Indian & Howard's Creek Local Watershed Plan

Indian Creek and Howard’s Creek Local Watershed Plan

Preliminary Findings Report

December 2008

This document was prepared by Mike Herrmann, NC EEP Watershed Planner.

Cover Photo: Lower Indian Creek.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION

TITLE

Page

Section I.

Introduction

1

Section II.

Study Area Description

2

Section III.

Study Area Ecological Assets

10

Section IV.

Study Area Ecological Stressors

15

Section V.

Existing Monitoring Information

20

Section VI.

Preliminary Assessment of Watershed Functions

21

Section VII.

Existing Watershed Protections and Policies

27

Section VIII. Identification of Data Gaps

29

Section IX.

Future Assessment Strategies

30

Section X.

Stakeholder Involvement

33

Section XII.

Conclusions

36

Section XII.

References

37

Appendix A. Methods to Develop Land Cover

39

Appendix B. Land Cover Statistics by Subwatershed.

42

Appendix C. NC DWQ Existing Monitoring Report

43

Appendix D. NC DWQ Draft Monitoring Plan

81

Appendix E.

Functional Ratings for Subwatersheds

93

Appendix F.

Stakeholder Group Participants

94

ii

SECTION I. INTRODUCTION North Carolina’s Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) mitigates for unavoidable impacts to the State’s streams and wetlands. This responsibility requires that EEP implement high-quality, cost-effective projects to compensate for those streams and wetlands lost or damaged in impacts from transportation and development. EEP chooses to implement compensatory mitigation projects using a watershed planning approach that involves stakeholder input, monitoring, fieldwork, and data analysis. These various sources of information are used to identify, assess, and prioritize projects that will provide EEP with the best opportunities to successfully protect and improve stream and wetland functions. In early 2008, EEP selected the Indian and Howard’s Creek watersheds (see Figure 1) in which to implement a detailed planning approach, or Local Watershed Plan (LWP), to identify opportunities to protect and restore streams and wetlands. These watersheds were selected based on a number of criteria and factors that include: • • • •

Opportunity to restore streams and wetlands; Willingness of local resource professionals to protect and restore environmental resources; Presence of drinking water intakes for Cherryville and Lincolnton; and Impaired biological conditions in lower Indian Creek.

The State’s Division of Water Quality (DWQ) classifies both Indian and Howard’s Creek as Class C waters, meaning they should support aquatic life propagation and protection along with secondary recreation. In 2006, “Fair” biological ratings in lower Indian Creek resulted in DWQ listing it as impaired along the creek’s mainstem downstream of Cherryville to its terminus at the Catawba River’s South Fork for not supporting its Class C uses. Upstream of Cherryville, Indian Creek is further classified as a Water Supply II watershed and supports its designated uses. In the adjacent Howard’s Creek, preliminary survey of GIS data and on-the-ground tours of the watershed identified a number of stream and wetland improvement opportunities that justified its inclusion in the LWP. Other than these factors, EEP’s justification to fund the watershed plan arose when the Program received authorization from its Policy Advisory Committee to implement projects in South Fork Catawba River Catalog Unit (CU 03050102) as mitigation for impacts occurring downstream in CU (03050103) (see Figure 1). Normally impacts must be mitigated within the same CU in which they occur. EEP, however, requested this authorization to allow the program to meet the challenging mitigation needs of 03050103, which includes the Charlotte Metropolitan area. This document, the Preliminary Findings Report, provides a summary of the first phase of EEP’s three-phase planning process. In this report, a review is provided of environmental stressors and assets, watershed functions, and data gaps. Consequently, this report forms the foundation for planning, monitoring, and fieldwork that will occur in later phases of the LWP process. For more information on EEP’s watershed planning, please visit the Program’s website (http://www.nceep.net/pages/lwpguide.htm).

1

SECTION II. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

Indian Creek, Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03050102050010, and Howard’s Creek, HU 03050102040040, are located in North Carolina’s western Piedmont. The watersheds drain to the South Fork of the Catawba River, which flows to the main stem of the Catawba River at Lake Wylie. A small hydrologic-unit, referred to in this document as Middle South Fork (HU 03050102040030), hydrologically connects Howard’s Creek to Indian Creek. These three creeks collectively constitute EEP’s Indian and Howard’s Creek LWP (see Figure 1). The Cities of Lincolnton and Cherryville lay on the eastern and southern boundary of the watershed respectively. The two communities draw their drinking water within the LWP area. Generally, the creeks flow from northwest to southeast. Indian Creek watershed, the larger watershed, starts in Catawba County, continues south into Lincoln and Gaston County before turning east and emptying into the South Fork of the Catawba River. Table 1 provides area statistics for HUs by County in the LWP. Table 1. HU Area Statistics for the LWP HU Name Indian Creek

HUCODE 03050102050010

Howard's Creek

03050102040040

Middle South Fork

03050102040030

County Name Catawba Lincoln Gaston HU Total Catawba Lincoln HU Total Lincoln / HU Total LWP Total

Area (Mi2) 2.0 60.1 12.9 75.0 4.2 29.7 33.9 5.3 114.2

Area (%) 3% 80% 17% 100% 12% 88% 100% 100% 100%

Hydrology The LWP contains over 300 miles of mapped streams. Major tributaries to Indian Creek include Leonard Creek, Lick Fork, Little Creek, Little Indian Creek, and Mill Creek. Major tributaries to Howard’s Creek include Rockdam Creek and Tanyard Creek. There are no major tributaries in the Middle South Fork, but the HU has a number of unnamed tributaries draining to the South Fork River. Figure 1 provides a map that details the watersheds and tributaries in the LWP area. The National Hydrologic Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2000) 1:24,000 streams were examined as the base stream layer for the project. Stream data review with high-resolution 2005 aerial imagery revealed that a number of headwater tributaries were not mapped in the NHD. These typically had a drainage area between 20 and 100 acres and, when viewed over high-resolution imagery, possessed visible evidence of a stream channel. Based on the project’s need to identify headwaters for restoration and preservation purposes, the NHD stream file was edited to achieve three goals: 1) Add missing stream segments; 2) Relocate erroneously mapped streams; and 3) Remove missing streams.

2

SC

Figure 1. Local Watershed Planning Area

3

NC

Edits to the stream file were made using aerial photography and four foot contour lines published by the North Carolina (NC) Department of Transportation (NC DOT 2007). Most commonly, streams were added to the file if aerials and topographic data suggested the presences of streams. In order to be added to the stream file, missing streams needed to be longer than 1,000 feet. In total, about 30 miles of streams were added to the stream file. Stream alignments were adjusted on many occasions using aerial imagery to better locate stream channels. Finally, in very few cases, streams were shortened or removed. Table 2 lists the final stream mileage estimates for the LWP watersheds. Table 2. Stream Miles for LWP Hydrologic Units. Watershed

Stream Length (mi)

Indian Creek Howard’s Creek Middle-South Fork LWP Total

206.2 89.3 17.7 313.2

% of LWP Total 66% 29% 6% 100%

Geology & Soils Topography in the LWP varies from rolling hills in the headwaters to flat floodplains as the creeks approach the South Fork. Elevation above mean sea level ranges from a high of over 1,300 feet to a low of 700 feet. According to the Lincoln County Soil Survey (USDA 1995), two geologic belts traverse the area; Inner Piedmont Belt and King’s Mountain Belt. The Inner Piedmont Belt consists of metamorphic rocks (i.e., gneiss, schist). The King’s Mountain belt includes metamorphic and metavolcanic rock including intrusions of granite in the southeast portion of the LWP area. One site of geological interest is found on Tanyard Creek, a tributary to Howard’s Creek. Here, a variety of outcrops can be found that are excellent examples of the lower Tallulah Falls Formation, a geologic layer of the Inner Piedmont. These outcrops create unique rock formations and fault lines along with a series of slick rock falls along the creek. It was also once the location of Warlick Mill, a former mill site (Mershchat et al. 2008). For the study of wetlands and hydrology, hydric soils are of particular interest as they are one of the criteria for identifying wetlands. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for mapping soils for counties, including hydric soils. For the study area, Worsham (WoA) is a common hydric soil, found typically in depressions (USDA, 2008). Chewacla (ChA) and Riverview (RvA) are two other soil types commonly found in floodplains and depressions in this area. Though mapped as hydric, only those soils frequently flooded with a water table near the surface during the growing season are likely to meet hydric criteria. Table 3 lists the USDA hydric soil map units. An additional soil feature of interest is erodibility. Erodible soils can contribute to sediment pollution in streams and degrade aquatic habitat. In the LWP area, three of the four soil types whose properties are most susceptible to erosion (i.e., high Kw soil erodibility factor) are Chewacla, Riverview, and Worsham. These soils typically fall in low slope areas such as floodplains. While not as susceptible to overland erosion, where these soils occur along streams 4

Table 3. Hydric Soil Units of Lincoln and Gaston County. Map Unit Symbol

Component Name and Phase

Map Unit Name

Landforms

AaA

Altavista sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded

Roanoke, undrained

Depressions, Stream terraces

AaA

Altavista sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded

Wehadkee, undrained

Depressions, Flood plains

ChA

Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded

Chewacla

Flood plains

Wehadkee, undrained

Depressions, Flood plains

ChA HeB RvA SeB WoA

Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Helena sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded

Wehadkee, undrained

Sedgefield fine sandy loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Worsham fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Armenia, undrained Worsham, drained & undrained

Worsham, undrained

Depressions Depressions, Flood plains Drainage ways, Interfluves Depressions

channels, they are at risk to erode, particularly if not well vegetated. The fourth highly erodible soil type, Georgeville, occurs on steeper slopes and, therefore, is more susceptible to overland erosion processes caused by rainfall. Examining locations where soil erosion is impacting streams will be a focus of fieldwork during this project’s next phase. Climate According to the NC State Climate Office Statistics from 1970-2000, average precipitation at the National Weather Service Station east of Lincolnton, Station 314996, is 48 inches per year. In 2007, that station reported 23.5 inches of rain (NC CO 2008). In short, drought has been affecting the area during the early part of the LWP process. The recent drought has been particularly severe throughout the Catawba River Basin. Figure 2 details the drought degree and extent. Drought conditions began in the spring of 2007 and have been in the extreme or exceptional category from mid-August 2007 to July 2008 (NC Drought Management Advisory Council 2008). The impact of the drought on the aquatic biology in Indian and Howard’s Creek will be a subject of study in this LWP. Subwatershed Delineation Due to the large LWP size (~114 mi2) it is useful to delineate subwatersheds to characterize conditions and better understand the factors influencing different portions of the watershed. This characterization can also benefit the planning process by showing where resources should be focused to field assess restoration or preservation opportunities. Project planning at the subwatersheds scale is also important to focusing field assessments in those areas where conditions most warrant them. Finally, subwatersheds are also the scale where the success of implementation efforts may best be measured (Center for Watershed Protection 2000).

5

Figure 2. NC Drought classifications in 2007 and 2008 (NC Drought Management Advisory Council 2008). The LWP area has experienced severe-to-extreme drought conditions for over a year.

6

The first step in delineating subwatersheds was obtaining the Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) for the LWP area. NC Department of Transportation (DOT) published DEMs for North Carolina based on data collected using Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) technology in the spring of 2001 (Miller 2007). The DEM cell size is 20 feet, with a vertical accuracy of 0.2 feet. NC DOT processed the DEMs to develop flow direction and flow accumulation data using ArcHydro™ (Maidment 2002). The flow accumulation data served to develop small catchments (20 acres) for individual stream segments. The catchments were then aggregated into larger groups (i.e., subwatersheds) based on watershed area, stream outlets, and physiographic breakpoints and land cover. Then, the subwatersheds were visually examined with topographic data and aerials to insure that the DEM-derived watershed boundaries were consistent with other available data. Figure 3 is a completed map of the subwatershed delineation. In total, 34 subwatersheds were delineated, ranging from 1.3 to 5.3 square miles in area. The average subwatershed size is 3.4 square miles. Land Cover A review of aerial images and older land cover illustrate that the watershed is predominately a mix of forest and agricultural uses. Lincolnton and Cherryville are the main urban centers which fall on the eastern and southern boundaries of the watershed, respectively. To better understand land cover conditions and its impact on terrestrial and aquatic habitat, there was a need to review land cover for the study area. For this study, an NC Land Cover from 1996 was updated using 2005 aerial imagery. Appendix A details the methods and data that were used to update the land cover data. Once updated, land cover data were summarized by HU. Table 4 contains land cover summaries for the LWP (For land cover map, please see Figure 4.). Agriculture and forest are the dominant land covers in the study area occupying a respective 49% and 40% of the land. Howard’s Creek has the highest percentage of agricultural land (54%). Field surveys have shown that pasture for cattle is the predominant type of agricultural use. Indian Creek has a higher percentage of low density urban land (10.5%) and high density urban land (1.5%) than Howard’s Creek, likely due to the portions of Cherryville and Lincolnton found within it. Subwatershed land cover statistics can be found in Appendix B. Table 4. Land Cover Statistics for LWP HUs. 2005 Land Cover Agriculture Forest Shrubland High Density Urban Low Density Urban Water Total

Indian Creek Acres % 21,897 45.8% 19,795 41.4% 223 0.5% 698 5,006 204 47,823

1.5% 10.5% 0.4% 100%

Howard’s Creek Acres % 11,714 54.1% 8,438 39.0% 197 0.9% 61 1,183 48 21,641

0.3% 5.5% 0.2% 100%

7

Middle South Fork Acres % 1,840 53.7% 1,077 31.4% 22 0.7% 14 458 14 3,425

0.4% 13.4% 0.4% 100%

LWP Total Acres % 35,451 48.6% 29,310 40.2% 443 0.6% 773 6,647 266 72,890

1.1% 9.1% 0.4% 100%

Figure 3. Indian, Howard’s, and Middle South Fork Subwatersheds.

8

Figure 4. 2005 Land Cover (Please See Appendix B for Land Cover Statistics by Subwatershed).

9

SECTION III. STUDY AREA ECOLOGICAL ASSETS

Indian and Howard’s Creek are located in the Piedmont region. Like many other areas in North Carolina’s Piedmont, human settlement has resulted in the conversion of forest to agricultural, commercial, or residential use. Further, remaining forests have been harvested one or more times, limiting their habitat quality. North Carolina’s Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Natural Heritage Inventory for Lincoln County provides a good summary of the circumstances that led to the current habitat conditions: The iron industry has had an enormous impact on the natural heritage of Lincoln County. Iron production was an important part of the local economy for approximately 75 years in the late 1700’s until the mid 1800’s. As a result of this activity, essentially all forests remaining in the county are multiple secondary growth forests. The most dominant natural community types remaining in the county, with a significant level of integrity, are secondary growth Oak-Hickory Forests and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forests associated with fairly steep slopes and creek corridors…. Lincoln County appears to lack the Basic Mesic Forest and Basic Oak-Hickory Forest natural community types that are present in surrounding counties, which explains the lower diversity of plant species. (NHP 2002)

Ecoregions delineate areas that have similar ecosystem structure and quality. They provide a framework for the research and assessment of the environment. According to the Griffith et al (2002), Indian and Howard’s Creek straddle the Northern Inner Piedmont and Southern Outer Piedmont Ecoregions. The main distinction between the two regions is that the Northern Inner Piedmont tends to be more rugged and have more chestnut oak and mountain plant species. At least two old mill sites can be found along the ecoregion boundary in Howard’s Creek. A series of data (outlined in Table 5) were used to examine ecological conditions in the LWP HUs. These data were chosen based on their availability and applicability to exploring ecological conditions in the LWP area. Table 5. Preliminary Ecological Asset Indicators for the LWP. Indicator

Data Source

Importance

Significant Natural Heritage

GIS Analysis of Natural Heritage Database

Identification of rare, threatened and endangered species or important habit areas.

Wetlands and forested hydric soils

NWI (non-ponds) and Worsham Soils

High-quality habitat, groundwater recharge, and water filtration

Extent of Interior Forest Cover

2005 Land Cover with Interior Buffer of 300 ft.

High quality habitat - Conditions away from the forest edge provide important habitat to animal and plant species.

Extent of Contiguous, well buffered stream

GIS Review of 2005 Aerials, streams and riparian land cover.

High-quality minimally disturbed riparian habitat.

10

Significant Natural Heritage Areas The NHP Inventory for Lincoln and Gaston County details five Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) that fall within the LWP area and seven Natural Heritage Element Occurrences (NHEOs). SNHAs identify terrestrial and aquatic sites of special biodiversity significance due to the presence of rare, threatened, endangered species (i.e., NHEOs), rare or high quality natural communities, or other important ecological features. Each SNHA is outlined below: (Note: Four of the five features are not protected.) Cat Square Heartleaf Forest – contains an NHEO, Hexastylis naniflora (See Figure 5), in two locations along unnamed tributaries of Indian Creek. Indian Creek Slopes - consists of Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest on slopes grading into Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest on the northern corridor of Indian Creek. The southernmost drainage in the site, which flows east into Indian Creek and has north and south facing slopes, harbors a population of Hexastylis naniflora. June Bug Woods - contains a Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest to the east of Tanyard Creek, along June Bug Road. The upper slopes have a sparse understory layer except for a large Figure 5. Hexastylis naniflorapopulation of Cypripedium acaule (Pink Lady's Slipper). To Dwarf Flowered Heartleaf the west of Tanyard Creek occurs a population of Hexastylis (photo courtesy of the US Fish and naniflora, in the northernmost drainage leading into Tanyard Wildlife Service). Creek. Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest is present throughout this western area, yet it decreases in quality towards the southern edge of the site. Mount Zion Heartleaf Forest - harbors a population of Hexastylis naniflora on a north-facing slope in a Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest. Rhyne Conservation Preserve - harbors a population of the threatened Hexastylis naniflora. Natural Communities on this site include Pine/Oak Heath, Chestnut Oak Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, White Pine Forest and Piedmont Monadnock Forest. This site is highly variable in natural community content and habitat integrity. The Catawba Lands Conservancy protects a large section of this site. Wetlands Wetlands provide a variety of services to the environment. Among these are the retention of runoff, trapping of soil particles and provision of habitat for specialized species. Saturated, hydric soils create conditions of low oxygen, promoting chemical processes that help retain organic material and nutrients, removing them from the water. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (US FWS 1995) was used to identify wetland sites. Those identified as farm ponds (i.e., Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom) were removed from the dataset as they offer little habitat value and are often used as a water source for livestock, attracting nutrients. Using this subset of NWI data, there are approximately 450 acres of wetland in the LWP area. The dominant wetland type is Palustrine Forested at nearly 300 acres. Other major types include Palustrine Scrub Shrub at 70 acres and Riverine at 45 acres. 11

Forests Forests provide a variety of services for society; cleaning the air and water while providing habitat for wildlife along with recreational opportunities for humans. Interior forests are particularly important because they are removed from light, wind, and thermal conditions found at the forest edge. Interior forests are more protected from edge species which are often exotic and invasive. Consequently, they are preferred by a number of rare and threatened species (e.g., migratory song birds). Additionally, they provide a measure of the amount of fragmentation that is occurring to the forest. Those areas in forest, shrub, wetland, or water were considered to be in “Forested” condition. Guidance from the NHP suggested defining interior forests as forest 300 feet inside the forest edge (Hall pers comm). This guidance was applied to the studies updated 2005 land cover. Table 6 is a summary of Interior Forest conditions for the three HUs. With an average of 17% of the HU forest cover in interior condition, it is evident that forest habitat is highly fragmented. Table 6. Interior Forest Acres for LWP HUs. Watershed Indian Creek Howard’s Creek Middle South Fork LWP Total

Forest Acres 8,683 20,222 1,113 30,019

Interior Forest Acres 1,545 3,480 115 5,140

% of Forest in Interior Condition 17.8% 17.2% 10.3% 17.1%

Riparian Habitat Riparian forest buffer provide a myriad of services to protect streams. Wider, contiguously forested riparian zones are particularly effective at enhancing terrestrial and stream habitat and improving water quality (see Figure 6). More contiguous reaches are desirable in that they provide continuous shade to moderate temperatures, cycle nutrients, and enhance aquatic habitat.

Figure 6. Buffer Width and Functions (Palone and Todd, 1997)

Following the guidance of Palone and Todd (1997), wide (>200 feet), multi-functional forested riparian areas were identified using aerial photos from 2005. Figure 7 shows an example of a site. These sites were typically 3000 feet or longer with contiguously forested stream buffers on

12

both sides of the stream. Mature riparian forest cover was preferred. Some exceptions for forest cover were made if the site was adjacent to a SNHA or a noted unique habitat. Later in the study a select number of these sites will be visited to assess habitat quality and identify preservation opportunities. In all, 85 high quality riparian segments covering over 50 miles of were identified using the outlined method. Table 7 provides a watershed summary for high quality riparian sites. Nineteen percent (19%) of Indian Creek riparian areas were identified as high quality, the highest percentage of the three HUs.

Figure 7. High Quality Riparian Site (shown in green). Table 7. High Quality Riparian miles for LWP HUs. Watershed Indian Creek Howard’s Creek Middle South Fork LWP Total

Stream Miles

High-Quality Riparian Miles

206.2 89.3 17.7 313.2

39.3 10.0 0.8 50.1

% of HU 19% 11% 5% 16%

Ecological Assets Summary Figure 8 has the location of identified high quality conditions in the LWP area. Overall, habitat is highly fragmented with low percentages of forest cover and high-quality interior forest conditions. Comparatively, however, Indian Creek tends to have better riparian habitat conditions than other HUs in the LWP. Unique SNHA occur more frequently in Indian Creek, too. The legacy of agriculture, mining, furniture making, and, more recently, housing developments, have limited the areas covered in high-quality habitat. Still, a number of areas of 13

potential high-quality habitat remain. These areas will be a focus of field assessments in the next phase of the project.

Figure 8. Location of the Identified High Quality Conditions.

14

SECTION IV. STUDY AREA ECOLOGICAL STRESSORS

In 2006, NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) listed lower portions of Indian Creek as impaired due to poor biological ratings (NC DWQ 2006). While the Creek has not been scheduled for development of a total maximum daily loads (TMDL) of pollutants causing the impairment, its presence indicates that sources of stress to the aquatic community exist in the watershed. A number of GIS assessments were conducted to identify potential watershed stressors to the aquatic community. This section details the assessments and their results. Table 8 summarizes the primary indicators and data sets used to identify the major watershed stressors. Table 8. Preliminary Stressor Indicators for the LWP. Indicator

Data Source

Importance

Extent of Floodplain & Riparian Disturbed Area

Non-Forested land cover of either FEMA floodplain or a 90 ft buffer – whichever greater

Removal of forests and wetlands reduces a watersheds capacity to moderate floods, stabilize streams, and degrades habitat.

Impacted Streams

GIS Review of 2005 Aerials, streams and riparian land cover.

Highly altered streams (e.g., channelized, denuded buffer, accessed by livestock) stress aquatic biology and limit nutrient cycling.

Impacted Hydric Soils/Wetlands

GIS Review of 2005 Aerials, hydric soils and riparian land cover.

Impacted wetlands and hydric soils are unable to perform their natural functions such as filters for the runoff and provide unique habitat.

Floodplain and Riparian Impacts Floodplain forests are responsible for slowing stream velocities, stabilizing streambanks, removing sediments and nutrients while providing valuable wildlife habitat. Lost forest cover, particularly in the floodplains, causes stress to streams, their aquatic ecosystems and degrades aquatic and terrestrial habitat quality. To identify impacts to floodplain forests and riparian areas, 100-year floodplain digital maps (NC FMP 2007) of the study area were used in combination with the 2005 land cover to assess conditions remotely. For headwaters streams without mapped floodplains, streams were buffered 90 feet in each direction from the stream centerline. Those areas in agriculture and urban cover (low and high density) were considered to be disturbed or impacted floodplain. Overall, Middle South Fork floodplains’ were the most disturbed. This HU has wide areas of low elevations adjacent to the Catawba River’s South Fork. These areas are used mainly for cropland. Howard’s Creek floodplains were more disturbed than Indian Creek (see Table 9). Table 9. Floodplain Area Condition for LWP HUs. Watershed Indian Creek Howard’s Creek Middle South Fork LWP Total

Disturbed Floodplain Acres 1286 755 560 2601

15

Total Floodplain Acres 6130 2612 1090 9832

% of Floodplain Disturbed 21% 29% 51% 26%

A further analysis of impacted streams was conducted to better understand stream and riparian conditions in the LWP. Impacted streams include those that are channelized, denuded of forest cover, being accessed by livestock, and/or receiving urban stormwater runoff. Impacted streams lack the in-stream conditions that would aid nutrient cycling and sustain aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, their streambanks are more unstable leading to bank failure and excess sediment in the stream. To identify impacted streams, 2005 aerial photography for the study area was examined. Those stream segments that were 1000 feet or longer and lacked forest cover were digitized as line features using GIS (e.g., See Figure 9). Sites where pasture exists were noted due to the likelihood of cattle accessing the streams. Finally, stream Stream segments (> 1000 ft.) that were Corridor channelized were noted. In total, 125 stream segments totaling over 45 miles were identified as impacted using the criteria outlined (see Table 10). Of the three watersheds, Howard’s Creek had the highest percentage of stream miles identified as impacted (21% of its streams). Figure 9. Impacted Riparian Corridor Example. Table 10. Impacted Riparian Estimates for LWP HUs. HU Watershed Indian Creek Howard’s Creek Middle-South Fork LWP Total

Impacted Riparian Miles 23.7 18.6 3.3 45.7

Stream Miles 206.2 89.3 17.7 313.2

% of HU streams 11% 21% 19% 15%

Wetland Impacts Modifying wetlands through removing vegetation, draining, or intercepting sources of water, reduces their ability to perform their natural functions as filters for runoff and it diminishes their habitat quality. Because these functions are important to healthy watersheds, identifying modified, or impacted, wetlands sites reveal where watershed functions are stressed. Additionally, these sites are good candidates to assess for potential restoration projects. Impacted wetlands were defined as either hydric soils (Worsham and other visibly wet hydric soils) or non-pond (i.e., non-Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom) NWI wetlands that were ditched, being accessed by cattle, and/or denuded of vegetation. Impacted sites were identified 16

by reviewing hydric soils and NWI data over 2005 aerial imagery (e.g., See Figure 10). In all, 58 impacted sites were identified totaling over 330 acres. Sites ranged from a half acre to eighty acres. Howard’s and Middle South Fork wetlands were more impacted than those in Indian Creek (see Table 11). In the next phase of the LWP, many of these sites will be the subject of field investigations to verify whether or not they are good candidates for restoration.

Figure 10. Hydric Soils Modification. Note ditches that drain darker, wet areas of the fields.

Table 11. Wetland Impacts for LWP HUs. Watershed Indian Creek Howard’s Creek Middle South Fork LWP Total

Hydric/Wetland Impacted Acres 88.2 125.5 122.9 336.7

Hydric/Wetland Total Acres 794.6 346.5 156.3 1297.5

% of Acres Impacted 11% 36% 79% 26%

Other Stressors Other stressors exist in the LWP. There are 9 registered animal operations. These are dairy and cattle operations with seven located in Indian Creek and one each in Howard’s and Middle South Fork. Large animal operations such as these have to develop animal waste management plans. Still, land and aquatic resources can be stressed due to the demands livestock have for food, water, and management of their waste. Three registered wastewater discharges are located in the LWP (see Figure 11). The City of Cherryville’s waste water treatment plant (WWTP) discharges to lower Indian Creek. The facility is permitted to discharge up 2 million gallons of water per day (MGD). Because the 17

city’s major textile plant closed in 2001, however, the plant is only discharging about half of its permitted total. Since 2004, there has been one reported violation of the plants permit for exceeding fecal coliform limits. Due to the facility’s location upstream of the impaired portion of Indian Creek, evidence of its effect on water quality will be examined in later phases of this project. Lincolnton’s WWTP discharges directly to the South Fork and, consequently, has little influence on either Indian or Howard’s Creek. The third WWTP is small, permitted for 0.01 MGD, serves a local high school in upper Indian Creek, and has had no permit violations. One aspect often examined during local watershed plans is the effect of impervious surface coverage on stream systems. A reason for this is that areas developed with impervious surfaces tend to have higher velocity stream flows as storm runoff from buildings and parking lots flow directly into streams. This is particularly true of areas developed before stormwater controls were put into place. In the LWP, however, the majority of land is rural and it is unlikely that there will be widespread effects of stormwater runoff from impervious surface. The exceptions, however, are subwatersheds I-12 (Lick Fork) and I-14 (unnamed tributary to Indian Creek). These two subwatersheds drain parts of Cherryville. While they are subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater controls being administered by Gaston County, runoff from existing development in these watersheds may impact the local streams. Consequently, these subwatersheds will be examined in the project’s next phase for impacts of runoff from impervious surfaces. Ecological Stressors Summary All three HUs show evidence of stress. Riparian zones, floodplains, and wetlands have visible evidence of alteration or use that impacts the functions of these features. Howard’s and Middle South Fork have higher percentages of features that been impacted. Lower Indian Creek, however, is listed as an impaired waterbody by DWQ. Indian Creek also receives waste water discharge from Cherryville. Further examination of the stressors identified in this report will occur in the next phase of the project.

18

Figure 11. Location of the Identified Ecological Stressors.

19

SECTION V. EXISTING MONITORING DATA

The NC DWQ receives funds from EEP to support the Program’s assessment of watersheds through water quality and biological monitoring. NC DWQ’s Watershed Assessment Team (WAT) coordinates these assessments. As part of their assessment of the watershed, WAT reviews existing monitoring data for the area and documents their findings and recommendations. This document, Summary of Existing Data for Indian and Howard’s Creeks, is found in Appendix C and lists three objectives for itself: 1) Summarize existing water quality and related monitoring data for the study area; 2) Determine whether the sources of water quality and/or aquatic habitat problems can be identified; and 3) Identify critical gaps in watershed monitoring data that need to be addressed during the next phase of the LWP monitoring effort (NC DWQ 2008a). WAT examined available water quality, benthos, habitat and fish data in both Indian and Howard’s Creek. In addition, WAT compared water quality data available for the Indian Creek ambient monitoring station (AMS) with five other long-term AMS sites of similar land use around the region. Below are some findings highlighted in the WAT report: o Nutrients (total phosphorus and nitrite + nitrate nitrogen) and, possibly, fecal coliform bacteria have been elevated occasionally, possibly because of the influence of animal operations in Indian Creek and/or the impacts of Cherryville’s WWTP effluents. o Based upon biological data, Howard’s Creek appears to have better water quality (i.e. better bioclassifications) than Indian Creek. o Very little is known about water quality in Indian Creek above the WWTP facilities or in the named and unnamed tributaries to both of these creeks. o Additional benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat assessments are needed to help ascertain the cause(s) and pinpoint possible source(s) of biological impairment in the lower part of Indian Creek. Water chemistry may be needed in association with some or all of these assessments. o Water chemistry data, biological monitoring, and habitat assessments are needed to evaluate water quality for Howard’s Creek, Indian Creek above and below the WWTPs, and for the major tributaries to both of these creeks. o Further sampling needs to be conducted by the DWQ Watershed Assessment Team (WAT) at the original AMS monitoring location to determine whether nutrients may be a concern in Indian Creek. o Fecal coliform bacteria and nutrients need to be measured at least once or twice both upstream and downstream from the drainage of the permitted animal operations to see if any problems exist. Based on these findings and recommendations, WAT has created a water quality and biologic monitoring plan for the watershed (See Appendix D). This plan provides the blueprint for continued monitoring in the watershed to better understand and, possibly pinpoint, key stressors in the watersheds. Of particular focus is study of the cause(s) for the impairment in Indian Creek. The implementation of this monitoring plan will occur in late 2008 and early 2009.

20

SECTION VI. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF WATERSHED FUNCTIONS

Background A further step to understanding conditions in the LWP is to examine the ecological and stressor data at the subwatershed level. This examination provides a better spatial characterization of conditions within the LWP and helps establish the type and location of follow-up fieldwork needed to more completely assess major stressors at the subwatershed scale. Further, it provides an understanding of how watersheds are functioning and does so at a scale where recommended actions may better have an impact on watershed functions. Defining watershed functions and developing an assessment framework are a first step to evaluating functions. Three categories of functions are commonly examined by EEP and other NC programs: hydrology, habitat, and water quality. Definitions of functions for these categories have been developed in other watershed plans completed by EEP. This report builds upon the functional definitions in EEP’s Hiwassee LWP (NC EEP 2006). o Habitat function includes both aquatic and terrestrial components. Functioning aquatic habitat provides a setting in which aquatic communities, such as fish and benthic invertebrates, can be both diverse and balanced. Good aquatic habitat in the study area has abundant and diverse microhabitat (sticks, leaf packs, logs, vegetated mats, and root masses), limited embeddedness (covering of channel by fine sediment), stable streambanks, stream canopy cover, and a variety of bottom substrate (sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders). For terrestrial habitat, a functioning system allows wildlife to move about more easily to find necessary resources (food, shelter, and community) and does not endanger or threaten native species. Properly functioning systems in the study area have minimally fragmented forests, forested floodplains, and corridors that promote wildlife travel and provide resources. o Hydrologic function addresses whether streams effectively transport water and sediment. Good hydrologic function is most apparent in the stream channel, but extends to riparian areas and uplands. A functioning stream channel has low bank-height ratios (vertical stability), reasonably stable streambanks (lateral stability), higher base flows, and lower peak flows. Riparian zones in catchments that display good hydrologic function promote groundwater recharge while storing floodwater flows and deposited sediment. High-functioning riparian zones and floodplains are wooded and help slow flood flows, reducing stress on streams. Upland areas also have higher amounts of forests, wetlands, or other permeable land cover that encourage infiltration and, subsequently, slow delivery of precipitation to streams as groundwater as opposed to quicker overland runoff. o Water quality functions include the stream’s ability to receive and process different elements (chemical, pathogens, and sediments) while maintaining a hospitable environment for aquatic life and attaining its designated use (e.g., biological integrity, recreation, or water supply). In-stream pollutant levels are a key indicator of water quality function; however, these quantities may be highly dynamic and difficult to characterize without extensive monitoring data over a range of stream flows. An alternative to measuring contaminants is to monitor stream biology (i.e., bugs and fish). 21

This provides long-term indicators of water quality and whether waters are supportive of aquatic life. The concept of rating watershed functions is illustrated in Figure 12. Generally, those watersheds with more assets (i.e., high-quality habitat, forested riparian and floodplain area, and streams with high-quality riparian condition) and few stressors are classified as high-functioning watersheds. These watersheds are likely to be good candidates for preservation opportunities. Watersheds with impacted streams, wetlands, and floodplains are under increased stress and unable to sustain functions. These low functioning systems are areas where restoration activities should be directed. Watersheds in the middle, functioning-at risk, require a mix of conservation and restoration actions to maintain or improve their functions.

Figure 12. Conceptual Diagram for Rating Watershed Function.

Methods In Phase I, functional indicators are examined using GIS and other available data. Using the definitions outlined above, ecosystem asset and stressor data covered previously in this document were reviewed again to assess function. Table 12 lists the indicators used to assess functions at the subwatershed level. Table 12. Indicators for Preliminary Functional Assessment.

Functional Categories

Subwatershed Indicators

Habitat

Pct. High Quality Habitat (SNHA, Interior Forests, Forested Riparian Area, Floodplains, & Wetlands); HQ Riparian Areas; Impacted Streams

Hydrology & Water Quality

Pct. Good Hydrologic Area (Forested Riparian Area, Floodplain, and Wetlands); HQ Riparian Areas; Impacted Streams

22

The primary shortcoming apparent in the selection of Table 12 indicators is that it does not include field collected data. Ideally, functional assessment would include information related to stream channel substrate, streambank stability, aquatic habitat and water quality. Lacking these measures, there are a limited number of indicators available to assess function. As a result, Hydrology and Water Quality (WQ) functions are lumped into one assessment category. Both of these shortcomings will be addressed in the next phase of the project, when additional indicators of watershed function are derived from fieldwork and in-stream monitoring. In this phase, however, watershed function was mostly gauged in relative terms. That is, the 34 subwatersheds in the LWP were compared to one another to rate their functions. Ideally, assessment of functions would include comparisons with known high-functioning systems in the surrounding area. To a limited degree, this has been done but comprehensive comparison against high functioning systems is beyond the scope of the Phase I assessment. This level of comparison will occur in later phases of the project. Three ratings of hydrologic, habitat, and WQ functions were used for this comparison: 1) High-functioning: Watershed is functioning efficiently and is resilient to changes in the natural environment. 2) Functioning – at risk: Watershed functions are minimally achieved but have been diminished and are at risk to both natural and man-made alterations. 3) Low-functioning: existing conditions indicate that function is not being achieved. Indicator values were used to group subwatersheds into the three functional ratings. These values are outlined in Table 13. There were little available data to establish the parameters for groups at this time. One exception, however, is that NC designates High Quality Streams (HQW) and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). In the Piedmont Region, a review of HUs with HQW and ORW riparian conditions found that 80% of their riparian area was either in forests or wetlands (NC EEP 2008). This measure is most analogous to the indicator Percent of Good Hydrologic Area. Thus, subwatersheds with 80% or more of good hydrologic area conditions rated as High Functioning for this indicator. For other indicators in the assessment, logical breakpoints in the data were sought to minimize the variance of values within each functional rating. Table 13. Indicator Values and functional ratings for LWP subwatersheds.

Æ

Rating (Score)

Indicator

Æ

Functioning-Low (-1) Functioning-At Risk (0) Functioning High (+1)

% High Quality Habitat

% Good WQ & Hydrologic Area

% Riparian Impacts

% High Quality Riparian Buffer

9 -15% 15 - 20% 20 - 28%

45 - 70% 70 - 80% 80 - 97%

20 - 33% 6 - 19% 0 - 6%

0 - 20% 20 - 35% 35 - 65%

As mentioned, the limited number of indicators available to evaluate each functional category led to the combining of functional ratings for Hydrology and WQ. An individual rating was made for Habitat and an Overall functional score was calculated. 23

An additive method was used to arrive at category ratings. Functional indicators rated as Low were given a score of negative one (-1). At Risk scored a zero (0), and High scored a positive one (+1). These scores were added to develop category scores in the following method. o Habitat Function Category = % HQ Habitat Score + % Streams Impacted Score + % HQ Riparian Buffer Score o Hydro/WQ Function Category = % Good Hydro/WQ Area Score + % Streams Impacted Score + % HQ Riparian Buffer Score o Overall Function Category = % HQ Habitat Score + % Good Hydro/WQ Area Score + % Streams Impacted Score + % HQ Riparian Buffer Score The fact that several functional indicators are used to rate both habitat and Hydrology/WQ occur relates to breadth of these categories and their connectivity to one another. For example, aquatic and terrestrial habitat are combined into one category (i.e., Habitat). Consequently, aquatic indicators such as Percent of Impacted Streams relates to Habitat as well as Hydrology/WQ. The category totals were then used to rate the level of function for subwatersheds. Table 14 provides the scores used to rate each category. These totals and ratings were calculated for each subwatershed in the LWP Table 14. Functional Category Scores and Corresponding Rating. Functional Category

Habitat; Hydro / WQ Overall

Total Score / Rating

-3 to -2 / Functioning Low -1 to +1 / Functioning At Risk +2 to +3 / Functioning High -4 to -2 / Functioning Low -1 to +1 / Functioning At Risk +2 to +4 / Functioning High

Comments

Each Category has 3 indicators and a possible value range of -3 to +3. Category has 4 indicators and a possible value range of -4 to +4.

Results In Overall rating, Indian Creek compares better to other HUs when examining subwatershed functions. Most of Indian Creek’s subwatersheds fell into the Functioning-At Risk category (59%). In Howard’s Creek, however, most subwatersheds rated Low (70%). Indian Creek also had the highest percentage of its watersheds rating as High Functioning (14%). Middle South Fork’s small size (5 mi.2 and only two subwatersheds) make comparison of its functions of limited value. Table 15 and Figure 13 provide a summary of the overall ratings for each HU. Details on each subwatershed value and rating are contained in Appendix E. Habitat and Hydrology/WQ functions parallel the results of the Overall assessment. One reason for the similarity is that stream related indicators (i.e., Pct. of Streams Impacted and Pct. of Streams with HQ Riparian Buffers), are underlying elements of both Habitat and Hydrology/WQ scores. Areas in upper Howard’s Creek rate poorly for these indicators and, as a result, show up as Low functioning for both individual and the combined functional assessment rating. Differences among functional categories stem more from upland terrestrial conditions. Subwatersheds with high percentages of interior forest cover, NHEOs, and SNHAs were likely 24

to score as High functioning for Habitat. These features were not directly considered to assess Hydrology/WQ functions. The Phase I functional assessment results indicate that functions in Indian Creek appear to be better than those in Howard’s even though lower Indian Creek is listed as impaired and Howard’s Creek is not. This fact highlights the need to better understand the stressors contributing to this impairment. Several possibilities could be the cause of this scenario. First, the City of Cherryville WWTP discharges into lower Indian Creek. Its effluent may contribute to the impairment. Other possible stressors include runoff from the City of Cherryville or temporary impacts from the widening and re-alignment of State Route 150 that crosses lower Indian Creek. This project was completed in 2006, the same time as the stream was rated as impaired. Conversely, further investigation may reveal the conditions in Indian Creek no longer support its impairment listing by DWQ. Monitoring and fieldwork in the next phase of the project should better reveal whether or not conditions support the impairment listing and, if so, possible sources of the impairment. Table 15. Summary of Preliminary Functional Rating for Subwatershed by HU. Function Rating Habitat Low At-Risk High Total Subsheds Hydrology/ WQ Low At-Risk High Total Subsheds Overall Low At-Risk High Total Subsheds

Indian Creek % of Subsheds HU

Howard's Creek % of Subsheds HU

Middle-South Fork % of Subsheds HU

LWP Total % of Subsheds LWP

3 15 4

14% 68% 18%

7 2 1

70% 20% 10%

1 1

50% 50%

11 18 5

32% 53% 15%

22

100%

10

100%

2

100%

34

100%

5 14 3

23% 64% 14%

7 3 0

70% 30% 0%

1 1

50% 50%

13 18 3

38% 53% 9%

22

100%

10

100%

2

100%

34

100%

6 13 3

27% 59% 14%

7 2 1

70% 20% 10%

1 1

50% 50%

14 16 4

41% 47% 12%

22

100%

10

100%

2

100%

34

100%

25

Figure 13. Functional Ratings for LWP Subwatersheds.

26

SECTION VII. EXISTING WATERSHED PROTECTIONS AND POLICIES

Lincoln, Gaston and Catawba counties have developed a variety of mechanisms to protect the environment. This section examines these measures. Most focus is give to Lincoln and Gaston County due to fact that 95% of the LWP falls into these two counties. Both Lincoln and Gaston Counties have instituted a number of progressive steps to help better manage and protect their watersheds. In the LWP area a variety of protection measures exist. These protections are summarized in the following categories: o o o o

Water Supply Riparian Corridor Stormwater & Erosion Control Other Measures

Information used in these summaries was taken from the respective county ordinances. These can be found at the following websites: Lincoln County - http://www.co.lincoln.nc.us/Bald/environment.htm Gaston County - http://www.co.gaston.nc.us/ordinances/watershedord10197.pdf Catawba County - http://www.catawbacountync.gov/depts/planning/general/WShed.pdf Water Supply Upper Indian Creek and Middle South Fork are classified as a Water Supply Watersheds. Indian Creek has a Water Supply II classification. Lincoln, Gaston, and Catawba Counties manage areas with this classification to maintain an undeveloped land use pattern. This management objective restricts residential development to one unit per acre and limits the amount of a parcel that can be built upon. An area within one-half mile of the intake is more protected including limiting new development to one house per two acres. In Lincoln County, Middle South Fork is designated as a Water Supply IV. Management of this area addresses more dense development allowing two-to-three houses per acre depending on street type with limitations to built upon area. Like Indian Creek, there is a more protective management zone one-half mile from the watershed intake with residential development limited to 2 houses per acre and more restrictive built-upon areas. Riparian Areas Lincoln and Gaston Counties have comprehensive protections for areas adjacent to streams. Gaston County requires a minimum 30-foot vegetative buffer for low-density development along perennial waters on United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic maps and 100-foot buffers for high-density development. For new development in Lincoln County, USGS mapped streams are required to have a minimum 50-foot vegetated two-zone buffer, where the 30-foot zone adjacent to the stream is

27

undisturbed. Zone 2 can be managed vegetation. Additionally, Lincoln County requires new development in mapped floodplains to have vegetated buffers as wide as the 100-year floodplain. Catawba County requires a 30-foot buffer on all USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic map perennial streams. Stormwater & Erosion Control All three counties have developed stormwater ordinances based on the NC Phase II NPDES stormwater objectives. Gaston and Catawba Counties are required to do this, while Lincoln County is doing it voluntarily. Phase II Stormwater rules are required on developments of 1 acre or more. Its many requirements include the need to control runoff, reduce erosion, limit imperviousness, and have protective stream buffers (Whisnant et al. 2007). Lincoln County has an Environmental Review Board that is charged with enforcing the County’s stormwater and sediment and erosion control rules. Field inspections are largely completed by the County’s Soil and Water Conservation District. Land disturbing activity in the County must maintain ground cover, protect buffers and monitor the development sites for sediment runoff. Gaston County has developed a Universal Stormwater Management Program and received delegation from the State to administer its stormwater rules. Gaston’s Natural Resources Department helps administer this Program, reviews plans, and inspects sites to assure their compliance with erosion and sediment control permits. More information on North Carolina’s Universal Stormwater Program can be found online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/usmp.htm. Additional Protections Lincoln and Gaston Counties have a variety of additional tools they employ to plan and manage growth. Lincoln County is drafting a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to compile the existing ordinances into a single document. The UDO will also allow for the revision of County’s land use regulations, better ensuring quality development. Further options Lincoln County is pursuing include a Tree Preservation Ordinance and a Greenway Trail Program. Finally, to strive toward a sustainable environment and a vibrant economy, Lincoln County has formed a Natural Resource Committee to advise County officials on environmental issues. Gaston County also has a review commission to proactively address environmental challenges the County is facing. This group, the Quality of Natural Resources Commission, aims to improve the County’s environment by involving a diverse membership of citizens and environmental professionals from across the County. The County has also been active in applying for grants and has received funding to restore and protect its streams and wetlands. Finally, Gaston County has an active environmental education program spearheaded by the County’s Cooperative Extension Office and Gaston’s Department of Natural Resources. Through the LWP stakeholder process described in Section X of this document, environmental protection policies and activities occurring within the LWP will be better vetted to develop recommendations for improvement of watershed protections. Of particular concern will be the examination of development pressures and agricultural activities occurring in the LWP area and their potential impact on watershed functions and services.

28

SECTION VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF DATA GAPS

During the Phase I assessment, a number of watershed characterization data gaps have been identified. Foremost, there is a need to collect more biologic and water quality data in streams. Indian Creek has been rated as impaired but there is little understanding of the causes for this impairment. This is particularly troubling since Howard’s Creek seems to have better biologic conditions but its watersheds also appear to be more stressed. Other water quality knowledge gaps exist. These include: o How do the LWP streams compare to regional reference conditions? o How has drought affected aquatic biology? o Are water quality conditions in streams draining urban subwatersheds comparable to rural subwatersheds? o Are water quality conditions healthy upstream of Cherryville’s drinking water intake? In addition to the stream monitoring, field assessments are needed on high quality riparian and wetland sites to better understand the need and opportunity for their preservation. The majority of these stream miles fall in Indian Creek (39 miles versus 10 for Howard’s), where watersheds are higher-functioning. Preservation opportunities, however, have been identified from aerial imagery. Field visits are needed to verify whether or not conditions support considering these streams as preservation priorities. Conversely, degraded stream and wetland sites also will need to be investigated for restoration and enhancement opportunities. Impacted miles are split fairly evenly between Indian (24 miles) and Howard’s Creek (19 miles). Though there is a low overall percentage of urban land in the LWP (10%), concentrations of high-density development exist around Cherryville. One site in particular, Carolina Freight, has nearly 75 acres of impervious surface. This site and other portions of Cherryville drain to lower Indian Creek (Subwatersheds I-12 and I-14). Assessing the impact of runoff from Cherryville is necessary to better understand potential sources of impairment to lower Indian Creek. To improve upon the subwatershed assessment of function, several field assessments need to be completed at both restoration and preservation sites. These include assessments of stream channel substrate, streambank stability, and stream habitat. Finally, wetlands provide a number of valuable services. Area wetland maps, however, were developed from early 1980s aerial photography and rarely field verified (US FWS 1995). Field verification is important both because the NWI maps are dated and because, in the Piedmont, mapped wetlands often fall on Chewacla soils. While considered hydric, these soils are deep with moderate permeability that can prevent them from meeting hydric criteria where soil saturation is needed during the growing season. Therefore it will be important to field check mapped wetlands and, as potential wetlands, hydric soils in the LWP to verify they meet wetland criteria and assess their functions.

29

SECTION IX. FUTURE ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES

A number of assessments are proposed to help fill data gaps and develop a plan to improve conditions and functions within the LWP. These assessments, outlined in this section, are categorized into monitoring, fieldwork, and watershed protections. Monitoring To begin with, a monitoring plan has been developed to help generate a better understanding of water quality conditions (See Appendix D). According to DWQ’s plan, monthly and quarterly monitoring will occur on nutrients, suspended solids, fecal coliforms, copper, and turbidity at 9 sites in the LWP and one reference site nearby in Leepers Creek (NC DWQ 2008b). Monitoring and data analysis will be completed to address the following goals: • • • •

Identify stressors and sources that contribute to Lower Indian Creek’s impaired listing; Characterize and compare water quality conditions among the Indian and Howard’s Creek watersheds and reference stream conditions; Compare water quality in urbanized subwatersheds with those in rural watersheds; and Determine whether or not water quality standards/action levels are being violated in the Indian and Howard’s Creek watersheds, particularly above the source water intake for the City of Cherryville.

Fieldwork In addition to monitoring, a number of field assessments are planned for the project’s next phase. EEP will fund field assessments of impacted streams for habitat, channel stability, and hydraulic analysis. Impacted wetlands will also be assessed for opportunities to improve hydric soils, hydrology, and vegetation. Table 16 outlines the features assessments that will be completed during Phase II of this LWP. Due to budgetary and time constraints, not all of the identified sites can be visited. EEP will identify priority sites for fieldwork. Ultimately, a subset of the sites visited will be documented in a final report where potential projects will be better detailed for feasibility and project benefits. In addition to impacted sites, other assessments outlined in Table 16 will be completed. Potential stream preservation sites will be characterized and documented. At least two watersheds will be analyzed for stormwater best management practices (BMPs). The two subwatersheds draining Cherryville (I-12 [Lick Creek] and I-14 [Unnamed]) have been targeted for these assessments. Finally, up to five farms will be assessed for benefits from potential agricultural BMP implementation. The NC DWQ will complete a study of wetland preservation sites. This study will be one of North Carolina’s first wetland studies using the recently completed North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM). Forested wetlands will be visited by DWQ and those areas meeting wetland criteria for hydrology, vegetation, and soils will have their functions evaluated using the NC WAM scoring system.

30

Table 16. Future Project Assessments.

Feature

Identified Sites (Total Units)

Final Project Report 1

Impacted Streams

125 ( 46 miles)

~ 25 sites

Impacted Wetlands

59 (336 ac)

~ 20 sites

Stream Preservation

85 (50 miles)

~ 10 sites

Wetland Preservation

84 (390 ac)

~ 25 sites

~ 2 Watersheds

~ 3 BMPs

~ 5 farms

~ 5 farms

Stormwater BMPs Ag BMPs (modeled BMPs) 1

The number of sites and assessments listed in the final project report is an estimate and will depend on ground conditions, available time, and the ability to access sites.

When complete, data from the field assessments and monitoring will be used to refine the preliminary assessment of subwatershed functions. In turn, the functional assessment will play an important role in targeting final restoration and preservation recommendations in Phase III of the LWP. Watershed Protections Environmental protection policies and activities occurring within the LWP will be further examined to develop recommendations for improvement of watershed protections. Of particular concern will be the protection of drinking water. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Source Water Protection (SWP) Program has committed to examining issues related to water supply in Indian Creek, a Water Supply Watershed. These issues cover, among other things, adequate supply, water quality, potential contaminant sources, and protection of the drinking water resources. Because of overlapping interests and planning processes, EEP will be partnering with the SWP Program to develop a watershed plan that meets the needs of both programs. Cooperative effort between the SWP Program and EEP best utilizes resources and increases the likelihood of achieving mutual watershed improvement and protection objectives. The partnership will focus on the Indian Creek watershed upstream of Cherryville, a portion of EEP’s Indian and Howard Creek LWP area. The SWP Program has calculated a Susceptibility Rating for Indian Creek using point sources of contamination and watershed characteristics. This rating indicates the relative risk to a public drinking water source. The Susceptibility Rating can either be Higher, Moderate, or Lower. The Susceptibility Rating for Cherryville’s intake on Indian Creek is “Moderate”. This rating implies that immediate contamination threats are not extreme for Cherryville but are still of concern. Of the NC public water systems using a surface water source, approximately 31% are within the Moderate category

31

The SWP planning process for Indian Creek will include a more in-depth assessment of potential drinking water contaminant sources than would typically be completed by EEP. Sites identified in the SWP Program will be visited and evaluated for their potential contamination to drinking water. Typically, these sites include animal operations, underground storage tanks, permitted NPDES sites, and other potential contaminants. This review will be completed in 2009. The end product of SWP planning is a written set of strategies used to initiate and prioritize activities designed to protect Indian Creek. The plan is submitted to the State SWP program for formal review and approval. Once approved, the SWP plan is typically used to solicit support from state and federal government officials and local activist groups who can participate positively in watershed protection efforts. An approved SWP plan also qualifies the water system for economic incentives such as low-interest loans or prioritized status from funding programs (e.g., Ag-Cost Share, Environmental Quality Incentives Program) that can be used for source water protection activities.

32

SECTION X. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

The involvement of local stakeholders is a vital component of all EEP LWP initiatives. State and local resource agency professionals, county and municipal planners, land trusts, regional councils of government and other non-profits involved in resource conservation all have knowledge and expertise regarding local watershed conditions, local watershed protection efforts and landowner outreach strategies that help guide EEP staff and consultants in conducting our LWPs. Local stakeholder teams provide valuable input and recommendations at critical points throughout the LWP process, especially in three key areas: the selection of priority subwatersheds for detailed watershed assessment and project identification; the development of consensus recommendations for more effective local watershed management; and the identification of landowners who may be willing to partner with EEP in the implementation of restoration, enhancement and preservation projects. Stakeholder Meetings Early in the Phase I process, EEP staff identified over 25 state and local resource professionals to invite to participate in the Indian and Howard’s Creek LWP effort. The invited stakeholders included representatives from several agencies and groups, including those shown in Table 17. To date, three stakeholder meetings have been held at the Lincoln County Senior Center (Lincolnton campus of Gaston Community College). Quarterly stakeholder meetings will be held in Lincolnton through the end of Phase 3 (December 2009). To date, a total of 24 non-EEP stakeholders have attended the project’s three meetings. The names and affiliations of meeting participants are provided in Appendix E. A summary of the major topics discussed and decisions made at each of the three meetings follows. For detailed meeting notes and presentations, please go to the project website: www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Indian_Howards_Creek/INDIAN_HOWARD_CREEKS.html. Table 17. Indian and Howard’s Creek LWP Stakeholder Representation

- Carolina Land & Lakes Resource Conservation & Development - Catawba County Planning - City of Cherryville - City of Lincolnton - County & NCSU Cooperative Extension Service (CES) - Lincoln and Gaston Co. Soil & Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) - Gaston County Natural Resources - Gaston County Water Supply - Lincoln County Planning - NC DENR – Source Water Protection Program - NC DWQ – Basinwide Planning - NC Rural Water Association

33

March 18, 2008 This was the 'kickoff' meeting for the Indian & Howard’s Creek LWP stakeholders. It included initial introductions, an overview of the EEP Program mission, the role of watershed planning in meeting EEP’s objectives, and a description of the types of mitigation projects that EEP pursues. An informal charter for the stakeholder group was reviewed, including a list of stakeholder roles. These stakeholder roles and objectives include: help identify priority sub-watersheds; help identify and rank the best project sites with willing landowners; act as a 'bridge' to local landowners; use the final Plan and Project Atlas to help leverage funding for non-EEP projects. This meeting also included a preliminary discussion of what the local stakeholders see as the priority watershed issues in the Indian and Howard’s Creek LWP study area, framed within two major categories: problems that need fixing, and assets that need protecting. June 17, 2008 This gathering included follow-up on action items from the kickoff meeting (e.g., comparison of EPA 9-element watershed plans versus EEP LWP elements), updates on monitoring activities by DWQ-WAT and Phase I assessments, and continuation of the identification of key watershed issues. The stakeholders used 'brainstorming' to develop a list of specific watershed issues, and then combined and sorted the issues into 9 major categories: threats from stormwater runoff; outreach/education; water quantity issues; agriculture; erosion/sedimentation and buffers; regulatory enforcement; wastewater treatment plant issues; drinking water protection; and multipurpose land conservation efforts. September 16. 2008 This meeting began with an update on the Phase I findings and recommendations. Jay Frick provided an overview of the DENR Source Water Protection Program and recruited volunteers to form a subgroup within the LWP effort that would focus on development of a Source Water Protection Plan for Cherryville. The major watershed issues identified at the last meeting were translated into a series of specific LWP goals for addressing watershed stressors, grouped into three categories (primarily urban; primarily rural; and watershed-wide). [See the following section for a list of the final consensus goals.] Stakeholders used a poster-size map to identify priority sub-watersheds for agricultural and stormwater BMPs. EEP planner Mike Herrmann asked stakeholders about the best methods for informing/educating local watershed citizens about this LWP effort. The meeting concluded with updates on DWQ-WAT watershed monitoring activities and plans, and EEP project implementation efforts in the lower Catawba cataloging units (CUs). LWP and Stakeholder Goals Table 18 lists the 9 goals that have been established by the stakeholders, grouped into three categories. These include a mix of short-term actions or products that can be achieved during the EEP LWP process (i.e., by the end of Phase 3) as well as goals that represent long-term activities that would likely be continued by local stakeholders after completion of the EEP LWP.

34

Table 18. Stakeholder goals for the LWP

Urban Goals

Timeframe

1 - Identify the best subwatersheds and project sites for stormwater BMPs. 2 - Develop recommendations for improving stormwater management. 3 - Seek funding for stormwater BMPs identified through the LWP.

Short-term Short-term Long-term

Rural Goals 1 - Work with rural landowners to implement agricultural BMPs within priority subwatersheds. 2 – Work with Land Trust(s) to develop a rural preservation strategy.

Long-term Short-term

Watershed-wide Goals 1 – Identify the best subwatersheds for various project types, and rank projects for implementation. 2 – Evaluate the effectiveness of current local ordinances related to watershed protection, and a – Establish new local ordinances, as needed; b – Provide for more effective enforcement of existing rules/ordinances. 3 – Develop a local Watershed Education Program. 4 – Develop a Source Water Protection Plan for Cherryville.

35

Short-term Long-term

Short-term Short-term

SECTION XI. CONCLUSIONS

This Preliminary Findings Report characterizes the LWP and presents a number of recommendations to better assess watershed functions. Among the issues highlighted are that indicators of stress seem greater in Howard’s Creek than in Indian. Lower Indian Creek, however, has been rated as an impaired stream by DWQ and, therefore, further water quality monitoring is needed to understand the sources of Indian Creek’s impairment. Land cover in the LWP is predominantly agricultural, making overall habitat conditions in the LWP marginal. Some areas, however, have been identified as potential preservation opportunities. In particular, DWQ will complete a study of forested wetlands to assess their function. The majority of both potential stream and wetland preservation sites are in Indian Creek. All three HUs in the LWP have streams and wetlands that appear impacted by livestock grazing, stream alteration, and loss of streamside forest. These impacts hinder the functioning of watersheds, causing aquatic conditions to be stressed. A detailed plan has been developed to assess impacted streams and wetlands for restoration opportunities. This work will be carried out in Phase II of the LWP. Results from Phase II will be used to better assess watershed functions. Finally, involvement from local stakeholders has helped direct and inform the planning process. In 2009, continued stakeholders meetings will occur to help shape recommendations from the planning process and prioritize areas for project implementation.

36

SECTION XII. REFERENCES

Center for Watershed Protection. 2000. Article 28: Basic Concepts in Watershed Planning: The Practice of Watershed Protection. T. Schueler and H. Holland, eds. Ellicott City, MD. Earth Satellite Corporation 1996. Comprehensive Land Cover Mapping for the State of North Carolina: Detailed Study Design. Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R., MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., and Shelburne, V.B. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000). Hall. S. 2007 per. communication. Homer, C. C. Huang, L. Yang, B. Wylie and M. Coan. 2004. Development of a 2001 National Landcover Database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol. 70, No. 7, July 2004, pp. 829-840. Online at http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k_nlcd.asp Jones, B.K., Neale, A.C., Nash, M.S., Van Remortel, R.D., Wickham, J.D., Ritters, K.H., O’Neil, R.V. 2001. Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic Region. Landscape Ecology 16: 301–312. Maidment, D. R. 2002. ArcHydro – GIS for Water Resources. Redlands, California. ESRI Press. Merschat, A.J, Hatcher, R.D. Jr., Gilliam, W.G. Byars, H. E. 2008. Inner Piedmont GeoTraverse from the Brushy Mountains to Lincolnton, North Carolina: Architecture of the Cat Square and Tugaloo Terranes. Geological Society of America Southeastern Section Meeting Field Guide. Miller, W. 2007 pers. communication. Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Lincoln County, North Carolina Natural Heritage Inventory. Online at http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/Lincoln11-07-05.pdf NC Climate Office. 2008. Online at (http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/?station=314996) NC Division of Water Quality. 2006. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). (Online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2006IR_FINAL_000.pdf) NC Division of Water Quality. 2008a. Summary of Existing Data for Indian and Howard’s Creeks. Surface Water Protection Section – Watershed Assessment Team.

37

NC Division of Water Quality. 2008b. Addendum to the Draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan for Indian and Howard’s Creeks. Surface Water Protection Section – Watershed Assessment Team. NC Drought Management Advisory Council. 2008. (Online at http://www.ncdrought.org/archive) NC Department of Transportation. 2007. GIS Branch Flood Mapping LIDAR data. Online at http://www.ncdot.org/it/gis/DataDistribution/ContourElevationData/ NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2006. French Broad River Basin Local Watershed Plan. Online at http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/South_Hominy_Creek/NEW_South_Hominy.pdf NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2008. Data Screening River Basin Restoration Priorities. Unpublished Data. NC Foodplain Mapping Program. 2007. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map. Online at www.ncfloodmaps.com Palone, R.S. and A.H. Todd (editors.). 1997. Chesapeake Bay riparian handbook: a guide for establishing and maintaining riparian forest buffers. USDA Forest Service. NA-TP-02-97. Radnor, PA. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory. Online at http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/nwi/download.html U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. Soil Survey of Lincoln County U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). February 2000. The National Hydrography Dataset: Concepts and Content. Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/chapter1/index.html. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. National Hydric Soils List by State (January 2008). Online at http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html. Whisnant, R. and Kane, B. 2007. Phase II Stormwater Model Ordinance for North Carolina. University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center. Online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/documents/PhIIMO.doc

38

APPENDIX A. DEVELOPMENT OF LAND COVER DATA FOR THE LWP.

For this LWP, data from the National Land Cover Dataset (Homer et al. 2004) and the NC Land Cover (Earth Satellite Corporation 1996) were considered to provide insight of land cover conditions. These data reflect landscape conditions in 2001 and 1996, respectively, so they were both dated. After reviewing the two data sets, it was decided that we would update the 1996 NC Land Cover using 2005 digital-orthophotography. The NC Land Cover was chosen as the base because it was developed for North Carolina, has been reviewed by State agencies, and is in a vector format that was easily edited. The NC Land Cover development was coordinated by the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA). CGIA contracted Earth Satellite Corporation (EarthSat) of Rockville, Maryland to generate comprehensive land cover data for the entire state of North Carolina. Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper is the base imagery used to develop the land cover that reflects conditions at imagery dates and field data collection activities through June 1996. Land cover represents areas showing human uses of the land, vegetation, water, natural surface and construction. After processing, each scene was filtered to reach the minimum mapping unit of 6 pixels (1.2 acres) for water and 12 pixels (2.4 acres) for land cover types. Methods For Phase I of this LWP, the first step in updating the land cover shapefile was to modify the land cover classes from the 1996 data set. The 1996 land cover descriptions were combined to create the new, more generalized, 2005 land cover classes. The new classification helped to further simplify editing of the 1996 data. The class descriptions and criteria used for editing polygons in the 1996 shapefile are listed in Table A-1. Table A- 1: Land Cover Class Modifications 2005 Classes 1996 Descriptions Cultivated Agriculture Managed Herbaceous Cover Unmanaged Herbaceous Upland Bottomland Forest/Hardwood Swamps Forest Mixed Hardwoods/Conifers Mixed Upland Hardwoods Other Broadleaf Deciduous Forests Other Needleleaf Evergreen Forests Southern Yellow Pine Low Intensity Developed Low Density Urban

Urban High Density

Deciduous Shrubland Evergreen Shrubland High Intensity Developed

Water

Water Bodies

Shrubland

39

Criteria Used for Editing Cropland; Pasture; Areas containing farmhouse or agriculture related buildings less than 4 acres Wooded areas

Low density developed residential areas (approx. 1-to-5 houses/acre) Unmanaged areas that cannot be classed as Agriculture or Forest High density developed residential areas; Commercial areas; Agriculture related buildings greater than 4 acres Areas containing standing water

After establishing land cover classes and the editing criteria, the 1996 land cover data was overlaid onto the 2005 aerial images. The 1996 polygons were edited for the following reasons: • • •

The land cover class did not agree with conditions on the 2005 aerial imagery, so the land cover was updated to the correct class. The land cover shape or size did not match the landscape feature on the 2005 aerial image, so the polygon border was modified. There was no land cover polygon to match a feature on the 2005 aerial image, so a new polygon was created.

2005 ortho-photography with half-foot pixel size was used as the reference for updating the 1996 land cover data. To expedite the update, 2005 features that were smaller than four acres were not edited. Once the land cover for the entire LWP area had been reviewed and updated, ARC GIS and Microsoft Access were used to summarize the land cover areas within the LWP and each HU. Discussion While this study was not designed to examine temporal changes in the land cover between 1996 and 2005, we did some investigation of whether or not the changes were real or corrections to the original data. To examine this question, 1998 color infra-red aerial (1 meter pixel size) was compared to the 2005 updated land cover. It was found that the majority of the edited features are present as features on the 1998 ortho-photography. As an example, many areas classified Low Density Urban in 2005 are present in the 1998 imagery, but labeled as Agriculture. Differing mapping rules are more likely the reason for the varied classifications between the two years than actual change in land cover. Review of the 1996 Land Cover documentation reveal that Low Density Urban mapping rules state that the class have “between 50 and 80 percent coverage by synthetic land cover” (EarthSat 1996). For this update, Low Density Urban were areas over 4 acres with approximately one-to-five houses per acre. This suggests that much of the differences between 1996 and 2005 were not actually changes in land cover but that the criteria used for classifying land cover was different. Figure A-1 provides an example of updates to the 1996 data (left image). Due to a combination of misclassified data and differing mapping rules, much of the agricultural land in the 1996 data was converted to low density urban in the 2005 land cover (right image).

40

1996 Land Cover

2005 Land Cover

Figure A-1. Due to a combination of misclassified data and differing mapping rules, much of the

agricultural land in the 1996 data (left image) was converted to low density urban in the 2005 land cover (right image).

41

APPENDIX B. Land Cover Statistics by Subwatershed. Subwatershed ID H-1 H-2 H-3 H-4 H-5 H-6 H-7 H-8 H-9 H-10 Howard's Total I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-6 I-7 I-8 I-9 I-10 I-11 I-12 I-13 I-14 I-15 I-16 I-17 I-18 I-19 I-20 I-21 I-22 Indian Total MSF-1 MSF-2 Mid-South Fork Total LWP Total

Urban High Density (ac) 0 15 7 17 8 4 11

61 21 7 14 1 18 6 32

% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

27 104

1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 8% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4%

698

1%

1 22 0 272 1 159 6

7

4 10 14 773

0% 1% 0% 1%

Low Density Urban (ac) 0 0 43 217 236 0 61 164 162 300 1,183

% 0% 0% 2% 7% 7% 0% 4% 11% 7% 12% 5%

Agriculture (ac)

%

1,487 1,104 1,084 1,451 1,522 639 806 826 1,570 1,226

59% 60% 61% 49% 47% 52% 54% 54% 64% 47%

11,714

54%

Forest (ac) 1,008 717 618 1,275 1,394 576 615 532 687 1,016 8,438

Shrub %

Water

Total

(ac)

%

(ac)

%

(ac)

40% 39% 35% 43% 43% 47% 41% 35% 28% 39%

26 0 13 12 59 21 0 0 32 34

1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1%

0 0 10 7 11 0 0 0 14 7

0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

2,521 1,835 1,775 2,979 3,230 1,236 1,487 1,532 2,463 2,583

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

39%

197

1%

0%

21,641

100%

48

%

88 20 383 0 88 358 240 254 127 121 130 605 58 283 93 123 78 287 455 264 212 738

3% 2% 12% 0% 5% 11% 10% 8% 9% 4% 9% 18% 6% 23% 6% 7% 5% 16% 18% 15% 12% 26%

1,811 730 1,396 1,270 754 1,723 1,059 1,419 608 1,557 572 1,051 470 238 1,121 844 982 934 952 919 664 821

57% 56% 43% 62% 47% 52% 43% 46% 45% 51% 39% 31% 45% 20% 67% 47% 57% 52% 37% 54% 36% 28%

1,241 523 1,456 741 743 1,198 1,089 1,380 610 1,336 773 1,455 509 516 458 844 623 569 1,110 509 910 1,201

39% 40% 45% 36% 46% 36% 45% 45% 45% 44% 52% 43% 49% 43% 27% 47% 36% 31% 43% 30% 50% 42%

39 10 0 32 7 4 13 4 8 12 0 18 4 0 0 0 20 20 27 4 3 0

1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

3 4 21 0 6 13 11 27 4 12 5 11 8 12 1 3 16 0 14 12 4 18

0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1%

3,204 1,294 3,270 2,044 1,616 3,302 2,443 3,083 1,359 3,059 1,481 3,411 1,050 1,208 1,679 1,815 1,720 1,809 2,565 1,708 1,820 2,883

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5,006

10%

21,897

46%

19,795

41%

223

0%

204

0%

47,823

100%

229 229

9% 27%

1,548 292

60% 35%

778 299

30% 35%

15 8

1% 1%

7 7

0% 1%

2,580 845

100% 100%

458 6,647

13% 9%

1,840

54%

1,077

31%

22

1%

14

0%

3,425

100%

35,451

49%

29,310

40%

443

1%

266

0%

72,890

100%

42

APPENDIX C. EXISTING MONITORING REPORT

North Carolina Division of Water Quality Surface Water Protection Section – Program Development Unit Watershed Assessment Team May 27, 2008 Summary of Existing Data for Indian and Howard’s Creeks Catawba, Lincoln, and Gaston Counties Catawba River Basin Catalog Unit # 03050102 HU # 050010, 040030, and 040040 This document summarizes existing water quality data for a portion of the South Fork Catawba River watershed including Indian and Howard’s Creeks and their tributaries (Figure 1) in the Catawba River Basin. The purposes of this summary are: 1) To compile and summarize existing water quality and related monitoring data for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Local Watershed Plan (LWP) study area; 2) To determine whether causes and sources of any water quality and/or aquatic habitat problems can be identified; 3) To identify critical gaps in watershed monitoring data that need to be addressed during Phase II of the LWP effort. This report will form the basis for development of a water quality monitoring plan for the LWP study area by Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Watershed Assessment Team (WAT) staff. I. INTRODUCTION A. Watershed Description The EEP has selected the Indian Creek (HU 050010), Howard’s Creek (HU 040040), and the Middle South Fork Catawba River (HU 040030) watersheds in catalog unit 03050102 for the development of a Local Watershed Plan (LWP). Indian and Howard’s Creeks are part of the South Fork of the Catawba River basin of the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion and are located primarily in Lincoln County. The Indian and Howard’s Creek watersheds are largely rural and are dominated by forest/wetlands and farmland (mostly pasture), although tributaries of Indian Creek drain the northern part of Cherryville (Figure 1, Appendix 1). These watersheds and their tributaries also include portions of NC Highways 27, 150, 182, and 274. The total area of the LWP area is approximately 114 square miles. Eight permitted animal facilities are present in the Indian and Howard’s Creeks watersheds. The wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) for the City of Cherryville and West Lincoln High School are located on Indian Creek. Indian Creek and its major tributary, Little Indian Creek, originate in Catawba County about onehalf mile north of the Lincoln County line; Indian Creek flows southward across Lincoln County

43

just into the northern edge of Gaston County north of Cherryville, and then eastward about one mile and back into Lincoln County, where it continues eastward to its confluence with the South Fork Catawba River south of Lincolnton. Four other named creeks, including Little Creek, Mill Creek, and Leonard Fork in Lincoln County, and Lick Fork in Gaston County and several unnamed tributaries (UTs) to these creeks flow into Indian Creek. The entire Indian Creek watershed is 75 square miles.

USGS Gage

Figure 1. Map of Indian and Howard Creeks LWP area showing streams, watershed boundaries, existing water quality monitoring sites, permitted facilities including wastewater treatment plants and public water supply intakes. (The numbers on the map correspond to the map codes shown in Table 9.)

44

Howard’s Creek and its headwater UTs originate in Catawba County about a mile north of the Lincoln County line and flow southeast to its confluence with the South Fork of the Catawba River about one mile northwest of Lincolnton. Rockdam Creek, Tanyard Creek, and several UTs flow into Howard’s Creek. The entire Howard’s Creek watershed is 34 square miles. The Middle South Fork Catawba River also is part of the LWP planning area, but is part of the mainstem South Fork Catawba River and is only five square miles in extent. Water quality in the Middle South Fork Catawba River is influenced primarily from areas upstream of the LWP area, rather than from within the immediate LWP planning area. This large drainage area is beyond the scope of this LWP and will not be addressed further in this data summary.

Figure 2. Land use/land cover in the Indian and Howard’s Creeks watersheds.

45

B. Water Quality Standards and Action Levels, Stream Classifications, Use Support Ratings, and Impaired Listings North Carolina has a set of regulations that specify the minimum standards for the waters of the state (NC Environmental Management Commission 2007; http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/documents/Redbook2007_000.pdf). These water quality standards may be narrative, but more commonly are numerical criteria (e.g., maximum allowable instream concentrations). For certain constituents (such as copper, iron, silver, and zinc), firm numerical standards are not in place as actual toxicity to aquatic organisms can vary depending on additional factors, such as water hardness. In these cases the numerical criteria are referred to as action levels. A listing of the NC water quality standards and action levels for parameters summarized in this document is shown in Table 1. The NC water quality standards and action levels (AL) vary in accordance with the specified use of the water body in question. Certain uses, such as primary recreation or water supplies, require more stringent standards than others, such as aquatic life support. The uses of a water body are designated by a stream classification assigned by DWQ. The state has inventoried the waters of the state, assigned a unique identifier (“index number”) to each reach, and assigned each reach a stream classification. Data shown and discussed in this summary will be compared with NC water quality standards and action levels (AL) for all parameters for which standards or ALs exist. The headwaters of Indian Creek, along with the entirety of Little Indian Creek, Little Creek and Mill Creek are classified WS-II HQW. Additionally, 0.5 miles of both Indian Creek and Mill Creek, immediately upstream from the Cherryville water supply intake, are classified WS-II HQW, CA (critical area). Immediately downstream from the water supply intake, to a

Table 1. NC water quality standards and action levels Parameter Fecal coliform (GM = geometric mean)

Class Ca GM