Section 319
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SOCGESS STORY
Implementing Best Management Practices Improves Water Quality
Watorhnrlioc ImnrnwoH
VVdLWlUUUlWb III npiuvwu
Pesticides in agricultural runoff, along with other nonpoint
sources of pollution, impaired the macroinvertebrate and
fish communities in North Carolina's Clear Creek. As a result, in 2000 the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (NC DWQ) added 1 1 .7 miles of the creek to the state's Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 303(d) list of impaired waters for failing to support the creek's aquatic life designated
use. Watershed partners conducted planning, implemented education/outreach programs, and
worked with landowners to install agricultural best management practices (BMPs). Because of
these efforts, water quality has improved in a portion of Clear Creek, prompting NC DWQ to
remove two segments (totaling 5.2 miles) from the impaired waters list since 2006.
Problem
Clear Creek, the largest tributary of Mud Creek,
drains approximately 44 square miles of Henderson
County within the French Broad River Basin in
western North Carolina (Figure 1). Major watershed
land uses include forest (50 percent), cropland and
pastureland (45 percent), and developed land (5 per-
cent). Apples are the primary agricultural crop in the
watershed. Historically, pesticides such as dichloro-
diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and chlordane were
commonly used in agricultural and residential areas
of Henderson County.
Biological data collected by NC DWQ in 1992 and
1997 indicated that the creek was not supporting
its aquatic life designated use, as demonstrated by
poor ratings in the macroinvertebrate EPT (short
for the order names Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera
and Trichoptera) index, a measure of the number
and types of pollution-sensitive aquatic insects
inhabiting a waterbody (Table 1). Ratings of good-
fair, good and excellent are considered supportive
of the biological integrity water quality standard.
Based on these data, in 2000 NC DWQ added an
117-mile segment of Clear Creek (see assess-
ment unit 6-55-11-1 on Figure 1) to the state's list
of impaired waters for poor biological integrity for
macroinvertebrates and fish community.
According to the NC DWQ French Broad Basin Plan,
developed in 2000, in-stream monitoring indicated
that pesticides might be affecting aquatic life in
Clear Creek. NC DWQ recommended that local
agencies (including the Mud Creek Restoration
Council, a local watershed stakeholder group led by
the Henderson County Cooperative Extension) work
with landowners to implement management strate-
gies in the watershed, including BMPs on orchards
to reduce pesticide runoff entering Clear Creek.
Clear Creek
Watershed
O DWQ Benthic Monitoring Sites Clear Creek Sub-watersheds
^| Lower Clear Ck
I IHendenonaioLfwisOi
f\J Impaired Streams I I Henderson Oc
r~n Lewis Ck to Cox ft
Hendersorwile
I I Gear CK Headwaters
I ICmCk
Figure 1. Clear Creek sub-watersheds, monitoring
stations, impaired waters and waterbody segmentation.
In addition to pesticides from agriculture produc-
tion (specifically apple orchards and row crops),
NC DWQ identified sedimentation from agriculture
and development, stream channelization, and lack
of riparian buffer along stream banks as causes of
impairment in Clear Creek watershed.
-------
Table 1. Clear Creek Biological Sampling Data
Sampling Date
1992
1993
1997
2000
2006
2010
Segment
6-55-11-1
6-55-11-1
6-55-11-1
6-55-11-1
6-55-11-1(a)
6-55-11-1(b)
6-55-11-1(a)
6-55-11-1(b)
Bioclass Rating
Poor
Fair
Poor
Good-Fair*
Not Rated
Good-Fair
Good
Good-Fair
Meets Standards
No
No
No
Yes*
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
' Although data showed that the Clear Creek assessment unit 6-55-11-1 met
standards in 2000, NC DWQ opted to divide it into three sub-segments to
ensure a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of water quality
before removing the stream from the impaired waters list.
In 2001 the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) devel-
oped an Integrated Pollutant Source Identification
report for the Mud Creek watershed. The TVA had
analyzed infrared aerial photography using a geo-
graphic information system to identify more than
2,000 feet of eroding streams adjacent to orchards
and agriculture fields. The TVA also had determined
that all the perennial streams in the watershed
lacked adequate riparian buffers and therefore were
likely contributing to toxic and sediment runoff into
the creek during storm events.
Project Highlights
In January 2003, the Mud Creek Watershed
Restoration Council published the Mud Creek
Watershed Restoration Plan, which provided
recommendations for addressing nonpoint sources
of pollution throughout the watershed. For more
than 10 years, the Henderson County Cooperative
Extension Mud Creek Coordinator has played a
critical role in engaging local producers and secur-
ing grant funding to support watershed restora-
tion efforts. In 2005 the Mud Creek coordinator
received a CWA section 319 grant to prepare and
implement a watershed restoration plan specific to
Clear Creek. Partners targeted community outreach
efforts to work with landowners to identify appro-
priate BMPs and restoration practices to improve
stream channel stability, reduce erosion/sedimen-
tation, and adopt integrated pest management
practices that reduced pesticide use.
Henderson County adopted a local sedimentation
and erosion control ordinance in 2007, which helped
to reduce sediment loss throughout the Mud Creek
watershed. In 2008-2009, project partners imple-
mented numerous BMPs in the Clear Creek water-
shed, including stabilizing and restoring streams
(5,425 feet; Figure 2),
adding a pasture watering
system, and implementing
pesticide spray reduction
management measures
on 392 acres (e.g., using
codling moth mating
disruption techniques
and employing sensor-
based spray technology
that better controls the
dose of pesticide applica-
tion). Project partners
conducted 100 educa-
tional programs. Forty-one
professional landscapers
participated in a Stream Doctor Training Program
and then used their knowledge to install eight
backyard stream bank stabilization projects cover-
ing 1,300 linear feet of stream.
Figure 2. Implementing a stream
restoration project on a Clear Creek
tributary.
Results
Restoration efforts have contributed to water quality
improvement in Clear Creek. Initial biological data
collected by NC DWQ in 1992 and 1997 yielded a
water quality rating of poor in Clear Creek assess-
ment unit 6-55-11-1, leading to its impairment listing
in 2000. In 2003 NC DWQ divided assessment unit
6-55-11-1 into three segments for listing purposes
(see Figure 1)—6-55-11-1 (a), (b) and (c). Biological
monitoring conducted on segment 6-55-11-1(b) in
2006 showed that the bioclass rating had improved
to good-fair, prompting the state to remove the 2.5-
mile segment from the impaired waters list that year.
By 2010, the bioclass rating for segment 6-55-11-1(a)
had improved to good, which indicates support of the
aquatic life designated use (see Table 1). As a result,
NC DWQ removed 2.7-mile segment 6-55-11-1(a) from
the state's impaired waters list in 2012. The remain-
ing 2.1-mile Clear Creek segment 6-55-11-1(c) remains
listed as impaired due to a /a/rfish community rating
and a poor biological assessment rating.
Partners and Funding
Project partners have received a total of $810,991
in CWA section 319 grant funds to implement
restoration projects throughout the Mud Creek
watershed. More than $420,000 in matching funds
were leveraged from the following organizations:
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Henderson County Cooperative Extension, Mud
Creek Restoration Council, TVA and North Carolina
State University.
UJ
O
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
EPA841-F-12-001BBB
December 2012
For additional information contact:
Diane Silver, Mud Creek Watershed Coordinator
Henderson County Cooperative Extension
828-697-4891 • Diane_silver@ncsu.edu
Heather Jennings, NC 319 Grant Program
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
919-807-6437 • Heather.B.Jennings@ncdenr.gov
------- |