Feasibility Report and Restoration Plan For The Muddy Creek Watershed

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIATIVE

Feasibility Report and Restoration Plan for

The Muddy Creek Watershed
Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina
Catawba River Basin
Sediment plume from Muddy

Creek enters Catawba River.
December, 2003
Feasibility Report and Restoration Plan for the
Muddy Creek Watershed
McDowell and Burke Counties, NC Catawba River Basin

Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
List of Tables and Figures iii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Muddy Creek Watershed and the Muddy 1

Creek Watershed Restoration Partners
Introduction 1
A. Project Goals and Objectives 2
B. Economic Benefits of Watershed Conservation 3
C. Ecological Benefits of Watershed Conservation 6
Chapter 2: The Feasibility of a Restored Muddy Creek Watershed 8

A. Goal 1: Establish Trout Fishery on Catawba River Tailrace 8
B. Goal 2: Fully Supporting Uses for All Waterbodies in Muddy Creek 8
Watershed
C. Program Success 11
Chapter 3: Results from the Watershed Assessment 13

A. Biological Condition of the Muddy Creek Watershed 13
B. Chemical Condition of the Muddy Creek Watershed 14
C. Physical Condition of the Muddy Creek Watershed 15
Chapter 4: Conservation Priorities 22

A. Stream Restoration 22
B. Riparian Reforestation 25
C. Livestock Exclusion 26
D. Riparian Forest Preservation 27
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 31
References Cited R-1
Appendix A: Maps of Muddy Creek Watershed A-1
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

Muddy Creek Restoration Partners
Executive Summary
The Muddy Creek watershed is impaired. Fish and benthic macroinvertebrate data from the NC
Division of Water Quality, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and Duke Energy Corporation
all indicate “fair” to “good-fair” water quality. Duke water chemistry monitoring show mean
coliform bacteria concentrations at levels higher than the state health standard at six of eight data
stations dispersed throughout the watershed. The Muddy Creek Restoration Partners own physi-
cal assessment of the entire 96 square mile watershed indicates widespread habitat degradation
and impaired stream functionality.
Stream entrenchment is severe and pervasive on 36 miles of the main stems of North and South
Muddy Creeks, their larger tributaries, and at the mouths of smaller tributaries. This condition
reduces or eliminates in many cases the functionality of adjacent floodplains. Resulting exposed
barren banks are actively eroding, with bank pin data at 38 of 886 total barren bank sites con-
firming a minimum of 350 tons of sediment loaded into the Muddy Creek watershed in the last
year and a half alone. Since bank pin data is collected at only 4% of barren bank sites, it is no
exaggeration to speculate that the remaining barren banks contributed a minimum of ten times
that amount of sediment (3,500 tons) or more to the watershed during the last year during normal
and above normal rainfall. This is part of the reason that silt and fine sands are the predominant
substrate materials at 40% of riffle areas and 100% of pools surveyed, reducing quality in-stream
habitat for an appropriately diverse aquatic community. Another reason for the imbedded stream
substrate is overland flows of sediment that enter the watershed, primarily from smaller 1st and
2nd order tributaries. Riparian forest vegetation is less than 25 feet wide on 780,000 feet of
creekside land, which is inadequate in most circumstances to filter those additional overland
flows, especially those occurring from rapidly increasing development and clearcutting of timber
on the steeper hillsides. The lack of riparian buffer coverage also diminishes detrital inputs and
tree canopy shade, both functions that are critical to fish and wildlife diversity and overall stream
health. In addition to those sediment sources, livestock are known to regularly access 20,000
feet of stream at minimum, trampling creekbanks and contributing also to the coliform problem.
The Muddy Creek Restoration Partners believe that a reversal of this condition is feasible, but it
will likely require a minimum commitment of 10 more years and an additional $17.5 million be-
yond the $1.1 million already raised and used toward restoration. This benchmark budget in-
cludes preservation costs for intact riparian lands, which accounts for $15 million of project
costs. The time and money required would be invested on implementation of four restoration
strategies that include natural channel design stream restoration; riparian reforestation; livestock
exclusion; and riparian forest preservation. A random, haphazard approach at restoration will
not work. Successful attainment of project goals will require adherence to the conservation pro-
ject priorities list generated by this plan. Additional on-the-ground conservation projects may
also prove necessary but should not be pursued to the neglect of the priority sites. While this
plan establishes scientifically sound priorities for conservation, it does not factor for contingen-
cies; such as what to do about intact riparian forest lands once prioritized for preservation that
are logged before acquisition is possible. Other contingencies may also appear throughout the
project duration that require Partner value judgments and an occasional shift in immediate em-
phases to manage for those contingencies.
The Partners can expect an investment in the four restoration strategies as follows.

Muddy Creek Restoration Partners i.
• Natural Channel Design Stream Restoration
This plan reveals six high priority stream reaches in the watershed totaling approximately 12,000
linear feet that would benefit from natural channel design stream restoration. These reaches con-
tain 18 of the 26 highest priority barren bank sites identified during field inventories that were
responsible for the sediment delivery estimates stated above. Natural channel design stream res-
toration here will likely consume $1.053 million of the benchmark cost estimate given above.
• Riparian Reforestation
This plan reveals approximately 32,000 feet of creekside land without any riparian forest vegeta-
tion that are first priorities for riparian reforestation projects. Three additional sub-watersheds
lack adequate riparian forest coverage on over 50% of their stream lengths. Riparian forest en-
hancement should extend to these drainage areas as well. Riparian reforestation of these inade-
quate buffer areas would likely consume $224,000 of the benchmark estimate.
• Livestock Exclusion
This plan prioritizes 15 livestock exclusion projects, which should eliminate an estimated 1/2 -
2/3 of the cattle access issues in the watershed. The Partners would like to do more, but live-
stock market forces make prioritization unpredictable since lands grazed with cattle last year
may not have cattle this year. These projects would likely consume $124,000.
• Riparian Forest Preservation

This plan also recognizes that gains made in these restoration strategies will be nullified if intact
upstream areas become degraded. Therefore, approximately 15,200 acres have been prioritized
for riparian forest preservation. Most of this acreage is in large tract holdings and occurs at
headwater areas and in sub-watersheds whose riparian zones are currently forested and intact.
The $15 million preservation estimate is a ballpark figure and would require purchase of conser-
vation easements and donations of conservation easements to cover anticipated costs. Fee sim-
ple purchase agreements would likely increase the cost estimate.
A fully supporting rating for the Muddy Creek watershed and a trophy trout fishery on the Ca-
tawba River tailrace at Lake James have been the two driving goals of the project since its incep-
tion in 1998. These goals are lofty but they can be attained. Success will require participation
from a critical mass of watershed landowners, continued private/public partnerships, local gov-
ernment support, and adequate funding. Some substantial successes have already been realized.
Since 1999, the Partners have restored over 8,000 feet of barren banks through natural channel
design stream restoration and have reforested an additional 6,000 feet of riparian land that had
absolutely no riparian forest buffer. Water quality and ecological integrity should be improving
at these areas. The other restoration projects recommended by this plan will deliver additional
water quality and ecological benefits to the watershed, but they will ultimately do more. The
Partners believe that a successful restoration of Muddy Creek could deliver over $1.2 million
annually to the economies of Burke and McDowell Counties through capitalization of Farm Bill
conservation programs and a bonafide trophy tailrace fishery. This figure does not include other
financial benefits derived from restoration such as the improvements in wastewater treatment
capacity, which can be used as an industrial/commercial recruitment tool; and cost savings due to
improved efficiency in treatment capabilities of drinking water supplies downstream. The eco-
nomic benefit calculation also does not include quality of life improvements.

Muddy Creek Restoration Partners ii.
List of Tables and Figures
List of Tables
Table 1: Available County Investment from Federal and State Conservation Cost 4
Share Programs; YR 2002
Table 2: Southeastern US Tailrace Trout Fishing Economic Surveys 4
Table 3: Riparian Forest Buffers Along Streams in the Muddy Creek Watershed 19
Table 4: Criteria and Metric Scoring for Factoring Stream Restoration Priorities 22
Table 5: Highest Priority Barren Bank Sites 23
Table 6: Priority Livestock Exclusion Areas 26
Table 7: Muddy Creek Restoration Partners Forecasted Program Budget 35
List of Figures
Figure 1: Confluence of Muddy Creek and Catawba River 1
Figure 2: Muddy Creek Watershed 1
Figure 3: Muddy Creek Restoration Partners Cash Funding By Program Area 3
Figure 4: “No Buffer” Impacts 10
Figure 5: Fish Survey Results in Muddy Creek Watershed 13
Figure 6: Mean Coliform Counts in Muddy Creek Watershed 14
Figure 7: Mean TSS Concentrations in Muddy Creek Watershed 14
Figure 8: Riffle and Pool D50 Distribution 15
Figure 9: Watershed Substrate Composition 15
Figure 10: Barren Banks in Muddy Creek Watershed 16
Figure 11: Ratio of Barren to Stable Banks in Muddy Creek 16
Figure 12: Muddy Creek Restoration Partners Avg. Bank Pin Loss During Drought 17
Figure 13: Average Bank Pin Loss in Muddy Creek Watershed After Normal Rains 17
Figure 14: Riparian Forest Buffer Width Proportions in Muddy Creek Watershed 18
Figure 15: Riparian Forest Buffer Width Lengths in Muddy Creek Watershed 19
Figure 16: Land Use in the Muddy Creek Watershed 20
Figure 17: Photos of Overland Transport of Sediment 33

Muddy Creek Restoration Partners iii.
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Muddy Creek Watershed and the Muddy
Creek Restoration Partners
Introduction
In the early 1990’s biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) and Duke Power Company (Duke) began exploring the idea of a trophy tailrace
trout fishery on the Catawba River between Lake James and Morganton. Deepwater hydro-
power releases from the Bridgewater Dam supply clean cold water, and the rocky substrate of
the Catawba River contains riffle areas that oxygenate the water and provide habitat for aquatic
organisms and fish. A limiting factor to the success of this fishery is thought to be the large
sediment load delivered to this system from the 96 square mile Muddy Creek watershed whose
confluence is located approximately 1 mile downstream from the Bridgewater Dam (Figures 1
and 2).
Figure 1: Confluence of Muddy Creek and the Catawba River Figure 2: Muddy
Creek Watershed
S e d im e n t p lu m e f r o m M u d d y
C r e e k e n t e r s C a t a w b a R iv e r .
In 1998, Duke and NCWRC formed a partnership

with the following other organizations in an effort to
address the sediment problem in the Muddy Creek watershed that is compromising water qual-
ity and habitat there and downstream in the Catawba River.
• Trout Unlimited
• Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina
• McDowell County Soil and Water Conservation District
• McDowell County
• Burke County
• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
• North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
• Mountain Valleys Resource, Conservation, and Development Council (joined in 2002)
In addition to staffing and financial commitments from the partners, the Muddy Creek Restora-
tion Partners have received funding from the NC Division of Water Resources, NC Clean Water
Management Trust Fund, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Trout and Salmon Founda-
tion, US Environmental Protection Agency, and NC Wildlife Federation. Vulcan Materials and
Confluence Watersports, Inc. have graciously donated materials and supplies.
Muddy Creek Restoration Partners Page 1
A. Project Goals and Objectives
The Muddy Creek Restoration Partners is working to accomplish two main goals.
1) improve water quality in the Muddy Creek watershed to the degree that it promotes a trophy
tailrace trout fishery in the Catawba River below Lake James.
2) achieve a State of NC fully supporting designation for all water courses in the watershed.
The Partnership has established the following objectives, designed specifically to help the pro-
ject reach its goals.
Objective A. Recruit and build a broad level of watershed resident and landowner support for
the project such that landowners participate in restoration projects and ultimately
assume project ownership and oversight.
Objective B. Attain a complete and thorough understanding of stream and riparian conditions
in the Muddy Creek watershed on which to determine restoration feasibility and
base restoration priorities.
Objective C. Install stream restoration and riparian best management practices in the watershed
at identified locations and preserve intact riparian forest buffers as a means of pro-
ducing water quality benefits and demonstrating the benefit of these restoration
tools to watershed residents and landowners.
Objective D. Actively seek and obtain the necessary funding to pay for project coordination,
planning, landowner outreach and education, on-the-ground restoration, assess-
ment work, and project administration.
The Muddy Creek Restoration Partners have developed a Landowner Outreach and Education
Committee comprised of partners and watershed landowners to help strategize and personally
recruit other landowner involvement in the project. The Committee has promoted its goals and
objectives through press releases, its own traveling presentation about the project, periodic
newsletters and other informative mailings, a bi-annual barbeque and restoration tour, and in-
volvement in schools and 4-H. The Landowner Outreach and Education Committee may de-
velop other innovative methodologies as need dictates and time and money allows.
A Technical Committee has been charged with the oversight of a watershed restoration feasibil-
ity study, of which this watershed restoration plan is the end product, that will guide all future
on-the-ground restoration projects. This study has included a comprehensive watershed assess-
ment involving biological, chemical, and physical parameters. The data generated from the as-
sessment of stream and riparian conditions are being combined with an assessment of cost and
benefits of restoration and landowner attitudes to help determine restoration feasibility. A pri-
ority list of restoration and preservation sites is included in Chapter 4 of this document.
The Technical Committee has, since its inception, been actively involved in restoration as some
sites were obvious candidates upon the first quick glimpse of watershed conditions. Other res-
toration projects have been undertaken where need also existed of getting projects on the
ground that could easily be seen by other landowners in the watershed. Restoration projects
have ranged from innovative and costly bio-engineering techniques to simple and more afford-
able native plant reforestation on riparian landscapes. The Technical Committee is also

actively promoting existing state and federal agricultural programs that provide cost share for
farmers who desire to fence cattle, obtain alternative watering systems, replant vegetative buff-
ers, or preserve their critical riparian areas, farmsteads and non-pervious surfaces through con-
servation easements.
Figure 3: Muddy Creek Restoration Partners Cash Funding by Program Area
The Partners’ Executive and
Funding Committee addresses Cash Expenditures By Program Area; YR 1999 - YR 2003
funding issues for the project.
To date, this Committee has been $ 400, 000. 00
successful in generating over $1 $382,000.00
million in cash and in-kind con- $ 350, 000. 00
tributed services from a variety

of funding sources. Those $ 300, 000. 00
sources are listed on page 1 of

this document. Cash funding
$ 250, 000. 00
allocations by program area are $ 200, 000. 00
exhibited in Figure 3. A Steering

Committee has final authority on $ 1 50, 000. 00
decisions made by any of the $110,000.00
other sub-committees and pro- $ 1 00, 000. 00

$71,200.00
$79,200.00
vides oversight for the entire ini- $33,000.00 $34,550.00

tiative. $ 50, 000. 00
$12,450.00
$-
The Partners have made substan- Wa t e r she d P la nning La ndowne r Re st ora t ion Re st or a t ion P r oje c t Gr a nt s S upplie s/ Equipme nt
tial progress toward the objec- Out r e a c h a nd

Re c r uit me nt
P roje c t s Ma int e na nc e & Coor dina t ion Administ ra t ion
Re pa irs
tives described on the preceding

page. Action tasks associated with each objective are ongoing. However, much work remains
to be done. The Partners believe that if these goals and objectives can be achieved, this project
will ultimately have an extraordinary impact on the economic as well as ecological conditions
of the region.
B. Economic Benefits of Watershed Conservation
1) Potential Local Investment from Agricultural Cost-Share Programs

The 2002 US Farm Bill appropriated $17 million federal dollars to North Carolina in 2003, not
including the Conservation Reserve Program, to help farmers implement agricultural best man-
agement practices on their lands (Smith - NRCS, personal communication, October 2002).
This amounts to approximately $340,000 per county if the funds were allocated evenly among
each county. However, most of these dollars are available only upon demand and require each
landowner to express a desire to participate. Therefore, some counties have greater participa-
tion rates than others. As the Farm Bill is currently written, this federal investment is ex-
pected to increase 20 - 50 % over the coming years but will be dependent upon annual con-
gressional appropriations. In addition to the federal farm conservation programs, North Caro-
lina administers its own Agricultural Cost Share program and had $5.6 million available state-
wide last year of which McDowell and Burke Counties claimed only $65,000 each.

The different programs in the Farm Bill and State Agricultural Cost Share program can help
underwrite land and water conservation in the Muddy Creek watershed by providing fencing
and alternative watering systems for livestock, riparian vegetation plantings, and idle land rental
payments on ecologically sensitive portions of a farm. At current Farm Bill appropriation rates,
roughly $450,000 per year could be made available to McDowell and Burke County farm own-
ers from these federal and state conservation programs if they choose to participate (Table 1).
Money available to participating landowners could be in the form of a paycheck for those who
perform their own labour in the installation of conservation practices.
Table 1: Available County Investment from Federal and State Conservation Cost Share Programs; YR 2002
P ro g ra m S ta te A llo c a tio n C o u n ty P o rtio n
E n v iro n m e n ta l Q u a lity In c en tiv e s P ro g ra m $ 8 ,6 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 7 2 ,0 0 0
W ild life H a b ita t In c e n tiv e s P ro g ra m $2 7 5 ,0 0 0 $ 5 ,5 0 0
W e tla n d R e se rv e P ro g ra m $ 5 ,8 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 1 6 ,0 0 0
F a rm la n d P re se rv a tio n P rog ra m $ 2 ,2 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 4 4 ,0 0 0
C o n se rv atio n R e se rv e P ro gra m N /a $0
N C A g ric ultu ra l C o st S h a re P ro g ra m $ 5 ,6 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 1 2 ,0 0 0
T o ta l F e d a n d S ta te C o n se rv a tio n In v e s tm e n t $ 2 2 ,4 7 5 ,0 0 0 $ 4 4 9 ,5 0 0
2) Potential Local Investment from Trophy Tailrace Fishery

The potential economic benefits to Burke and McDowell Counties from the establishment of a
bonafide tailrace trout fishery on the Catawba River should not be underestimated. Surveys in-
dicate that anglers in the southeastern US spend $107 million per year directly on trout fishing
which generates an additional $212 million in related spending, creating over 2,800 jobs
(USFWS, 2002). Recent surveys of nearby tailrace fisheries in the region indicate that anglers
spend approximately $100 per day at each site while on a fishing trip (Table 2).
Table 2: Southeastern US Tailrace Trout Fishing Economic Surveys

Source Data: Fiss - Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; Unpublished; 2002
T o ta l Num be r of
S u rv e y V a lu e *** A n g le r D a ys T o ta l V a lu e
P e ri o d * P e r A n g le r P e r S u rv e y P e r S u rve y
T a ilw a te r / R iv e r (w e e ks) S u rv e y y e a r** Da y P e rio d P e rio d
D a le H ollow / O b ey 32 2001 $ 97 10,9 14 $1,05 9,20 4
C e nter H ill / C an ey F ork 32 1997 $1 12 21,3 00 $2,38 0,27 5
J P erc y P ries t / S ton es 3 2000 n o da ta 7 79
N o rm a ndy / D uc k 26 2000 $ 75 6,6 98 $50 2,94 8
S o uth H ols ton / S ou th H o ls ton 32 1997 $ 82 29,0 00 $2,38 0,26 4
N o rris / C lin c h 34 2001 $ 85 24,3 92 $2,06 3,88 5
Tim s F ord / E lk 28 2000 $1 08 2,7 86 $30 0,25 2
W ilbur / W a taug a 32 1998 $1 24 21,3 00 $2,65 0,44 0
A p alac hia / H iw a s s e e 42 1999 $1 27 20,7 61 $2,63 8,56 9
C h erok ee / H ols ton no d ata n o data no da ta no d ata no da ta
F o rt P a tric k H en ry / H ols ton no d ata n o data no da ta no d ata no da ta
TO TAL 137,9 30 $ 13,97 5,83 7
* P erio d alw ay s inc lu des peak fis h ing s eas o n.

** Thes e are the m os t rec ent s urve y da ta availab le.

“It's not just the bait dealer, it's the gas station owner, it's the hotel proprietor and restaurant
owner that feel the effects of fishing," said economist Jim Caudill of the US Fish and Wildlife
Service. The regional tailraces average 17,000 angler days per year with a total average invest-
ment by anglers of over $1.7 million to these local economies. Conservatively assuming the
Catawba River tailrace would produce 10,000 angler days with anglers spending on average
$80 per day, $800,000 per year would accrue to the economies of Burke and McDowell Coun-
ties. Though these results are not guarantees of success for the Catawba tailrace, they do illu-
minate its potential economic benefit.
3) Water Resources for Industrial/Commercial Enterprise

The availability of abundant clean water is a driving resource concern for many corporations
seeking to locate new industries whether they be high technology or traditional manufacturing.
Commercial and industrial enterprises will often first analyze a community’s waters supply and
waste treatment capacity before committing to site review. One strategy to maintain high treat-
ment capacity with the goal of attracting new industry is to ensure that ambient water entering
the water purification process is already of high quality. If the Muddy Creek restoration pro-
ject is successful, treatment capacity could theoretically be improved at the Corpening Creek
wastewater treatment plant and perhaps even downstream in Burke County and Morganton,
provided contributions of sediment and other pollutants remain at current levels or decrease
over time.
Studies also suggest that business location criteria is shifting to a focus on “optimizing human
resources” (Naisbett 1982, Decker and Crompton 1990; in Kask, 1999, p. 1). “Brainpower”
has become just as important or even moreso to today’s industry and commercial enterprise
than having a workforce available that can produce mass quantities of manufactured goods.
Such studies are suggesting that successful innovative companies will choose to locate in com-
munities that bright, creative people find attractive (Birch 1987; in Kask, 1999, p. 2). A clean
healthy environment with adequate recreational amenities will help maintain current and draw
future human capital and could be a tremendous asset on which McDowell and Burke Counties
build a strong, sustainable economy.
4) Conservation as a Property Insurance Tool

When streambanks collapse during storm events, not only is sediment entering the stream jeop-
ardizing the aquatic ecosystem, but the loss of land is an actual loss of equity for the landowner
whose property is washed away. Before restoration, streambank erosion was claiming approxi-
mately 800 and 3,000 square feet per year respectively at the North Muddy Creek Banner and
Higgins restoration sites (Jennings, personal communication, December 2002). This equates to
roughly 1/12 of an acre of land loss per year. At $2,500 per acre, these two property owners
were losing a combined $200 of land value each year. Streambank restoration at these two sites
eliminated this economic loss. Significant vocal opposition has formed in the watershed over
the last few years predicated by the potential “taking” of riparian property by the State govern-
ment through its proposed buffer protection regulations. Unfortunately, the volunteer participa-
tion mode under which the Muddy Creek Restoration Partners operate has been overlooked by
many landowners and in some cases ignored or seen as identical to State mandatory protection
rules. This has hurt the effectiveness of the Muddy Creek program. Unfortunately, without
adequate restoration, many of these same landowners opposed to mandatory buffers will likely

find much of their riparian lands taken away over time, regardless of their political efforts, by
the erosive forces of Muddy Creek.
5) Lowered Water Treatment Costs

The City of Morganton uses the Catawba River as its primary source of drinking water and has
an intake several miles downstream from the Muddy Creek confluence. According to one mu-
nicipal official, reductions in the sediment load from Muddy Creek could result in 10% lower
water treatment costs (Don Danford, personal communication, 2000).
Hyrdroacoustic mapping in 1995 of the Lake Rhodhiss basin, located approximately 16 miles
downstream on the Catawba River and the ultimate repository for Muddy Creek sediment, re-
vealed areas of the lake have filled in with “several feet” of sediment since it was constructed in
1925 (Duke Energy; in DWQ, August 1998, p.48). The costs of dredging a lake in order to
maintain recreational uses and water storage capacity can be staggering. Lake Lure and Lake
Junaluska are two nearby lakes on which millions of taxpayer and private dollars have been in-
vested to maintain their functions, all of which may have been in vain unless the sources of
sediment are eliminated. This same fate may be in store for Lake Rhodhiss if sedimentation is
not controlled.
6) Conservation Benefits to Irrigation and Crop Management

Irrigation is a common practice in the Muddy Creek watershed. In times of drought, such as
from 1998 - 2002, irrigation systems which draw water from the various creeks in the water-
shed may be the only water that crops receive for a month at a time or more. Sediment laden
stream flow can clog filtration devices on these systems, which may result in increased labor,
repair, and materials costs. In extreme drought conditions, inefficient irrigation may actually
result in costly crop losses. One landowner approached the MCWRI in 2001 with exactly these
complaints of upstream sediment runoff damaging his ability to irrigate his nursery crops.
7) Vegetation Improvements on Residential Property Values

Though site-specific appraisals are needed to establish actual value of a well landscaped prop-
erty, it is generally accepted that adding trees and shrubs in a well designed manner will in-
crease the appraised value of a residential property by 3 - 10% (Naeger, personal communica-
tion, 2003). Vegetation on a streamside residential landscape therefore has potential to not only
buffer a stream from potential land use impacts but also increase the marketability and sale
price of a home or property.
C. Ecological Benefits of Watershed Conservation
1) Water Resources Fully Supporting Intended Uses

Based on data contained in the NC Division of Water Quality’s Catawba River Basinwide Wa-
ter Quality Plan, the water quality rating of streams in the Muddy Creek watershed is approxi-
mately 98% Support-Threatened and 2% Partially Supporting. Sediment is considered the pri-
mary problem parameter (DWQ, 1999, p. A-III). Duke Power Company has been collecting
data on suspended sediment concentrations in North and South Muddy Creeks since 1995. To-
tal suspended solids (TSS) entering the Catawba River from the Muddy Creek watershed are

estimated to be between 15,000-20,000 tons per year under typical streamflow conditions.
These estimates do not include bedload transport, which adds unknown tons per year to the
total. Eliminating major sources of sedimentation such as streambank erosion and unbuffered
croplands and residential development is the first step toward recovery of a fully supporting rat-
ing for this watershed.
2) Enhanced Fishery
The potential establishment of a coldwater fishery in the Catawba River tailrace is at the center
of this project and one purpose for its founding. The Catawba River will likely not support
brook trout nor rainbow trout, but indications are that brown trout can thrive here. The 14 mile
stretch of tailrace water between Lake James and Morganton has the potential to support 20 - 30
inch trophy brown trout (Besler; in Horan, November 17, 2002). Currently, Muddy Creek’s
heavy sediment load fills pools, blankets important riffle areas and associated invertebrate com-
munities on which trout feed, and reduces water clarity making it difficult for fish to find ade-
quate foods. Sand is the predominant substrate in at least 64% of the river miles in the Catawba
River between Muddy Creek and Lake Rhodhiss (WRC, unpublished data). Upstream of the
Muddy Creek confluence substrate in the Catawba River consists mainly of cobble.
Less turbid water would also potentially improve the fishery in Muddy Creek itself. Fish diver-
sity in Muddy Creek is currently low compared to other streams in similar watersheds with
similar physiographic characteristics. Degraded instream and riparian habitat is thought to be
one contributing factor. Restoration techniques employed by the Muddy Creek Restoration
Partners provide instream rock structures that mimic native riffle/pool habitat, helping to oxy-
genate waters and provide substrate materials and cover that benthic macroinvertebrates and
fish in this region desire. Rootwads, in addition to armouring streambanks, provide woody de-
bris on which certain macroinvertebrates colonize. Native riparian forest vegetation, which is a
component to every restoration project undertaken by the Partners, provides a stream canopy
that cools water temperatures, detrital input that promotes aquatic macroinvertebrate popula-
tions, and it acts as a filtration device for overland transport of stormwater runoff.
3) Other Ecological Benefits

Restoration activities typically include an invasive exotic weed control component coupled with
native plant revegetation. Native plants are specified that have aesthetic qualities, provide food-
stuffs and habitat for wildlife, and when mature, will grow to shade streams. Wild turkey, deer,
and other small game, in addition to migratory and native songbirds all benefit from this pro-
ject. In addition to enhancing habitat value, the trees, shrubs, and grasses also help filter and
conserve topsoil. Native plant restoration in streamside areas can also help control the spread
of worrisome non-native weeds such as kudzu, Japanese stiltgrass, multiflora rose, and oriental
bittersweet.

Chapter 2: The Feasibility of a Restored Muddy Creek Watershed
A. Goal 1: Establish Trout Fishery on Catawba River Tailrace

It is still unknown whether the amount of sediment delivered to the tailrace of the Catawba
River from the Muddy Creek watershed can be reduced enough to establish a reproducing cold-
water fishery population. The Muddy Creek Restoration Partners originally estimated that per-
haps 15,000 - 20,000 tons of sediment enter the Catawba each year during normal flow condi-
tions, although no exact figures are available. The Partners do know with some degree of accu-
racy that after having taken over 200 stormflow samples at the lower end of the watershed near
the confluence of North and South Muddy Creeks, that the median TSS concentration during
stormflow events far exceeds the tolerance level of most salmonids before they suffer ill health
effects. Median readings range from 377 mg/L on South Muddy Creek to 483 mg/L on North
Muddy Creek with maximum stormflow concentrations of TSS exceeding 2,350 mg/L and
3,725 mg/L on South Muddy Creek and North Muddy Creek, respectively. Newcombe and
Jensen report that a 15 minute exposure to 250 mg/L TSS concentration can cause ill health ef-
fects on trout (1996, p. 721).
Fish survey results on the Catawba River are promising for a brown trout fishery. The NC
Wildlife Resources Commission in their 2001 study report that the spring stocking of fingerling
brown trout is producing a quality brown trout population in the tailrace (Besler, 2002). It must
also be noted that this area has been suffering through an extreme drought since 1998 and an-
nual sediment loads to the Catawba from Muddy Creek have likely dropped from previous esti-
mates as a result of less stormwater runoff and bank scour from high stream flows. It remains
to be seen whether a return to normal rainfall will deliver sediment loads that potentially limit
the viability of the coldwater fishery, but the fish population data to date are encouraging. It
does appear that site-specific streambank restoration projects undertaken by the partners are
helping to trap some sediments and are actually building up some banks that were previously
eroding and delivering sediment to the system (Jennings and Harmon, 2002).
Progress toward goal one, a trophy tailrace trout fishery on the Catawba River, is being made
and can be accounted for. However, an analysis of sedimentation and trout survivability after a
return to normal rainfall is needed to ascertain the long-term prognosis for the fishery. Bank
Pin measurements taken for over two years in the Muddy Creek watershed indicate that the last
year’s storm events have caused significant bank erosion on a widespread scale throughout the
watershed, and without storm events there is very little bank erosion. Pebble counts also indi-
cate stream substrates throughout the watershed are comprised primarily of fine sediments,
which would likely require multiple storm events to flush from the watershed.
B. Goal 2: Fully Supporting Uses for All Waterbodies in Muddy Creek Watershed
A restored State of NC fully supporting rating for all waterbodies in the Muddy Creek water-
shed will be difficult to accomplish given practical time and financial resource limitations. Site
specific restoration, if undertaken at priority sites as prescribed in this plan, will undoubtedly
reduce current sediment loads - perhaps to the extent that biological samples taken at the lower
end of the watershed improve to “good” or “excellent” classifications from their current “fair”
and “good-fair” ratings. A greater question is how much money and time will be required to
implement restoration projects at priority areas, and implement other projects if deemed neces-
sary to achieve this goal.
1) Severity of Watershed Conditions

Nearly every stream surveyed in the watershed is entrenched and separated from surrounding
floodplains with the exception of headwater areas on South Muddy Creek and where bedrock
is the foundational geology in the middle of the North Muddy Creek drainage. The vertical
banks on nearly 8.5 of 36 stream miles surveyed are barren and unarmoured by vegetation,
which makes them highly susceptible to erosion during storm events. Even at some intact ri-
parian forest locations, the depth of stream entrenchment is so severe that normal water levels
are several feet below tree root systems. Trees in these locations actually exacerbate bank ero-
sion potential due to their proclivity to fall into the stream and push flowing water into the
creekbanks.
There are over 32,000 linear feet of stream bordering lands that have no trees nor shrubs to
buffer them from impacts of surrounding land use activities. This figure was closer to 40,000
before the partners reforested over 1 mile of stream in 2002 and 2003. Approximately
739,000 additional linear feet of riparian land have less than 25 feet of vegetated buffer, which
in most circumstances is not wide enough to form an effective buffer or offer bank protection
against floodwater scour. Combined, these unbuffered areas comprise fully 30% of the imme-
diate riparian landscape in this 98 square mile watershed.
Duke’s YR 2001 monthly coliform sampling program indicate average fecal coliform levels at
six of eight sites exceed 200 mg/L, the limit upon which the State of NC has established its
health standard. One site exceeded 200 mg/L by a factor of two and another site exceeded this
reading by 4 times. Sources are unknown at this time.
Benthic survey results continue to indicate only fair water quality. And qualitative fish sur-
veys performed throughout the watershed indicate a chronically degraded stream system.
2) Cost of Watershed Restoration

There are 12,400 linear feet of streambank erosion which comprise the Partners’ list of priority
sites. Based on an $88 per linear foot cost paid for two streambank stabilization projects per-
formed thus far in the watershed, the Partners would need to raise $1.1 million in restoration
funding alone to stabilize banks and reduce erosion from our priority sites. This estimate drops
to roughly $434,000 when a lower cost of $35 per linear foot is applied, which is the cost paid
for a stream restoration project in 2001. Stabilizing these areas would only “fix” 6.5% of the
barren bank areas identified in the watershed. Other areas would continue to erode and deliver
sediments and other pollutants even as restoration occurs on the priority sites.
Riparian reforestation is less costly per linear foot than engineered streambank stabilization
projects and is an effective restoration strategy on smaller tributaries where the disconnect be-
tween the streams and their floodplains are not as severe. Year 2002 costs for native plant
revegetation totaled approximately $7.00 per foot for design, plant materials, and installation
oversight. These costs would be less if fewer container stock of native shrubs and trees were

used. Costs would rise however if contractors were used to install the vegetation instead of vol-
unteers. Revegetating the remaining 32,000 linear feet of streambank currently deemed to have
“no” buffer at a width of 35 feet would cost an estimated $224,000. While this investment
would restore those riparian lands with no buffer, there will remain 739,000 linear feet of addi-
tional streamside land of which most could benefit from riparian forest enhancement.
3) Societal Belief Systems and Attitudes

While the poor physical conditions of the watershed and sheer cost of restoration projects are
difficult to overcome, prevailing landowner attitudes and belief systems about riparian land use
may prove to be even more challenging for restoration in the watershed. Over the last three
years, a grass roots anti-riparian buffer movement has developed in the watershed in response to
the State’s proposed riparian buffer protection regulations for the Catawba River Basin. In-
tended or not, this group’s activities in the watershed appears to have generated deep misgiv-
ings among many landowners about becoming involved in any type of riparian land conserva-
tion.
Anecdotal evidence confirming this observation is the fact that landowner participation in es-
tablished federal and state agricultural programs runs well behind participation rates just one
county and watershed away (Moore, personal communication, 2002). The participation rate in
the Partners’ barbeque and restoration tour dropped from approximately 65 in 2000 to 15 in
2002, which again suggests landowner reluctance to being involved with riparian conservation
initiatives. To make matters worse, some landowners in the last year have even begun stripping
all existing vegetation from their riparian zones presumably in a misguided effort to obtain
“grandfather” status as land under existing use in case the buffer regulations are implemented
by the State (Figure 4).
Figure 4: “No Buffer” Impacts
4) Difficult Nature Of Restoration Projects
Another difficulty the Partners recognize during pursuit of project
goals is the fact that restoration projects are never easy. They require
an enormous amount of coordinator and partner time and energy to
recruit landowner participation, ensure attainment of an easement if
necessary, perform more site specific planning for the restoration de-
sign, recruit a good designer and construction contractor, oversee the
construction, recruit and supervise volunteers if applicable to work on
the project, and monitor the project over time to ensure that the de-
sign is working.
5) Historical Reference of Muddy Creek

The Partnership should
also not ignore the his-
torical record that indi-
cates as early as the late
1700’s, this watershed
was first referenced as
“Muddy Creek”.

This predates the massive European and North American colonial settlement of the area and
precludes the wholesale clearcutting of surrounding mountains that took place in the late 19th
century. Only Native American and a few European settlement activities would have influ-
enced the flow regime here at that time. It may be that this watershed’s natural inclination is to
contain waters with higher natural sediment loads.
C. Program Success
Indications are such that substantial progress is being made toward the trophy tailrace fishery
sought through Goal 1. How much success can be attributed to sediment reductions in Muddy
Creek due to restoration efforts is still of question. A fully supporting designation for all of the
Muddy Creek watershed as stated in Goal 2 will require much more concerted effort among the
partners at areas deemed priorities for restoration.
Partners can report successful biological enhancement of over 12,000 feet of previously de-
graded stream and riparian conditions. Progress to date represents a tremendous investment of
partner and volunteer time and private and public financial resources. Any decision the partners
make about how long this project should continue must factor into the feasibility equation these
investments and investor expectations.
1) Conservation On-the-Ground
Since 1999, the Muddy Creek Restoration Partners have restored seven major streambank ero-
sion sites totaling over 8,000 linear feet on North Muddy Creek, Corpening Creek, and Bobs
Creek. At least four of these sites were of highest priority and were scientifically determined to
be main contributors of sediment to the system. The bio-engineered solutions at these four sites
have reduced sediment delivery to the watershed by an estimated 795 tons per year (Jennings,
personal communication, November 2002). Data is incomplete to suggest the amount of sedi-
ment reduced by restoring the other three sites, though it would not be an exaggeration to esti-
mate that reduction in the 500 ton range. In addition to these restoration projects, the Partners
have completed two large riparian revegetation projects totaling almost 1 mile of stream front-
age along Goose Creek and Stanfords Creek. These projects provided low-tech riparian buffer
solutions to areas currently having little or no buffer. Through these two revegetation projects,
approximately 12.5% of the riparian area in the watershed deemed to have “no” buffer through
the physical assessment now has native trees, shrubs, and grasses to armour the streambanks,
provide shade and habitat, and filter runoff. In addition, the native plants used in the plans offer
wildlife habitat and aesthetic value, which should prove useful as the partners attempt to dem-
onstrate the total value of riparian vegetation to watershed landowners.
Success with both the riparian revegetation projects and at least one of the above mentioned
stream restoration projects would not have been possible without the steady support of the Part-
ners’ volunteer base. Over 40 Trout Unlimited members across NC have invested over 180
hours in 2002 helping to install native plants at those restoration sites. The Partners have
$110,000 available for stream and riparian restoration in 2003/2004. The priorities and recom-
mendations revealed in this plan along with landowner willingness to participate will dictate
where and what type of restoration will occur in 2003 and beyond.

2) Completed Watershed Restoration Plan
The Partners have recently completed a watershed restoration feasibility study. This work illu-
minates the economic and ecological benefit of restoration in this watershed and reveals the op-
portunities and constraints for restoration. The study has culminated in this document, our Wa-
tershed Restoration Plan. This Plan also identifies priority areas of conservation need so the
Partners can build upon past successes and more effectively and efficiently tailor restoration
solutions to identified areas of need. This plan provides a road map that outlines an aggressive
course for the Partners to pursue for the next 10 years. Recommendations are provided that
should help the Partners overcome constraints, take advantage of opportunities, and increase the
chances of attaining its goals and objectives. This restoration plan also urges the Partners to
continue with this project now that the pathway to success is more clear and time and financial
commitments are better established.
3) Awards and Honors

The Muddy Creek Restoration Partners have raised over $1 million dollars in cash and contrib-
uted goods and services in the last four years. It received the Governors Conservation Achieve-
ment Award for Water Conservationist of the Year given by the NC Wildlife Federation in
2000 and the Fisheries Conservationist of the Year Award given by the NC Chapter of the
American Fisheries Society in 2002. The partners are deserving of the credit and accolades re-
ceived, and the trust that has been built over the years with funders. The credibility of the Part-
ners has resulted in the continued support of regulatory and private agencies. The Partners’
credibility is a valuable asset from which to draw in coming years’ restoration work.
4) Watershed Outreach
The Muddy Creek Restoration Partners have made some inroads with the watershed commu-
nity. Presentations have been given about the project to four civic organizations in the water-
shed. A restoration tour and barbeque event has been held twice in the watershed to demon-
strate to landowners conservation accomplishments and recruit new participants. The Partners
regularly contribute staff persons to the local 4-H fair, Earth Day events, and the McDowell
County schools curriculum. Duke has supported local school teachers’ participation in water
resource stewardship workshops. The Partners have reinvigorated its Landowner Outreach
Committee with four new members from the local watershed and expects to become more ac-
tive promoting the project in Year 2003 and 2004. Without the Partners’ presence in the water-
shed over the last four years, it is highly unlikely that water and riparian conservation issues
would receive the positive press it has received.
In August 2003, the Partners began building on this success by funding an outreach technician
to actively market federal and state farm conservation programs and other restoration solutions
to owners of properties deemed to be priorities for restoration. In four months, substantial inter-
est has been perked among 8 - 10 landowners who are considering fencing their cattle from
streams or allowing a natural channel design stream restoration project to occur on their lands.
A solid foundation is being built on which the Partners could base multiple restoration projects
over the next few years.

Chapter 3: Results from the Watershed Assessment
Since 2000, the Muddy Creek Restoration Partners have been engaged in a comprehensive as-
sessment of stream and riparian conditions in the Muddy Creek watershed (Map A: Locations
of All Data Stations in the Muddy Creek Watershed; Map B: Physical Survey of Streams and
Their Banks in the Muddy Creek Watershed). The NCWRC has performed qualitative fish
community surveys at 18 sites in the watershed. Duke has conducted watershed wide sus-
pended sediment sampling at 17 sites, water chemistry sampling at eight sites, and targeted
benthic macroinvertebrate sampling in relation to four of the stream restoration projects at the
lower section of the watershed on North Muddy Creek. The Partners contracted with Equinox
Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc. to perform aerial photo analysis and in-stream
surveys of the watershed to gauge the physical conditions of the stream substrate, streambanks,
and riparian areas. Duke also provided four undergraduate level interns over two summers to
assist in the physical assessment.
A. Biological Condition of the Muddy Creek Watershed

Biological data from NCWRC, NCDWQ, and Duke all suggest that Muddy Creek is an im-
paired watershed.
The NCWRC concludes from Figure 5: Fish Survey Results in Muddy Creek Watershed
their qualitative fish studies that
the effects of sediment have a Sandbar shiner
cumulative impact on the fish Piedmont Dar t er
community as one moves down- Spot t ail Shiner
Bluehead Chub
stream and the entire watershed St riped Jumprock
is impacted. A total of 18 spe- Gr eenhead Shiner
cies of fish were collected in Warpaint Shiner
October 2000. Of these, only Readbreast Sunf ish
two are intolerant of pollution, Tessellat ed Dar t er
the spot tailed shiner and pied- Rosyside Dace
Cent r al St oner oller

mont darter, while the remaining Whit e Sucker
16 species have an intermediate Mar gined Madt om
tolerance rating. The piedmont Lar gemout h Bass
darter was observed in 12 of the Blacknose Dace
16 sampling sites whereas the Whit ef in shiner
spot tailed shiner was reported at Bluegill Sunf ish
only one site. This information Nor t her n Hog Sucker
is consistent with NCDWQ rat- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ings of “fair” at their two fish Percent Sites Present
community sampling stations
(NCDWQ, 1999, p. 83).
NCDWQ’s North Muddy Creek benthic site registers a “good” rating while their South Muddy
Creek benthic site registers a “Good-Fair” rating. Duke’s benthic monitoring in North Muddy
Creek up and downstream of the Partners’ first restoration sites indicates “fair” water quality.
Both DWQ and Duke’s sampling locations are also very near DWQ’s fish sampling sites.
When benthic and fish community data conflict, the fish community results normally take
precedence as a superior indicator of long-term water quality.
B. Chemical Condition of the Muddy Creek Watershed

Duke sampled the Muddy Creek
Watershed from August 2000 to Figure 6: Mean coliform counts in Muddy Creek watershed
June 2001 at eight stations for the
following chemical parameters:
Mean Coliform Concentrations for 12 Month Sample Period
YR 2001
• temperature 900
• pH 750
• Nitrogen
• Phosphorous 600
• Alkalinity 450
• Fecal coliform
300
• Total suspended sediment
150
pH, Nitrogen, Alkalinity, and 0
Phosphorous readings are all
S. Muddy
S. Muddy
S. Muddy
(Glenwood)
N. Muddy
Standard
N. Muddy
(Marlowe)
Corpening
(LDMA)
N. Muddy
N. Muddy
(Rowe)
(226)
NC
within acceptable parameters.
Cr.
Of potential concern is the fecal or ange dashed l ine r epr esents State Of NC coli f or mhealth standar d
coliform count whose mean con-

centration at six of eight sampling sites in the watershed exceed concentrations allowed under
State of NC health standards. Figure 6 shows the mean number of colonies for each site.
Coliform readings on some streams reflected counts well over 10 times the state standard.
Sources of this contamination are not known. Early assumptions for the Corpening Creek
drainage are that faulty septic and Figure 7: Mean TSS concentrations in the Muddy Creek watershed
sewer system failures may be re-
sponsible for high coliform counts. Average TSS C once ntrations in Muddy C ree k Watershed;
C omparison w/ Regional Ave rage
Total suspended solid (TSS) meas-
urements are also higher in the wa- 30
tershed compared to the UNC-A 25
VWIN program’s regional average 20

(Figure 7). This NC state certified
mg/L
lab has established over 200 sites 15
in 13 counties in western NC and 10
have a quantity of data to use as a 5

good regional comparison. These
grab samples suggest chronically 0
high TSS levels in the watershed.

Both coliform and TSS results reflect conditions at time of sample. Most were taken during
low-flow periods. Stormflow sediment calculations for the Muddy Creek watershed are still
being analyzed and are currently unavailable.
C. Physical Condition of Muddy Creek Watershed

The physical condition of streambanks, stream substrate, and riparian vegetation reflects a wa-
tershed that is well worn and a stream system suffering the impacts of chronic sedimentation.
1) Stream Substrate
Modified Wolman pebble counts were taken at 55 locations throughout the watershed to deter-
mine dominant stream substrate (See Map C: Bank Pin and Pebble Count Locations). Most of
these measurements were of associated riffles and pools, though some counts were taken only at
riffles. At most sites, counts were taken both on the major stream course and an associated
tributary, but upstream from the zone of influence of each. The diameter of the median pebble
count size is referred to as the D50 of the pebble count sample. Pebble counts are ordered by
size from smallest particle to largest as silt/clay, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock.
Figure 8: Riffle and Pool D50 Distribution Figure 9: Watershed Substrate Composition
Muddy Creek Watershed North Muddy, South Muddy and Muddy

Pebble Count D50 Percentage Creek Pebble Count Pecentages
100%
70%
90%
80% 60%
Silt/Clay
70% 50%
Silt/Clay
60% Sand 40%
50% Sand
40% Gravel 30% Gravel
30% Cobble 20% Cobble
20% 10%
Boulder Boulder
10%
0%
0%
Muddy North South
Pools Riffles
Muddy Muddy
Thirty eight percent of riffles and 100% of pools surveyed in the Muddy Creek watershed are
comprised primarily of sand and fine particles, typically poor invertebrate and fish habitat in a
southern Appalachian/Piedmont aquatic system. Substrate material was gravel and cobble in
60% of the riffle areas with sand comprising the remaining 40% of riffle material.
When dividing the watershed into sub-drainages, it becomes clear that South Muddy Creek and
its associated tributaries are dominated by sand and silt. The substrate on North Muddy Creek
and its associated drainages exhibits a more balanced composition of fine particles, gravel, cob-
ble, and bedrock though fine particles are still the predominant substrate composition.

2) Bank Erosion
The great majority of the watershed is entrenched, meaning that the elevation of water flow is
disconnected from adjacent floodplain areas. The depth of entrenchment typically ranges from
8 - 14 feet throughout the watershed, though there are some reaches with 20 feet high and
greater incised banks. When viewed from within the stream, these entrenched areas may or
may not contain roots from streamside vegetation. Barren banks are defined as those exposed
banks having no visible rooting structure Figure 10: Barren Banks in Muddy Creek Watershed
to help maintain bank integrity. As a
result, barren banks are highly suscepti- Distribution of Barren Bank Sites By S urveyed S tream
ble to erosion and collapse due to in- Yr 2001 - 2002
creased stormflow velocities and the 250
30-50'
pressure they exert on the banks. The 51-150'
Partners recognize that barren banks are 200 151-300'
a tremendous source of sediment to the 301-500'
Number of Sites
>500'
watershed. Therefore, an assessment of 150
barren banks was performed to deter-
mine location and significance of this 100
sediment source. This physical criterion
is not to be confused with un-vegetated 50
or unbuffered riparian land.
0
North South Muddy Youngs Hoppers Goose
The in-stream site assessment has re-
Muddy Muddy
vealed 886 barren bank sites that com-
prise 17 of 73 surveyed miles of stream-
bank or nearly 25% of the watershed
surveyed in this manner (Map D: Loca- Figure 11: Ratio of Barren to Stable Banks in Muddy Creek
tion of All Barren Bank Sites and Their
Muddy C ree k Re storation Partners
Corresponding Length). This includes Proportion of Barren Banks to Stable Banks
both banks of 36.5 miles of navigable All Site Assessed Stream; YR 2001-2002
16.0
stream that was assessed by direct obser- Stable Banks
14.0
vation from within the stream channel. 12.0 Barren Banks
Seven hundred forty of these barren
stream miles
10.0
bank sites are less than 150 feet in 8.0
length. Only 14 are greater than 500 6.0
feet long. Barren banks less than 30 feet 4.0
were not recorded. Figures 10 and 11 2.0
and Map D do not include any measures 0.0
of barren banks along smaller non-
.
.
s
Cr
Cr
Cr
ib
navigable streams. These streams were

Tr
dy
dy
dy
ud
ed
ud
ud
not surveyed for barren banks due to po-

M
ey
M
rv
S
N
Su
tential trespass issues and the prohibitive

costs involved in accessing the large
number of streams. The total number and length of barren bank sites including small tributar-
ies is certainly much higher than the actual surveyed sites referenced above.
South Muddy Creek has a greater ratio of barren banks to vegetated banks (Figure 11). Much

of this occurs along stretches of the creek that have been dredged and straightened in the past,
including former historical wetlands along South Muddy Creek and adjacent to the South
Muddy/Hoppers Creek confluence. Most of the central portion of
North Muddy Creek shows no sign of barren banks. This is likely
because this stretch flows for roughly nine miles through an area
dominated by bedrock and deep forestlands. There are barren
banks along North Muddy Creek nearer its
headwaters where the land is flatter and agricul-
tural and residential land uses intensify in the
riparian zone.
Figure 12
Identifying barren bank sites

is an important first step to- Avg. Bank Pin Loss During Drought Conditions
ward prioritizing restoration, (Measurements as of Spring 2003)
but this information alone 60
provides an incomplete pic- Average Loss
ture of the threat these barren 50
bank sites present to water- 40
shed health. Some barren
Inches
banks may be eroding, col- 30

lapsing, and delivering sedi- 20
ment to the Muddy Creek
system while other sites may 10
not. The Muddy Creek Res- 0
toration Partners strategically
BP10
BP11
BP12
BP13
BP14
BP15
BP16
BP17
BP18
BP19
BP20
BP21
BP22
BP23
BP24
BP25
BP26
BP27
BP28
BP29
BP30
BP31
BP32
BP33
BP34
BP35
BP36
BP37
BP38
BP1
BP2
BP3
BP4
BP5
BP8
BP9
installed bank erosion pins at

Bank Pins
38 barren bank sites to gauge
the activity level of certain
areas (Map C). Some sites
Figure 13: Average Bank Pin Loss in Muddy Creek Watershed After Normal Rains
contain only one four foot
long pin while others contain Muddy Creek Restoration Partners
up to 11 pins. Most contain Avg. Bank Pin Loss Including Normal Rainfall Pattern
6 - 10 pins distributed later- (Measurements as of September 2003)
ally and vertically across the 60
surveyed barren bank area Average Loss
(Figure 12). 50
40
Results are clear. During
Inches
periods of below normal 30
rainfall, only a few barren 20

bank sites are significant
sources of sediment to the 10
watershed. However, during 0
normal to above normal rain-
fall, erosion from barren
banks increases dramatically Bank Pins

all sites. Since September 2002, the project area has received normal or above-normal rainfall,
which has raised the flow level in the watershed substantially. In contrast, during 1998 - 2002,
the area was suffering through an extreme drought.
It also appears that a few barren banks in the watershed are not significant contributors of sedi-
ment, regardless of rainfall events. The field assessment team speculates from firsthand obser-
vation that one reason some sites are less susceptible to bank erosion is the clay composition of
their soils. Field observations also revealed that barren banks are susceptible to the forces of
freeze/thaw and wind erosion, often overlooked as catalysts of sediment delivery to the water-
shed. Though likely not as powerful as stormflow to collapsing barren banks, wind and freeze
thaw action do contribute over time to the problem.
3) Riparian Zone Conditions
Riparian Forest Buffers

The riparian zone of the watershed is generally well forested. In 59% of the watershed a ripar-
ian forest buffer is greater than 75 feet wide (Figure 14). At the same time however, at least
30% or 780,000 linear feet of
stream bordering lands have Figure 14: Riparian Forest Buffer Width Proportions in the Muddy Creek Watershed
less than a 25 feet wide ripar-
Muddy Creek Restoration Partners No Riparian Forest
ian forest buffer. Of this total, Riparian Forest Buffer Width Proportions <25 feet
32,000 feet (40,000 feet be- in the Muddy Creek Watershed 25-75 feet
fore riparian reforestation pro- 60% >75 feet
ject in 2002/2003) has no ri-

parian forest vegetation at all. 50%
Most natural resource agen-

cies suggest, at minimum, a 40%
25 - 30 feet riparian forest

buffer on lands in active use 30%
to adequately filter nonpoint

source pollutants, armor 20%
streambanks, and supply habi-

10%
tat requirements. Generally
speaking, greater widths trans- 0%
late to greater ecological in- Nor t h Muddy Sout h Muddy Muddy All Tr ibut aries
tegrity and more water quality

benefits. The calculations
above are derived from both the in-stream field survey conducted on navigable streams and an
analysis of infrared aerial photographs (Map E: Riparian Forest Buffer Widths of Navigable
Streams in the Muddy Creek Watershed; Map F: Riparian Forest Buffer Status of 2nd Order
and Above Non-Navigable Streams in the Muddy Creek Watershed).
By far, the greater amount of stream frontage with less than 25 feet of riparian forest buffer oc-
curs on tributaries (Figure 15). Many of these smaller, non-navigable streams dissect residen-
tial lots, pastures, fields in row crops, and logged forest lands. In most cases, these streams

individually are not large enough, nor do they carry enough water to be an impediment to inten-
sive use of adjacent lands. As a result, the Partners find that many landowners will plow fields,
build, or graze cattle directly to the top of the bank - and in the case of cattle, allow their live-
stock to roam freely Figure 15: Riparian Forest Buffer Width Lengths in the Muddy Creek Watershed
through these small
creeks. Though the Part- M uddy Creek Restoration P artners
Riparian Forest Buffer Width Lengths in M uddy Creek Watershed
ners have not conducted YR 2001-2002
1400000.00
site-specific experiments 1300000.00 None
on individual small 1200000.00

<25'
streams, field observations 1100000.00

25- 75'
>75'
and pebble counts taken at 1000000.00
the mouths of many of 900000.00
these small streams indi- 800000.00

642858.69
700000.00
cate that the cumulative
600000.00
sediment impact to the
500000.00
broader Muddy Creek wa- 400000.00
tershed from such inten- 300000.00
sive land use on these 200000.00
44784.85
smaller streams is severe. 100000.00
925.04
41333.79
271.45 10529.73
39596.55
0.00
North Muddy Cr South Muddy Cr Muddy Cr All Tributaries
Smaller inaccessible tribu-
taries account for 39,000
of the approximately 40,000 linear feet in the watershed having “no” buffer (Table 3; Map F).
Most of them are in the North Muddy
Table 3: Riparian Forest Buffer Characterization Along Streams Absent a Buffer in the Muddy Creek Watershed
Stream No Buffer < 25 ft 25—75 ft > 75 ft Total

Thompson’s Fork (N. Mud) 5,200 ft 87,750 ft 15,650 ft 149,400 ft 258,000 ft
Big Camp Branch (N. Mud) 4,700 ft 41,400 ft 300 ft 37,600 ft 84,000 ft
Caleb Branch (N. Mud) 1,600 ft 7,800 ft 4,000 ft 28,000 ft 41,400 ft
White Branch (N. Mud) 700 ft 10,600 ft 5,000 ft 10,600 ft 26,900 ft
Bledsoe Branch (N. Mud) 3,100 ft 9,700 ft 0 ft 3,900 ft 16,700 ft
Jacktown Creek (Youngs/N. Mud) 4,800 ft 14,500 ft 3,100 ft 12,800 ft 35,200 ft
Bobs Creek (N. Mud) 2,700 ft 13,600 ft 5,450 ft 62,150 ft 83,900 ft
Goose Creek (N. Mud) 3,600 ft 45,800 ft 17,500 ft 26,700 ft 93,600 ft
37 NUTR (N. Mud) 4,100 ft 8,700 ft 2,400 ft 14,200 ft 29,400 ft
2 SUTL (S. Mud) 3,400 ft 2,150 ft 950 ft 29,600 ft 36,100 ft
Long Branch (S. Mud) 1,000 ft 23,600 ft 7,900 ft 33,000 ft 65,500 ft
Magazine Branch (Hoppers/S. Mud) 800 ft 24,750 ft 2,950 ft 51,200 ft 79,700 ft
Reedy Creek (Mud) 3,450 ft 13,600 ft 1,100 ft 58,450 ft 76,600 ft
TOTALS 39,150 291,710 66,300 508,600 866,610

Creek drainage. There are three other small tributaries that lack an ample buffer for 51 - 100%
of their drainage area. Sixteen additional streams are lacking an ample buffer for 27% or more
of their drainage area. These are ideal candidate streams for riparian reforestation projects. On
a positive note, five of the smaller tributaries currently boast 100% riparian forest cover for a
minimum of 75 feet from the stream.
The Partners are convinced that incremental conservation successes in these smaller stream sys-
tems are critical to the ultimate attainment of project goals and the restoration of the broader
Muddy Creek watershed. A steady accumulation of restoration and preservation projects on
these 1st and 2nd order streams will increase the capabilities of the watershed to manage storm-
flow surges that are so damaging to bank stability. In addition, the ecological benefits incurred
and less turbid waters flowing from the smaller tributaries will flow downstream, joining with
waters flowing from other enhanced tributaries to create better conditions in the main stems of
North and South Muddy Creek.
On the larger streams, most of the areas having a minimal forested buffer occur adjacent to
South Muddy Creek, though there is a substantial amount of riparian area with minimal buffer
on North Muddy Creek between its headwaters and Highway 226. Corpening Creek (or
Youngs Fork) lacks an adequate forested buffer along a majority of its length as suspected con-
sidering its proximity to the urbanized area of Marion. The lower section of Hoppers Creek
also lacks an adequate buffer. Riparian forests in Muddy Creek downstream to the Catawba
River remain largely intact.
Riparian Land Use

Most of the riparian lands that were assessed from the in-stream field survey are classified as
“unused” or are forestlands that do not show any obvious signs of silviculture or other active
use (Figure 16; Map G: Primary Land Use In the Riparian Zone Along Navigable Streams in
the Muddy Creek Watershed). Unused land occurs often in association with riparian forest
buffers greater than 75 feet wide. In many instances, this 75 feet wide riparian forest buffer
may actually extend 300 feet or
wider. Pasture and cropland agricul- Figure 16: Land Use in the Muddy Creek Watershed
ture are the next dominant land uses
in the watershed. Commercial land Muddy Creek Restoration Partners
Land Use in the Muddy Creek Watershed
use follows, which also includes 60% No rt h M ud d y
transportation corridors such as high-
So ut h M ud d y
ways and railroads that are adjacent 50%
to surveyed streams. Cropland agri- 40%
M ud d y
culture, pasture, and commercial land In-St ream

Surveyed Trib s
uses are often associated with those 30%
areas where the riparian forest vege- 20%
tation is less than 25 feet wide. There
is very little high density residential 10%
land use, but low density residential 0%
land use is prevalent adjacent to
s
d
re
s
re
al
re
streams throughout the watershed.

n
Re
Re
se
tio
tu
tu
ci
st u
nu
er
ul
ul
ea
LD
Pa
U
m
ic
ic
Residential land use does occur close

cr
lv
m
gr
Re
Si
Co
A

to streams but is more often found 25 - 75 feet or further away from streams. These calcula-
tions are based only on in-stream field survey results and due to accuracy concerns do not in-
clude any results from the infrared photography analysis of smaller non-accessible streams in
the watershed.
Pasture, agriculture, and commercial land use activities are proportionately more prevalent on
tributaries than on the main stems of North and South Muddy Creeks. Some pastures provide
direct access to creeks while others were observed to have adequate fencing to preclude cattle
access. Cattle access to creeks was found at five sites along the larger accessible streams
(Map H: Locations of Fenced and Unfenced Cattle). In addition, a quick random windshield
survey of lands identified in pasture through the aerial analysis revealed 10 of 13 sites with un-
impeded livestock access to the creek. Though this windshield survey lacks rigorous scientific
controls, the Partners are confident in its ability to predict comparable results if randomly em-
ployed elsewhere in the watershed. Unchecked animal access to streams can be a major cause
of streambank collapse and sedimentation, and coliform bacteria inputs. This land use practice
is prevalent in the Muddy Creek watershed.

Chapter 4: Conservation Priorities
This restoration plan recommends four primary conservation solutions to the sedimentation and
nonpoint source problems plaguing the watershed; natural channel design stream restoration,
riparian reforestation, livestock exclusion, and riparian buffer preservation. Each solution de-
pends entirely on voluntary participation among landowners.
A. Stream Restoration
Natural channel design stream restoration is recommended in those areas where the stream
channel is entrenched and disconnected from the surrounding floodplain. Bioengineering solu-
tions using appropriate excavation, root wads, and rock veins can be used to replicate a stream’s
natural inclination toward sinuosity and can re-establish a floodplain next to the existing chan-
nel elevation so water has a place to escape during high flow events. Currently in areas with
high stream channel entrenchment, stormflow has nowhere to escape and instead scours and
undercuts exposed and vulnerable creek banks. This serves as a primary source of sediment to
the watershed.
It is not feasible to perform natural channel design restoration at all 886 bank erosion sites iden-
tified in the watershed. This would total over 8.5 miles of stream. At an $85 per linear foot,
that would require an estimated $3.81 million investment, involve a multitude of private land-
owners, and require disposal of tens of thousands of dump truck loads of dirt. The Partners be-
lieve that natural channel design restoration should be employed only at those most needed lo-
cations. Most needed locations have been defined by 1) Barren Bank “Sites” most susceptible
to stormflow scour; and 2) Stream “Reaches” that contain clusters of barren bank sites proven
through bank pin measurements to be actively eroding. Most, but not all, of the barren bank
sites most susceptible to stormflow scour are also included in the Priority stream reaches.
1) Barren Bank Sites Most Susceptible to Stormflow Scour

The priorities in this section have been derived by applying the following assumptions:
1) Calculating the total barren bank area for each of the 886 erosion sites found in the field as-
sessment (erosion length x erosion height), and selecting the top 100 sites with the largest
area susceptible to erosive forces.
2) For each of these top 100 sites, adding together the corresponding metric for erosion length
+ erosion height + riparian forest buffer width + rooting depth + rooting density + the loca-
tion of the bank in relation to the stream flow (Table 4).
3) Selecting as highest priorities the top 26 sites with the highest metric score.
The maximum score allowable for each barren bank site is 22. See Table 4 for the scoring and
Table 4: Criteria and Scoring for Factoring Stream Restoration Priorities
Erosion Length Erosion Height Buffer Width Rooting Depth Rooting Density Erosion Location
Condition Metric Condition Metric Condition Metric Condition Metric Condition Metric Condition Metric
30-50' 1 1-5' 1 > 75' 1 Deep 1 Dense 1 Inside 1
51-150' 2 6-10' 2 25' - 75' 2 Shallow 2 Sparse 2 Straight 2
151-300' 3 11-15' 3 < 25' 3 None 3 None 3 Outside 3
301-500' 4 > 15' 4 None 4
> 500' 5

criteria applied in the prioritization process. See Table 5 for the highest priority barren bank
sites.
These top 26 sites account for 12,392 linear feet of barren bank or 6.5% of all barren bank sites
along the larger, more easily accessible streams in the Muddy Creek watershed. This top 26 list
includes those longest, highest creek banks that have little or no deep rooted vegetation to hold
the bank in place and that are more greatly exposed to erosive high water flows. Theoretically,
these sites have the potential to deliver the greatest sediment loads to the watershed. However,
this priority list does not calculate activity level of streambank erosion at each of these sites, nor
does it factor in the erosive character of soil type - both crucial pieces of information needed
before embarking upon any stream restoration design.
Table 5: Highest Priority Barren Bank Sites

Priority ID
Date
Creek Name
Bank (L/R)
From Wypnt
From Latitude
From Longitude
Area
Base (feet)
Height (feet)
Width
Root Depth
Root Dens
Location
Base (feet)
Height (feet)
Width
Root Depth
Root Dens
Location
Score
A 10/26/00 N. Muddy L 8 35.63041 -81.95985 2,669.44 334 8 D S S O 4 2 4 2 2 3 17
B 7/18/00 S. Muddy R 1 35.62610 -81.85741 4,738.50 395 12 A S S S 4 3 3 2 2 2 16
C 7/12/00 S. Muddy R 4 35.67415 -81.85873 4,412.18 630 7 A S S S 5 2 3 2 2 2 16
D 7/7/00 S. Muddy L 5 35.66470 -81.85577 6,526.19 816 8 A D S S 5 2 3 1 2 2 15
E 09/27/00 Muddy L 58 35.72257 -81.83725 4,256.46 532 8 A D S S 5 2 3 1 2 2 15
F 7/12/00 S. Muddy R 9 35.67587 -81.85756 4,072.56 339 12 A D D O 4 3 3 1 1 3 15
G 7/12/00 S. Muddy L 2 35.67292 -81.85888 4,023.81 503 8 A D S S 5 2 3 1 2 2 15
H 6/22/00 N. Muddy L 25 35.69670 -81.86640 2,458.11 307 8 A D S O 4 2 3 1 2 3 15
I 7/17/00 S. Muddy L 19 35.64692 -81.85381 9,585.89 959 10 A D D S 5 2 3 1 1 2 14
J 7/13/00 S. Muddy R 24 35.68802 -81.85970 8,416.96 1052 8 A D D S 5 2 3 1 1 2 14
K 7/7/00 S. Muddy L 28 35.67051 -81.85685 7,058.96 706 10 A D D S 5 2 3 1 1 2 14
L 07/28/00 Muddy R 23 35.70354 -81.86330 5,724.68 382 15 B D D O 4 3 2 1 1 3 14
M 7/13/00 S. Muddy L 35 35.69279 -81.86190 5,103.90 510 10 A D D S 5 2 3 1 1 2 14
N 7/18/00 S. Muddy R 10 35.62948 -81.85388 4,638.24 580 8 A D D S 5 2 3 1 1 2 14
O 6/15/00 N. Muddy L 12 35.67326 -81.90702 4,488.01 561 8 A D D S 5 2 3 1 1 2 14
P 07/31/01 Youngs Fk R 39 35.64393 -81.94463 4,373.22 243 18 C S D O 3 4 1 2 1 3 14
Q 7/18/00 S. Muddy R 9 35.62832 -81.85496 4,220.08 528 8 A D D S 5 2 3 1 1 2 14
R 06/04/01 Youngs Fk R 13 35.65294 -81.96163 4,064.68 254 16 B D D O 3 4 2 1 1 3 14
S 6/19/00 N. Muddy L 4 35.64564 -81.94000 4,008.86 401 10 A D S S 4 2 3 1 2 2 14
T 7/21/00 S. Muddy R 10 35.62430 -81.85992 3,804.83 476 8 A S D S 4 2 3 2 1 2 14
U 07/28/00 Muddy L 33 35.70655 -81.85989 3,766.27 628 6 A D D S 5 2 3 1 1 2 14
V 6/30/00 S. Muddy L 40 35.65930 -81.85583 3,461.34 288 12 A D S S 3 3 3 1 2 2 14
W 6/30/00 S. Muddy L 37 35.65842 -81.85539 2,962.60 296 10 A D S O 3 2 3 1 2 3 14
X 09/27/00 Muddy L 55 35.72217 -81.83884 2,153.07 308 7 A D S S 4 2 3 1 2 2 14
Y 12/11/00 N. Muddy R 50 35.62653 -81.97869 1,984.72 198 10 A S S S 3 2 3 2 2 2 14
Z 7/19/01 Hoppers L 29 35.62536 -81.85157 1,664.61 166 10 A S S S 3 2 3 2 2 2 14

2) Highest Priority Stream Reaches
There are several locations in the watershed where more substantial barren bank sites are found
clustered together. When determined to be actively eroding, these reaches are some of the more
significant sources of sediment to the watershed. The reaches described below are ideal candi-
dates for natural channel design stream restoration, being responsible for well over 350 tons of
sediment delivered to the watershed, and most of that in the last year alone.
Cluster 1: South Muddy/Hoppers Creek; Confluence

Both Hoppers and South Muddy Creeks warrant stream restoration from their confluence up-
stream for approximately 1.5 mile on South Muddy and 2 miles on Hoppers. There is one >500
feet barren bank site and three 301 feet - 500 feet barren bank sites in this stretch of South
Muddy Creek, in addition to a multitude of less lengthy barren bank sites. Bank Pin Sites #28,
#29, and #30 indicate a loss of 10 inches on average throughout the 30 feet long sample area
adjacent to Sain Road over the last year during normal/above normal rainfall. The Partners esti-
mate that this site has loaded 15 tons of sediment to the Muddy Creek watershed in just the last
year alone. It is likely that this reach would have suffered more bank erosion had not the stream
been dammed by Beavers soon after installation of the bank pins, which slowed stormflow
surges and created a backwater pond on the creek. On Hoppers Creek, there are fewer long
stretches of barren bank, but at least seven barren bank sites are 101 feet - 300 feet in length.
Interspersed among these barren bank sites are clusters of 51 feet - 100 feet long sites. Meas-
urements taken at Bank Pin sites #34, #35, #36, #37, and #38 indicate that this stream reach is
one of the more active bank erosion areas in the entire watershed. Hoppers Creek has eaten
over four feet of bank at site #34 and has eaten roughly 10 inches - 30 inches elsewhere. The
Partners approximate that over 55 cubic yards, or approximately 70 tons, of soil has entered
Hoppers Creek from bank erosion from just this 80 feet long bank pin sample area. This cluster
contains highest priority stream restoration sites B, N, Q, T, and Z represented in Table 5.
Cluster 2: South Muddy Creek; Pinnacle Church

Downstream from the confluence of Long Branch (at Pinnacle Church Rd), barren banks are
omnipresent on South Muddy Creek, almost for its entire length to the confluence with North
Muddy Creek. Cluster 2 begins at Long Branch and extends approximately 1/4 - 1/2 mile
above Pebble Count site 4S downstream (Map C). There are four barren bank sites > 500 feet
in length and five sites ranging from 301 feet - 500 feet long. Interspersed are 19 additional
barren bank sites 101 feet - 300 feet long. Interestingly enough, only Bank Pin site #33 indi-
cates any significant active erosion. At that nine feet long sample site, nearly four feet of bank
has calved off and dropped into South Muddy Creek, delivering approximately 15 tons of sedi-
ment to the watershed. Bank Pin sites #31, and #32 indicate little or no active bank erosion.
The soils appear to be comprised primarily of clay in this stretch of South Muddy which may
explain the relative lack of bank erosion activity. More bank pins installed in this reach would
provide a better picture of bank instability. This cluster contains highest priority stream restora-
tion sites C, D, F, G, I, K, V, and W represented in Table 5.
Cluster 3: South Muddy Creek; I-40

From the confluence of South and North Muddy Creeks upstream for approximately 1.5 miles
on South Muddy, there are two barren bank sites > 500 feet and two barren bank sites 301 feet -
500 feet long. Interspersed throughout this reach are an additional seven sites 150 feet - 300

feet long. Of the four Bank Pin sites installed here, only #24 is indicating any significant active
erosion. Approximately two feet of bank has been lost at this nine feet long sample sight, load-
ing roughly nine tons of sediment to the watershed. This cluster contains highest priority
stream restoration sites H, J, and M represented in Table 5.
Cluster 4: North Muddy Creek; Glenwood

North Muddy Creek flows for approximately 1.5 mile from Highway 221 to its confluence with
Goose Creek, and in this reach there are at least 8 barren bank sites 101 feet - 300 feet long. Of
three bank pin sites established here, only site #17 is indicating any significant active erosion.
That bank has lost almost 40 inches in an approximately 26 feet long sample area in just the last
year. This site is responsible for almost 26 tons of soil delivered to the watershed. This cluster
contains highest priority stream restoration site Y represented in Table 5.
Cluster 5: North Muddy Creek; Bobs Creek confluence

North Muddy Creek flows for approximately 2 miles From Pebble Count site 33N downstream
to just below the Bobs Creek confluence. There are 13 barren bank sites, each ranging from
101 feet - 300 feet in length. There are 20 additional barren bank sites 51 feet - 100 feet long.
Bank pins established at sites #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 all indicate active bank erosion in this area, and
most of it occurring in just the last year during normal/above normal rainfall events. Within
just the 50 feet long sample site #1, roughly 94 tons of dirt has calved off the bank and dropped
into North Muddy Creek. Almost 45 tons of additional sediment has entered the watershed
from bank erosion from the other four bank pin sample sites. This cluster contains highest pri-
ority stream restoration site A represented in Table 5.
Cluster 6: North Muddy Creek; I-40

Just upstream from its confluence with South Muddy Creek, North Muddy is actively eating at
several relatively short barren bank sites within a 1/2 mile stream reach. This stream section
does not contain any of the highest priority stream restoration sites indicated in Table 5. How-
ever, the severity of active bank erosion here warrants attention. There are three barren bank
sites ranging from 101 feet - 300 feet long. Bank pin site #23 indicates that within a 33 feet
long sample area, one site has delivered at least 75 tons of sediment to the watershed in the last
year alone.
B. Riparian Reforestation
The physical assessment of the watershed has revealed numerous small tributaries that have lit-
tle or no riparian forest buffer to filter the impacts of adjacent land disturbances. In many cases,
these smaller streams do not pose a physical impediment to the property owner, so access
through and across them has never been an issue. As a result, crops are raised, cattle are
grazed, or houses and roads are built directly adjacent, through and across them with little re-
gard for their impacts on water quality. Nearer to their confluence with North or South Muddy
Creeks, many of these smaller tributaries are deeply entrenched and suffering from bank ero-
sion and headcutting. Upstream on these smaller tributaries, bank erosion from stormflow does
not appear to be as much of a problem as overland transport of sediment and bank trampling
from cattle and other livestock. The cumulative sediment load from the sheer number of these
smaller tributaries that have no buffer is not known, but observations during field surveys reveal

this problem to be widespread and perhaps equally as important as a contributor to the total
sediment load in the watershed as bank erosion on the larger main stems of North and South
Muddy Creeks. In many cases in the upper reaches of these smaller tributaries, simple revege-
tation of the riparian zone using native grasses, shrubs, and trees would provide multiple bene-
fits such as temperature moderation, in-stream habitat, and filtration of sediment and other non-
point source pollutants originating from adjacent lands.
First priorities must be focused on revegetating all of the streams known to have no riparian for-
est buffer at this time (Table 3). Small 1st and 2nd order tributaries account for 39,000 of the
known 40,000 linear feet of creekbank having no buffer. The MCWRI can and should methodi-
cally approach riparian reforestation at each of these sub-watersheds. Second priorities should
be given those streams or sub-watersheds that lack an adequate riparian forest buffer for 50% or
greater of their drainage area. In the fall of 2002, two sites comprising approximately 5,000
feet of streambank were revegetated in this manner at the Coats and Allen sites on Goose
Creek. In 2001, the Bobs Creek restoration project addressed 1,900 linear feet of this problem,
which means 1/6 of the unbuffered problem has been solved.
C. Livestock Exclusion
There are at least 15 sites in the watershed where livestock have unencumbered access to creeks
(Table 6; Map H). All sites combined, cattle or other livestock roam freely through 20,000 feet
Table 6: Priority Livestock Exclusion Areas
Site Stream(s)/Location Livestock Access

1: South Muddy; Pinnacle Church South Muddy Creek 5,000 feet
6 S Unnamed Tributary Left Unknown
7 S Unnamed Tributary Left Unknown
2: Muddy: Bridgewater Muddy Creek 3,000 feet
3: North Muddy; Stanfords Creek Unnamed Tributary on Stanfords Cr 1,000 feet
4: South Muddy; Hoppers Creek South Fork Hoppers Creek 1,500 feet
5: North Muddy; Bobs Creek Bobs Creek 1,500 feet
6: South Muddy; Hicks Branch Hicks Branch 1,200 feet
7: North Muddy; I-40 3 Unnamed Tributary Right 300 feet
8: North Muddy; Glenwood 37 Unnamed Tributary Left 500 feet
9: North Muddy; Caleb Branch Caleb Branch 1,200 feet
10: North Muddy; Glenwood North Muddy Creek (above Goose Cr) 1,300 feet
11: North Muddy; Glenwood North Muddy Creek (above Goose Cr) 680 feet
12: Muddy; Bridgewater Muddy Creek 180 feet
13: South Muddy Creek South Muddy Creek 30
14: North Muddy; Glenwood North Muddy Creek 30
15: North Muddy; Glenwood Goose Creek 2,200 feet
or more of stream in the watershed. These calculations were derived from the in-stream field
survey and a windshield survey based on assumptions generated through infrared aerial photo
analysis.
Significant improvements in water quality can be made through the simple fencing of livestock
from creek access and providing alternative watering systems. There are substantial state and
federal dollars available to help farmers do this. Considering the drought over the last four
years and the number of streams that went dry in the region during the summer of 2002, these
practices should hold considerable appeal to livestock producers and holders. The preceding
list, although not exhaustive, provides a starting point from which to build an effective livestock
exclusion program. Other sites considered priorities for riparian reforestation in Section B of
this chapter likely also hold cattle access.
D. Riparian Forest Preservation

Forever wild conservation easements, agricultural preservation easements, and working forest
conservation easements can and should be employed to protect significant riparian lands. In
addition, some sites also possess historical significance which could lead toward beneficial part-
nerships and greater public recognition of the value of conserving those landscapes. Large in-
tact headwater landscapes are certainly high priorities for protecting the sources of Muddy
Creek. In addition, there are five smaller tributaries currently 100% forested that deserve con-
servation planning before they succumb to forest clearing and residential development.
Since the project’s inception, one of the highest priorities for riparian conservation along North
Muddy Creek was sold and developed and now contains over 40 homesites - several with inap-
propriate slope construction and erosion from site clearing activities that are visibly delivering
large sediment loads to the creek system. This once forested property contains over 3 miles of
creek frontage on North Muddy Creek and along two tributaries. Just upstream, another for-
ested property containing a mile or more of frontage along North Muddy Creek was sold and is
in the process of being developed. Both of these developments are occurring within the once-
heavily forested area along North Muddy Creek between Highway 221 and Highway 226. A
priority intact forest adjacent to North Muddy Creek at Interstate 40 and the Highway Rest Area
was recently clear-cut. Time is of the essence if the Partners are to be successful protecting
existing intact riparian forest landscapes, as the conversion from forest to residential develop-
ment or logging practices on these three large tracts demonstrate.
Headwater Sites
The benefits of downstream restoration could be nullified through decimation of upstream
headwater areas. For that reason, headwaters must always factor in as a high priority for pro-
tection. In the Muddy Creek watershed, several clusters of headwater streams remain heavily
forested and ironically are located in close proximity to each other in the Huntsville Mountains
complex. This mountain range is an outlier to the Blue Ridge and is known to contain signifi-
cant natural heritage elements. The vast majority of these lands are in corporate timber owner-
ship. Many timber companies throughout the southeast are currently divesting themselves of
large land holdings, though actual sales differ by corporate needs. Highest priority headwater
sites in need of protection are listed below.

1) Bobs Creek Headwaters. Riparian forest protection here along 62,150 feet of creekbank,
coupled with restoration at the Cochran site, would practically ensure the ecological integrity
and clean water within the entire sub-watershed of Bob’s Creek. This would result in both a
tangible and powerful moral victory for watershed conservation here. There remains 800 linear
feet of riparian land with no buffer and approximately 2,000 linear feet of 1st order stream on
Bobs Creek which would benefit from a livestock exclusion project. Outreach is on-going with
those landowners. These and past efforts to restore the lower sections of Bob’s Creek could
prove futile if the headwaters are not saved.
The largest tract contains approximately 2,426 acres and is in corporate ownership. Another
landowner possesses 289 acres, while two other landowners are in possession of 42 and 45
acres. At least two of these property owners reside elsewhere.
2) High Shoals Creek/Baker Branch/Barnes Branch Headwaters. Riparian protection here

would preserve intact forests along 25,000 feet of creekbank. The largest tract is in corporate
ownership and totals 3,486 acres. The same 2,426 acres in corporate ownership in the Bobs
Creek headwaters wraps around to include this drainage as well. The third largest landowner
owns 280 acres.
3) Stanfords/Huntsville Creek Headwaters. Riparian preservation of these headwaters would

protect intact 25,000 linear feet of forested creekbanks. The 3,486 acre tract containing the
High Shoals Creek headwater cluster also wraps around to include the Stanfords Creek cluster
of streams. Another private landowner owns 237 acres here.
4) South Muddy Creek Headwaters. One corporate timber company owns 5,664 acres of land
in the South Muddy Creek headwaters subwatershed.
Other tributary sites

Protecting entire intact sub-watersheds will prove extremely powerful for water quality and
ecological health. Individual successes are easily measurable and cumulatively they deliver
tangible benefits. Each of the following priority sub-watersheds have at least a 75 feet wide
riparian forest buffer on 100% of the riparian land.
1) 10 NUTL. There are 10,000 linear feet of streambank in this sub-watershed that feeds North
Muddy Creek, and it is heavily forested. This stream is small and drains an area close to the
confluence of North and South Muddy Creeks. There is currently no land use activity any-
where close to the creek that could pollute Muddy Creek, though aerial and topographic map
analyses indicate that land development is occurring nearby. The topography in this area is
moderately sloping. The parcels are relatively small and include a 3 acre, 5 acre, and 64 acre
tract.
2) 32 NUTL. 14,800 linear feet of heavily forested streambank comprise this drainage empty-
ing into North Muddy Creek just off of Old Glenwood Road. Some timbering and residential
development is occurring nearby though an ample riparian forest buffer appears to be main-
tained. The primary parcel is 366 acres.

3) 1 UTL. 7,200 linear feet of heavily forested streamanks comprise this sub-watershed that
feeds Hoppers Creek. Hoppers Creek empties into South Muddy Creek. The largest tract is
127 acres and is near the Hoppers Creek stream restoration priority reach.
4) Spruce Branch. 12,800 linear feet of streambank is heavily forested, though some timbering
practices are occurring. This is the largest drainage area southwest of the Huntsville Moun-
tains. It appears that adequate riparian forest buffers have been maintained adjacent to the
creeks. In addition to the 3,500 acre tract draining the Hunstville Creek headwaters, another
tract totaling 250 acres drains this area.
5) 39 SUTL. 12,800 linear feet of streambank is heavily forested with some timber practices
occurring. This is part of the South Muddy Creek headwaters cluster. Two 125+ acre tracts are
held by absentee owners.
6) 47 SUTL. 10,800 linear feet of streambank is heavily forested with some timbering prac-
tices occurring. It appears that ample riparian forest buffers are being maintained. This creek
forms the southernmost drainage of the South Muddy Creek headwaters cluster. Riparian lands
are in large corporate ownership. Fieldwork and aerial analysis indicates that this creek could
potentially host some wetland type areas.
Floodplains and Upland Forests along North, South, and Muddy Creeks
1) South Muddy Creek headwaters. As a headwater area containing substantially forested

tributaries and as a riparian area along the mainstem of South Muddy Creek, this region needs
protection. Over 1 mile of stream is forested on South Muddy Creek, not factoring in adjacent
tributaries feeding this subwatershed. Past gold mining has created bog/wetland type areas.
Both upland forest and bottomland forests exist intact here. Though pines have been planted in
a plantation type arrangement, native hardwood communities are scattered throughout and form
a good primary buffer around this stream.
2) South Muddy Creek from the flood control dam downstream to Highway 226. For 3,400
feet, South Muddy Creek is buffered by mostly mature mixed hardwoods with moderate to
steep terrain with a few possible wetland areas along the floodplain. Rock outcrops and bed-
rock are substantial in this section of the creek. An historic mill site is located along this sec-
tion of creek.
3) South Muddy Creek one mile upstream from confluence with North Muddy Creek. One
tract borders South Muddy Creek for approximately 2000 linear feet. In addition to being a pri-
ority riparian forest preservation site, this property also contains priority stream restoration
sites. The owners have been very amenable to the project’s need to access the creek through
their property and have even furnished a key to their gate. They have in the past indicated that
they would like any assistance possible to help re-establish a good quail population here. The
landowner’s wildlife objectives could potentially correlate nicely with the Partners large resto-
ration goals.

4) Muddy Creek just before the confluence with the Catawba River. One tract comprised of
825 acres borders both sides of Muddy Creek for approximately 9,000 linear feet. Mostly
mixed hardwood and planted pines occupy these long floodplains. A few large steep and rocky
outcrops also exist along the creek. This property has also been deemed a priority for preserva-
tion in the Catawba River Riparian Corridor Conservation Design prepared by the Foothills
Conservancy of North Carolina in September 1999. Considering the owners’ earlier willing-
ness to entertain riparian forest buffer plans for its other properties in the Catawba Basin - ripar-
ian forest preservation should occur here.
5) North Muddy Creek downstream from Sugar Hill Road. Four local landowners own ap-
proximately 2 miles of creek frontage paralleling Interstate 40. They include a 73 acre tract,
124 acre tract, 42 acre tract, and a 70 acre tract. One owner already indicated her interest in the
project and would likely entertain the idea of an easement on her land. NC Department of
Transportation possesses an easement through some of this land. Mix hardwood forests
abounded on steep hillsides and in floodplains, but it appears that a large clearcut has recently
occurred on some of this acreage.
6) North Muddy Creek from Bledsoe Branch to White Branch. Five local landowners possess
approximately 300 acres of mixed hardwood and alluvial forest along approximately 6,500 lin-
ear feet of North Muddy Creek. They include a 92 acre tract, 16 acre tract, 59 acre tract, 85
acre tract, and 40 acre tract. This is the upstream component of the nearly 9 mile section of
North Muddy Creek which flow through dense steep forests and bedrock between Highway
226 and Interstate 40.
7) North Muddy Creek from White Branch downstream for approximately 2.5 miles. This is
the downstream section of the 9 mile forest adjacent to North Muddy Creek between Highway
226 and I-40. Mixed hardwoods on upland slopes combine with deep alluvial forested flood-
plains and plentiful exposed bedrock to make this one of the more picturesque and ecologically
healthy areas in the watershed. Land has been somewhat fragmented by two large develop-
ments, but the riparian areas appear to be left alone. Property includes a 191 acre tract, 41 acre
tract, and 70 acre tract. Because of tax advantages or amenities for residents, the developments
might be amenable to permanent conservation of the historic mill and relatively intact riparian
forest areas. In addition, the 41 acre tract is owned by one of the landowners in the Muddy
Creek Restoration Partners.

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations
All available physical, chemical, and biological data indicates that the Muddy Creek watershed
is impaired. Restoration is warranted but successful attainment of the two project goals will be
a difficult, time consuming, and costly endeavor. Considering the potential economic and eco-
logical benefits to the region, the investment would be worthwhile. The Partners have estab-
lished a substantial foundation of organizational, financial, and volunteer support and numerous
project successes which are recognized as important assets that can be leveraged to take this
project to a necessary higher level. To help the Partners fully capitalize on this momentum, the
following six recommendations are provided.
Recommendation 1) Obtain more substantial local buy-in and commitment from landowners
within the watershed and the elected leadership and administration of McDowell and Burke
Counties and the Town of Marion. This recommendation has been a project objective since the
Partners inception in 1998. Previous attempts have met with limited success. A tremendous
constraint hindering local participation has been the controversy surrounding the State’s pro-
posed riparian buffer regulations for the Catawba River Basin. The Partners must quickly move
beyond this obstacle if it ever hopes to achieve project goals. Each of the three strategies out-
lined below are vital components of Recommendation #1.
Strategy A - Turn the anti-buffer constraint into an opportunity. The Partners’ voluntary ap-
proach to conservation should be marketed at every opportunity as an alternative to the State’s
proposed buffer regulations. Number of watershed participants and conservation projects on-
the-ground could be touted by the anti-buffer constituency as proof positive that voluntary and
local control measures work - thus negating the need for State mandates. However, until the
project attains a critical mass of local participation, any arguments for local control and volun-
tary measures at conservation as a substitute for regulation will ring hollow. A disturbing re-
minder of the daunting task facing the Partners is that any gains made by the project over the
last four years through voluntary means have likely been negated by the currently legal and
widespread landowner clearing of once-buffered riparian areas. Efforts should begin immedi-
ately to engage the anti-buffer constituency and seek their support for and assistance with mar-
keting the project throughout the watershed.
Strategy B - Enhance local government participation. The Town of Marion has never been in-
volved at all in the project and they should be, considering that the watershed’s only officially
recognized 303(d) listed stream drains that urban area. McDowell and Burke County involve-
ment has been adequate at committee meetings but financial investment or involvement in pub-
lic events such as the Partners’ watershed restoration tours or riparian reforestation projects has
not been visible. As a result, many landowners view the project primarily as a program of an
energy company from Charlotte who likely has ulterior motives, a State environmental agency
who is likely to grab their land if given the opportunity, and a group of outside environmental-
ists - some of who put fish ahead of people. Greater exposure of the local counties’ support for
and investment in the project is critical to help landowners (their constituents) recognize the
value of land and water conservation in the project area. If the local governments are not aware
of this value, the Partners should expend the energy necessary to educate these leaders about the
very real and tangible economic and ecological benefits of watershed restoration here.
In an effort to recruit greater local government investment, the Partners should recognize cur-
rent government funding constraints in NC and examine innovative means of helping these cash
- strapped entities meet their own internal needs when they overlap with Muddy Creek project
objectives. Where feasible, tradeoffs could be made between the Partners and these local gov-
ernments. As examples, the MCWRI could trade through its Coordinator or Partners a) grant
writing assistance, b) GIS training and project specific services, or c) sedimentation and erosion
control inspections for direct county investment in the form of dollars and improved visibility in
the Partners different programs and media events. While it is important for the Partners to rec-
ognize the difficulty of local governments to provide funding in today’s economic climate, it is
also important for the local governments to recognize the $1 million dollar plus investment that
the Partners have already generated that, if successful, should enhance the economic potential
of the region and quality of life of their citizens. Local government investment at the rate of
$12,000 - $15,000 per year would basically fund project coordination duties.
Strategy C - Invest heavily in the Landowner Outreach Committee. The Partners have achieved
some success in the latter months of 2003 at recruiting and obtaining the participation of four
landowners in the Muddy Creek watershed to assume a role on this committee. This committee
should also involve local government participation. The Partners need to secure the necessary
funding to support the initiatives of this Committee in 2003 and beyond. The revised Outreach
Committee needs to hold regular meetings to develop an active agenda of landowner education
and outreach. Through this active committee, the Partners will model local level buy-in and
participation.
Without demonstrably improved local interest and participation within the next year, the Part-
ners must recognize that its uphill battle will continue and successful attainment of project goals
is questionable.
Recommendation 2) Implement measures to more accurately gauge sediment loads in the wa-
tershed and entering the Catawba River. To date, the project is still relying on “guesstimates”
of the sediment load entering the Catawba River and does not have a verifiable method of track-
ing this pollutant or measuring its impact on salmonids in the tailrace fishery. An up-front in-
vestment in a sound sediment tracking system may actually save on costs long-term due to its
ability to help the project determine when sediment delivery to the Catawba River drops to a
satisfactory threshold. If broad enough, such a system will even help determine where major
sediment sources are located so that restoration projects can be targeted more effectively. A
good system would also help the Partners evaluate the effectiveness of site-specific restoration
projects. A good sediment tracking system might be comprised of a StreamsideSystems ™
bedload removal and the strategic reinstallment and monitoring of suspended sediment samplers
throughout the watershed.
Recommendation 3) Fully utilize existing agricultural conservation programs. In the current

economic climate of state budget deficits and declining foundational support, the 2002 federal
Farm Bill appears to offer a great deal of potential funding. The Muddy Creek watershed is pri-
marily rural and has numerous bottomlands currently in crop or cattle production. Many of the
conservation priorities outlined in this plan involve reforesting streamsides and fencing out live-
stock or even protecting existing critical riparian forest buffers - all achievable through the

Farm Bill programs. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service is the federal agency
in charge of these programs and has been a valuable partner in the Partners since its inception.
This plan recommends a greater role for this agency in the coming year(s) to help acquire
funding for conservation practices and implement them on-the-ground. Albert Moore, the cur-
rent District Conservationist for McDowell County, has indicated his interest to promote more
conservation in the project area and has stated that adequate funding should be available to im-
plement a number of programs which would help restore watershed health. These programs are
available on-demand via landowner application. Albert indicates that he could use assistance
from the MCWRI helping to market the programs and service the demand in McDowell
County. In the fall of 2003, the Partners began providing this service through Duke funding.
Recommendation 4) Combat overland transport of sediment with equal fervor as bank erosion.
A farm landowner in the watershed once stated that the mud in the creek was
coming from the clearing and development of upland hillsides and that all one
had to do was look at the orange color of the water after a storm. He further
stated that the soils on the hillsides are primarily orange clays while many of
the floodplain soils are loamy and brown. Not to di-
minish the significance of Figure 17: Photos of Over-
streambank erosion as a pri- land Transport of Sediment
mary sediment source, this
landowner’s observation is
accurate to some degree as
evident by the photographs in
Figure 17. Two years of gen-
eral observations during field
inventories suggest that a ma-
jor problem with overland flow is the disregard by
some landowners and developers to properly plan for
and install sediment control technologies, if necessary,
during development activities. By law this minimal
measure is required, but it is not adequately enforced.
The State does not have the organizational capacity to monitor and enforce the Sediment and
Erosion Control Act of 1974 and McDowell County does not employ anyone to help. The Part-
ners should see to it that someone - even if that be the Coordinator of the Muddy Creek Resto-
ration Partners - monitors the project area for the presence of appropriate sediment and erosion
control measures, reports these findings to the State and County leaders, and ensures that exist-
ing laws are enforced. If overland transport of sediment is not addressed, sediment loads from
these sources will nullify gains from other stream and riparian restoration projects.
Recommendation 5) Build restoration projects upon priority lists. The determination that the
Muddy Creek watershed is impaired has been based upon a comprehensive analysis of data in-
volving biological, chemical, and physical parameters of watershed health. A successful rever-
sal, or restoration, of this condition will depend upon implementation of the four different con-
servation strategies - natural channel design stream restoration, riparian reforestation, livestock

exclusion, and riparian forest protection. Each of the strategies is of equal importance. Natural
channel design stream restoration is imperative at those highest priority stream reaches where
prominent bank erosion sites are clustered. These areas are responsible for an extraordinary
350 tons of sediment delivered to the watershed over the last year or so. Riparian reforestation
must occur on especially the smaller 1st and 2nd order tributaries to help infiltrate stormwater
runoff such that storm flow surges through this watershed are mitigated. By slowing runoff, the
Partners will in effect slow stormflow velocities and decrease its souring potential on vulnerable
barren banks. Livestock exclusion will allow currently degraded areas to heal. These type of
projects are cost-effective and can actually increase the health and poundage of a herd of cattle.
Cattle exclusion should also help reduce coliform concentrations. While these restoration
strategies are worthwhile and necessary if the Partners hope to reach their goals, they will be to
no avail if currently intact riparian areas become degraded. Protection of existing good water
supplies is imperative, especially in headwater areas.
The priority lists generated by this plan are not confining but appear to provide the Partners
with a critical mass of potential projects such that implementation should not be held up due to
landowner dis-interest. In other words - there are plenty of places to work. Implementation
should begin immediately, starting with active outreach of those landowners of priority sites.
That being said, this plan also recognizes the occasional need for the Partners to step outside of
the bounds of the priority lists to service demand from landowners whose needs may not have
been recognized by the various prioritization processes. This plan emphasizes that anyone who
requests restoration assistance be serviced if it can be determined through a site visit that their
property contains bonafide restoration need. This value is predicated on the notion that the
more on-the-ground successful projects the Partners can design and install, the more they will
lead to additional restoration opportunities. Word of the mouth from satisfied customers will be
the best advertisement for all restoration strategies.
Recommendation 6) Budget adequately to pay for a quality project that will attain its goals.
Restoration is a costly undertaking. The Partners should prepare themselves for a 10 year time
commitment and expect to invest at minimum $2.021 million , excluding land preservation
costs (Table 7). Factoring land preservation into the equation creates an additional $15 million
cost in the budgetary requirements.
A. Budget Calculations - At $85 per linear foot, natural channel design stream restoration at the
26 highest priority barren bank sites will cost an estimated $1,053,320. At $7 per linear foot,
riparian reforestation at a width of 35 feet on the remaining 32,000 feet of streambanks that
have no buffer will cost an estimated $224,000. Costs for livestock exclusion and alternative
watering systems on just the 15 projects identified in this plan would likely require a $140,000
investment for fencing, wells, and plumbing. Those costs are difficult to predict due to their
contingency upon site specific conditions. At $2,000 - $5,000 per acre for land acquisition, the
Partners should expect to invest at minimum $30 million if it hopes to purchase in fee simple
the 15,000 acres or so of intact riparian forestlands that comprise the priority headwaters, sub-
watersheds, and key bottomlands identified in this plan. Purchasing conservation easements on
these properties could lessen that expense to roughly $15 million. Staffing to coordinate the
project and recruit landowners into restoration projects would likely total $350,000 over a ten

year period, with an additional $100,000 earmarked for land preservation outreach. The bench-
marks given for these four restoration strategies could conceivably be achieved in ten years
provided the Partnership is well coordinated, funding is readily available, and each Partner as-
sumes responsibility for and efficiently implements its responsibilities for its relevant tasks.
Table 7: Muddy Creek Restoration Partners Forecasted Program Budget
Program Costs Benchmark (10Yr) Ideal (20YR)

Natural Channel Design Stream Restoration $1,053,320 $1,053,320
Riparian Reforestation $224,000 $2,127,650
Livestock Exclusion $140,000 $280,000
Landowner Outreach and Recruitment - Restoration $200,000 $400,000
Program Coordination $150,000 $300,000
Sediment Monitoring System $125,000 $125,000
Grants Administration (7.5% of Total Expenditures) $142,749 $321,447
Sub Totals $2,035,069 $4,607,417
Budget Including Land Preservation Costs
Riparian Forest Preservation $15,000,000 $30,000,000
Landowner Outreach and Recruitment - Preservation $100,000 $200,000
Total Budgetary Requirements $17,135,069 $34,807,417
Additional restoration needs exist beyond the benchmark levels identified in this section, and
are factored into this budget under the Ideal (20YR) column. There are 3 sub-watersheds where
riparian forest buffers are less than 25 feet for over 50% of their drainage areas. There are 16
additional sub-watersheds where the riparian forest buffer is inadequate for 27% -50% of its
drainage area. There are likely double the number of livestock exclusion projects needed in the
watershed than stated as priorities. Ideally, restoration would encompass these areas, which
would likely add another 10 years to the total program duration. Fee simple costs for land pres-
ervation of the 15,000 estimated acres have been inserted into the ideal budget as a means of
accounting for increasing land values over time.
B. Funding Opportunities - The forecasted budget needs are daunting. However, innovative
partnerships and creative channeling of regulatory requirements and State dollars could spread
the costs in a more manageable context. Already, the Partners are teaming with the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service to market livestock exclusion and buffer enhancement
projects, taking advantage of existing Federal and State agricultural programs to pay design and
installation costs. This partnership removes a $140K fundraising burden. Recent communica-
tions with the NC Wetlands Restoration Program indicate that they are willing to provide the
financial investment and personnel to produce the designs, coordinate all contracting, and over-
see the construction on natural channel design stream restoration projects. If this relationship
with NCWRP is established, a huge fundraising burden ($1.053M) will be lifted from the

Partners. On a similar note, the State’s newly established Ecosystem Enhancement Program
could pay substantial dividends toward the permanent preservation of priority headwater and
bottomland areas. The NC Department of Transportation needs to fulfill a backlog of stream,
wetland, and species mitigation requirements and is emphasizing “protection” of functionally
intact aquatic areas as a means of addressing that backlog. This plan identifies a number of
properties that meet EEP criteria and qualify for preservation funding. As part of the dam reli-
censing process, Duke Energy will likely be required to mitigate some disturbances. As found-
ing member and staunch supporter of the Muddy Creek Restoration Partners, Duke has ex-
pressed its interest in seeing mitigation investments go directly into the Muddy Creek water-
shed. Duke’s mitigation dollars would be most effective if regulatory authorities allowed them
to be used for project coordination and landowner outreach activities. These are the more diffi-
cult program areas to fund, but without the staffing to make the connections with landowners,
on-the-ground conservation does not occur. In addition - the Partners must fulfill grant report-
ing requirements; budgeting and fundraising needs; committee coordination; restoration project
supervision; and restoration project evaluation. These work tasks, some of which are required
by funders, require personnel - and personnel costs money. The Partners need to stress this
truth to potential funders. The land preservation and riparian reforestation restoration strategies
would also benefit from Duke’s cash outlays. In summary, it appears that money can readily be
found for on-the-ground conservation projects but may prove difficult to raise to pay for the
staffing to make those conservation projects a reality. This predicament begs Partner attention.

References Cited
Personal Communication: Andy Brown with Albert Moore, District Conservation with USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service; McDowell/Rutherford Co. District. Communication
regarding participation rates by private landowners in Rutherford County vs participation rates
in McDowell County.
Personal Communication: Chris Goudreau of NC Wildlife Resources Commission with Don

Danford, City of Morganton Utilities Department. Communication regarding sediment reduc-
tion impacts on water treatment costs for City of Morganton. 2000.
Personal Communication: Andy Brown with Doug Besler, Coldwater Research Coordinator
with NC Wildlife Resources Commission. Communication regarding brown trout survival rates
and potential trophy fishery in Catawba River tailrace. 2002 and 2003.
Personal Communication: Andy Brown with Francis Naeger, MAI of Duckworth, Jacobs, Nae-
ger, Swicegood, and Thrash LLC. Communication regarding plant and landscape additions on
appraised values of residential real estate. February 2003.
Personal Communication: Andy Brown with Greg Jennings; North Carolina Water Resources
Research Institute. Communication regarding stream restoration projects at Banner and Higgins
sites on North Muddy Creek undertaken in 1999. December 2002.
Personal Communication: Andy Brown with Rick Smith; United States Department of Agricul-
ture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Communication regarding federal farm bill con-
servation cost share programs and their allocation to North Carolina. October 2002.
Duke Power. (2003). North Muddy Creek Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment 2001.
Jennings, G. and Harmon. W. (2002/December). Muddy Creek Stream Restoration and Water-
shed Assessment - Final Report. Raleigh, NC.
Kask, Susan and Morton, Pete (1998/November). Quality of Life and Natural Resource
Amenities in Business Location and Retention Decisions. Paper presented at the 9th Annual
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Fall Conference, Gatlinburg, TN.
Newcombe, C.P. and Jensen, J.O (1996) Channel suspended sediment and fisheries; a
synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management, 16, 693-727.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (1998/August). Basinwide Assessment Re-

port, Catawba River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
R-1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (1995/February). Catawba River Basinwide
Water Quality Management Plan. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (1999/December). Catawba River Basinwide

Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (2003/August). Tail of a Tailrace.

Wildlife in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, (August 2001), Economic Effects of Trout Production By
National Fish Hatcheries in the Southeast, Southeast Region, Atlanta Georgia.
R-2
Appendix A: Maps of Muddy Creek Watershed
Map A: Locations of All Data Stations in the Muddy Creek Watershed

Map B: Physical Survey of Streams and Their Banks in the Muddy Creek Watershed
Map C: Bank Pin and Pebble Count Locations
Map D: Location of Barren Banks and Their Corresponding Length
Map E: Riparian Forest Buffer Widths of Accessible Streams in the Muddy Creek Watershed
Map F: Riparian Forest Buffer Status on 2nd Order and Above Streams
Map G: Primary Land Use Within the Riparian Survey Area
Map H: Locations of Fenced and Unfenced Livestock in Phase I and II Survey
Map I: Locations of Conservation Priorities: Natural Channel Design Stream Restoration,
Riparian Reforestation, Livestock Exclusion, and Riparian Forest Preservation
A-1

Feasibility Report and Restoration Plan For The Muddy Creek Watershed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Report and Restoration Plan For The Muddy Creek Watershed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Report and Restoration Plan For The Muddy Creek Watershed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MUDDY CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIATIVE

Feasibility Report and Restoration Plan for

Sediment plume from Muddy

McDowell and Burke Counties, NC Catawba River Basin

List of Tables and Figures iii

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Muddy Creek Watershed and the Muddy 1

Chapter 2: The Feasibility of a Restored Muddy Creek Watershed 8

Chapter 3: Results from the Watershed Assessment 13

Chapter 4: Conservation Priorities 22

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 31

References Cited R-1

Appendix A: Maps of Muddy Creek Watershed A-1

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

• Riparian Forest Preservation

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

In 1998, Duke and NCWRC formed a partnership

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

successful in generating over $1 $382,000.00

million in cash and in-kind con- $ 350, 000. 00

tributed services from a variety

sources are listed on page 1 of

allocations by program area are $ 200, 000. 00

exhibited in Figure 3. A Steering

decisions made by any of the $110,000.00

other sub-committees and pro- $ 1 00, 000. 00

vides oversight for the entire ini- $33,000.00 $34,550.00

tial progress toward the objec- Out r e a c h a nd

tives described on the preceding

B. Economic Benefits of Watershed Conservation

1) Potential Local Investment from Agricultural Cost-Share Programs

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

2) Potential Local Investment from Trophy Tailrace Fishery

Table 2: Southeastern US Tailrace Trout Fishing Economic Surveys

TO TAL 137,9 30 $ 13,97 5,83 7

* P erio d alw ay s inc lu des peak fis h ing s eas o n.

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

3) Water Resources for Industrial/Commercial Enterprise

4) Conservation as a Property Insurance Tool

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

5) Lowered Water Treatment Costs

6) Conservation Benefits to Irrigation and Crop Management

7) Vegetation Improvements on Residential Property Values

C. Ecological Benefits of Watershed Conservation

1) Water Resources Fully Supporting Intended Uses

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

3) Other Ecological Benefits

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

A. Goal 1: Establish Trout Fishery on Catawba River Tailrace

1) Severity of Watershed Conditions

2) Cost of Watershed Restoration

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

3) Societal Belief Systems and Attitudes

5) Historical Reference of Muddy Creek

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan

3) Awards and Honors

Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Plan