on their land while ensuring undeveloped, forested areas are
managed to benefit the landowner and the natural resources. There is a fair amount of public land in the
headwaters of Roaring River, Big Elkin Creek and other important waters in this watershed but these lands are
primarily dedicated to public uses. Increasing the prevalence of private protected land within the watershed
will keep the rural heritage of the community alive while ensuring that residents are visible stewards of their
land and open space.
Landowner Education Programs
NC Cooperative Extension offers educational programs covering forestry issues including family forestry,
community forestry, wildlife and woody biomass. The family forestry program is designed to provide
educational opportunities and professional services to landowners interested in enhancing natural resource
Page 67

stewardship and increasing the economic benefits generated by the forests through active management.
Increasing the awareness of these resources can benefit the landowners while also improving the health and
management of the forest resources in the Elkin area watershed.
Virginia has the Virginia Forest Landowner Education Program (VFLEP), which "...offers a wide variety of
science -based educational opportunities for new and experienced forest landowners. VFLEP also offers
continuing education opportunities for natural resource and real estate professionals." It is designed to
educate landowners on best practices so that they can both minimize environmental impacts of their forestry
operations and optimize the yield(s) of their harvest(s). The program focuses on both structural and non-
structural practices to accomplish these goals. More information can be found at
http:/forestupdate.frec.vt.edu�.
Regeneration of Forest Lands
Regeneration following logging is a great way to reduce sedimentation. Currently there is a 50% cost share
program for replanting after timbering. Increasing the funding for that program to increase the number of
landowners able to participate and increasing the available nursery stock used to regenerate land will
improve the regeneration efforts already occurring. Incentivizing replanting through expedited re -zoning, or
grant programs to increase the amount of financial incentives available to landowners, is important to keep
sediment from entering the waterways.
FOREST DE -LOPMENT PROGRAM (FDP — Property owners with five acres or more who have a forest
management plan written by a consulting forester or NC Forest Service forester, are eligible for partial
reimbursement for the cost of site preparation, seedling purchases, tree planting and the release of desirable
seedlings by removing competing vegetation. These practices are aimed at increasing reforestation and
providing a long term supply of timber (NC Forest Service 2013).
Page 68

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
NATURAL ASSETS & RECREATION
Natural Resources Assessment
The Elkin and Jonesville watersheds are ripe with natural resources including rivers, forests and open lands.
Many of these resources have been identified and protected by federal and state agencies in the form of
state parks and the Blue Ridge Parkway. Many other assets are on private land. Across the United States
between 1970 and 2010, counties with over 30% protected public land saw a 345% job growth, compared
to 83% growth over the some time for counties with no public land (Sturges 2014). The natural resources in
the watershed that directly and indirectly impact or benefit from clean water include forests, trout, birds, and
other plants and wildlife.
Trout
North Carolina is at the southern range of Coldwater
fishery habitat and has vast amounts of granitic
geology that limits productivity of the trout streams
(NC WRC 2013). NC has approximately 4,000 miles
of streams that can support brook, brown and rainbow
trout which require cold, clean water and are therefore
usually restricted to higher elevation streams and lakes
(NC WRC 2013). The watersheds discussed in this plan
have 13 miles of trout -supporting waters, half of which
are wild trout waters, as determined by the NC WRC.
FIGURE 39: RUNOFF FROM A TOBACCO FARM, SURRY COUNTY. Large rivers that historically supported brook trout no
PHOTO COURTESY JOE MICKEY, 2014
longer have self -reproducing populations. Most brook
trout are now relegated to the headwaters of streams
and have vanished, or are much less prevalent in nearly half of the subwatersheds within their historical range
(NatureServe 2014). The Roaring River headwaters and the public lands within the Jonesville watershed are
home to native brook trout populations (Map 5). Brook trout have cooler water temperature requirements than
the non-native brown and rainbow trout and require clean, clear waters for their habitat (National Park
Service 2014). Ecosystems with limited human influence FIGURE 40: BROOK TROUT,
require less management and usually have self-
sustaining fisheries (Kwak, Thomas 2012). Increasing the
amount of suitable habitat for brook trout through land
preservation and riparian buffer protection would
benefit the water ecosystem and trout fishery.
Wild trout populations in NC are often dominated by
trout that are less than 3 years old and shorter than 10
inches in length. Even with these limitations in 2008 trout
anglers in NC contributed $174 million in economic
output (NC WRC 2013). Nationwide anglers spent
$25.7 billion on freshwater fishing trips and equipment
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Keeping surface
water clean enough for trout will support this important
SOURCE: PETE YEOMANS
Page 69

economic resource and ensure the quality of Jonesville and Elkin's drinking sources.
Many freshwater fisheries require intensive management to meet the human resource demands. Rivers and
streams that have the characteristics to support trout but lack a robust population may be stocked with
hatchery raised trout to increase populations. In streams and lakes that get too warm in the summer to support
trout, the NC WRC may open the waters up to hatchery supported or delayed -harvest (NC WRC 2013).
"Delayed -harvest" trout waters are stocked with hatchery raised trout by the NC WRC in the fall to increase
the chances of catching trout. These fisheries are only open to youth fishing until June when it is opened to all
anglers to prevent a massive die off in the summer. When the delayed -harvest waters open for adult fishing
in June, regulations revert to hatchery supported restrictions including no size limit or bait specifications (NC
WRC 2013). Currently there is only one "Delayed Harvest" reach within the study watershed which is located
in Stone Mountain Park (see Figure 41). Addressing the sediment issue to improve water quality on Big Elkin
Creek would increase the economic benefits from trout fishing by allowing more sites for WRC to stock trout.
While the Elkin water supply watershed plan aims to keep the water safe for drinking, there are other
benefits gained by improving water quality. Point and non -point source discharges often result in a decline of
water quality for human consumption, and also negatively impact stream ecology due to increased
temperatures, high nutrient loads, acid deposition, and the addition of other substances toxic to fish (NC WRC
2013). Negative impacts in stream ecology, are seen as reduced abundance and diversity of aquatic
invertebrates, which are an important part of the trout diet, pools are lost from channelization and
modification of stream flow, adequate substrate is lost to increased sedimentation, and cover necessary to
support trout populations is lost as riparian buffers are removed.
Wilkes and Surry Counties contain waters that are high enough in elevation (1,500 ft) to support trout based
on the NC WRC trout water classification. The "Trout waters" criteria for the NC WRC differs from the DWR
designation which only considers those "waters which have conditions which shall sustain and allow for trout
propagation and survival of stocked trout on a year-round basis" (NC DWQ 2009).
TABLE 9: IMPACT OF WATER QUALITY ON TROUT
General Trout
Contributing Resource
Common Challenges
Requirements
Cold Water
Trees that shade stream
Logging and overgrazing that alter riparian
vegetation
Clean Water
Wetlands and riparian zones that
Polluted runoff containing herbicides,
help filter out pollutants
pesticides, and oils
Oxygen
Riffles to mix oxygen into stream
Decaying plants that rob oxygen from the
stream
Food
Good populations of aquatic
Too much silt or algae that smothers insects
insects
Holding Habitat
Instream structure, such as logs,
Channelization and removal of wood from
deep pools, and boulders
streams
Spawning Habitat
Clean gravels
Silt that clogs spaces between gravel
SOURCE: Modified from "My Healthy Stream", by Jack E. Williams, Michael P. Dombeck and Christopher W.
Wood; Trout Unlimited and the Aldo Leopold Foundation
Page 70

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
Trout Streams
ALLEGH r t `
•. --w•peorrnl�+. �d
SURRY COUNSv
I l
t •t r ` I•.
s~.
i�
WILKES C UNTY
1k) -"
--
r!rrlr •ry{titer, •-s--._ .
rAOK1N CMN I
® Rrver Access
Catch and Release,SrnglE HuokUArfi6cial Lure
Delayed Harvest Mter
Hatchery Supported Miler
Wild Trout 1/ytaler
1VkANNR COUNTY NCDENR Trout Waters
Parks S Managed Lands
n�r,N�.-.i ini�ar n
Elkin Creek Watershed Jonesville Intake Watershed 4r �}
FIGURE 41: PTRC 2014
Page 71

Wild trout fisheries maintain wild trout as renewable natural resources while also providing opportunities for
harvest (NC WRC 2013). Streams designated as "Wild trout waters" support trout year round but restrict
anglers to using only artificial lures (that lack a scent or taste to attract the fish) with one hook and keeping
trout of seven inches in length to ensure populations will be maintained (NC WRC 2013). The NC WRC
completed the North Carolina Trout Resources Management Plan in which "Five critical program areas (Trout
Management, Resource Protection and Habitat Enhancement, Research, Angler Access, and Education and
Communications) and specific goals for each area have been identified" (NC WRC 2013). Creating
partnerships between WRC and other partner organizations to implement the five critical program areas for
managing trout will have significant benefits to the local economy and help sustain the local water supplies
into the future.
Bog Turtles
Wetlands are one of a hydroscape's most valuable assets.
Providing natural flood control, pollutant filtration, and
ecological habitat (Washington State University 2014).
Wetlands are delineated using three attributes: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology. The criteria basically
fulfill the concept that soils must be saturated with water for at
least two weeks out of an average year, and that these areas
are supportive of wildlife that rely upon wetlands as habitat.
The Elkin Watershed contains 5.7% of partially hydric soil and
0.03% all hydric soil for a total of 248,914 acres of potentially
hydric soil (Figures 11 & 1 2) which contributes to the occurrence
of suitable wetland habitat for the bog turtles. Bog turtles
FIGURE 42: BOG TURTLE,
SOURCE: JONATHON MAYS AND JEFF HALL
typically live in habitats that are sunny wetlands soggy from groundwater and natural springs. The Jonesville
and Elkin Watersheds contain 15 bog turtle populations which are considered federally- and state -
threatened (Figure 43). One of the threats to the bog turtle is the loss of habitat due to natural succession.
Open pastures that are wet or ditches that have standing water serve as important habitat for the bog turtle
but many of these areas are experiencing the growth of trees and shrubs due to succession (NC WRC 2007).
Farmers can work with a wildlife biologist to implement appropriate grazing regimes that keep these wet
pastures, and bogs open to encourage suitable bog turtle habitat. Historically, such habitats were preserved
by natural fire regimes created by lightning strokes and other extreme weather events. Species that will
benefit from protecting wetlands and bogs include the Bog Turtle, Alder Flycatcher, Meadow Jumping Mouse,
Southern Bog Lemming, and Four -toed Salamander (NC WRC 201 2)." Bog habitats and other wetlands should
not be used for active recreational areas but passive recreation over boardwalks may be an opportunity to
bring people closer to the birds and wildlife that inhabit these wet areas.
Page 72

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Watershed
L Natural Heritage Areas
Bulihead Mountain
VV
B�'l a l Mountain rAw
1Y ,•,
} Blue Ridge Parkway Mirthe' Rircr Garrie lane1
•�.hrt: '� itane Moumain y
SORRY COUNTY
+,nnd Chatham Game Land S
I-41
ti ir�� ]dA
YALKES C NTY lemd.
-y'.' -.
71 12
}Cott RCSL[Vr7f �1&e�Garo YADKINCC)UN
nc
Natural Heritage Element Occurances
Dedicated Natural Preserves
$wsricant Natural Heriiage Areas
Parks & Managed Areas
f^ Federal Parks
+uF,.nwgErr r :.�rrr; State Parks
Elkin Creek Watershed Q Jonesville Intake Watershed.'
FIGURE 43: PTRC 2014
Page 73

Rare Aquatic Species and Other Species of Concern
Rare aquatic species inhabiting the Elkin water supply watershed that could benefit from improving water
quality include the brook floater (Alasmidonta varicose) which is state -endangered and a federal species of
concern commonly found in the upper portions of forested watersheds. The brook floater is a mussel that lives
in creeks and small rivers with moderate water flow and rocky substrates or sandy shoals (NatureServe
2014). This mussel is negatively impacted by eutrophic conditions caused by excess nutrients and siltation
which removes the small riffles it requires for habitat. As adults the brook floater lacks the ability to move to
cleaner waters which highlights the importance of improving water conditions by reducing sedimentation. The
Carolina foothills crayfish (Cambarus johni) also prefers high gradient streams but is found in small to medium
sized creeks in sandy substrate that have leaf packs and root wads (NatureServe 2014). This crayfish is only
known to reside in North Carolina and relies heavily on vegetated riparian areas is for habitat.
The Elkin and Jonesville watersheds contain many species of concern that utilize floodplain forest habitats and
adjacent forests. The vegetated riparian areas are important for the mayfly (Macdunnoa brunnea) which uses
the leaves from trees and shrubs bordering swift, deep streams as a food source while living in the stream as
larvae and then the adults likely utilize the forest as habitat while breeding (NatureServe 2014). Keeping
forested buffers along the creeks in the Elkin and Jonesville watersheds will ensure that the water quality
benefits from the forest cover, and also ensures the survival of the rare aquatic species that live in this area
(Figure 43). Floodplain forests are also very important habitat for breeding amphibians and serve as critical
movement corridors for mammals and reptiles (NC WRC 2005). Because upland species use floodplain forests
during a portion of their life, or move through these habitats, floodplain forests benefit many species not
exclusively considered aquatic or floodplain. In high water events adjacent upland sites can also serve as
important refuges for many amphibian and reptile species (Bailey et al. 2004).
Native Plants FIGURE 44: NATIVE CARDINAL FLOWER
Plants that were growing in North America prior to European
settlement are considered to be "native" plants. Native plants
have been on this continent so long that they are adapted to i
the climate and the herbivore pests and require relatively y
little maintenance after they are established on an
appropriate site (Moorman et. al 2002). Native plants in
landscaping require no or minimal pesticides and fertilizers
for optimal growth thus, reducing the potential runoff of those
chemicals into our waterways. Native plants used in riparian
buffers also increase the diversity of insects in the watershed Ile
and thus improve the insect -derived ecosystem services such as SOURCE: JOE MICKEY
pollination in agriculture and food abundance for birds (Gill et.
al 2014). Encouraging native plants in the watershed has the potential to protect the water quality, and
increase the benefits to agriculture and recreation.
Page 74

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
TABLE 10: PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
Species
Common name
State
status
Federal
status
Aquatic habitat
Alasmidonta varicosa
Brook Floater
E
FSC
Cambarus 'ohni
Carolina Foothills Crayfish
SR
Macdunnoa brunnea
a mayfly
SR
Wetland habitat
Glyptemys muhlenber ii
Bog Turtle
T
T S A
Forested and Riparian habitat
Autochton cellus(forests)
Golden Banded -Skipper
SR
Crocanthemum propinquum (varied
w woodlands)
Creeping Sunrose
T
Crotalus horridus (hardwood forests
and river bottoms)
Timber Rattlesnake
SC
Macrocoma sullivantii
Sullivant's Maned -moss
SR-D
Mononeuria groenlandica (rock
outcrops)
Greenland Sandwort
T
M otis leibii
Eastern Small -footed M otis
SC
FSC
M otis se tentrionalis
Northern M otis
SR
FSC, PE
Orthotrichum keeverae
Keever's Bristle -moss
SR-L
Plestiodon anthracinus(humid wooded
area with leaf litter)
Coal Skink
SR
Robinia hispida var, fertilis (woodlands
andforests)
Fruitful Locust
SR-0
Satyrium favonius Ontario(open
woodlands)
Northern Oak Hairstreak
SR
Setophaga cerulean(mature hardwood
forests) Much info
Cerulean Warbler
SC
FSC
S ilo ale utorius orests
Eastern Spotted Skunk
SR-G
S lvila us obscurus coni erousforests)
Appalachian Cottontail
SR-G
Upland and Outcrop Habitat
Asplenium pinnatifidum (dry rock
outcrops)
Lobed S leenwort
SR-P
Chamerion platyphyllum (roadside and
disturbed areas)
Fireweed
E
Euchloe Olympia (open woods on shale
barrens)
Olympia Marble
SR
Heuchera hispida (rocky forests and
outcrops)
His id Alumroot
SR-P
Hexalectris spicata (dry forests and
woodlands esp calcareous)
Crested Coralroot
SR-P
Woodsia appalachiana (cliffs)
Appalachian Cliff Fern
SR-P
Woodsia ilvensis (cliffs)
Rusty Cliff Fern
E
SOURCE: NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Page 75

Recreational Capacity
The natural environment in the Elkin watershed can draw many tourists to see the natural beauty of North
Carolina, having outdoor recreation opportunities and supporting healthy water quality. A 2012 report found
that, despite the recession of 2008, 140 million Americans make outdoor recreation a priority in their lives
and spend $646 billion in outdoor recreation, in turn supporting 6.1 million direct jobs and $39.7 billion in
state and local tax revenue (Outdoor Industry Association 2012).
Blueways
FIGURE 45: TOUR-DE-YADKIN 2014
1
Blueways, or paddle trails, are managed =' _ q T _gf.
systems of access points and facilities that
allow trail users to plan trips along the
water. Blueways are a way to support, +• _=�f'T.
s,r ti
sustainable tourism by encouraging nature-
based, low -carbon activities that can be
developed close to population centers
(Kline, et al. 2012). Within NC, - •„ "'� ��
approximately 664,000 residents
participate in kayaking and/or canoeing, 1�■y
of which kayaking has increased by 260%
and canoeing by 31 % from 2002 to 2007
(North Carolina Division of Parks and
Recreation [NCDPR], 2008). The Roaring
River and the Yadkin River are paddle- SOURCE: JOE MICKEY
able for beginner paddlers with the
opportunity for longer trips on the Yadkin
River or a trip down Big Elkin Creek for more experienced paddlers. Paddlers can put in upstream of the
dams on Big Elkin Creek and traverse over the old dams using the flumes that can paddled through with a
small drop (Personal Communication with Mr. Blackley).
The Yadkin River offers a great opportunity for paddlers to experience the river above, through and below
the watershed. With access points in North Wilkesboro, Rhonda, Elkin and Yadkin County there are
opportunities for paddlers with all comfort levels to park use the facilities and enjoy the water. Information on
this blueway is maintained by the Yadkin Riverkeeper and highlighted by the Yadkin River Heritage Corridor.
Greenways/Trails
The floodplains in the Elkin water supply watershed provide ample opportunities for greenways to be
developed as a passive source of recreation that promotes walking, cycling and bird watching. Greenways
developed in the floodplain of rivers and streams ensure that forested buffers are retained and development
in the riparian zone is minimized to protect water quality (Conine, et al. 2004). In North Carolina 72% of
adults agree that more state transportation dollars should be spent to support bicycling and walking (Stutts
and Hunter 2002). People taking part in these active living opportunities can also be the first defense of the
water. When following streams, greenways provide environmental buffers, help reduce pollution caused by
surface runoff, and often result in rapid reporting of leaks and illegal dumping to staff (WK Dickson, 2007).
Although greenways can provide benefits, they may also impact aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat.
Paved greenways can contribute to surface runoff, culverts for greenway crossings can impede aquatic life
movement if not properly installed and/or maintained, construction of greenways immediately adjacent to
streams can disrupt wildlife movements and fragment wildlife habitat (NC WRC, 2012). When designing
greenways, transportation planners should make every effort to minimize these impacts.
Page 76

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Greenways along the rivers and blueways in the rivers are examples of recreation opportunities that benefit
from improving water quality. People are more willing to travel to paddle or walk along rivers that are
clean. As people actively walk along the rivers they can see and report pollution polluting activities quickly to
ensure a fast clean-up response. Active living requires places such as greenways which provide locations for
people to be active, in safe and convenient area which may also provide connectivity between destinations
(e.g., home and work) (North Carolina Division of Public Health 2014).
FIGURE 46: ELKIN TRAIL 2014
A regional plan for active living infrastructure for
northwest North Carolina identified the need for i`--
key projects including the following: a master
plan for connecting Stone Mountain to Elkin, a
greenway feasibility analysis, a master plan for - x
connecting Elkin's parks and a foot bridge design
for the Mountains -to -Sea trail (Destination by
Design 2014) (Figure 48). The Mountains -to -Sea
Trail (MST), a trail connecting the Mountains of
NC to the Ocean, is an example of connecting
destinations. The MST includes a portion that will
connect Pilot Mountain to Stone Mountain with a
route that traverses through the Elkin and
Jonesville watersheds. The Town of Elkin also has
two well cared for trails including the Big Elkin
Creek Greenway and Nature Trail which has 3+ SOURCE: JOE MICKEY
miles of trail for walking and the Overmountain
Victory Trail that traverses along Big Elkin Creek and the Yadkin River which has 4+ miles of multiuse trail
(Day, et al. 2013). Showcasing these trails as connections, visitor destinations and recreation opportunities will
benefit the community economically while also encouraging more streamside riparian areas to be developed
in this low impact manner.
Greenways also provide outdoor learning opportunities for classes and the general public. Informational
signs located along greenways can provide important historical and ecological information to recreational
users. Signs about water quality can be effective instructional guides and can also serve as a teaching tool
for the community. Signs about native plants can highlight the importance of native plants for the birds, bees,
and butterflies as well as water quality. While signs are important for the general visitor, organized groups
such as classes, historical reenactments and naturalist groups may use the safe, managed outdoor space as a
site for their activities. In this way greenways offer a special learning environment for the community.
Bird Watching
Elkin is a birding hot spot on e-bird and has many acres of important bird habitat. Within the watershed 214
bird species have been documented in Wilkes County, 158 Bird species were documented for Surry County
and 153 Species for Yadkin County. The Elkin and Alleghany Rail -Trail was designated as a birding hot spot
(an area with high diversity) in Surry County with 73 bird species documented on their site. Within North
Carolina, W Kerr Scott Reservoir —Dam was in the top 100 hot spots in with 154 species documented (eBird
2014). Stone Mountain State Park (with 86 bird species) was designated as a "hot spot" by eBird for Wilkes
County and the Overmountain Victory Trail — Marley Ford Area had 77 bird species (eBird 2014).
Page 77

In 2011 nearly $930 million was spent on FIGURE 47: BLUE BIRD
equipment for watching wildlife (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2013). The US Fish and Wildlife r
Service 2011 report also documented 1.9 million
people enjoyed bird watching in NC with 35% y
traveling away from their residence to observe
wild birds (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).
Elkin has a high diversity of bird species and is
labeled as a bird watching "Hot Spot" by e-bird
(Bill Blackley). Many bird species migrate or move
from one location to another during their life
cycle. Some migrations are between summer and -Ap
winter habitats (neotropical migrants) and some
are as a result of changing conditions in their
resident habitat (Heglund 2005). Migratory bird
populations have experienced significant declines SOURCE: JOE MICKEY
in recent years. Improving habitat quality and
abundance can increase the economic benefit Elkin and Jonesville receive from bird watching. Riparian
buffers and greenways frequently offer connectivity to other habitats and increase the presence of migratory
bird species (Kohut and Hess 2009). Floodplain forests are also the most important habitat for nesting birds in
North Carolina (NC WRC 2005). Therefore, improving, protecting and establishing riparian buffers and
greenways can improve the water quality and also promote bird watching as an economic and recreational
opportunity.
Page 78

Elkin &Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Elkin &Jonesville Water Supply Watershed y
Parks, IVlanaged Areas, and Trails
AliFr:sf�lN COkJNTY i--' � �� �' - - -
+7A7Q L '7�i F17: lr" Cr ra r.�� .
,u,a.'tarRr ia�•
,�, � - -
;•..•ri' .fir `� �_ �� � �f
- � � � � � St;RAr r:�lJriry
r ,
., y
�a�
_ � _
S
r +-
71 �
r �'
•� i � r
�^ 4 I r4n
NRtI(ES C llk I Y � r'"""
v i,
---- 5 r �i J � 17.
- ]} i - i
t3
i.urY`r.CM fi] � r �
i1 1' ,
Mdle.Lu .• v 4 ;'� k.l �.. - .:� 1, r � - .
N I
L.�e LYh
��'�
+. _
...
... •;nsrr'F»��
r 7Z
I
�-r-� © Fi rref A[CE9ra
•+ l=x a4nq Tralls
�w�r �T71�}aq�e+.c Planned Frar�
iE1�G��UI��- _� Parks 8 Managed Lands
�__,y '
�� � ~-' � Irnporls^[ bird Areas -
r
Elkrn Creek Watershed OJvnesvdle Intake Watershed �
FIGURE 48: PTRC 2014
Page 79

Programs
Green Growth Toolbox
The NC WRC is the state agency in charge of conserving and sustaining the state's fish
and wildlife resources. The Green Growth Toolbox is a comprehensive set of resources
that provides communities with tools to identify its natural assets and develop
protections for them. The toolbox includes a technical assistance tool, a handbook on
developing ordinances for protecting the environment, a GIS dataset and a website
developed by the NC WRC to assist communities in growing in ways that conserve the
WIIdIIfir&N&wrs4Rewurci• most valuable natural resources including streams, and habitat. These resources were
StawardshlpInPlanning developed by the NC WRC to assist communities in directing growth in ways that
conserve the most valuable natural resources, including streams and habitat.
Organized, carefully planned, thoughtful development can coexist with a healthy environment and functional
wildlife habitat (NC WRC 2007). The NC WRC provides municipal staff training on the tool that can be used
to encourage the enhancement of recreation and tourism opportunities while attracting businesses and
residents who are looking for healthy communities and understand how healthy environments increase quality
of life (NC WRC 2012).
Increasing Recreational Opportunities
Fishing:
The NC WRC can provide technical assistance for
river access points that increase recreational
opportunities while protecting fragile wildlife
habitat. Some aquatic programs where the
NCWRC has partnered with local governments
include the Community Fishing Program and the
Tackle Loaner Program, but these two programs
are not directly related to special ecological
resources. The NCWRC focuses on natural resource
management more with their Green Growt
Toolbox.
To support fishing as an economic resource and a
way to improve watershed stewardship, the local
government or non-profit agency may consider
leasing current agricultural lands to improve
vegetated buffers and provide designated access
points for anglers. Reddies River just upstrem aof
the Elkin Water Supply Watershed is a delayed -
SOURCE: PTRC
harvest location that received funds to construct
"angler -access" steps to minimize erosion into the
water by allowing anglers to traverse from the paved greenway down the steep bank to the river (NC WRC
2013).
FIGURE 49: FISHING ACCESS
Trails: Creating partnerships with private and public landowners to develop access points to the creeks and
rivers for paddle trails in the Elkin and Jonesville watersheds will encourage increased tourism and passive
recreation and increase watershed stewardship and awareness. The Elk Creek Vineyard could offer an ideal
landing spot for the beginning of a paddle trail that could allow novice paddlers a 90-1 20 minute trail down
Page 80

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
to the 2nd bridge (Bill Blackley). To develop this potential tourism resource the landowners, elected official
and various stakeholders will have to partner to find funding to develop the paddle trail.
Birder Friendly Community Programs: The NC Birder Friendly Community training program was designed to
provide businesses and communities with cooperative marketing tools reach birders who are following NC
birding trail. While the educational trainings for businesses and communities have been discontinued,
interested parties are still able to use the training document and program synopsis to increase their
knowledge of the birding community
The 4udubon Society of NC has also created a bird friendly community initiative to help conserve birds during
all stages of their lives. The initiative encourages native plant landscaping, bird watching, lights out at night
during spring and fall migration and brings the focus of concerned citizens to the nuthatch. Through the bird
friendly community initiative, a continuing education program for landscapers will be created to encourage
the use of native and bird friendly plants. Encouraging the use of native plants also benefits water quality
since native plants are adapted to the local climate and rarely require fertilization or watering.
Important Bird Areas Program
The Audubon Society recognizes habitat loss and fragmentation in a changing climate as the greatest threats
to the continued survival of many bird species. Through the Important Bird Areas (IBA) program Audubon
identifies, monitors and creates a conservation plan for each priority site. In the Elkin/Jonesville watershed
area Stone Mountain -IBA includes Stone Mountain State Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Thurman -
Chatham Game Lands along with some privately held properties. The habitat in this IBA includes deep cove
forests, streams, rocky outcrops and cleared fields. The greatest threat identified in the conservation plan
includes exotic invasive species, development and timbering. Recognizing and protecting important bird areas
will provide habitat for birds while conserving many small streams that are important water resources.
Marketing Campaign to Highlight Ecotourism Potential
Ecotourism is a form of tourism that involves visiting destinations with rich ecological and cultural resources,
including outdoor experiences as simple as hiking. The watershed can capitalize on ecotourism by preserving
its valuable ecosystems and cultural history to ensure that rivers, trails and parks draw tourists and increases
economic growth. The close proximity of the watershed to Winston-Salem and other urban centers makes it a
great destination for audiences looking for easily accessible outdoor recreation. Ecotourism has been
successfully embraced by areas such as nearby Hanging Rock State Park and Asheville, North Carolina, both
of which have spent significant amounts of money to brand themselves as a destination for those seeking an
authentic experience outdoors in areas with rich natural resources and cultural histories.
Homearown Handmade, is one example of a resource that can be used to market the rich cultural and natural
resources of the area. Another example of effective marketing is the Carolina Thread Trail which is an
example of communities working together to promote regional recreational opportunities in the 15 counties
including and surrounding Charlotte. aoyadkinvalley.com is similar to the Carolina Thread Trail and
Homegrown Handmade in that it brings communities in the Yadkin Valley together to market the agritourism,
wineries, trails, historical and recreational opportunities in the area. However, sustained effort needs to be
made to ensure that the information on the Go Yadkin Valley website and other marketing tools are updated
and current.
Page 81

Watershed Coordinator
A watershed coordinator for the Elkin and Jonesville watershed would connect the independent partners and
implement the vision of improving water quality through sustainable economic development. This could include
updating the goyadkinvalley.com website, having routine communication with the public, coordinating grant
applications with local trails associations and land preservation efforts to support active living and economic
development in the watershed. The watershed coordinator could also develop an economic development plan
or open space preservation plan that focuses on the benefits of clean water and the economics behind
implementing best management practices.
The Haw River Trail Partnership is an example of how cities and counties came together to support a position
to implement the Haw River Trail for the conservation of the land and waters. This position was initially funded
through a public, private partnership involving Burlington, Graham, Alamance County, Elon University,
Preservation North Carolina and the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation. Once the position proved to be effective
at coordinating conservation and trail efforts, the position became a permanent position within Alamance
County government with continued support from Burlington and Graham. A watershed coordinator position
similar to the Haw River Coordinator would be very beneficial for the Elkin and Jonesville watersheds.
V 1 1 U 11r ;-
FIGURE 50: ELKIN CREEK
Open Space Preservation
Many options are available for the Towns of Elkin
and Jonesville, and the surroundings counties to use
to ensure that open space is maintained in their
jurisdictions. Acquiring important open space is an
effective way of preserving land and water quality
in the watershed. The following options are
appropriate to include in the subdivision ordinance
and are examples that other communities in NC are
following.
Open Space Dedication Ordinances
Open space preservation or dedication ordinances SOURCE: JOEMICKEY
are being used by communities throughout the State
of North Carolina to ensure that there are recreational sites for current and future residents. Randolph County,
for example, requires that developments within its rural/agricultural zone set aside a portion of a
development site as open space in order to preserve the rural, agrarian heritage of the County. To
incorporate open space preservation, or dedication as part of the zoning/subdivision ordinance, all
residential developments with more than a certain number of dwelling units could be required to dedicate
open space. The amount of useable open space required for dedication shall be determined by the
jurisdiction adopting these policies. To encourage development of residential units in a downtown or
designated development districts, all such residential development could be exempt from these provisions.
This strategy needs to be clearly adopted and any barriers to implementation of this policy need to be
removed.
Page 82

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Bond Referendums
Bond referendums that are approved by voters are one way to pay for open space for nature
preserves, open space next to schools to improve access to low -impact recreation for youth and to
preserve land along stream corridors to protect drinking water supplies. Voters in Wilkes, Yadkin and
Surry Counties may appreciate the opportunity to voice their support of increasing open space with
public access through bond referendums.
Fee in Lieu Ordinances used to protect open space land
As part of the power to regulate the subdivision of land, the towns or counties may determine an appropriate
amount to be paid as a fee in lieu of parkland or open space dedication. The fee would not be greater than
the fair market value of the land at the time of subdivision and can give the developer greater freedom in
designing a subdivision. The fee in lieu allows the jurisdiction to use those fees to create a larger park or open
space opportunity for the community in an area that may not be suitable for development but may be perfect
for blueway access, trails, birding or other recreational activities. In this way fee in lieu ordinances can be
used to ensure that water quality is improved by allowing infiltration of stormwater into open areas in areas
not optimal for development. While such regulations are currently illegal in North Carolina if done for solely
environmental benefits, their value for economic development, property values, and community health allow
for other uses by communities.
LID Development
Local ordinances and codes can promote building and design techniques for new and redeveloped sites that
can minimize a project's environmental footprint. This general approach to sustainable site design and
construction is termed Low Impact Development (LID). LID is an approach to site development in which minimal
disturbances are placed upon the surrounding environment by constructing structures using sustainable
practices, such as using recycled building materials, solar -oriented structures, water recycling, or natural
landscaping. Their central goal in regards to stormwater is to effectively reduce a site's impervious cover,
and/or direct its runoff onto permeable surfaces (US EPA, 2013). There are no requirements for LID or
sustainable development in the watershed outside of floodplain regulations.
LID techniques include regulations or ordinances that encourage or mandate land use practices such as cluster
development, open space requirements, or pervious surface ordinances. NC requires that all publicly -funded
or —owned buildings in the state achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification.
LEED is a federal classification determined by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) that guides
sustainability in building construction practices, and awards those sites that achieve their standards. The
principles of LID are incorporated into all LEED-certified buildings, and, indeed, often take a larger scope of
view to an entire site or landscape when considering construction and environmental impact.
The NCWRC has the Wildlife Friendly Development Certification Program. This is a program that allows
developments to be recognized as wildlife friendly after meeting sufficient criteria. Developers must meet a
portion of these criteria throughout all phases of the development's planning and construction, and must
maintain the criteria once the development is complete. More information on the program can be found at
httio://www.ncwildcertify.ora/Home.asiox.
Page 83

Partnerships
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
To ensure that the special ecological resources that draw tourists are conserved to ensure outdoor recreation
as economic revenue, the NC WRC partnered with Surry County to provide a Green Growth Toolbox training
on September 19, 2014. Additional trainings in the future could ensure staff from Elkin, Jonesville, and
surrounding areas are able to apply the Green Growth Toolbox during permit reviews and prior to planning
additional city and county services, to protect wildlife resources. A Green Growth Toolbox training for
realtors and developers would also increase awareness and consideration of the special natural resources
that draw people to move to Elkin and Jonesville. Partnerships between the cities, the counties, the Forest
Service, NC WRC and trail associations can also increase funding opportunities to realize the potential for
recreation in the Elkin Area watershed.
Trails Associations
The Elkin Valley Trails Association is an affiliate FIGURE 51: EVTA BRIDGE PROJECT SOURCE JOE MICKEY
of NC Rail Trails with the mission to increase the
quality of life in the Elkin Valley by building
and promoting a network of trails and
greenways in Wilkes, Surry and Yadkin
Counties. EVTA has been designated at a
partner in realizing the goal of connecting the
NC Mountains with the ocean by way of the
Mountains to Sea Trail. EVTA is currently
developing a master plan to determine the
most feasible and stakeholder supported route
for the NC State trail between Pilot Mountain
State Park and Stone Mountain State Park
(EVTA 2014).
NC Paddle Trails Association: The mission of the
N.C. Paddle Trails Association is to empower
SOURCE: JOE MICKEY
communities in the local development, maintenance and restoration of paddle trails in North Carolina thereby
nurturing economically and environmentally sustainable communities (Association 2014).
Yadkin Pee Dee River Trail Association is a private non-profit organization created in 1984 to promote
watershed stewardship through policies, programs and projects (Yadkin Pee Dee River Trail Association
2014). Examples of projects that the Yadkin Pee Dee River Trail Association uses to instill stewardship include
promoting and participating in the National River Cleanup on the Yadkin River. Expanding the historical
Overmountain Victory Trail to connect Elkin with Wilkesboro is another project that they are involved with in
partnership with the EVTA.
Local Land Conservancies
Piedmont Land Conservancy and the Blue Ridge Conservancy are local land conservancies that work within the
Elkin and Jonesville watersheds and have the potential to protect natural resources and water quality through
land conservation and stewardship.
Page 84

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Piedmont Land Conservancy (PLC) is a local resource for landowners interested in protecting the rural nature
of their land and conserving the natural resources in perpetuity. Through conservation easements and
donations, PLC strives to conserve the region's rivers, streams, wildlife, farmland and scenic areas that provide
the rural heritage that draws residents and visitors alike. The PLC Stewardship program ensures lands in Surry
and Yadkin Counties that are protected through conservation easements are cared for in a manner consistent
with the site's ecological riches and the terms agreed to by all involved parties (PLC 201 3a). Through their
stewardship program, PLC ensures easement terms are upheld forever, landowner relationships are
strengthened, and acquired lands are placed with the most appropriate stewardship for the long-term benefit
of the land and its ecological riches. This is especially important in areas with sensitive flora and fauna such as
the Elkin Valley. Land placed under the PLC stewardship program serve as an example of high quality land
stewardship that other landowners can follow, and maintains adequate financial means to preserve the
stewardship of the land for generations (PLC 201 3a).
Blue Ridge Conservancy strives to permanently protect the land and water resources through voluntary
conservation easements and stewardship. Properties placed under protection with the Blue Ridge Conservancy
are managed according to a management plan designed to protect the important natural and cultural
features of each individual property. In the Elkin Watershed area BRC protects properties in Wilkes County.
Yadkin Riverkeeper
The Yadkin Riverkeeper is a non-profit organization with a mission to "respect, protect and improve the water
quality" in the Yadkin River through education, advocacy and action. In particular they strive to improve water
quality, preserve forest canopy, support native biodiversity, teach a "river ethic" of ecological respect and
ensure state and federal environmental laws are being followed. In the Elkin Watershed they bring
awareness to the Yadkin River and the Roaring River through the annual Tour de Yadkin which is a three week
paddle trip along the Yadkin River.
Funding
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
The NC WRC also has the following programs to help incentivize land
management for wildlife:
Cooperative Upland habitat Restoration and Enhancement program
(CURE) - Is a program developed by the NC WRC because wildlife that
require early -successional habitats are among the most imperiled species in
the United States, across the South, and within North Carolina. Bobwhite
quail have become the "flagship species" among this group, but it also
includes numerous declining songbirds, many species of mammals such as
rabbits, pollinators such as butterflies, and many species of amphibians and
reptiles.
Wildlife Conservation Lands Program
FIGURE 52: QUAIL AND CHICKS
SOURCE: NC WRC
Similar to the Present Use Value program, but with an emphasis on ecological rather than agricultural value,
this program is administered by the NC WRC. Lands must satisfy two criteria: the land must have more one or
Page 85

more protected species and the land is managed to support that species; and that the landowner must
conserve at least one of the following NC WRC priority wildlife habitats:
• longleaf pine forest;
• early -successional habitat;
• small wetlands and bogs;
• stream and riparian zone;
• rock outcrop; or
• bat cave.
Grants
NC Adopt -A -Trail Grant Program
This program, operated by the Trails Section of the NC Division of State Parks, offers annual grants to
local governments to build, renovate, maintain, sign and map and create brochures for pedestrian
trails. Grants are generally capped at about $10,000 per project and do not require a match. A
total of $108,000 in Adopt -A -Trail money is awarded annually to government agencies. Applications
are due during the month of January.
Recreational Trails Proaram
The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is a grant program funded by Congress with money from the
federal gas taxes paid on fuel used by off -highway vehicles. This program's intent is to meet the trail
and trail -related recreational needs identified by the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan. Grant applicants must be able contribute 20% of the project cost with cash or in -kind
contributions. The program is managed by the State Trails Program, which is a section of the N.C.
Division of Parks and Recreation.
North Carolina Parks and Recreation Trust
Fund (PARTF)
The fund was established in 1 99A by the
North Carolina General Assembly and is
administered by the Parks and Recreation
Authority. Through this program, several
million dollars each year are available to
local governments to fund the acquisition,
development and renovation of
recreational areas. Applicable projects
require a 50150 match from the local
government. Grants for a maximum of
$500,000 are awarded yearly to county
governments or incorporated
municipalities. The fund is fueled by
money from the state's portion of the real
estate deed transfer tax for property sold
in North Carolina.
Page 86
FIGURE 53: ELKIN MUNICIPAL PARK
1
Elkin Playscalpe Renovation Project Funded by
PARTF. The Town of Elkin and
Private Contributions from the Elkin area
PARENTS PLEASE SUPERVISE YOUR CHILD'S PEA Ai AEE TIMES
Equipment Designed For Agcs 2-12 Years
Play On Equipment The Way It Was Designed To 8e Used
Elkt11�IT
Recreation & Parks
SOURCE: PTRC

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
• The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
Urban and Community Forestry Grant can provide funding for a variety of projects that will help
toward planning and establishing street trees as well as trees for urban open space.
• North Carolina Community Transformation Grant
In 201 1, NC Community Development Corporation awarded $103 million to 61 state and local
government agencies, tribes and territories, and nonprofit organizations in 36 states, along with
nearly $4 million to 6 national networks of community -based organizations. $7.4 Million was
awarded to North Carolina Awardees are engaging partners from multiple sectors, such as education,
transportation, and business, as well as faith -based organizations to improve the health of their
communities' approximately 120 million residents. Awardees also provide funding to community -
based organizations to ensure broad participation in creating community change.
Cnnr1ivcinn
Efforts in this watershed to protect water quality will also benefit many natural resources, species of concern,
and recreation. Increasing the awareness of the special ecosystems and recreational opportunities will
increase watershed stewardship and will also increase economic benefits from eco-tourism. There are many
natural resources that provide opportunities to connect different stakeholder groups which can help to pool
resources and efforts that will benefit the whole community through watershed protection and increased
passive recreation.
Page 87

WATERSHED PROTECTION & REHABILITATION
This plan relies upon many resources and data developed by other entities. This includes stakeholder input,
data maintained by regulatory and advisory agencies like NCDENR, professional and academic studies, and
accumulated knowledge of an experienced staff. The PTRC was not able to enhance upon available water
quality data or conduct a field assessment of current watershed conditions, but it did employ mapping tools to
better characterize watershed conditions and identify areas that could be focused upon to ensure the long-
term health and safety of water supplies.
Mapping technology is an invaluable watershed management tool. ArcGIS can be used to reflect current and
historic conditions such as the local geology or land uses, and that application has been used to illustrate
watershed conditions throughout this Plan. It can also be used, though, to analyze how these natural and
manmade features interact to affect water quality conditions.
As seen throughout this document, maps have been made for both watersheds that show natural and
manmade features in their watersheds. This includes fairly straightforward information like elevation and data
that requires regular maintenance and updating, like the NCDENR potential contaminants. The PTRC has
attempted to present this data in a way that is most useful to the watersheds' stakeholders and those reading
this plan for the first time.
In an effort to better manage the watersheds and this plan to protect and restore them, the PTRC used the
free software ArcHydro to use the local topography and hydrology to naturally segment the watersheds into
smaller subwatersheds that can better characterized, allowing for more effective, local efforts that can
address points of degradation or potential risk. This software delineated twenty-two subwatershed of all
sizes, from 0.22 square miles (Subwatershed 19) to 49.25 square miles (Subwatershed 1 1) (Figure 55). These
subwatersheds are defined by their natural confluence points where all tributaries come together and drain to
the two larger water supply watersheds. This is reflected in the high variability of the number of stream miles
they each contain (Figure 54). In the Big Elkin Creek, it was determined that there are no valuable further
delineations, and therefore it has no subwatersheds. The delineated subwatersheds can be seen throughout
this plan, as they helped in focusing attention to local areas that may have unique environmental or social
conditions relevant to the health and sustainability of the respective watersheds.
Stream Distance
By Subwatershed
160
140
120
w 100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22
FIGURE 54: PTRC 2014

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
1�ILKES UNTY
Elkin Water Supply Watershed
Subwatersheds
ALLEGH Y pQFI ` , f -k
SURRY COUNTY
7
+)
m�
S
$� J 9i
w^ Rl, r 22
+aj
sake wk�— .
48
I 77 +9 ra
111 REOELL OUNTY
LDEXA",R C0UN
Elkin Creak Watershed Q Yadkin River Watershed 0 u ,3 e
f
FIGURE 55: PTRC 2014
Page 89

Water quality data records and anecdotal evidence reflect periodic high levels of sediment in both the
Yadkin River and Big Elkin Creek. There are few water quality monitoring sites in these large watersheds, so it
is difficult to assert the origin of the sources of sediment pollution. There is also no focused work by regulatory
entities or preliminary academic research on local water quality and watershed conditions that could inform
the health and safety of these water supplies. In an effort to remedy this situation, the PTRC relied upon an
older assessment of watershed conditions throughout the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin and a new assessment of
the aerial photographs of the watershed.
UUM111 wow 1XI„el LJu�111 Watershed Priorities Atlas
In 2009, as part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the PTRC (then two Councils Of
Governments (COGS): the Northwest Piedmont COG and the Piedmont Triad COG) collaborated with the
HCCOG and the Centralina COG to attempt to use GIS data to anticipate water quality conditions in
streams, rivers, and lakes. Two separate models were developed: one to assess land cover and land use in
anticipated degraded or stressed water quality conditions and another to anticipate healthy water quality
conditions. These models include data that both reflect current land uses as well as potential growth patterns
by using data such as population growth and transportation improvement projects to identify likely patterns
of development. These models were successful in reflecting water quality conditions when validated with
available water quality data and water body ratings. The models were refined further for the entire
Piedmont Triad region over the next three years, with the latest and best model applied to the Yadkin -Pee
Dee River basin in 2013. Due to the high resolution of the data, it is still useful at the local watershed scale.
These models reflect a need to protect the headwater watersheds south of Wilkesboro and surrounding Stone
Mountain State Park, and a separate need to restore the urban watersheds in and around Wilkesboro and
Elkin as well as the rural watersheds of Big Elkin Creek and especially Mulberry Creek (Figures 56 — 59).
Page 90

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
GTayson PaWck
Henry
L,%lleghany
Ache
.Surry takes Rockingham Caswi
N'atauf; i
V1'iikrti
_ _ l''i r!:f r 'r'• Guilford
Alamancc
�t � � I i i •7r
Caldwell 1 `�til]a► ie -
lexander Jr- C-11 lrxurY �„
1 G1' aYida
Burke Ito nll+h
Cataw Fa u :l :.2 .. r
CN
It wan
Lincoln 1
� 17�
4.. Moore
Cleveland Gaston 5 l`, Itlontome
�lerklenhurg
�� i
Cherola ' U,nion �nson { E
.� Richmond
15 V
Union Chester LancasterW ('hemerfield nlarlror >vt�lra
Yadkin River Basin Prioritization
FiFial Stress Output
12-Digit HUC Stress Categories ati Major hirers air State Boundary
Concentration of Watershed Stressors •-�� Impaired Streams County Boundary
A - Highest ''-. Excellent/C.vA Bioclass Q MRC Region
B - High
Q Study Area
C - Moderate
D -Low -
rtEoltAowT TR1Ap
tom
F - Lowest .• It1 t ,)0NA1 COUNCIL
5,-rfcFmhm2013
FIGURE 56: PTRC, 2013
Page 91

Grayson
1'rr�
Henry 1 4`1,
•iaanr'�-rr�
Alleghany
Ashe
.%UrrF' r takes
Rockingham Caswt
watau
I
-
4Y'iEkes
i�ne• ��
1'adkiinti
Forsyth
1
SIR} C7R �r
y
Guilford
r
Alamance
Caldwell
[..avie
1
Alexander
71r,,,
Dayrdsnn
Burke
Catawba
s''�"t'
Ra r111'h Chi
Rowan
3'1
Uncoln
�
- Cal+arrus
Mere
Cleveland Gaston
I]nr oftr tartly
m
NOW1 L:7:rii: ri.i
ecklen
J
Cher
Won n
Richmond'
�M
+Union.2
II i5 Z(1
Chester
Lancaster Chesterfield
vlarirar[r
Yadkin River Basin Prioritization
Fitt t! Corl.-�erziatton Output
12-Digit HUC Conservation
Categories ONe Major Rivers
**%.r State Boundary
Concentration of Watershed
Assets �Impaired Streams
County Boundary
A - Highest
ON o Excellent/Good Bioclass
0 PTRC Region
B- High
0 Study Area
C - Moderate
® D - Lo►v
r I EVMarrr TRtAn
E - Lowest
REGIONAL COUNCII.
September 2013
FIGURE 57: PTRC 2013
Page 92

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Elkin Water Supply Watershed
Mean Conservation Value
ALLE0H ANY C OUN TY
SHE COO NTY•
2 SURRYCOU NTY
71
ah'ILKESCOUN
15 -
- Nm1h WiR*sbxo geK ,I
S _ . 21 13
17
Y.ADKN CCU 14
u.11 L' ri
20
j..
Ke�7��k ti
rc
10—
Moan Conservation Value
By Catchment
22 Highest Value
DOI
_ LEY"DE-R COUNTY,!., - • - - -
- Lowest ld lue
19
Elkin Creek Watershed QJonesville Intake Watershed
a.:
FIGURE 58: PTRC, 2014
Page 93

Elkin Water Supply Watershed
't ,1
- Mean Stress Value
s ALLEGHANY C0LINTY - - —
1HE COUNTY .. ".. _
SU RRY COUNTY
.iKJ r. iJ N-
n`
� `-Noxdi�•fiAesbao ..-rJ.gz� f •� 1
g �J
4 t' 21 19
YAD ON COUN y Vh4ae 5brI0 _ j
T- {�
r~ Mean Stress Value
f _ By Catchment
22i _ Highest Value
i
' 901
LEXAN DER COU NTY..,-
- Lowest Value
I u t
Elkin Creek Watershed QJonesville Intake Watershed "�:';',`„"�°, ° " ' '`
Yks
FIGURE 59: PTRC, 2014
Page 94

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
The modeled watershed needs are a helpful tool designed to guide water quality stakeholders to more
locally -focused efforts and analysis. At the request of the project stakeholders and to build upon the modeled
data, the PTRC conducted a riparian buffer analysis, specifically reviewing the vegetated cover within the
1 00-foot stream buffer zone throughout both water supply watersheds. These riparian buffers are critical to
protecting water quality conditions and ensuring safe habitat conditions for ecology as well as clean
conditions for drinking water.
The PTRC established five -tiered ranking system for the heath of riparian buffer health, detailed here:
1 ) Pristine Riparian Buffers:
The only streams that could qualify for this ranking are those that are completely untouched by
present or recent
human activity. FIGURE 60: CATEGORY 1 STREAM (BLUE), STONE MOUNTAIN HEADWATERS,
SOURCE: PTRC
Page 95

2) Impacted Riparian
Buffers:
These streams have mild
to moderate human
activity, including small
roads, utility rights of
ways, single-family
homes, and some farms.
FIGURE 61: CATEGORY 2 STREAMS, MORAVIAN CREEK WATERSHED,
3) Managed Riparian Buffers:
These streams have human
activity that is actively
degrading the stream buffer on
at least one side of the stream.
The stream buffer must by
consistently absent on one side of
the stream — but not both — to
qualify for this category.
Page 96
tf ..' A
�.
SOURCE: PTRC
FIGURE 62: CATEGORY 3 STREAMS (YELLOW), SWAIN CREEK WATERSHED,
fMMIPP
�r
SOURCE: PTRC

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
4) Degraded Stream Buffers:
These streams have degraded
buffers on both sides of the
stream. There is very little
healthy vegetation present for
these streams.
5) Absent Stream Buffers:
These streams have no vegetated
buffer at all. Human activity has
removed vegetation upon these
streams either through agricultural
practices, paving, or piping.
Page 97
FIGURE 63: CATEGORY 4 STREAMS (ORANGE), MULBERRY CREEK WATERSHED, PTRC 2014
_:..�-�.� • ire
0 .�
SOURCE: PTRC
FIGURE 64: CATEGORY 5 STREAM (RED), BIG ELKIN CREEK WATERSHED, PTRC 2014
V
SOURCE: PTRC

These rankings were mapped for the entire watershed (Figure 65 & 66; Tables 9 & 10). The rankings of all of
the streams within a catchment (the drainage areas making up a subwatershed) were then averaged within
ArcGIS and these results were also mapped (Figure 67). These results generally confirm what was found
through the models, especially the conservation model. These results show the need for immediate restoration
of Swain Creek, Mulberry Creek, Big Elkin Creek, and Big Bugaboo Creek subwatersheds. When these
streams are looked at, many of them appear to be impacted by either poor agricultural practices or
improper forestry activities.
TABLE 11: SUBWATERSHEDS WITH THE GREATEST LENGTHS OF DEGRADED STREAM BUFFERS
Subwatershed
Subwatershed
Degraded Stream Buffer Miles
Name
Number
(Category 4 & 5 Streams)
Big Elkin Creek
3
19.0
Upper West
7
11.5
Prong Roaring
River
Mulberry Creek
1 1
29.3
Swain Creek
12
17.2
Central Yadkin
15
3.6
River
TABLE 12: SUBWATERSHEDS WITH THE GREATEST LENGTHS OF HEALTHY STREAM BUFFERS
Subwatershed
Name
Subwatershed
Number
Healthy Stream Buffer Miles
(Category 1 Streams)
Upper East Prong
Roaring River
1
39.6
Camp Branch
6
5.9
Big Bugaboo
Creek
10
6.2
Brier Creek
13
6.3
Moravian Creek
22
14.7
Page 98

Elkin & Jonesville Water Supply Protection Plan
Proportional Stream Types
By Subwatershed
100%
90%
80%
70%
60 %
50%
40%
30%
20 %
10%
0%
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 TOTAL
Subwatershed
1 2 3 4 5
FIGURE 65: PTRC 2014
Page 99

Elkin Water Supply Watershed
Stream Health
e
AlLEGHANY COON TV 1
1 Y( f
w.=HLAIII SURRYCOUNTY
, •
15t r -
! 'Z
in- C 3 [1
+'
WILFtES COUNTY
rc
Nm&c NE1Vx�.�ra � �' i •,':: ' ^ _ Ott
18
�-
10 �l
V,T111F4tR0 - �, t' 'i :.: f..l•, i' -: Irl1 ..
Stream Health
�• 1 Most Healthy
r
2
4 If
ALEXANDER CQ U N
K, j - 5 Least Healthy
�3 Elkin Creek Watershed CMJonesville Intake Watershed
FIGURE 66: PTRC 2014
Page 100

Elkin Water Supply Watershed
Stream Health
AL LE GH ANY C 0 V N TY
SHE CQUNTY
gLIRR'lCOUNTY
1
� I
F.`hr
U
µm;g,=,-,
YAD14NCQUNT�
0�
' Mean Stream Health
By Catchment
{ j l Most Healthy
f _
r 4
ALrXANbER C0l1NTY
Least Healthy
® Elkin Creek Watershed J= Jonesville Intake Watershed "�;"!"x ',',"";°, ° _ 3 .5 aMe-
FIGURE 67: PTRC 2014
When assessed statistically, it can be seen that most of the streams have buffers, with the majority being
managed or impacted. Category 5 stream buffers appear to the exception rather than the rule in these

watersheds, but their impacts to the water supplies are disproportionate to their number: a few poorly
managed streams are having huge impacts in loading sediment to these water supplies. Those poorly
managed streams are almost entirely in rural areas and seem to be focused primarily in four subwatersheds:
Swain Creek, Mulberry Creek, Big Elkin Creek, and Big Bugaboo Creek (Figures 65 — 68).
Concentration of Stream Types
By Watershed
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
■1■2■3■4■5■6■7■8■9■10■11■12■13■14■15■16■17■18 19 20 21 22
FIGURE 68: RELATIVE PROPORTION OF STREAM TYPES BY SUBWATERSHED
Policies
The attached project atlas provides over thirty local catchments that would have disproportionate benefits if
restored or protected. The key policy for addressing the needs of the natural hydrologies that feed into Elkin
and Jonesville's respective water supplies is to use this project atlas to protect and improve the local water
quality conditions. It is recommended that the following partners and funding programs be utilized to achieve
these goals.
Partnerships
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
To ensure that the special ecological resources that draw tourists are conserved to ensure outdoor recreation
as economic revenue, the NC WRC partnered with Surry County to provide a Green Growth Toolbox training
on September 19, 2014. Additional trainings in the future could ensure staff from Elkin, Jonesville, and
surrounding areas are able to apply the Green Growth Toolbox during permit reviews and prior to planning
additional city and county services, to protect wildlife resources. A Green Growth Toolbox training for
realtors and developers would also increase awareness and consideration of the special natural resources
that draw people to move to Elkin and Jonesville. Partnerships between the cities, the counties, the Forest
Service, NC WRC and trail associations can also increase funding opportunities to realize the potential for
recreation in the Elkin Area watershed.
Page 102

Trails Associations
The =1kin Valley Trails Associatior is an affiliate of NC Rail Trails with the mission to increase the quality of life
in the Elkin Valley by building and promoting a network of trails and greenways in Wilkes, Surry and Yadkin
Counties. EVTA has been designated at a partner in realizing the goal of connecting the NC Mountains with
the ocean by way of the Mountains to Sea Trail. EVTA is currently developing a master plan to determine the
most feasible and stakeholder supported route for the NC State trail between Pilot Mountain State Park and
Stone Mountain State Park (EVTA 2014).
+C Paddle Trails Association: The mission of the N.C. Paddle Trails Association is to empower communities in
the local development, maintenance and restoration of paddle trails in North Carolina thereby nurturing
economically and environmentally sustainable communities (Association 2014).
Yadkin Pee Dee River Trail Association is a private non-profit organization created in 1984 to promote
watershed stewardship through policies, programs and projects (Yadkin Pee Dee River Trail Association
2014). Examples of projects that the Yadkin Pee Dee River Trail Association uses to instill stewardship include
promoting and participating in the National River Cleanup on the Yadkin River. Expanding the historical
Overmountain Victory Trail to connect Elkin with Wilkesboro is another project that they are involved with in
partnership with the EVTA.
Local Land Conservancies
Piedmont Land Conservancy and the Blue Ridge Conservancy are local land conservancies that work within the
Elkin and Jonesville watersheds and have the potential to protect natural resources and water quality through
land conservation and stewardship.
Piedmont Land Conservancy (PLC) is a local resource for landowners interested in protecting the rural nature
of their land and conserving the natural resources in perpetuity. Through conservation easements and
donations, PLC strives to conserve the region's rivers, streams, wildlife, farmland and scenic areas that provide
the rural heritage that draws residents and visitors alike. The PLC Stewardship program ensures lands in Surry
and Yadkin Counties that are protected through conservation easements are cared for in a manner consistent
with the site's ecological riches and the terms agreed to by all involved parties (PLC 201 3a). Through their
stewardship program, PLC ensures easement terms are upheld forever, landowner relationships are
strengthened, and acquired lands are placed with the most appropriate stewardship for the long-term benefit
of the land and its ecological riches. This is especially important in areas with sensitive flora and fauna such as
the Elkin Valley. Land placed under the PLC stewardship program serve as an example of high quality land
stewardship that other landowners can follow, and maintains adequate financial means to preserve the
stewardship of the land for generations (PLC 201 3a).
Blue Ridae Conservancy strives to permanently protect the land and water resources through voluntary
conservation easements and stewardship. Properties placed under protection with the Blue Ridge Conservancy
are managed according to a management plan designed to protect the important natural and cultural
features of each individual property. In the Elkin Watershed area BRC protects properties in Wilkes County.
Yadkin Riverkeeper
The Yadkin Riverkeeper is a non-profit organization with a mission to "respect, protect and improve the water
quality" in the Yadkin River through education, advocacy and action. In particular they strive to improve water
quality, preserve forest canopy, support native biodiversity, teach a "river ethic" of ecological respect and
ensure state and federal environmental laws are being followed. In the Elkin Watershed they bring
awareness to the Yadkin River and the Roaring River through the annual Tour de Yadkin which is a three week
paddle trip along the Yadkin River.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
• NC Aaricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund (NCADFPTF)
NCADFPTF supports the farming, forestry, and horticulture communities within the agriculture industry
through providing funding to support the purchase of agricultural conservation easements (on farm,
forest, and horticulture lands), including transaction costs, build public and private enterprise programs
that will promote profitable and sustainable family farms through assistance to farmers in developing
and implementing plans for the production of food, fiber, and value-added products, agritourism
activities, marketing and sales of agricultural products produced on the farm, and other agriculturally
related business activities, and fund conservation agreements (on farm, forest, and horticulture lands)
targeted at the active production of food, fiber and other agricultural products.
• North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program (ACSP)
The Agricultural Cost Share Program addresses nonpoint source pollution by providing technical and
financial resources to landowners or renters of an existing agricultural operation that has been
operating for more than three years. Up to 75% cost share assistance is provided to aid in the
installation of best management practices.
• Aaricultural Resource Assistance Program (AgWRAP)
AgWRAP primarily addresses water use issues including efficiency, availability and storage. Funding
is used to conserve and protect water resources, increase efficiency and increase water storage and
availability for agricultural resources. In FY201 5, AgWRAP received a state appropriation in the
amount of $1,477,500.
• Community Conservation Assistance Program (CCAP)
CCAP is a voluntary, incentive -based program designed to improve water quality through the
installation of various BMP's on urban, suburban and rural lands. This program provides cost share
and technical assistance for the installation of stormwater best management practices on non-
agricultural land. Approved community conservation BMPs that are eligible include: Backyard rain
gardens, cisterns, impervious surface conversion, riparian buffers, stream bank protection, pet waste
receptacles, backyard wetlands, vegetation establishment and abandoned well closure.
• Conservation Reserve Enhancement Proaram (CREP)
CREP is a voluntary program utilizing federal and state resources to achieve long-term protection of
environmentally sensitive cropland and marginal pasture land. These voluntary protection measures
are accomplished through 10-, 15-, 30-year and permanent conservation easements. CREP
encourages farmers to place environmentally sensitive land near streams or other approved water
bodies into a vegetative cover for a period of time. In return, landowners receive annual payments
and are reimbursed for establishing conservation practices.
United States Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Services
• Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
CSP helps agricultural producers maintain and improve their existing conservation systems and adopt
additional conservation activities to address priority resources concerns. Participants earn CSP
payments for conservation performance —the higher the performance, the higher the payment.
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
EQIP provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers in order to address natural
Page 104

resource concerns and deliver environmental benefits such as improved water and air quality,
conserved ground and surface water, reduced soil erosion and sedimentation or improved or created
wildlife habitat.
Aaricultural Conservation Easement Proaram (ACEP)
ACEP provides financial and technical assistance to help conserve agriculture was created in the 2014
Farm Bill which consolidated the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program with the Grassland
Reserve Program. This program provides matching funds to help purchase development rights to keep
productive land in agricultural uses. Working through existing programs, USDA partners with State,
tribal, or local governments and non -governmental organizations to acquire conservation easements or
other interests in land from landowners. USDA provides up to 50 percent of the fair market easement
value of the conservation easement.
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund
The NC CWMTF is dedicated to protecting and rehabilitating the water resources of the state. It has provided
hundreds of millions of dollars to local governments, non-profit entities, and private firms to develop
watershed plans, restore streams and stream buffers, build greenways, develop innovative stormwater
technologies, and acquire sensitive and valuable ecological habitats. The CWMTF funded this planning grant
in an effort to address water quality concerns before they become water quality problems. They are key
partner in implementing this plan, especially in protecting sensitive areas of the watershed, restoring streams
and buffers, and assisting with the construction of the Elkin Valley Trail.
Duke Energy Water Resources Fund
In 2014, Duke Energy's Dan River power plant in Eden, NC, spilled over 38 million tons of coal ash into the
Dan River, immediately degrading the ecological, recreational, and agricultural uses of that water system for
its residents and ecosystems. In an effort to show a commitment to protecting and improving water quality
conditions throughout its service region, it is dedicating $10 million annually for water resource projects. While
there is not a Duke Energy power plant near this watershed, many of the projects recommended in this plan fit
the requirements of projects requested by the fund.
NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund
The NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) is dedicating to matching the efforts of local governments for
recreation projects. If cash and/or human capital can be accrued by the stakeholders in these watersheds,
PARTF could be a valuable funding source for realizing greenway, blueways, and parks throughout these
watersheds.
Wildlife Resources Commission
The NC WRC also has the following programs to help incentivize land management for wildlife:
Cooperative Upland habitat Restoration and Enhancement program (CURE) - Is a program
developed by the NC WRC because wildlife that require early -successional habitats are among the most
imperiled species in the United States, across the South, and within North Carolina. Bobwhite quail have
become the "flagship species" among this group, but it also includes numerous declining songbirds, many
species of mammals such as rabbits, pollinators such as butterflies, and many species of amphibians and
reptiles.
Wildlife Conservation Lands Program

Similar to the Present Use Value program, but with an emphasis on ecological rather than agricultural value,
this program is administered by the NC WRC. Lands must satisfy two criteria: the land must have more one or
more protected species and the land is managed to support that species; and that the landowner must
conserve at least one of the following NC WRC priority wildlife habitats:
• longleaf pine forest;
• early -successional habitat;
• small wetland communities and bogs;
• stream and riparian zone;
• rock outcrop; or
• bat cave.
CONCLUSION
Both Jonesville and Elkin have generally healthy water supply watersheds that have some persistent concerns
such as water leaks and unknown buried contaminants and seasonal concerns, namely sedimentation from
upstream practices that fill up reservoirs and muddy the Yadkin River in the rainy seasons. Many of these
seasonal sources can be addresses, which is the main focus of the project atlas. The towns and counties are
making great efforts to address the other needs of the watersheds.
The streams that are being degraded by poor forestry practices can be dealt with directly, as they are in
violation of state law for failure to use forestry practice guidelines. Efforts should be made to contact the
landowners and determine who conducted the harvest. NCDENR could begin monitoring their projects
elsewhere in the region and the state more closely to determine if they are consistently violating these laws.
Alternatively, a grassroots -based effort to address these needs could fulfill these needs. Similar to the Muddy
Water Watch that effectively addressed a lack of enforcement of stormwater and sediment management at
construction sites in the Neuse River basin, a citizen monitoring effort supported by the Yadkin Riverkeeper
and other area non -profits could keep a trained eye on agricultural and forestry practices in these
watersheds and ensure that they are complying with state requirements, as well as ensuring that the state
regulatory staff are following up on these potential violators.
The poor agricultural practices are more challenging to address, as detailed in the Agriculture chapter. Unless
the site has a CAFO permit, there are few regulatory mechanisms to require these landowners to protect the
water quality of their downstream neighbors. There are a variety of agricultural cost -share and assistance
programs that can support these landowners in improving their agricultural practices to protect the
environment while not cutting into their profits. However, these programs and staff are underfunded at both
the federal and, especially, state levels. According to staff, many of these programs have waiting lists years
long for enrollment. Without the assistance, many of these farmers simply cannot afford to make the
investments required to restore healthy water quality and stream buffer conditions. The project meetings for
this project highlighted these frustrations among the soil and water conservation district and cooperative
extension staffs.
These mapping efforts and the extremely hard work of others have yielded many opportunities for the Towns
of Elkin and Jonesville, the NCDWR, the NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, the Farm Bureau,
and federal partners to invest in to ensure healthy and safe water supplies for the foreseeable future. The
projects that can yield the highest benefits for the watershed will be highlighted in the plan's Project Atlas
Page 106

chapter. The data collected by this effort will be available for any interested partners to utilize to improve
the watersheds' conditions.

PROJECT ATLA`'
The project atlas for the watersheds of Elkin and Jonesville is intended to both protect and improve water
quality conditions in the two water supplies for the foreseeable future. The projects were selected from two
sources: the prior water quality protection work of the High Country COG and the stream buffer aerial
analysis conducted by the PTRC staff. Most of the projects were selected using the latter method, which was
already described. Catchments were prioritized for projects using the catchment scores determined through
the averaging of the riparian buffer scores in each catchment (Figure 67). The value of these catchments was
determined based essentially upon the average quality of stream per acre of a catchment. Consequently,
some smaller catchments with less intense stream conditions were placed in this atlas over those larger
catchments with more variability in their stream conditions.
The ten catchments in the Jonesville Intake watershed with the highest buffer scores (indicating the worst
stream buffer conditions) were selected for immediate actions, as were those ten catchments with the lowest
buffer scores (indicating pristine stream buffer conditions). Similarly, the catchments with the five highest and
five lowest scores in the Big Elkin Creek watershed were also selected for description here and immediate
project implementation by the project stakeholders and their partners. These watersheds' priority catchments
are separated for convenience, which should not be interpreted as a reflection of that catchment's importance
for ensuring healthy and safe water supplies for Elkin and Jonesville. The atlas is structured to allow users to
see the potential project in an aerial photograph, which is accompanied by a table of relevant statistics of the
project and a brief description of the potential project and its value for the drinking water supply.
Page 108

Big Elkin Creek Watershed Priorities: Restoration
RSHECOUNTY
Page 1 10
16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Elkin Creek Subwatershed - Crooked Creek
N
s
ASU,11RYCOUNTY
WfLKE5 OUNTY
YADKIN COUNTY
NWLR C TY .--_
IREPELLCOUNTY
0 Stream Catchments
Stream Health
1 Most Healthy
—2
3
4 IF
5 Least Healthy
4 M13maaif TAMP 9 Om 9.15 927 03;
lil Lill AI C kAPN� II p

BIG ELKIN CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY: ELKIN CREEK
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
61
VACANT/UNKNOWN
283
60%
CLASS 1
716
PARTIALLY
64
RESIDENTIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
94
26.5
20%
6%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
1,650
8,208
COMMERCIAL
42
9%
CLASS 4
2,640
INDUSTRIAL
23
5%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
125
TOTAL
468.5
100%
TOTAL
13,214
This is a large catchment that lies partially within the limits of the Town of Elkin. As such, this catchments
suburban, with diverse land uses and impacts to local water quality and stream conditions. Consequently, it is
also an optimal site to connect unincorporated areas with the Town and Big Elkin Creek. Indeed, this catchment
is a priority for the Elkin Valley Trails Association (EVTA) and their needs to connect their trail to Stone
Mountain State Park.
The headwaters of this catchment have all been developed and are stressed from stormwater and direct
impacts to the stream's structure and function. These issues may be remedied with stormwater retrofits such as
rain gardens and stream restoration projects that can also serve the area's greenway needs. Downstream, the
rural areas should be protected as much as possible — should they be used to extend the existing greenway
network, that will be extremely helpful for water quality conditions. It appears that this catchment is a site of
large timber operations. Stakeholders state that these parcels have been harvested using all forestry
practices guidelines (FPGs), indicating a site where these best practices could be shared and promoted to
other landowners in the area. Otherwise, much of the attention and investment in this catchment should be
given to restoring the streams directly and mitigating the impacts of stormwater runoff in the headwaters,
Nest Steps:
— Invest in stormwater management projects in the catchment's headwaters;
— Invest in stream restoration projects in this catchment;
— Extend the EVTA's trails network through this watershed;
— Promote the use of FPGs on the parcels in this catchment in cooperation with the Wilkes County
Soil & Water Conservation District.

16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Elkin Creek Subwatershed - Elkin Creek
Page 2 iDf 16
fik
r
Q
I � �
i
tlEO ANY LINTY,
stream Catchments
ASNE COUNTY SURRYCOUNTY Stream Health
r 1 Most Healthy
Ie .
W4LFCE5 OUNTY �
„-3e• YADKIN COUNTY
4
ALo ELLU N' 5 Least Healthy
H R C IREDELLCOUNTY Date: 0dobor. 2014
Updated January.2015
Elkin Creek Watershed 0 Jonesville Intake Watershed 4p,,01 °AP TAPNN o °_ m
-_• (il �il�M:AI f �k�N� II
Page 1 12

BIG ELKIN CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY: ELKIN CREEK
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
10
AGRICULTURE
161
64.3%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
22
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
21.5
68
8.6%
27%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
1,352
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
6,259
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
32
TOTAL
250
100%
TOTAL
7,611
This catchment is a 250-acre area covering mostly agricultural lands that appear to be directly degrading
water quality conditions in Big Elkin Creek. The restoration of this stretch of Big Elkin Creek could have great
benefits, as it is immediately downstream of good and pristine condition tributaries. The middle section of this
creek is well -forested, but the upper and lower stretches of it are directly within farmland. The agricultural
lands within this catchment appear to be primarily pasture, raising concerns about livestock access to the
creek. This catchment is home to the endangered bog turtle, including the Elkin Creek Bog Meadows Natural
Area, so restoration and management of the bogs for habitat needs is priority. Furthermore, this area is also
home to the Cerulean warbler and the Carolina foothills crayfish, both priority species for conservation.
These parcels would be excellent candidates for agricultural cost -share programs that can provide livestock
exclusion fencing, rewatering stations, and assist in the restoration of Big Elkin Creek's vegetated buffer area.
The 1 .5-mile stretch of the creek itself may need to be restored, and the opportunity to improve these
conditions would be highly appealing to stream restoration professionals, stream mitigation banks, and soil
and water conservation agents. A full restoration of this long stretch on the main stem of Elkin's water supply
creek could reduce tons of sediment loading to its water supply every year, reducing treatment costs, public
concerns, and improve the creek's recreational value.
Next Steps:
- Prioritize livestock exclusion fencing and stream buffer restoration, especially where priority
species are found;
- Target landowners with information about agriculture cost -share programs, especially those
that provide exclusion fencing or bog restoration/ma nag ement;
- Work with EVTA on working with landowners on the value of clean waters for their lands and
the local economy, especially if they feature priority conservation species;
- Contact stream restoration professionals on their interest in this large potential project.

I-�
16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Elkin Creek Subwatershed - Lang Branch
Page 3 of 16
6
LLEG ANY UNTY!
A5NECOUNTY lJ SURRYCOUNTY
r�
WILKES OUNTY
YADKIN COUNTY
CALD ELL4Qtl N TY -+-�
1 u o Tsrt'„� IREDELLCOUNTY
Page 1 I A
MIUM01116109 1
If
f F--] Stream Catchments
Stream Health
1 Most Healthy
2
3
4 IF
5 Least Healthy
D ate: OCFO bOF. 2014
Updated: January, 2015
PIEDMONT TRIALI a G-1 02 O3 a..
Hl". It �N AI ,,mi%, II R

BIG ELKIN CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY: LONG BRANCH
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
168
AGRICULTURE
267
28.1 %
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
137
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
359.5
289.5
37.7%
30.4%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
66
6,389
COMMERCIAL
33.5
3.5%
CLASS 4
12,557
INDUSTRIAL
0.5
0.1 %
CLASS 5
1,870
TOTAL
305
TOTAL
952.4
100%
TOTAL
20,882
This very large catchment is just upstream of Elkin's water supply reservoir, located at the border or Wilkes
and Surry Counties. Long Branch and its tributaries currently have about 2.5 miles of immediate stream
restoration and vegetated buffer restoration buffer opportunities. It has one tributary that is occupied by
industrial and commercial properties, unfortunately all within its headwaters. With a few exceptions, the
streams and creeks throughout this catchment are largely unbuffered, permitting the drainages of these
properties to drain directly to Long Branch. Long Branch drain directly to Elkin Creek, which has good buffers
and is largely forested in this stretch. Restoration of stream conditions in this catchment could have enormous
benefits for the creek and the town's water supply.
This catchment offers many opportunities to improve local and regional water quality conditions, but it has
many landowners that will need to be engaged if such an effort is to succeed. With over 300 property
owners, any improvements will need to have a significant outreach component. This could come first, to
educate the landowners about agricultural cost -share programs, stormwater practices, and the value of clean
waters for the local and regional economies. It could also accompany a marquee project with a willing
landowner, attracting neighbors through a project that is appealing and can yield near -immediate benefits.
All efforts will need to be led by the Wilkes County Soil & Water Conservation District, but the close
proximity of Long Branch to Elkin's water supply reservoir would make municipal engagement appropriate.
Next Steps:
- Engage in an outreach effort on agricultural best management practices and cost -share
programs to all landowners in this catchment;
- Reach out to possible willing landowners to host a pilot project on their property;
- Reach out to the commercial and industrial properties on stormwater best management
p ra ctices.

16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Elkin Greek Subwatershed - Unknown Creek t
Page 4 of 16
0 Stream Catchments
Stream Health
Most Healthy
2
IF
4
5 Least Healthy
D ate: Octubor. 2014
Updated: January, 2015
AW PIEPAI�7NT 1'RIArJ O O7TS 0.6 025 ua
Hl�.It �NAI 11rIM II p
Page 1 16

BIG ELKIN CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY:
UNKNOWN CREEK 1
MMMMI
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
5
AGRICULTURE
194.2
85%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
21
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
17.8
17.2
8%
7.5%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
5.461
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
26
TOTAL
229
100%
TOTAL
5,461
This catchment is relatively small compared to many of the other catchments in this project atlas and only
features one stream. It is primarily impacted by agricultural properties at its headwaters, though there are
some smaller impacts downstream near its confluence. This farm is using no agricultural best management
practices, and is plowing down to the streamside. No vegetative buffers are apparent, and the runoff from
this farm can be considered to be significant to the quality of all downstream waters. It is unclear if this farm
has livestock, but if they do, they are making large contributions of fecal material to the stream, as well as
eroding the local streambanks.
The Wilkes County Soil & Water Conservation agents should prioritize this single farm for engagement on
agricultural BMPs and enrollment into a cost -share program. The use of BMPs here will not only benefit water
quality conditions, but will halt the loss of land that is surely occurring due to stream erosion. If this is a
tobacco farm, efforts should be made to encourage the farmer to rotate crops or transition to a new crop that
can be grown with low- or no -till crop management. Stream restoration on this highly -degraded stretch of this
unnamed tributary of Big Elkin Creek will also be needed to halt erosion and restore it to a healthy structure
and habitat conditions. Should this landowner not be interested, perhaps a project on nearby property could
serve as an effective pilot project.
Next Steps:
- Reach out to the farmer in the headwaters of this stream to determine interest in using
agricultural BMPs and/or enrollment in a cost -share program that will restore vegetated
buffers, use low -impact crop management practices, and halt the loss of land to stream
erosion and flooding;
- Gauge landowner interest in restoring this highly -degraded stream reach.

16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Elkin Creek Subwatershed - Unknown Creek 3
Page 6 of 16
4.
.v-L . f
d'
A),
+�1m
d
€3ALL
EGHANY UNTYI
\7
0 Stream Catchments
ASHE COUNTY SURRYCOUNTY
Stream Health
s
1 Most Healthy
Ifl e
2
Lee.ilre
WILKES OUNTY
�
M.J lhllah .
ixne�. "� YADKIN COUNTY
4 IF
5 Least Healthy
pLDWVELL UNTY
RC T IREDELL COUNTY
I'ILII"",41rarU
. .I 1.
Date: October, 2014
Updated January, 2015
o a.+ az 0.7 a.a
IAks
Elkin Creek Watershed 0 Jonesville Intake Watershed
Page 1 18

BIG ELKIN CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY:
UNKNOWN CREEK 3
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
50
AGRICULTURE
207.9
44%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
49
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
99.3
159.1
21 %
33.5%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
8.4
2%
CLASS 4
10,425
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
153
TOTAL
99
TOTAL
475
100%
TOTAL
10,578
This catchment of unnamed tributaries to the Big Elkin Creek is almost uniformly degraded due to land
clearing. This catchment requires intensive stream and stream buffer restoration efforts. Based upon the high -
impact agricultural activities within this catchment, the streams can be estimated to contribute hundreds of tons
of sediment, many pounds of nutrients from fertilizers, and possibly fecal material from livestock. If this land is
being used to cultivate tobacco, then estimates of the sediment contributions of these farms make them a
disproportionate source of impact to the larger watershed. Erosion from these high -impact practices are
evident, with exposed soil due to erosion clearly visible in the aerial images. The headwaters of these
tributaries are in worse condition, with paved areas abutting the points of origin for these streams.
Though there are 50 properties within this watershed, only several large lands are being used for farming.
The owners of these large properties need to be contacted about the use of agricultural BMPs and cost -share
programs. The need for improvements on these tributaries is pressing — they are 2 miles of poor streams
contributing enormous loads of sediment to Elkin's water supply. Simply buffering the streams with vegetation
would yield great benefits for the watershed, let alone improved agricultural practices and/or stream
restoration. These projects would striking and highly -valuable pilot projects for this watershed and could even
be showcased throughout Wilkes and Surry Counties.
Next Steps:
- Reach out to the farmer(s) of these farmed parcels to determine interest in using agricultural
BMPs and/or enrollment in a cost -share program that will restore vegetated buffers, use low -
impact crop management practices, and halt the loss of land to stream erosion and flooding;
- Gauge interest in restoring this highly -degraded stream reach.
Big Elkin Ciao. Y.u,=,.111Cu r i wriilaa: %_vna=i vuiivii

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
Elkin Creek Subwatershed - Elkin Creek
F-ai;e 1
ASNE COUNTY 1 . SURRY COUNTY
WILKES O
f YADKIN COUNTY
]ALDWELLQUNTY
1 'r�r�i� f1iEDELLCOUNTY I �---f
Elkin Creek Watershed Q Jonesville Intake Watershed I rirn ,,1nT mien n
Page 120
Stream Catchments
Stream Health
— . 1 Most Healthy
2
3
4 Ir
— 5 Least Healthy
Date: OctWer, 2014
c.ce 0IN o:- c.6
x --

BIG ELKIN CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
ELKIN CREEK
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
13
AGRICULTURE
0
0%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
31
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
23
386
6%
94%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
4,285
6,097
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
44
TOTAL
409
100%
TOTAL
10,382
This catchment at the intersection of the Allegheny, Surry, and Wilkes County boundaries offers an opportunity
to protect two miles of headwater streams in the mountainous areas of the Big Elkin Creek watershed. It shows
that Elkin Creek's headwaters are being actively logged but are otherwise untouched by humans. The timber
operations are not consistently maintained the fifty -foot stream buffers required within the Forestry Practice
Guidelines set in law by the State of North Carolina, but they are mostly present.
The multiple landowners within this catchment appear to largely be located in the utmost headwaters of the
entire Big Elkin Creek watershed in Allegheny County. The lands in Wilkes and Surry Counties have no homes
on them. As these are potential trout waters and drain to the waters the EVTA is focusing on for their
recreation efforts, they should be prioritized for permanent protection efforts by the Blue Ridge Land Trust
and the Piedmont Land Conservancy. Permanent conservation easements prioritize the protection of the assets
of these lands and waters, but may permit the construction of a few homes, hunting and fishing, and even
some forestry operations that don't negatively impact the surrounding ecosystems.
Next Steps:
- Ensure that the Wilkes and Surry County Foresters and the NC Division of Land Quality are
aware of any new logging operations in this catchment and they inspect them to ensure FPGs
are being used;
- Prioritize these lands for protection by the relevant land trusts;
- Make the origin of Big Elkin Creek conservation priority and trail destination by the EVTA, and
incorporate this into other regional trails plans.

11.1A., 6
15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
Elkin Creek Subwatershed - Unknown Creek z
Page 3 of 15
I* -
z.
i 1 i
ASF+E COUNTY } SURRY COUNTY
-Hi JJII
[ WILKEs OUryrY `
' G=
YADKIN COUNTY
L� I
"ALDN�ELL�UNTY
I IREDELLCOUN7Y I
Elkin Creek Watershed Q Jaiesville Intake Watershed r:tn►xwr TWO0
f • CG IUPiAL Lr-X �F1C I l I
Page 122
� I Stream Uatchments
Stream Health
I Most Healthy
2
3
4 IF
5 Least Heafthy
Date: Ockbw. 20t4
0.09S c!a c.12S nN =
0.

BIG ELKIN WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
UNKNOWN CREEK 2
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
13
AGRICULTURE
19.5
10%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
28
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
15.9
153.6
8%
81 %
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
6,200
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
41
TOTAL
189
100%
TOTAL
6,200
Route US 21 transects this catchment on the Wilkes and Allegheny County line disrupting the nearly pristine
forests of this unnamed tributary to Big Elkin Creek. There are a few residences in this catchment, but they all
appear to be uphill from the headwaters of these tributaries, with minimal impact upon these waters. These
lands are all have the restrictions on development densities required of a WS-II water supply watershed,
ensuring that any new residences or businesses in this catchment will have a minimal impact upon water quality
conditions. Efforts will need to be made to ensure that any new forestry or farming operations in this
catchment have a similar minimal impact to the local and downstream waters.
These catchments are also very close to the existing Stone Mountain State Park, and could be more
permanently protected to provide a large habitat for indigenous ecology and perhaps expand upon the
available recreation opportunities. Species such as the golden eagle and the cerulean warbler reside in the
park and are major draws for tourists. This could potentially include the establishment of stocked or
permanent trout populations in these cooler headwater areas.
Next Steps:
- Ensure that NC DOT is using stormwater best management practices at their road crossings,
and that their culverts provide for fish passage;
Blue Ridge Land Conservancy should assess landowner interest in permanently protecting
these lands, as some are adjacent to Stone Mountain State Park;
NC WRC should determine if these tributaries could host a stocked or permanent trout
population.

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
Elkin Creek Subwatershed - Unknown Creek 3
Pa--` 4 ;'f
C
tuF+E COUNTY } SORRY COUNTY
� µ3
WILKES OUyFY `
G=
+wt' YADKIN COUNTY
L� I
I
"AL6VYELL UNTY
ti o .r�� IREDELL CW N7Y i
Page 124
N
0 Stream Catchments
Stream Health
I Must Health-
2
3
4 IF
5 Least Heafthy
Date: Ocb3bff. 20t4
!WDWWT T*IAV - = c 19 7]BS a as
: CGNINAL LUI?Nh li -

BIG ELKIN WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
UNKNOWN CREEK 3
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
40
AGRICULTURE
46.8
16%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
64
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
11.5
233.3
4%
80%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
6,832
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
104
TOTAL
291
100%
TOTAL
6,832
Though there are over 100 properties in this catchment, there appear to only be a handful of residences, all
of them for from the stream corridor. These lands are all have the restrictions on development densities
required of a WS-II water supply watershed, ensuring that any new residences or businesses in this catchment
will have a minimal impact upon water quality conditions. Efforts will need to be made to ensure that any new
forestry or farming operations in this catchment have a similar minimal impact to the local and downstream
waters. Route US 21 transects this catchment on the Wilkes and Allegheny County line disrupting the nearly
pristine forests of this unnamed tributary to Big Elkin Creek.
These catchments are very close to Stone Mountain State Park, and could be more permanently protected to
provide a large habitat for indigenous ecology and perhaps expand upon the available recreation
opportunities. Species such as the golden eagle and the cerulean warbler reside in the park and are major
draws for tourists. This could potentially include the establishment of stocked or permanent trout populations in
these cooler headwater areas. However, with potentially dozens of small parcels subdividing this catchment,
the administrative burdens of creating such permanent protections would be daunting, if not a total deterrent.
If the NC WRC or Department of Parks and Recreation could work with the EVTA or the counties to facilitate
these processes, it could become much more feasible.
Next Steps:
- Ensure that NC DOT is using stormwater best management practices at their road crossings,
and that their culverts provide for fish passage;
- Blue Ridge Land Conservancy should assess landowner interest in permanently protecting
these lands, as some are adjacent to Stone Mountain State Park;
- NC WRC should determine if these tributaries could host a stocked or permanent trout
population.

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
Elkin Creek Subwatershed - Unknown Creek 4
tuF+E COU th j SORRY COUNTY
YNLKES OUNTY
�_
Y4DKIN COUNTY
L� I
�AL6VYELL�UNTY -
ti o .r�� IREDELLCOUNTY i
= Stream Catchments
Stream Health
I Must Health-
2
3
4 IF
5 Least Heafthy
*11
Elkin Creek Watershed Q JaiesvIlle Intake Watershed J IGNI AL ANC u
f•CGIUPiAL Lr-ArNCII �
Page 126
Date: Ocb3bff. 20t4
a Vi a 's n _> CA

BIG ELKIN WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
UNKNOWN CREEK 4
MMMMI
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
20
AGRICULTURE
47.2
17%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
25
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
3.5
230
1 %
82%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
10,053
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
45
TOTAL
280
100%
TOTAL
10,053
Route US 21 transects this catchment on the Wilkes and Allegheny County line disrupting the nearly pristine
forests of these two miles of unnamed tributaries to Big Elkin Creek. There are a few residences in this
catchment, but they all appear to be uphill from the headwaters of these tributaries, with minimal impact upon
these waters. These lands are all have the restrictions on development densities required of a WS-II water
supply watershed, ensuring that any new residences or businesses in this catchment will have a minimal impact
upon water quality conditions. Efforts will need to be made to ensure that any new forestry or farming
operations in this catchment have a similar minimal impact to the local and downstream waters.
These catchments are also very close to the existing Stone Mountain State Park, and could be more
permanently protected to provide a large habitat for indigenous ecology and perhaps expand upon the
available recreation opportunities. Species such as the golden eagle and the cerulean warbler reside in the
park and are major draws for tourists. This could potentially include the establishment of stocked or
permanent trout populations in these cooler headwater areas. However, with potentially dozens of small
parcels subdividing this catchment, the administrative burdens of creating such permanent protections would
be daunting, if not a total deterrent. If the NC WRC or Department of Parks and Recreation could work with
the EVTA or the counties to facilitate these processes, it could become much more feasible.
Next Steps:
- Ensure that NC DOT is using stormwater best management practices at their road crossings,
and that their culverts provide for fish passage;
- Blue Ridge Land Conservancy should assess landowner interest in permanently protecting
these lands, as some are adjacent to Stone Mountain State Park;
- NC WRC should determine if these tributaries could host a stocked or permanent trout
population.
Jonesville Watershed Priorities: Restoration

15 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Cub Creek Subwatershed - Cub Creek
P' IL•
e1
•WLLEGHANY UNTY(
ASHE COUNTY BURRY COUNTY
1�
WILKES OUNTY "i
YADlQiJ COUNTY
:ALDWELLL NTY
1�ti G�IREDELL COUNTY � `_---•
Page 128
= Stream Catchments
Stream Health
i Most Healthy
2
4
5 Least Healthy
Dae: Oc0 Aw, 2014
7 0.04 too 0.+1 0.+L _
Ll kf •�

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED RESTORATION RIORITY: CUB CREEK
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
3
AGRICULTURE
1.6
1.9%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
12
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
6.7
14.7
8%
17.5%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
29.2
35%
CLASS 4
2,049
INDUSTRIAL
19
22.6%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
15
TOTAL
84
100%
TOTAL
2,049
This relatively small catchment in Wilkesboro is an excellent opportunity to implement demonstration projects
for stream restoration and stormwater BMPs: the largest properties are the Town of Wilkesboro's wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP). Cub Creek has a poor stream buffer on its side closest to theWWTP, perhaps due
to historic impacts and current stormwater runoff to the creek. A project that both restores healthy stream and
buffer conditions to Cub Creek while also reducing the runoff from the facilities would be an excellent and
high -value project for public engagement and protecting the water quality of the Yadkin River. Wilkesboro
has invested millions of dollars and enormous resources to ensuring that the discharge from its WWTP is a
positive contribution to the Yadkin River; it could now do so by making similar investments in runoff from these
some facilities.
The Town of Wilkesboro would be very competitive for grant funds if it wishes to invest in the project
recommended: a half -mile of stream restoration and stormwater improvements is an exciting project
anywhere, but moreso in a water supply watershed. The NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the Duke
Energy Water Resources Fund, and a number of other federal and state sources would count the dedication of
lands to these conservation and restoration efforts as the Town's match for a grant project. It would also be an
excellent opportunity to highlight all the Town is doing on behalf of its residents and its downstream neighbors
to protect and improve water quality in the Yadkin River. Lastly, these improvements could be accounted for
by the Town as reducing its nutrient contributions to the larger High Rock Lake watershed.
Next Steps:
Town of Wilkesboro works with stream restoration and/or stormwater engineers to draft
preliminary designs for the proposed project and apply for grant funds to execute this project
in one or several phases;
Should funding be received, engage in a public outreach campaign so that town residents and
others know what the town is doing to protect and improve the quality of its streams.

FIGURE 69: FROM (HIGH COUNTRY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 2012)
High Country Council of Governments
Regional Stormwater Project
Wilkes County
Wilkes County Senior Center
Problem
r6' ,
Runoff from the building and parking lots is directed into a ditch, causing
erosion and thereby introducing sediment into Long Creek in addition to
pollutants from the stormwater.
Drainage area = 2.33 acres
Impervious surface = 1.76 acres; 76%
Affected stream = Long Creek
Stream classification = C
N! p.Sld AJFH-,
ucr, H'WSi:S rP�
BMP solution
The ditch will be converted to a biorate ntIon swale, replacing at least some of the soil with materials and a soil mix that
will retain greater quantities of runoff. The addition of appropriate plants will increase its filtering and retention capacity
while also enhancing the appearance of this public site. A series of checkdams will slow the velocity to allow more
infiltration -
Water quality benefits1
By capturing and treating the runoff, heavy metals and other pollutants associated with parking lots and roadways will
be prevented from entering the stream. The bi0retenti0n swale will also reduce erosion and sedimentation within the
ditch. Reduction of storm water velocity will help lessen erosion downstream that often results from higher stream
volumes.
1 The methodology used to obtain values was developed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency- U = unavailable
93
Page 130

Load 0
Load 04060#4
(I bslyr)
b
i
Cost estimate
Construction $19,1B4
Design & engineering 1083
$2D,267
Funding
North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund
Soil & Water District Community Conservation Assistance Project Program
North Carolina Division of Water Resources Development Project Grant Program
2 Methodology used tD calculate cost estimates is obtained from !Urban Subwulershed Restoration Manua! No. 3 URBAN
STORMWATER RETROFIT PRACTICES Version I.0Tom Schueler, David Hirschman, Michael Novotney, and Jennifer Zielinski, Center
for Watershed Protection, 2007
94

Page 132

Diaeram and photoeraph of a typical swala:
14
on..as aurrta srmr yy i
��I.ptnrerp AI 1' ..i
rmr � Lvi eni•.ei Ya wI�u. P.M N -
PyW�C]
TYNIt;AL WE '_,WALL CROSS-%LC➢ION
nol m Luc
Doer
uK r, .,. t,—..,. re,�
r
— r
���. •!' ., u .wrn � ! 1 } Ian PlrNtt nfe
��n�Tn�m w^rL�i /=yMr��c Mflrw
A1[w •rlwe
1YPICAL ❑FAY SWA! F CHO?;S l�.IF pu:Korwi
96

16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Middle Prong Roaring River Subwatershed - Double Creek 1
Page 8 of 16
N
l
.v I!l
tiT
r
LEGHFNY LINTY
0 Stream Catchments
ASHE COUNTY SURRYCOUNTY
y
Stream Health
1 Most Healthy
r
� r
2
LaaNl
WILKES OUNTY R.e
r'.
3
i+ah wl�e�se
�'"• YPDKIN COUNTY
➢AI�sY.e
— 4
ALDNELL LINTY
5 Least Healthy
RC T IREDELL COUNTY
AWr+roMONT7wAD o
- HI. ik PNAI kki, lti� �i
Date: Odaber, 2014
Updated: January, 2015
oaU : J .2U on
IAks
,;Elkin Creek Watershed OJonesville Intake Watershed
Page 134

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY:
MIDDLE PRONG ROARING RIVER, DOUBLE CREEK 1
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
0
AGRICULTURE
80.9
77%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
10
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
10.7
13.5
10%
13%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
2,113
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
10
TOTAL
105
100%
TOTAL
2,113
This stretch of the headwaters tributary Double Creek cross through unbuffered agricultural land, including
what appears to be a tobacco field. The use of agricultural BMPs — namely vegetated stream buffers — would
be enormously beneficial on this half -mile stretch of the creek. Both banks of the creek are tilled for
agriculture, but only the eastern bank appears to be completely unbuffered. Unfortunately, this is also the
bank that appears to be intensively tilled, perhaps for tobacco. This is of even greater concern given that its is
habitat for the brook floater freshwater mussel and a conservation priority for North Carolina. The land is
being degraded, as seen in the active erosion ruts present in the aerial image — this is a farm that would
greatly benefit from the use of agricultural BMPs and low -till cropping. The farm(s) on the western bank of
Double Creek could also benefit from this information and implementation, though their current practices are
having less impact on water quality conditions.
Next Steps:
- Seek federal and state assistance to restore brook floater habitat to these streams;
- Contact the owner(s) of the farms along Double Creek about agricultural BMPs and cost -share
programs;
- Prioritize the restoration of stream buffer along Double Creek and/or the use of low- or no -till
crop practices in the field that drains to the creek;
- Use stream restoration as needed and promote the project to the area as a demonstration
project.

FIGURE 70:: FROM (HIGH COUNTRY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 2012)
High Country Council of Governments vl+ AW.RV. J*r
Regional Stormwater Project
Ronda'
Memorial Park - - "*
L�lJ:C� iA
❑rnhlom
The Ronda Memorial Park contains a paved parking lot and a concrete canoe launch. Runoff from the majority of the
parking lot flows down a steep bank approximately 20 feet to the Yadkin River. Runoff from the parking lot, driveway,
and roadway above flows down the canoe ramp directly Into the Yadkin River. The runoff from the site introduces oils
and grease, hydrocarbons, metals, and road salt to the stream.
Drainage area =1.33 acre Affected stream = Yadkin River
lmpervfous surface = 0.50 acre; 38% Stream classification = W54V
Page 136
BMA solution
A grade -level drain will be installed
to capture the runoff and drain it
to a channel that will connect to a
bioretention cell in the grassy area.
Bioretention is the preferred BMP,
considering the park environment.

Water duality benefitsl
By capturing and treating the runoff, heavy metals and other pollutants associated with parking lots and roadways will
be prevented from entering the stream. The bioretention cell will also reduce erosion and sedimentation resuitingfrom
stormwater draining unchecked down the hank to the river.
Load Load 000
0000
before 6 after
BMP BMP
Cost estimate
Construction $9,950
Design & engineering 5OQ
$10,450
Funding
North Carolina Clear Water Management Trust Fund
Soil & Water District Community Conservation Assistance
Project Program
North Carolina Division of Water Resources Development Project Grant Program
1The methodology used to obtain values was developed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency- U = unavailable
Methodology used to calculate cost estimates is obtained
from Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual No. 3 URBAN
STORMWATER RETROFIT PRACTICES Version 1 0Tom Schueler, David Hirschman, Michael Novotney, and Jennifer Zielinski, Center
for Wate rshed Protection, 2007
99
!�*jib+
®��i+i�r+�
Y
�r�r�r�
�
raga+
a�a»
r.r.r.+�r.r.r.r0
®�
r.r_r.r
r.r.r

Page 138

Diaeram and ahotoeranh of a tvnical bioretention cell:
Maw TY+UE zkct oN E
"A WWfil l4RAm WFA E },
0" DROP d GU
CPEPJ"O jT'PI - -
wSpNw� e {+ayW(.
Rrsww e
AT ' /Dun IAIiF11IAt(.
3AND T / 1LL MO To
■- or
AYM TD
AYOG R 7F1►AF EAK �
V Of ma onwrEL uwm Fit
N L[U Of F1LT[R FRWC
1(10
AAE/
IaL
SrS�
�-~ 'OVGRrLOW 6ruftly DR/yr/
#ALEY i ADOVE k R
PONG40 DCFTM
GMALLO FC MXW
APR^ -i' DEPrN. VW
Few Gft i wrrui PHRM_
Fan ormlcwr
iPEA GRAVEL !mmL ER RAM
SrSTGY TO lrCvW OPA4WOE
DMTWK Ne. OR NRCEVW4C WATMRG

16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Middle Prong Roaring River Subwatershed - Double Creek 2
Page 9 of t,=
i
i
ti
Ave
r
r
Add& AS
Eco V i}NIY
0 Stream: Catchments
0 SURRvCOUNTv
ASK COUNTY Stream Health
Most HealtrV
- 2
- MeC40EL-L
YPDKLN COUNTY
4 IF
ILDV%LL LINTY - Least Healtfry
OUfnfY ❑ate 0aota.M14
IJPdKsd JuuNry,:d15
Q Etkin Creek Watershed 0 Jonesville Intake w.wShed �ruawrr*tuao n as ev ou or•
Page 140

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY:
MIDDLE PRONG ROARING RIVER, DOUBLE CREEK 2
MMMMI
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
3
AGRICULTURE
31.2
43%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
16
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
24
16.7
33%
23%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
1,680
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
19
TOTAL
72
100%
TOTAL
2,113
This small catchment on the Double Creek tributary of the Middle Prong of Roaring River is surprisingly
unprotected. Most of the catchment is forested on both banks of the creek, yet the creek itself is unbuffered
and seems to be actively cleared for pasture and as a backyard feature. This stretch of Double Creek is
immediately downstream of the much more intensively used catchment (Double Creek 1 ) and immediately
upstream of the Middle Prong of the Roaring River. It drains directly to trout waters and receives highly -
degraded waters. Its value to the whole Roaring River watershed is high, as its value as a demonstration
project.
The Wilkes County Soil & Water Conservation District agents should reach out the few landowners who abut
Double Creek about the value of stream buffers and low- or no -till agricultural practices. This half -mile of
stream could be greatly improved with some small improvements that mitigate sedimentation of the creek. The
benefits for downstream conditions could be enormous, especially in relation to the trout fisheries the NC WRC
is cultivating in this watershed. Sediment and a lack of shade cover are two of the primary stressors to trout —
if these two environmental conditions are prevented and the natural waters are cold enough, stocked and
native trout can thrive. There may also be an opportunity to extend these fisheries up Double Creek if
neighbors are willing to take similar steps to restore stream buffers and prevent sediment runoff.
Next Steps:
- Contact the landowner(s) along Double Creek about agricultural BMPs and cost -share
programs, prioritizing the restoration of stream buffer along Double Creek and/or the use of
low- or no -till crop practices;
- Restore streams as needed and promote the project to the area as a demonstration project.

FIGURE 71:: FROM (HIGH COUNTRY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 2012)
High Country Council of Governments ylsr tir+v tqr
Regional 5tormwater Project
ell -
Town of Wilkesboro
Tyson Plant (Main/Cherry Streets)
Problem
An unnamed tributary of Cub Creek and the stormwater from the
Tyson plant and surrounding area flow down the channel shown in
the right photo (flow and channel location shown by red arrow), in
addition to the typical pollutants associated with parking lots,
drives, and rooftops, water quality testing by the Town a few feet
downstream revealed high levels of BOD, low dissolved oxygen, and
high levels of fecal coliform bacteria.
Drainage area = 116.57 acres Impervious surface = 62.8 acres; 54%
A
etla
�• •:RS ¢. ,n. ;
rah sf, '! r..
Ok
Page 142
.n r�
i 'f,
r x• �v' � ��Y`
Affected stream= unnamed tributary to Cub Creek
Stream classification = C
BMP solution
A weir will be installed on the existing concrete
channel to divert stormflow to an adjacent parcel
where a series of wetland cells will be constructed.
The topography is conducive to this BMP and will
provide substantial filtration of the targeted
pollutants. The Town is currently engaged in a
major streambank restoration effort on Cub Creek
only a short distance downstream, which this BMP
will complement and help protect from excessive
i,; stormwater flows.

Water quality benefits'
By capturing and treating the runoff, heavy metals and
other pollutants associated with parking lots and roadways will
be filtered. The BMP will remedy high levels of BOD, low dissolved oxygen, and high levels of fecal coliform bacteria
currently in the stream. Elimination of the stormwater volume from the creek will lessen erosion downstream that
often results from higher stream volumes.
Load Load 699
before after 0.0.00
00.0.01
0.00
Cost estimate
Construction $182,236
Design & engineering 9,111
$191, 347
Funding
North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund
Soil & Water District Community Conservation Assistance Project Program
North Carolina Division of Water Resources Development Project Grant Program
iThe methodology used to obtain values was developed by
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency_ U = unavailable
Methodology used to calculate cost estimates is obtained from'Urban Subwatershed Restoration Munuaf No. 3 URBAN
STORMWATER RETROFIT PRACTICES Version 1.0 Tam Schueler, David Hirschman, Michael Novotney, and Jennifer Zielinski, Center
for Watershed Protection, 2007
102

Page I AA

❑iaeram and nhatoEranh of a tvoical stormwater wetland:
•d• WAB�wE9OiS w
wwkSrd 6T1
C6RV m
IL,:" f
P-WK
- � M.H. MCk
104
PLAN VIEW
PROFILE

16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Mulberry Creek Subwatershed - Dungeon Creek
Page 10of16
r.
i
=yam
w-
r�
-- a
W
LEGNTYR'.
0 Stream Catchments
ASHE COUNTYRRYCOUNTY
Stream Health
Most Healthy
2
ML{iE5
M.J lhllah .
ixnet.. YADKIN COUNTY
4 IF
Least Healthy
ALDUVELL LINTY - .....
R C T IREDELL COUNTY
Date: October, 2014
Updated January, 7015
Elkin Creek Watershed Jonesville Intake Watershed
nrCDMO'4TTRLkL) o oWe o.o�01 oac
Hf ,.Ir tial l'rrl-r.r i�
YIl6 .
Page 146

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY:
MULBERRY CREEK,
DUNGEON CREEK
MMMMI
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
30
AGRICULTURE
20.4
6.4%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
23
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
120.7
66.6
38%
21.5%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
RECREATIONAL
108.8
34%
CLASS 5
5,923
TOTAL
53
TOTAL
319
100%
TOTAL
5,923
Dungeon Creek is in an odd situation, where all of the land surrounding it is untouched — indeed 34% of it is
permanently protected as part of the State Parks system — but the stream corridor has been completely
stripped of its buffer. The residences along Dungeon Creek have eliminated all trees and shrubs from the
buffer area while keeping all other areas completely vegetated with thick forests. This could be for the view
from the hillside; for access to the creek; or simply because Longbottom Road was built along the stream
corridor. Whatever the case, all runoff is flowing to this mile of a trout stream unfiltered. Concentrated
outreach efforts by the Wilkes County Soil and Water Conservation District or the Wilkes County Planning
Department about the value of stream buffers for trout, flooding, and other water quality concerns to these
homeowners would be a simple first step that could yield great water quality results. If the need for buffer
clearance for viewing the valley or creek access, simply using shrubs in the buffer area could be almost as
beneficial as a forested buffer. It is unfortunate that the NC Department of Transportation constructed
Longbottom Road directly within the stream corridor, and it would be appropriate if they funded any
revegetation and/or stormwater management efforts here.
Next Steps:
- Reach out to homeowners on Longbottom Road about restoring a stream buffer along
Dungeon Creek with supporting materials on why they should;
- Contact the regional office of NC DOT about managing the stormwater runoff from
Longbottom Road to protect trout waters.

16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Mulberry Creek Subwatershed - Joshua Creek
Page 11 of 16
�i
�Jr
ii
.r
kin
EOHANY UNTY
0 Stream Catchments
ASHE COUNTY SURRYCOUNTY
Stream Health
9
{�
1 Most Healthy
I9e
2
VNLKESe0UNTYJ�YADKIN
COUNTY
4 IF
pLDUVELL UNTYLeastHealthy
OUNTY
I''L ""�r rar�u
., .I 1.
Date: October, 2014
Updated January, 2015
n Om a.+s os+ oas
Mks
Elkin Creek Watershed 0 Watershed Jonesville Intake
Page 148

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY:
MULBERRY CREEK - JOSHUA CREEK
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
13
AGRICULTURE
119.3
57%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
23
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
50.3
39.6
24%
19%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
1.6
1.6%
CLASS 4
0
RECREATIONAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
5,134
TOTAL
36
TOTAL
211
100%
TOTAL
5,134
NC DOT's construction of Longbottom Road within the stream corridor of a mile of Mulberry Creek's tributaries
degrades its waters. There is no evidence of a vegetated buffer within the road's right-of-way or within the
stream buffer: all stormwater runoff drains to Joshua Creek unfiltered and unimpeded, jeopardizing the
sensitive waters of this headwaters stream. There are homes along the entire stretch of Longbottom Road and
Joshua Creek that have runoff draining directly to this creek. It is appropriate that the NC DOT bears the
costs for managing the stormwater runoff from this runoff and support the revegetation of this stream buffer.
There is one farm that also appears to be having a large impact to the conditions of Joshua Creek — a tilled
field near this catchment's headwaters that may be tobacco. Buffering the runoff from this field is necessary;
encouraging the landowner to consider crops other than tobacco or the use of low- or no -till practices could
be very helpful for local water quality conditions. This farm could benefit from enrollment in a cost -share
program that could offset these costs. Wilkes County Soil & Water Conservation District agents should contact
this farmer about interest in these possible programs and/or practices.
Next Steps:
- Reach out to homeowners on Longbottom Road about restoring a stream buffer along
Dungeon Creek with supporting materials on why they should;
- Contact the regional office of NC DOT about managing the stormwater runoff from
Longbottom Road to protect trout waters;
- Wilkes County Soil & Water Conservation District reach out to the farmer who manages the
tilled field in this catchment about the need for and benefits of a stream buffer as well as
low- and no -till cropping, as well as related cost -share programs.

FIGURE 72: FROM (HIGH COUNTRY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 2012)
High Country Council of Governments
Regional Stormwater Project
Town of Wilkesboro
Wilkesboro United Methodist Church
Problem
105
Page 150
Runoff from the church parking lot flaws down a
drainage ditch to a pipe where it is discharged directly
into a tributary of Cub Creek.
Drainage area = 0.51 acre
Impervious surface = 0.47 acre; 92%
Affected stream = unnamed tributary to Cub Creek
Stream classification = C
RMP cnlitfinn
A bio-grade step or series of bioretention cells will be
installed along the drainage ditch. This BMP will fit
well into the existing topography and landscaping
of the church grounds without excessive
modification. The Town is currently engaged in a
substantial streambank restoration effort on Cub
Creek only a short distance downstream, which this
BMP will complement and help protect from
excessive flows.

Water quality benefits-'
By capturing and treating the runoff, heavy metals and
other pollutants associated with parking lots and roadways will
be prevented from entering the stream.
The BMP will
also reduce velocity of stormwater discharging to the creek,
reducing streambank erosion.
*000
before 0
000
0-0004
Load
3MP
Reduction
CADMIUM ®ititi+r
®U
Cost estimate3
Construction $11,933
Design & engineering 1000
$12,933
Funding
North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund
Soil & Water District Community Conservation Assistance Project Program
North Carolina Division of Water Resources Development Project Grant Program
r The methodology used to obtain values was developed by
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency_ U = unavailable
Methodology used to calculate cost estimates is obtained from -'Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual No. 3 URBAN
STORM WATER RETROFIT PRACTICES Version 1_0Tom Schueler,
David Hirschman, Michael Novotney, and JenniferZielinski, Center
for Watershed Protection, 2007
106

Page 152

Diaffram and phataEraph of a typical biaratantion call:
AT 001 r 5.#, mVEFO%CE;
NCTp-TILL AFrR-L. f-{F
3AIA / - IL 10
AWpM A 3KARr EOff
4' Or PTA YAIWQ OVER P�
IN LrU Or IILTEII r1AEC
109
bORETG 5m
I iLMDERu""E
sTSTEAI
s PEA. w.AVFL 1 PWS UNOr PrO wp+
SFSTMA T6 %rC*W oR Woe
WTWOM -_ MEGEM WATER$

16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Mulberry Creek Subwatershed - Mulberry Creek 1
Page 12of16
I Stream Catchments
Stream Health
cl+W�VVIrj ------ -- ---- i
Updated T. ry, 7f115
Elkin Creek Watershed Jonesville Intake Watershed rI[,DMO'4T TRSALI o om 0.1E 027 0,35
Kf ,.I1 INAI l'i V-I•4 i� mims
Page 154

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY:
MULBERRY CREEK 1
MMMMI
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
18
AGRICULTURE
114.1
48%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
35
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
91.5
24.1
38%
10%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
3.7
1.6%
CLASS 4
0
MOBILE HOMES
5.7
2%
CLASS 5
2,513
TOTAL
53
TOTAL
239
100%
TOTAL
2,513
This half -mile stretch of Mulberry Creek suffers from the unusual situation of its upstream tributaries Dungeon
and Joshua Creeks: it is a largely forested and untouched catchment that has a cleared, farmed stream
corridor. It is home to the endangered bog turtle, which have habitat needs. Furthermore, this area is also
home to the golden eagle and the Carolina foothills crayfish, both priority species for conservation. In this
more mountainous landscape with its steep slopes and challenging soils, it makes sense why the flatter
floodplain areas desired for development and agriculture. However, the lack of stream buffers and
degraded stream conditions demand greater local stewardship through best management practices and,
especially, stream buffer restoration. Mulberry Creek appears to be lined mostly by farms that use the
surrounding lands for pasture, though there are some trailers and parking lots lining the creek as well.
The Wilkes County Soil and Water Conservation District should reach out to these landowners with information
about stream buffers and Carolina bogs. They should provide them with information on cost -share programs
that provide support for livestock exclusion fencing. The benefits for this creek would be immediate, and could
restore conditions so that this foothill creek could sustainably support a stocked trout population. A stormwater
rain garden would be very helpful on the creek's parking lots and residences.
Next Steps:
- Reach out to homeowners about restoring a stream buffer and bogs along Mulberry Creek
with supporting materials on why they should;
- Wilkes County Soil & Water Conservation District reach out to the farmers who manages the
pastures in this catchment about the need for and benefits of a stream buffer as well as low -
and no -till cropping, as well as related cost -share programs, especially for the protection of
endangered and threatened species needs;
- Reach out to the residences with information on rain gardens and how they can benefit
homeowners as well as Mulberry Creek and its ecology, including fish.

16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Mulberry Creek Subwatershed - Mulberry Creek 2
Page 13of16
J k1.
LM
M 5 ►
LEGHANY UNTY
0 Stream Catchments
ASHE COUNTY SURRYCOUNTY
Stream Health
q Most Healthy
fl e S
2
VNLKI S OUNTY R'+
M.J lhllah .
ixne�. YADKIN COUNTY
4 IF
5 Least Healthy
ALDVVELL LINTY - .....
R C T IREDELL COUNTY
Date: Odober, 2014
Updated January, 2D15
20
Elkin Creek Watershed Jonesville Intake Watershed
nICD.HO'4T Tmv o o0.Is 036
Kf ,.I1 INAI l'i V-I•4 i,
NIl6
Page 156

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY:
MULBERRY CREEK 2
MMMMI
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
20
AGRICULTURE
155.4
54%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
36
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
64.1
53
22%
18.5%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
3,934
INSTITUTIONAL
13.7
5%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
56
TOTAL
286
100%
TOTAL
3,934
This stretch of Mulberry Creek is about 2/3-mile in length and requires improved agricultural practices,
namely improved stream buffers, low- or no -till cropping, and habitat restoration for the priority conservation
species found here: the endangered bog turtle, the golden eagle, and the Carolina foothills crayfish. It is
likely that after years of degradation from this land use, the creek also needs to be restored. About 5% of
the catchment is occupied by a public facility, which should be using stormwater BMPs and stream protection
practices to ensure the health of local water quality conditions.
There are some minimal stream buffers along the creek, but they are under fifty -feet wide, the minimum to
begin to have stream structure and ecological protection. These vegetated areas simply need to be
expanded from what they currently are for improvements. Those areas without buffers need to begin using
them. The agricultural fields may be growing tobacco, as active erosion in the fields is evident in the aerial
images. Outreach from Wilkes County Soil and Water Conservation District on the value of low- and no -till
agricultural practices for these fields appears to be needed. The reduction of sediment from these fields will
have immediate benefits for Mulberry Creek and the Yadkin River, and may be helpful in establishing trout in
these waters.
Next Steps:
- Reach out to farmers about restoring a stream buffer and bogs along Mulberry Creek with
supporting materials on why they should;
- Seek federal and state support for restoring endangered species habitat to this catchment;
- Wilkes County Soil & Water Conservation District reach out to the farmers who manage the
tilled fields in this catchment about the need for and benefits of a stream buffer as well as
low- and no -till cropping, as well as related cost -share programs.

16 Most Stressed Stream
Catchments
Mulberry Creek Subwatershed
- Mulberry Creek 3
page 14 c� 6
A,
r-.
LEGHANY UNTY
0 Stream Catchments
ASHE COUNTY SUIRRYCOUNTY
Stream Health
q Most Healtty
'flee Ste._
2
WNLKI S OUNTY R-+
M.J lhllah .
ixne�. YADKIN COUNTY
4 IF
ALDUVELL UNTY
R C T IREDELL COUNTY
5 Least Healthy
Date: October, 2014
Updated January, 2015
nICDMONTTRLkv o mi% oII5 oats a -I
Kf ,.I��tial l'i 11-I14
.
Elkin Creek Watershed Watershed Jonesville Intake
Page 158

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY:
MULBERRY CREEK 3
MMMMI
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
0
AGRICULTURE
25.8
81 %
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
7
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
2.4
5.9
8%
18%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
1,403
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
7
TOTAL
31.7
100%
TOTAL
1,403
This very small catchment affords an opportunity to improve conditions in a degraded stretch of Mulberry
Creek with the outcome of a demonstration project that can show the public the value(s) of protecting streams
with buffers. The buffers here are inconsistent and offer little protection for Mulberry Creek. If expanded to
at least 50 feet, they could adequately protect the local and downstream water quality conditions of
Mulberry Creek, improving habitat and flooding conditions, and perhaps be able to support a trout fishery.
The NC DOT built Mulberry Road nearly on top of Mulberry Creek in this catchment and should bear some of
the financial responsibility for improving the stream and buffer conditions. They should also use stormwater
BMPs to ensure that the creek is protected from stormwater runoff from the road.
There are two pastures along Mulberry Creek in this catchment that may be impacting local water quality
conditions, including bog turtle habitat. The Wilkes County Soil and Water Conservation District should speak
with the property owner(s) about enhancing the vegetated buffer on these properties and ensure that they
are excluding any livestock feeding here. The agents should also see if low- and no -till agricultural practices
are being used: there appears to be active erosion. Enrollment in available agricultural cost -share programs
would improve these conditions and support the farmers in these efforts.
Next Steps:
Reach out to the farmers on Mulberry Creek about restoring a stream buffer and bogs with
supporting materials on why they should;
Contact the NC DOT regional office about managing stormwater runoff from Mulberry Road
and restoring priority habitats to the catchment;
Wilkes County Soil & Water Conservation District reach out to the farmer(s) who manages the
tilled fields in this catchment about the need for and benefits of a stream buffer as well as
low- and no -till cropping, as well as related cost -share programs.

16 Most Stressed Stream
Catchments
Swan Creek Subwatershed
- Crays Creek
Page 15 DP 16
_T
ti
t
I
s
LEGHANY LINTY
0 Stream Catchments
ASHE COUNTY SUIRRYCOUNTY
Stream Health
q Most Healthy
'fl e S
2
Ye.il.
ML{iE5 WNFY R'+
M.J lhllah .
ixne�. YADKIN COUNTY
Least Healthy
ALDUVELL LINTY
R C T IREDELL COUNTY
Date: October, 2014
Updated January, 2015
rirnuourrrwu o onss o.+I o.tes on
4
.I1 Itial l'i 11-A4
Elkin Creek Watershed Watershed
Jonesville Intake
Page 160

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY:
SWAN CREEK - GRAYS CREEK
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
2
AGRICULTURE
192.2
99%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
7
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
0.8
1.1
0.4%
0.6%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
3,856
TOTAL
9
TOTAL
194
100%
TOTAL
3,856
This catchment is being actively degraded by one farm that has no stream buffers and six full poultry houses
as well as two smaller houses that may be used for storing and drying the chicken litter. Swan Creek is knowns
to be potential brook floater freshwater mussel habitat. According to the Yadkin Riverkeeper's calculations, it
is possible that these six houses produce 150,000 chickens per year. These chickens, in turn, produce about
675,000 Ibs of nutrient -rich waste that will be dried on the property and then land -applied to nearby
agricultural fields, often at higher than agronomic rates.
The production of chickens and their litter is not necessarily an immediate water quality concern, nor are the
forests uphill of the chicken houses that are being actively logged. However, with the receiving stream of this
catchment having no vegetated buffer to protect it from runoff, these lands need to use relevant best
management practices, or they will definitely degrade local waters. Similarly, if the pastures surrounding the
creek are not using conservation tillage, these farms are actively degrading water quality conditions.
Next Steps:
The 2/3-mile Grays Creek is in immediate need of full stream restoration. It also needs a vegetated buffer
restored to it. The Wilkes County Soil and Water Conservation District needs to work with this landowner to
ensure that all conservation practices possible are being used on this farm until the stream can be restored.
The agents should work with the farmer and local engineers to draft preliminary designs for a stream
restoration and pursues grants funds from the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Duke Energy
Water Resources Fund, among others, to support construction and planning of this project. The landowner will
need to be a willing and active participant in these efforts, at a minimum dedicating a conservation easement
along Grays Creek for the restored stream and buffer. It may take time to convince them of the many
benefits of such a project, but the impacts of this degraded stream to Swan Creek, the Yadkin River, and
Jonesville's water supply are disproportionate to the size of the stream.

16 Most Stressed Stream Catchments
Swan Creek Subwatershed - Unknown Creek
page 16 of 16
�1
AIF
LEGHRN'f 11NTY
0 Stream Catchments
ASHE COUNTY SUIRRYCOUNTY Stream Health
q Most Healthy
'fl e S 2
Ye.il.
VNLKI S OUNTY R-J
M.J lhllah .
YADKIN COUNTY
ixne�.
IF
ALDUVELL LINTY - Least Healthy
R C T IREDELL COUNTY Date: October, 2014
Updated January, 2015
Elkin Creek Watershed 1= Jonesville Intake Watershed nICD.HONTTRLkv o o r, o.tx OLM M
Hf ,.I1 INAI l'i 11-r14 -I.' .*
Page 162

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITY:
SWAN CREEK — UNKNOWN TRIBUTARY
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
4
AGRICULTURE
162.1
78%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
12
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
31.3
13.3
15%
7%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
700
COMMERCIAL
2.2
1 %
CLASS 4
3,418
INDUSTRIAL
0
0%
CLASS 5
1,261
TOTAL
16
TOTAL
209
100%
TOTAL
5,379
This mile -long, small tributary of Swan Creek, a north -flowing tributary of the Yadkin River, provides nearly
no stream buffers and is in clear need of conservation tillage practices.. It appears to be managed by a
single farmer. It is likely that after years of degradation from this land use, the creek also needs to be
restored. It should be prioritized for attention by the Wilkes County Soil and Water Conservation District, as it
is at its confluence with Swan Creek and could be remedied with mostly inexpensive solutions.
There are some minimal stream buffers in the creeks' headwaters. They are also excellent stream buffers
upstream and downstream of this stretch of tributary to draw upon as examples. At this location, Swan Creek
is lined with buffers on both sides, preventing it from being polluted from runoff from the agricultural fields
along it. Most of these buffers are close to one -hundred feet in width, but a fifty -foot wide buffer is the
minimum size necessary for them to begin to provide stream structure and ecological protection.
The agricultural fields may be growing tobacco, as active erosion in the fields is evident in the aerial images.
Outreach from Wilkes County Soil and Water Conservation District on the value of conservation tillage
practices for these fields appears to be needed. The reduction of sediment from these fields will have
immediate benefits for Swan Creek, the Yadkin River, and Jonesville's water supply.
Next Steps:
- Reach out to farmers about restoring a stream buffer with supporting materials;
- Wilkes County Soil & Water Conservation District reach out to the farmers who manage the
tilled fields in this catchment about the need for and benefits of a stream buffer as well as
low- and no -till cropping, as well as related cost -share programs;
- Assess whether these stream are in need of restoration with engineers and pursue funding.
Jonesville Intake Watershed Priorities: Conservation

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
Harris Creek Subwatershed - Harris Creek
Page 6 of 15
= Stream Catchments
Stream Health
1 Most Healthy
2
3
4 IF
5 Least Healthv
Date: October, 2014
PUDMCWIT TRIAD a Vi 63 OA 4.6
RCuH Mint 1.I V K I I .,
Page 164

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
HARRIS CREEK
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
0
AGRICULTURE
20.2
3%
CLASS 1
13,250
PARTIALLY
12
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
0
60
0%
8%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
RECREATION
632
89%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
12
TOTAL
712
100%
TOTAL
13,250
Nearly this entire catchment is within federally -protected lands of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and shows the
value of such protection. As it is within the viewshed of the Blue Ridge Parkway, development is highly
restricted within most of this catchment. The streams support trout, and may actually support a native brook
trout population. The pristine forests provide habitat for many animals and plants, including some seen few
other place on the planet. Species such as the golden eagle and the cerulean warbler are major draws for
tourists. The catchment also features trails that are part of the Mountains -to -Sea Trail, bringing visitors and
tourism revenue to this other economically hard-hit area of North Carolina. Immediately downstream of this
catchment, where agricultural and residential development is seen, Harris Creek's stream buffers degrade in
quality, threatening these trout waters.
Next Steps:
- Promote the assets of the Roaring River and its tributaries in a countywide or Yadkin Valley
marketing campaign;
- Ensure that any trout streams in this and adjacent catchments are permanently protected and
sustained.

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
Harris Creek Tributary Subwatershed - Unk Creek
Paq� 7 -.f _
r
';+LLEGHANY NTY
0 Stream Catchments
"'r+ECOUNTY ti
-� sURRYCOUNTY
Stream Health
I Most Health-
[
WILKEs OUNFY
YAD!(IN COUNTY
3
7
4
I
IF
�
"ALpVYE"4UNTY +
�IREOELLCWN7Y j -'_-�—
5 Least Heafihy
Date: Ocb3bff.20t4
Elkin Creek Watershed Q Jaies�llle intake Watershed
I EGNIN L TWO
a o •s c: +: c.s
Page 166

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
HARRIS CREEK - UNK CREEK
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
4
AGRICULTURE
35.7
4%
CLASS 1
16,868
PARTIALLY
1
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
0
56.9
0%
7%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
RECREATION
735.2
89%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
5
TOTAL
828
100%
TOTAL
16,868
Nearly this entire catchment is within the federally -protected lands of the Blue Ridge Parkway or the state -
protected lands of Stone Mountain State Park, and shows the value of such protection. As it is within the
viewshed of both parks, development is highly restricted within most of this catchment. The nearly three miles
of streams support trout, and may actually support a native brook trout population. The pristine forests
provide habitat for many animals and plants, including some seen few other place on the planet, bringing
visitors and tourism revenue to this other economically hard-hit area of North Carolina. Species such as the
golden eagle and the cerulean warbler are major draws for tourists.
There are 57 acres not necessarily under permanent conservation. The Blue Ridge Land Trust should contact
these property owners about selling their property or placing conservation easements on it. Immediately
downstream of this catchment, where agricultural and residential development is seen, Harris Creek's stream
buffers degrade in quality, threatening these trout waters.
Next Steps:
- Promote the assets of the Roaring River and its tributaries in a countywide or Yadkin Valley
marketing campaign;
- Contact the owner of the "Vacant" property in this catchment about permanently protecting it
from dense development;
- Ensure that any trout streams in this and adjacent catchments are permanently protected and
sustained.

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
East Prong Subwatershed - E. Prong Roaring River 1
ASHE COUNTY , . `j SURRY C04JN'fY
-Hi
WILKES OUyTY
Y4DKIN COUNTY
L� I
INEOELL CW N7Y i
Stream Catchments
Stream Health
I Most Health-
2
3
4 IF
5 Least Heafthy
Elkin Creek Watershed Q Jaiesvflle Intake Watershed J IGNI AL rKun ,
f IUPiAL Lr-X ?F1C I l I
Page 168
Date: Ocb3bff. 20t4
am 306 a VG

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
EAST PRONG ROARING RIVER 1
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
0
AGRICULTURE
0
0%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
3
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
0
4
0%
7%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
1,528
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
RECREATION
51.2
93%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
3
TOTAL
55
100%
TOTAL
1,528
This entire catchment is within the federally -protected lands of the state -protected lands of Stone Mountain
State Park, and shows the value of such protection. The catchment is only not rated as "pristine" (5) due to
Stone Mountain Road crossing through it. As it is within the viewshed of both the park and the Blue Ridge
Parkway, development is highly restricted within most of this catchment. The streams support trout, and may
actually support a native brook trout population. The pristine forests provide habitat for many animals and
plants, including some seen few other place on the planet, bringing visitors and tourism revenue to this other
economically hard-hit area of North Carolina. Species such as the golden eagle and the cerulean warbler are
major draws for tourists. There is a property not under the Park's ownership, and it should be determined if
this "Vacant" property is protected from intense development with a conservation easement. Immediately
downstream of this catchment, where agricultural and residential development is seen, the Roaring River's
stream buffers degrade in quality, threatening these trout waters.
Next Steps:
- Promote the assets of the Roaring River and its tributaries in a countywide or Yadkin Valley
marketing campaign;
- Ensure that any trout streams in this and adjacent catchments are permanently protected and
sustained.

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
East Prong Subwatershed - E. Prong Roaring River 2
r�
;i
r4LLEGHANY NTY
s Stream Catchments
°'r+EcWNT� SURRYCOU" Stream Health
J I Most Health-
WILKEs OUrFY 3
YAD!(IN COUNTY 4 IF
7 I
"AL6NELL4UNTY + 5 Least Heafihy
�IREOELLCOUNTY I � '_- —
� _ — Date: Octpber, 2014
Elkin Creek Watershed Q Jaiesvllle Intake Watershed r:tn►xwrrKun , ,x: ac�i a+3s c a
Page 170

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
EAST PRONG ROARING RIVER 2
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
0
AGRICULTURE
0
0%
CLASS 1
0
PARTIALLY
3
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
0
18.5
0%
15%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
3,159
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
RECREATION
104.5
85%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
3
TOTAL
123
100%
TOTAL
3,159
Nearly all of this catchment is within the federally -protected lands of the state -protected lands of Stone
Mountain State Park. The catchment is rated as an impacted stream due to the cleared pasture land at its
confluence with Garden Creek and the presence of Stone Mountain Road within the stream corridor through
the entire catchment. The stream buffer appears present, but it is imperative that NC DOT use the most
effective stormwater practices to protect these waters from the impacts of runoff from the road. Similarly, the
presence of best management practices should be confirmed on the pasture near the end of this stretch of the
Roaring River's East Prong. As it is within the viewshed of both the park and the Blue Ridge Parkway,
development is highly restricted within most of this catchment.
The streams support trout, and may actually support a native brook trout population. The pristine forests
provide habitat for many animals and plants, including some seen few other place on the planet, bringing
visitors and tourism revenue to this other economically hard-hit area of North Carolina. Species such as the
golden eagle and the cerulean warbler are major draws for tourists. There are 18.5 acres not under the
Park's ownership, and it should be determined if this "Vacant" property is protected from intense development
with a conservation easement.
Next Steps:
- Promote the assets of the Roaring River and its tributaries in a countywide or Yadkin Valley
marketing campaign;
- Confirm the presence of best management practices by the NC DOT and the owner of the
pasture land near the confluence with Garden Creek;
- Ensure that any trout streams in this and adjacent catchments are permanently protected and
sustained.

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
Garden Creek Subwatershed - Garden Creek
rnl
tl 1 x
I
i
r4LLEGHANY NTY
s Stream Catchments
°'r+EcauNrY i SURRYCOUNTY Stream Health
I Must Healthy
-Hi I
[ WILKES OUyFY 3
f - G
YADICIN COUNTY 4
IF
7 I
ALL)VYELLUNTY J 5 Least Heafthy
�INEOELL—
� Date: Ocb3bff. 20t4
Elkin Creek WatershedQ Jates�IEle intake Watershed !'It0MPNTT*IAV o c_s as a-:
•CGNINAL LUl PW I - 1� -
Page 172

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
GARDEN CREEK
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
0
AGRICULTURE
0
0%
CLASS 1
36,678
PARTIALLY
13
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
0
241.7
0%
11 %
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
13,966
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
RECREATION
1,930
89%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
13
TOTAL
2,172
100%
TOTAL
50,644
Nearly this entire catchment is within federally -protected lands of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and shows the
value of such protection. As it is within the viewshed of the Blue Ridge Parkway, development is highly
restricted within most of this catchment. The nearly ten miles of streams support trout, and may actually
support a native trout population. The pristine forests provide habitat for many animals and plants, including
some seen few other place on the planet. Species such as the golden eagle and the cerulean warbler are
major draws for tourists. There are 242 acres in the catchment that are not owned by the Park, and the NC
Division of Parks and Recreation and the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy should determine if these "Vacant"
lands are permanently conserved through an easement or other legal arrangement.
The catchment also features trails that are part of the Mountains -to -Sea Trail, bringing visitors and tourism
revenue to this other economically hard-hit area of North Carolina. These watersheds serve as pilot projects
for others throughout both the Jonesville Intake and Big Elkin Creek watersheds, less as a goal, which would
unrealistic in more developed areas, but as what can be possible through conservation efforts. Some of the
ecology supported within the Garden Creek catchment will not be seen in other, less protected areas, but
supporting trout, hiking, and other features that can draw tourists and protect water supplies are goals that
can be achieved throughout both watersheds.
Next Steps:
- Promote the assets of the Roaring River and its tributaries in a countywide or Yadkin Valley
marketing campaign;
- Determine the level of conservation protection on "Vacant" properties;
- Ensure that any trout streams in this and adjacent catchments are permanently protected and
sustained.

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
Widows Creek Subwatershed - Widows Creek
F'a�� ' 1 =f 1 �•
t4LLEGHANY NTY
Stream Catchments
``'ffE call"TSURRYCOUIVrY
Stream Health
I Must Health-
.�/
[
WILKEs OUNFY
3
YAD!(IN COUNTY
r _ f
7
4
I
IF
� _ —
"ALpVYE"4UNTY + '_- —
�IREOELLCOUN7Y j
5 Least Heafihy
�
Date: Ocb3ber, 20t4
Elkin Creek Watershed Q Jaiesvllle Intake Watershed
�160 I rWWWT TWO
o c. is o y ,,. ce
- �
f•EGNINAL LUl PW I
Page 174

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
WIDOWS CREEK
MMMMI
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
0
AGRICULTURE
0
0%
CLASS 1
24,473
PARTIALLY
4
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
0
9
0%
1 %
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
RECREATION
1,182
89%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
4
TOTAL
1,191
100%
TOTAL
24,473
Nearly this entire catchment is within federally -protected lands of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and shows the
value of such protection. As it is within the viewshed of the Blue Ridge Parkway, development is highly
restricted within most of this catchment. The over four miles of streams support trout, and may actually support
a native trout population. The pristine forests provide habitat for many animals and plants, including some
seen few other place on the planet. Species such as the golden eagle and the cerulean warbler are major
draws for tourists.
The catchment also features trails that are part of the Mountains -to -Sea Trail, bringing visitors and tourism
revenue to this other economically hard-hit area of North Carolina. These watersheds serve as pilot projects
for others throughout both the Jonesville Intake and Big Elkin Creek watersheds, less as a goal, which would
unrealistic in more developed areas, but as what can be possible through conservation efforts. Some of the
ecology supported within the Widows Creek catchment will not be seen in other, less protected areas, but
supporting trout, hiking, and other features that can draw tourists and protect water supplies are goals that
can be achieved throughout both watersheds.
Next Steps:
Promote the assets of the Widows Creek, the Roaring River, and its tributaries in a countywide
or Yadkin Valley marketing campaign;
Ensure that any trout streams in this and adjacent catchments are permanently protected and
sustained.

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
Cove Creek Subwatershed - Cove Creek
x
1
eg
I
i
- `
�J
.�y
t4LLEGHANY NTY
l Stream Catchments
°'"ECOUNT,
} l SURRYCOU" Stream Health
J I Most Health-
2
WILKES OUyFY 3
` - L
YAD!(IN COUNTY 4
7 I
"ALpVYELL4UNTY + 5 Least Heafihy
IREOELL CW N7Y j ' _- —
Date: Octpber, 2014
Elkin Creek Watershed Q Jaiesvllle intake Watershed PCGNINA UA?W o s= c� o.F c.a
f•C�;IIINAL L+]1 �F1�11
Page 176

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
COVE CREEK
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
0
AGRICULTURE
0
0%
CLASS 1
62,143
PARTIALLY
2
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
0
0
0%
0%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
RECREATION
2,237
100%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
2
TOTAL
2,237
100%
TOTAL
62,143
This entire catchment is within federally -protected lands of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and shows the value of
such protection. As it is within the viewshed of the Blue Ridge Parkway, development is highly restricted within
most of this catchment. The nearly twelve miles of streams support trout, and may actually support a native
brook trout population. The pristine forests provide habitat for many animals and plants, including some seen
few other place on the planet. Species such as the golden eagle and the cerulean warbler are major draws
for tourists. The costs of not having such protections can be seen dramatically in this aerial image at the
cleared forests to the north in Allegheny County.
The catchment also features trails that are part of the Mountains -to -Sea Trail, bringing visitors and tourism
revenue to this other economically hard-hit area of North Carolina. These cacthments serve as pilot projects
for others throughout both the Jonesville Intake and Big Elkin Creek watersheds, less as a goal, which would
unrealistic in more developed areas, but as what can be possible through conservation efforts. Some of the
ecology supported within the Cove Creek catchment will not be seen in other, less protected areas, but
supporting trout, hiking, and other features that can draw tourists and protect water supplies are goals that
can be achieved throughout both watersheds.
Next Steps:
- Promote the assets of Cove Creek, the Roaring River and its tributaries in a countywide or
Yadkin Valley marketing campaign;
- Ensure that any trout streams in this and adjacent catchments are permanently protected and
sustained.

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
Bullhead Creek Subwatershed - Bullhead Creek 1
p a.q� • � lit
�� I
ASF+E COUNTY j SURRY COUNTY
Ir •�
—Hi JI
[ YYILKES OUNrY
f - G
f �.'' Y,4pfIN COUNTY
L� I
I
"ALpVYELL UNTY
ti o .r�� IREOELL CW N7Y i
Page 178
Stream Catchments
Stream Health
I Must Healthy
2
3
4 IF
5 Least Heafthy
Date: Ocb3bff. 20t4
I'1 WWWT TWO o e= ce C& CA =
f: GNINAL

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
BULLHEAD CREEK 1
MMMMI
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
21
AGRICULTURE
0
0%
CLASS 1
47,795
PARTIALLY
27
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
0
0
0%
0%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
6,169
0
COMMERCIAL
0
0%
CLASS 4
0
RECREATION
2,692
100%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
48
TOTAL
2,692
100%
TOTAL
53,964
This entire catchment is within federally -protected lands of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and shows the value of
such protection. As it is within the viewshed of the Blue Ridge Parkway, development is highly restricted within
most of this catchment. The nearly ten miles of streams support trout, and may actually support a native brook
trout population. The pristine forests provide habitat for many animals and plants, including some seen few
other place on the planet. Species such as the golden eagle and the cerulean warbler are major draws for
tourists. The costs of not having such protections can be seen dramatically in this aerial image at the cleared
forests to the north in Allegheny County.
The catchment also features trails that are part of the Mountains -to -Sea Trail, bringing visitors and tourism
revenue to this other economically hard-hit area of North Carolina. These catchments serve as pilot projects
for others throughout both the Jonesville Intake and Big Elkin Creek watersheds, less as a goal, which would
unrealistic in more developed areas, but as what can be possible through conservation efforts. Some of the
ecology supported within the Bullhead Creek catchment will not be seen in other, less protected areas, but
supporting trout, hiking, and other features that can draw tourists and protect water supplies are goals that
can be achieved throughout both watersheds.
Next Steps:
- Promote the assets of Bullhead Creek, the Roaring River and its tributaries in a countywide or
Yadkin Valley marketing campaign;
- Ensure that any trout streams in this and adjacent catchments are permanently protected and
sustained.

15 Most Healthy Stream Catchments
Basin Creek Subwatershed - Basin Creek
4
r_
C
wLLEGMANY NTY
s Stream Catchments
°'"E COUNTY� SURRYCOU" Stream Health
t Must Health-
WILKEs OUrFY 3
YAD!(IN COUNTY 4 IF
7 I
"ALpVYELLUNTY + 5 Least Heafthy
IREDELLCOUN7Y j � '_— —
Date: Octpt�er, 2gt4
Elkin Creek Watershed Q Jaies�llle Intake Watershed r:tn►xwr rKun o ] 3 Q+s as
f• EG N iNAL LUI?NI_ I f iyka '
Page 180

JONESVILLE INTAKE WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRIORITY:
BASIN CREEK
# PARCELS INVOLVED
LAND USE
STREAM FEET
(LINEAR
FEET)
(ACRES; PERCENTAGE)
FULLY
0
AGRICULTURE
22.6
2.5%
CLASS 1
24,547
PARTIALLY
6
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT/UNKNOWN
5.4
2
1 %
0%
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
0
0
INSTITUTIONAL
7.6
1 %
CLASS 4
0
RECREATION
820,8
96%
CLASS 5
0
TOTAL
6
TOTAL
858
100%
TOTAL
24,547
Nearly this entire catchment is within federally -protected lands of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and shows the
value of such protection. As it is within the viewshed of the Blue Ridge Parkway, development is highly
restricted within most of this catchment. The over four miles of streams support trout, and may actually support
a native brook trout population. The pristine forests provide habitat for many animals and plants, including
some seen few other place on the planet. Species such as the golden eagle and the cerulean warbler are
major draws for tourists. The catchment also features trails that are part of the Mountains -to -Sea Trail,
bringing visitors and tourism revenue to this other economically hard-hit area of North Carolina.
There are farms in this catchment that appear to be at its confluence with the Roaring River. They take up
very little area in this catchment, but other land use practices on nearby tributaries have impacted stream
buffer conditions to a concerning level. Some of this is also due to the NC DOT building roads along the
stream corridor, where they could have the greatest potential for impacting streams with stormwater runoff.
Next Steps:
- Promote the assets of Bullhead Creek, the Roaring River and its tributaries in a countywide or
Yadkin Valley marketing campaign;
- Ensure that the NC DOT is using the best available stormwater practices to manage runoff
from Grassy Gap Road;
- Ensure that any trout streams in this and adjacent catchments are permanently protected and
sustained.

Page 182

WORKS CITED
Association, NC Paddle Trails. 2014. http://ncpaddletrails.com/default.aspx (accessed September 2,
2014).
Bailey, Andy. "Utilizing Strip Tillage for Tobacco Production." University of Kentucky College of
Agriculture. 2011.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sou rce=web&cd=1&ved=OCCAQFjAA&u rl=
http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ca.uky.edu%2Fanr%2FAgent%2520Resources%2F2011%2520Updates%
2FPowerPoints%2FHopkinsviIle _West%2FBailey_Utilizing%2520Strip%2520Tillage%2520for%25
20Tobacco%252 (accessed September 2014).
Baker, Brandon. Solar Carbon Cowboys: Arizona State Professor and Filmmaker Showcases Drought -
Resilient Soil Practices. June 2014. http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/25/arizona-state-short-film-
drought-soil/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=29c3c510f8-
Top_News_6_26_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-29c3c510f8-85924153
(accessed September 2014).
Brower, Michele B. An Exploration of Chicken Litter -Induced Trace Metal Phytotoxicity in Agronomic
Species of Plants. Thesis, Boone: Appalachian State University, 2013.
City -Data. Wilkesboro, North Carolina. 2013. http://www.city-data.com/city/Wilkesboro-North-
Carolina.html (accessed September 2014).
Conine, Ashely, Wei-Ning Xiang, Jeff Young, and and David Whitley. "Planning for multi -purpose
greensways in Concord, North Carolina." Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2004): 271-287.
Crouse, David A., and Karl Shaffer. "SoilFacts: Guidelines for the Commercial Application of Poultry
Litter." NC Cooperative Extension. 2010. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/Soilfacts/AG-
439-76.pdf (accessed April 2014).
CTNC. Protecting Farmland. 2014. http://www.ctnc.org/land-trusts/statewide-land-protection-
programs/farmland-protection/ (accessed September 2014).
Day, Jesse, Marc Alred, Elizabeth Jernigan, and Walsh Christina. Recreation, Parks and Greenway Plan
for the Town of Elkin. Master Plan, Kernersville: Piedmont Triad Regional Council , 2013.
Denton, Paul, Justin Bryant & John Morrison. "Conservation Tillage for Burley Tobcco." Auburn
Univesity College of Agriculture. 2010.
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/nsdl/scasc/Proceedings/2010/Denton.pdf (accessed
September 2014).
Page 184

Destination by Design. "Health By Design A Regional Plan for Active Living Infrastructure for Northwest
North Carolina." March 2014. http://issuu.com/dbdplanning/docs/health_by_design (accessed
June 2014).
eBird. eBird. 2014. http://ebird.org/ebird/subnational2/US-NC-193/hotspots?yr=all&m (accessed June
16, 2014).
EPA. "Profiles of Environmental Education Grants Awarded in North Carolina." United States
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. http://www2.epa.gov/education/profiles-
environmental-education-grants-awarded-north-carolina (accessed September 2014).
Ernst, Caryn, and Richard and Nixon, Kirk Gullick. Protecting the Source: Land Conservation and the
Future of America's Drinking Water. Trust For Public Land, 2002.
EVTA. Elkin Valley Trails. 2014. http://elkinvalleytrails.org/ (accessed June 2014).
Farm*A*Syst. "Grazing Livestock and Water Quality." North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.
2001. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/assist/farmassist/grazingFAS.pdf (accessed April
2014).
—. "Improving Storage and Handling of Hazardous Waste." North Carolina Cooperative Extension
Service. July 2000. http://content.ces.ncsu.edu/20731.pdf.
Furr, Curtis. "Managing for Soil Health in the Piedmont Area of the Southeast - a Farmer's Perspective."
Conservation Webinars. June 10, 2014.
http://www.conservationwebinars.net/webinars/managing-for-soil-health-in-the-piedmont-
area-of-the-southeast (accessed June 2014).
Galick, Christopher, Robert Abt, & Yun Wu. Forest Biomass Supply in the Southeastern United States -
Implications for Industrial Roundwood and Bioenergy Production. Duke University, 2009.
Gold, Mary V. "Sustainable Agriculture: Definitions and Terms." USDA - National Agricultural Library.
August 2007. http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902.shtml.
Heglund, Patricia and Skagen, Susan. "Ecology and Physiology of En route Nearctic-Neotropical
Migratory Birds: A Call for Collaboration." The Condor, May 2005: 193-196.
High Country Council of Governments. High Country Water Quality Initiative. Plan, Boone: High
Country Council of Governments, 2012.
Kline, Carol, David Cardenas, Duffy Lauren, and and Jason Swanson. "Funding sustainable paddle trail
development: paddler perspecties, willingness to pay and management implications." Journal
of Sustainable Tourism 20, no. 2 (2012): 235-256.

Kohut, Salina M., and George R. and Christoper E. Moorman Hess. "Avian use of suburban greenways
as stopover habitat." Urban Ecosystems, May 15, 2009: 487-502.
Kwak, Thomas. "Fisheries Indicators, Freshwater." In The Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability:
Measurements, Indicators and Research Methods for Sustainability, by Ray Anderson, 130.
Berkshire, 2012.
McIntyre, Palmer et al.. Surry County Farmland Preservation Plan: Preserving Our Agricultural Heritage
and Future. Piedmont Land Conservancy, 2012.
McNaught, D., and J. Rudek and E. Spalt. Riparian Buffers: Common Sense Protection of North
Carolina's Water. 2013. http://www.edf.org/news/environmental-defense-calls-statewide-
buffer-rule (accessed 2013).
Meijer, Alan D., et al. "Soil Facts: Long -Term Tillage Effects on Corn and Soybean Yield int he
Piedmont." NC Cooperative Extension. 2012.
http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/Soilfacts/AG-439-80W.pdf (accessed April 2014).
National Park Service. Brook Trout. 2014. http://www.nps.gov/shen/naturescience/brook-trout.htm
(accessed September 10, 2014).
National Water Program. "NET." National Water Program: A Partnership of USDA NIFA & Land Grant
Colleges and Universities. September 2013.
http://www.usawaterquality.org/themes/npm/success/NET.html (accessed September 2014).
NatureServe. NatureServeExplorer: An online encyclopedia of life. 2014. www.natureserve.org
(accessed June 10, 2014).
NC Cooperative Extension Service. "Crozier, Carl R., Greg D. Hoyt & Michael G. Wagger." NC
Cooperative Extension Service. 2011. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/Soilfacts/AGW-
439-58/AG-439-58W_WACC.pdf (accessed September 2014).
—. "Economic Impact Data." NC Cooperative Extension Service. September 2012.
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/economic-impact-data/ (accessed September 2014).
NC DA&CS. "Agricultural Statistics - 2012 Annual Statistics Book ." North Carolina Department of
Agriculture & Consumer Services. 2012. http://www.ncagr.gov/stats/2012AgStat/ (accessed
April 2014).
—. "Allocation of 2015 NCSP Financial Assistance Funds." Cost Share Programs -Agriculture Cost Share
Program (ACSP). 2014.
Page 186

http://www.ncagr.gov/SWC/costshareprograms/ACSP/documents/ACSPPY2015August BM PAllo
cation_SWCC.pdf (accessed November 2014).
NC DENR. "Special Studies." Division of Water Resources. 2014.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/specialstudies (accessed November 2014).
NC DOC. "2015 North Carolina Development Tier Designations." North Carolina Department of
Commerce. November 2014.
http://www.nccommerce.com/Portals/O/Incentives/CountyTier/2015%20Development%20Tier
%20Rankings.pdf (accessed November 2014).
NC DWQ. Protecting Trout Waters of North Carolina. Raleigh: North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, 2009.
NC DWR. "Dry Poultry Litter Requirements ." NC Cooperative Extension. 2013.
http://bladen.ces.ncsu.edu/files/library/9/Dry%20Poultry%20Litter%20Requirementsnewspape
rarticle.pdf (accessed April 2014).
NC Forest Service. Managing Your Forest. 2013.
http://ncforestservice.gov/Managingyouur_forest/fdp.htm (accessed January 31, 2013).
NC SWCD. "Long Term No -Till." Agricultural Cost Share Program. 2012.
http://www.ncagr.gov/SWC/costshareprograms/ACSP/documents/long_term_notill.pdf
(accessed September 2014).
NC WRC. Conservation Recommendations for Priority Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Habitats. Raleigh:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2012.
NC WRC. North Carolina Trout Resources Management Plan. Management Plan, Raleigh: North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2013.
NC WRC. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commisssion,
2005.
—. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission News. 2013.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/News/NewsArticle/tabid/416/lndexld/9339/Default.aspx (accessed
June 2014).
NC WRC. Regulations Digest. NC Inland Fishing, Hunting and Trapping Regulations Digest, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2013.
NC WRC. Wildlife Action Plan Five -part Series. Collection of Articles, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 2007.

North Carolina Division of Public Health. The North Carolina Guide to Incorporating Health
Considerations into Comprehensive Plans. Raleigh: North Carolina Department of Health and
Human Services, 2014.
Osmond, D.L. et al. "Grazing Practices: A Review of the Literature." NCState University. 2007.
http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/Bulletins/GrazingPractices.pdf (accessed April 2014).
Outdoor Industry Association. "Outdoor Industry ." 2012.
http://www.outdoorindustry.org/pdf/OIA_OutdoorRecEconomyReport2012.pdf. (accessed
June 2013).
Overby, Cyd. personal communication (January 7, 2013).
Pack, Jessica. Evaluation of Trace Metal Runoff From Chicken Litter Application in the Bugaboo
Watershed. Thesis, Boone: Appalachian State University - Department of Biology, 2009.
PLC. Piedmont Land Conservancy. December 2013. http://piedmontland.org/sites/stewardship.php
(accessed December 2013).
—. Stewardship. 2013a. http://www.piedmontland.org/sites/stewardship.php (accessed January 7,
2013).
Postel, Sandra, and Barton H Thompson Jr. "Watershed protection: Captruing the benefits of nature's
water supply services." Natural Resources Forum 26 (2005): 98-108.
RC SWCD. Soil and Water Conservation. 2013. Rockingham Couynty Soil and Water Conservation
District (accessed January 16, 2013).
Shuford et al. Planning for a New Energy and Climate Future. Planning Advisory Service, Chicago:
American Planning Association, 2010.
Stober, Cy. The Feasibility of Forestry Operations within the Asheville, NC, Municipal Watershed: A
Study of Appalachian Municipal Watershed Management.. Durham, NC.: Duke Nicholas School
of the Evironment Masters Project, 2007.
Stober, Cy, Joy Fields, Ford, Malinda, and Chris Bass. Eden Area Watershed Restoration Plan.
Kernersville: Piedmont Triad Regional Council, 2013.
Sturges, Frank. National Forests Support Recreation Economy. July 2014.
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/07/national-forests-support-recreation-economy/ (accessed July 23,
2014).

Stutts, Jane, and William Hunter. Bicycling and Walking in North Carolina: Results of a Year 2000
Survey. Chapel Hill: NC Department of Transportation Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation, 2002.
Texas Water Development Board. "Water Conservation Best Management Practices (BMP) Guide for
Agriculture in Texas." Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board. April 2005.
http://www.tsswcb.texas.gov/files/docs/waterconservation/water_conservation_bmp.pdf
(accessed September 2014).
Town of Elkin. Elkin Land Use Plan. Land Use Plan, Asheboro: Wooten Company, 2000.
Town of Jonesville. Town of Jonesville City Zoning Ordinances. City Ordinance, Jonesville: Town of
Jonesville, 1985.
U.S. Census Bureau. "American FactFinder: Selected Economic Characteristics, 2008-2012 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Jonersville, NC." PTRC Regional Data Center. 2013.
http://www.ptrc.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=478 (accessed 2014).
—. State & County QuickFacts: Wilkes County, North Carolina. July 2014.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37193.html (accessed September 2014 ).
U.S. EPA. "2000 National Water Quality Inventory." 2000. http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report
(accessed April 2014).
—. "Literature Review of Contaminants in Livestock and Poultry Manure and Implications for Water
Quality." Water: Contaminants of Emerging Concern. July 2013.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/cec/upload/Literatu re-Review-of-Contaminants-in-Livestock-and-
Poultry-Manure-and-Implications-for-Water-Quality.pdf (accessed April 2014).
—. "Literature Review of Contaminants in Livestock and Poultry Manure and Implications for Water
Quality." Water: Contaminants of Emerging Concern. July 2013.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/cec/upload/Literatu re-Review-of-Contaminants-in-Livestock-and-
Poultry-Manure-and-Implications-for-Water-Quality.pdf (accessed April 2014).
—. "Nutrient Pollution." United States Environmental Protection Agency. November 2014.
http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution (accessed November 2014).
—. Pasture, Rangeland, and Grazing Operations - Best Management Practices (BMPs). 2014.
http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/anprgbmp.html#NonPoint%20Source%20Pollution (accessed
April 2014).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife -Associated
Recreation. Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2013.

UNC EFC. "North Carolina Water and Wastewater Rates Dashboard." UNC Environmentak Fianance
Center. February 2014. http://www.efc.sog.unc.edu/reslib/item/north-carolina-water-and-
wastewater-rates-dashboard# (accessed September 2014).
UNRBA. "Recommendation Sheet #15: Agricultural Best Management PRactices Education and
Outreach." 2007. http://archive.unrba.org/docs/unwmp/RecSheetl5.doc (accessed January
2014).
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife -Associated
Recreation in NC. U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011.
USDA. 7 CFR Part 723. Federal Register, Farm Service Agency, United State Department of Agriculture,
Washington DC: USDA, 2005.
Washington State University. Integrated Pest Management for Blueberries. 2014.
http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/comhort/nooksack/ipmweb/blue/pesticides_water.html
(accessed June 2014).
Wickham, James D., Thimothy G. Wade, and Kurt H. Riitters. "An environmental assesment of United
State drinking water watersheds." Landscape Ecology, 2011: 605-616.
Wilkes County Soil and Water Conservation District. "No Till Drill." Wilkes Soil and Water Conservation
District. 2014.
http://www.wilkesswcd.org/index.php/page,NoTillDrill.html?PHPSESSID=72b5dbld5ccObc6528
aa8ef464c0e956.
Wilkes County, Planning Department. Wilkes County Growth Management Plan. Plan, Wilkesboro:
Wilkes County, 2014.
Yadkin County Land Use Plan Committee. Yakin County Land Use Plan 2011. Plan, Piedmont Regional
Office: NC Department of Commerce, Division of Community Planning, 2011.
Yadkin Pee Dee River Trail Association. About. 2014. http://yadkinrivertrail.org/ (accessed September
2014).
Page 190