Figure 2.9: VWIN monitoring sites in the <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong>............................................. 15Figure 2.10: Map of <strong>Henderson</strong>ville showing <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> prior to channelization...................... 17Figure 3.1: Stream vulnerability rating based on percent impervious cover in the<strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> – by subwatershed................................................................ 27Figure 3.2: Existing wetlands and areas with hydric soils in the <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong>........... 28Figure 3.3: Flooding at <strong>Henderson</strong>ville’s Southside, just one of many areas of chronic floodingexacerbated by floodplain development and impervious cover............................... 29Figure 3.4: Agricultural land uses in the <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong>. .............................................. 35Figure 3.5: Cattle with direct access to <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong>.................................................................... 36Figure 3.6: Cattle access points to streams in the <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong>.................................. 36Figure 3.7: Eroding streambanks cause sediment to fill stream channels impacting aquatichabitat....................................................................................................................... 40Figure 3.8: Site of Clear <strong>Creek</strong> stream restoration project ......................................................... 42Figure 3.9: Runoff from gravel driveway in the upper <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> watershed........................... 44Figure 3.10: Estimated annual sediment load from land uses in the <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> watershed ....... 45Figure 3.11: Number of building permits issued for new residential units in <strong>Henderson</strong> <strong>County</strong>1996-2002 ................................................................................................................ 46Table of ContentsPage iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYFor the past three years, local stakeholders and state and federal resource managers have workedtogether to gather data and outline a plan to restore the <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> watershed. This documentrepresents the culmination of efforts undertaken by these partners to evaluate all possible sourcesand causes of water quality degradation and recommend a comprehensive set of strategies foraddressing these problems.Section 1 presents a brief overview of the project. In 2000, Land of Sky Regional Council ofGovernments convened local stakeholders in the <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> watershed to develop a plan foraddressing water quality problems in the watershed. At that same time, the Division of WaterQuality initiated an independent study to identify causes and sources of impairment in the <strong>Mud</strong><strong>Creek</strong> and two of its tributaries, Bat Fork and Clear <strong>Creek</strong>. These streams are on the NorthCarolina 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies. Concurrently, the NC Wetlands <strong>Restoration</strong>Program was interested in identifying potential stream and wetland restoration projects in the<strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> watershed and agreed to collect additional stream and watershed data through apartnership with the Tennessee Valley Authority to supplement efforts already underway in thewatershed.Section 2 summarizes current conditions in the <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> watershed including land use,water quality, channel and buffer conditions, habitat and wetlands. The <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> watershedis 113 mi 2 comprising approximately one-third of <strong>Henderson</strong> <strong>County</strong>’s land area. There arethree municipalities in the watershed: <strong>Henderson</strong>ville, Flat Rock and Laurel Park. Forty-fivepercent of the <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> watershed is forested, 25 percent is residential, commercial orindustrial, and 23 percent is agricultural. The <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> watershed has roughly 10%impervious cover, however, the percent of imperviousness varies greatly throughout thewatershed with some areas far exceeding the 10% threshold where declines in water quality andaquatic communities are noted. Without appropriate water quality protection measures,increasing urbanization in the watershed will further exacerbate existing water quality problems.The Volunteer Water Information Network rates many streams in the <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> watershed asbelow average and poor due to nutrient enrichment, turbidity and high metals concentrations. Acomprehensive watershed assessment conducted by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in2000-2002 indicates that biological communities in the <strong>Mud</strong> <strong>Creek</strong> watershed are impacted by anumber of factors including toxicants from agriculture and urban sources, scour from highstormflow volumes, poor in-stream habitat, and a lack of tributaries with healthy biologicalcommunities. In addition, DWQ monitoring showed that several streams violated the statestandards for fecal coliform bacteria levels.Historic practices such as channelizing streams, clearing streamside vegetation and draining andfilling wetlands for agriculture and suburban development are prevalent across the watershed.Because of these practices, the quality and distribution of adequate riparian buffers in the <strong>Mud</strong><strong>Creek</strong> watershed are insufficient to protect water quality and promote good aquatic habitat. Inaddition, these practices exacerbate streambank erosion, increase sedimentation and increase thevolume and velocity of stormwater runoff.Pesticides from apple orchards and row crops likely degrade the biological communities ofstreams in the Clear <strong>Creek</strong> and Devils Fork area; both current and past use pesticides may play aExecutive SummaryPage iv