Clear Creek Watershed Nine Element Restoration Plan

Clear Creek Watershed
Nine Element Restoration Plan

June 9, 2006

Prepared for the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council
By
Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
i

Synopsis of Planned Implementation Efforts

This implementation plan is intended to fulfill the US Environmental Protection Agency’s
(USEPA) Nine Element Plan requirements for the Clear Creek watershed in Henderson County.
The NC Division of Water Quality has placed Clear Creek on the 303(d) list because of
impaired biological integrity, and has concluded that the major water quality problems are
most likely due to sediment, nutrients and agricultural pesticides.

Based on available land use data and modeling estimates, the primary sediment sources are
believed to be unpaved roads (31%) and developed areas (36%), particularly low density
residential areas. Developed areas (almost 80% of nitrogen and phosphorus loads) and
livestock operations are estimated to be the major nutrient sources. Users of agricultural
pesticides in the watershed include apple orchards, vegetable farms, and other crop
production.

Over the next ten years it is the intention of the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council
(MCWRC) to implement the practices listed here in order to address the water quality
problems noted above. These practices include those implemented over the next three years
under a USEPA Section 319 grant, as well as additional practices implemented in subsequent
years.

Specific practices are as follows. Proposed implementation targets for the ten-year planning
period (e.g. number of acres or linear feet) are listed for each practice.
• Restoration of unstable and eroding streams to reduce sediment loading (11,500 linear
feet);
• Revegetation of riparian areas to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from residential
areas, crop land and pastures (16,500 linear feet);
• Conservation tillage to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from land currently
cultivated with minimal field residue (12 acres);
• Prescribed grazing to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from pasture considered to be
heavily overgrazed (11 acres);
• Livestock exclusion to reduce sediment inputs due to cattle access to streams (143 linear
feet);
• Use of pest scouts in vegetable growing operations to reduce pesticide use (72 acres);
• Use of pest scouts in apple orchards to reduce pesticide use (280 acres);
• Use of mating disruption in apple orchards to reduce pesticide use (230 acres);
• Use of improved efficiency sprayers to reduce pesticide use in apple orchards (32
orchards);
• Removal of abandoned apple orchards to reduce pesticide use in surrounding active
orchards (150 acres);
• Improved chemical handling facilities for apple and vegetable operations (specific
targets not developed).

Implementation target levels were established based on the present and anticipated future
capabilities of the MCWRC and are contingent upon landowner participation and funding
availability. While this rate of project implementation reflects an effort believed to be
achievable, it falls short of covering all needs in the Clear Creek watershed within the ten-
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
ii
year planning period. For example, only 19% of abandoned apple orchards in the Clear Creek
watershed (30% in Lewis Creek) would be removed during the next ten years under this plan,
and only 14% of stream areas identified as having eroding banks (16% in Lewis Creek) would be
restored.

Total projected ten-year costs for implementation of these practices are approximately:
• $2.5 Million for sediment and nutrient practices (primarily for stream restoration);
• $0.5 Million for pesticide practices (primarily for improved efficiency sprayers).

Implementation of the specific practices listed above would reduce sediment loads in the
Clear Creek watershed by an estimated 5% (8% for the Lewis Creek sub-watershed). Use of
selected insecticides in apple orchards would be reduced by 11% in Clear Creek as a whole
and by 25% in Lewis Creek (median reductions for the five insecticides analyzed). Due to
substantial uncertainties in existing information and limitations of the available predictive
tools, the estimated reductions in pollutant levels reported here should be viewed as
approximations of the expected level of impact.

While unpaved roads and residential areas are major sediment sources, current information
on these areas is not sufficient to identify which specific source control practices are most
needed. This plan recommends that additional assessment activities be conducted to identify
sediment source control practices for low density residential areas and unpaved roads,
and recommends that those measures be implemented within the ten year planning period.
Nutrient source control practices are also recommended for developed areas. These
practices are not reflected in the implementation targets, cost estimates and anticipated
pollutant reduction estimates presented above.

To facilitate ongoing planning and the development of future proposals for grant funding, unit
loading and use reduction rates are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. These rates represent the
anticipated reduction in sediment and nutrient loads, or reductions in pesticide use,
presented in the report. They are listed here in unit form (e.g. reduction per linear foot or
per acre of practice implemented) to facilitate future calculations.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
iii
Table 1 Summary of Loading Reduction Rates for Sediment and Nutrients
Annual Reduction in Pollutant Load Practice Sediment Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Stream Restoration 23 tons/1000
linear feet -- --
Riparian Area Revegetation (single bank)
in residential areas 20 tons/1000
linear feet
4.0 lbs/1000
linear feet
40 lbs/1000
linear feet
in crop land 10 tons/1000
linear feet
0.1 lbs/1000
linear feet
5 lbs/1000
linear feet
in pasture 7 tons/1000
linear feet
0.2 lbs/1000
linear feet
4 lbs/1000
linear feet
Conservation Tillage 1.8 tons/acre 0.4 lbs/acre 4 lbs/acre
Prescribed Grazing 9.2 tons/acre 1.4 lbs/acre 20 lbs/acre
Livestock Exclusion 0.07 tons/
linear foot -- --
Notes: (1) See text for discussion of practices and derivation of reduction rates.
(2) Units used here may vary from units used elsewhere in the report.
(3) -- indicates that rate was not calculated.
(4) Rates for riparian area vegetation are for a single streambank.
(5) Rates for crop land and pasture are composite rates. Actual reductions will depend on
extent of residue on crop land and condition of pasture.

Table 2 Summary of Use Reduction Rates for Selected Agricultural Pesticides
Annual Reduction in Pesticide Use (lbs/acre)
Pesticide Pest
Scouts
Increased
Efficiency
Sprayers
Mating
Disruption
Abandoned
Orchard
Removal
Orchards
Imidan (phosmet) 2.10 1.58 2.08 0
Guthion (azinphos-methyl) 0 0.75 0 0.99
Asana (esfenvalerate) 0 0.01 0 0
Danitol (fenpropathrin) 0.26 0.13 0 0
Assail (acetamiprid) 0 0.11 0.11 0.11
Vegetables
Cygon (dimethoate) 0.015 NA NA NA
Lannate (methomyl) 0.375 NA NA NA
Asana (esfenvalerate) 0.015 NA NA NA
Notes: (1) Orchard pesticide estimates assume that sprayers, mating disruption and orchard removal
are applied to acres on which pest scouts are already used.
(2) See text for discussion of practices and derivation of reduction rates.
(3) NA indicates rate is not applicable.
(4) Mating disruption is for oriental fruit moth.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
iv

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
v

Table of Contents

Synopsis of Planned Implementation Efforts i

Section A Introduction 1
1 Previous Plans and Studies 1
2 Initial Restoration Activities-Section 319 Grant 3
3 Nine Element Plan Requirements 3
4 Organization of Report 4
5 Watershed Background 4
5.1 Description of the Clear Creek Watershed 4
5.2 Land Cover and Condition 5
5.3 Extent of Water Quality Impairment 9

Section B Approach for Pollution Estimates 11
1 Goals 11
2 Planning Period 11
3 General Approach 12
3.1 Primary Water Quality Issues 12
3.2 Existing Data 12
3.3 Estimates of Current Pollution Levels 12
3.4 Management Practices and Implementation Schedule 13
3.5 Pollution Reduction Estimates 14

Section C Sediment Sources, Management Measures and Expected Reductions 15
1 Sources and Existing Sediment Loads 15
1.1 Sediment Loads and Association with Land Use 15
2 Proposed Management Activities 18
2.1 General Considerations 18
2.2 Specific Management Practices to be Implemented 19
2.3 Targeted Areas 20
3 Estimated Load Reductions from Management Activities 21
4 Proposed Assessment Activities 25
4.1 Low Density Residential Areas 25
4.2 Road Erosion 29
4.3 Stormwater Issues 30

Section D Nutrient Sources, Management Measures and Expected Reductions 33
1 Sources and Existing Nutrient Loads 33
1.1 Nutrient Loads and Association with Land Use 33
2 Proposed Management Activities 36
2.1 General Considerations 36
2.2 Specific Management Practices to be Implemented 36
2.3 Targeted Areas 37
3 Estimated Load Reductions from Management Activities 38

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
vi
Section E Apple Orchard Pesticides - Management Measures and Expected
Reductions
45
1 Source Areas and Current Pesticide Use 45
1.1 Apple Orchard Extent and Location 45
1.2 Background Information on Pesticide Use 47
1.3 Estimates of Current Orchard Pesticide Use 48
2 Proposed Management Activities 49
2.1 General Considerations 49
2.2 Specific Management Practices to be Implemented 50
2.3 Targeted Areas 51
3 Estimated Use Reductions from Management Activities 52
4 Proposed Assessment Activities 53

Section F Crop Land Pesticides - Management Measures and Expected
Reductions
55
1 Source Areas and Current Pesticide Use 55
1.1 Crop Land Extent and Location 55
1.2 Background Information on Crops and Pesticide Use 56
1.3 Estimates of Current Pesticide Use 57
2 Proposed Management Activities 58
2.1 General Considerations 58
2.2 Specific Management Practices to be Implemented 59
2.3 Targeted Areas 60
3 Estimated Use Reductions from Management Activities 61
4 Proposed Assessment Activities 61

Section G Outreach and Education 63
1 Voluntary vs. Required Participation 63
2 Conservation Behavior Model 63
2.1 Education vs. Outreach 65
3 Targeted Audiences, Motivations, Barriers 67
3.1 Experience with New Technologies 67
3.2 Financial Incentive Programs 69
3.3 Barriers to Financial Incentive Programs 70
4 Education/Outreach Strategies 74
4.1 Social Marketing of Conservation Programs 75
4.2 Long-Term Education 76
5 Education and Planning for additional problems with unidentified
practices
76
6 Summary of Education and Outreach Plan 78

Section H Management and Monitoring 80
1 Implementation Schedule and Management Milestones (Elements f & g) 80
2 Practice Costs and Technical Assistance (Element d) 82
3 Evaluation Criteria (Element h) 83
4 Monitoring Plan (Element i) 86
5 Summary of Unit Loading and Use Reduction Rates 89

References 90

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
vii
Appendices
A. IPSI Pollutant Loading Model 92
B. Sediment and Nutrient Loading and Reduction Estimates 98
C. Pesticide Use and Reduction Estimates 122
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
1

Section A
Introduction

This report documents the Clear Creek Watershed Nine Element Restoration Plan. Clear
Creek, a tributary of Mud Creek located in Henderson County, North Carolina (Figure A1), is
considered impaired by the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) due to the highly degraded
condition of its biological communities (NCDWQ, 2006). Under current US Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) requirements, incremental Section 319 funds can be used to
address water quality problems in this watershed only if actions taken to restore impaired
waters are implemented according to a watershed plan that contains a minimum of nine
critical elements delineated by USEPA (“Nine Element Plan”). While the Mud Creek
Watershed Restoration Council (MCWRC) has previously developed a watershed plan for Mud
Creek, including the Clear Creek drainage (MCWRC, 2003), that document does not
specifically address all of the required components of EPA’s Nine Element Plan. The present
plan is intended to enhance the MCWRC’s planning work to date by developing a Watershed
Restoration Implementation Plan that meets USEPA requirements and addresses MCWRC
implementation needs.

1 Previous Plans and Studies

NCDWQ has been monitoring Clear Creek since the 1970s and the condition of the benthic
macroinvertebrate community in this stream has been a concern throughout this period. Most
recently, NCDWQ conducted a study of Clear Creek from 2000 to 2002 during an investigation
of impaired waters in the Mud Creek watershed (NCDWQ, 2003a). This study was conducted
as part of NCDWQ’s Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project (WARP).

Based largely upon an analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate data, the WARP study concluded
that exposure to toxicants was the primary cause of biological impairment in Clear Creek.
The report concluded that pesticides from apple orchards and other agricultural crops was the
most likely source of toxicity, although the specific pesticides responsible and their specific
sources could not be determined (NCDWQ, 2003a). The WARP report further concluded that
sedimentation and nutrient enrichment also contributed to water quality degradation. The
NCDWQ conclusions regarding pesticide impacts remain controversial in the agricultural
community. Although there are seven small permitted wastewater discharges in the Clear
Creek drainage, these are not believed to contribute significantly to impairment (NCDWQ,
2003a).

In 2001 the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) also initiated a planning process in the
Mud Creek watershed, including funding the Tennessee Valley Authority to conduct an
Integrated Pollution Source Identification (IPSI) survey of the entire drainage (TVA, 2001).
The IPSI involved the creation of geographic data files based on aerial photo interpretation,
as well as estimation of loads for selected pollutants. See Appendix A for additional
discussion of the IPSI data sets and models.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 2Figure A1 Location of Clear Creek Watershed
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
3

The NCWRP planning work culminated in the development and adoption of a watershed plan
for Mud Creek by the MCWRC (MCWRC, 2003). Founded in 2000, the MCWRC is a diverse local
group working to improve and protect water quality throughout the Mud Creek watershed.
The Watershed Restoration Plan for the Mud Creek Watershed (MCWRC, 2003) proposes goals
and strategies for the restoration of Mud Creek, including Clear Creek. That plan includes
elements for addressing stormwater impacts from developed areas, agricultural nonpoint
source pollution, upland sedimentation sources and habitat degradation. However, the plan
does not contain sufficiently detailed management actions for the Clear Creek watershed to
address many Nine Element Plan requirements.

The information generated during previous studies and planning efforts is substantial. No
attempt will be made to summarize all of this information here. Rather, pertinent data from
these efforts will be discussed in the present document as necessary.

2 Initial Restoration Activities-Section 319 Grant

The MCWRC has decided to begin restoration work in the Clear Creek watershed by focusing
initially on the Lewis Creek drainage. Lewis Creek and its tributaries are characterized by
poor riparian condition, a high proportion of channelized streams, and significant agricultural
activity which includes a substantial amount of acreage in apple orchards. The MCWRC has
received a Section 319 grant to address a range of issues in the Lewis Creek sub-watershed
over the next several years. Funding under this grant will be used for the following:
• Re-vegetate 1500 linear feet of bare or unstable streambank;
• Provide improved efficiency sprayers for four apple growers in the Lewis Creek sub-
watershed;
• Remove up to 10 acres of abandoned apple orchard currently serving to harbor apple
pests;
• Provide Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods such as pest scouts or use of insect
pheromones for up to 35 acres of active orchard;
• Restore 1500 linear feet of stream channel and riparian area (to be carried out by the
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, constituting the 40% match for the Section 319
project).

The implementation plan documented here encompasses the above activities and also lays
the groundwork for future work in the watershed.

3 Nine Element Plan Requirements

Since FY 2004, the USEPA has required that actions taken to restore impaired waters using
incremental Section 319 funds be implemented according to a watershed plan that contains a
minimum of nine critical elements. The minimum requirements of these “Nine Element
Plans” are summarized below. Additional details are available from USEPA (2003 and 2005).
a. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources of pollutants
that will need to be controlled to achieve the load reductions specified by the plan;
b. An estimate of the pollutant load reductions expected from the management measures
to be implemented;
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
4
c. A description of the nonpoint source management measures to be implemented and a
description of the critical areas in which those measures will be needed;
d. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated
costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement these
measures;
e. An information/education component that will be used to enhance public
understanding of the project and encourage participation;
f. A schedule for implementing the nonpoint source management measures identified in
this plan that is reasonably expeditious;
g. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS
management measures or other control actions are being implemented;
h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being
achieved over time and substantial progress is being made;
i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts
over time, measured against the criteria established under item (h).

4 Organization of Report

This document is organized as follows:
• The remainder of Section A provides additional background information on the Clear
Creek watershed;
• Section B discusses the general approach to pollutant estimation used in this plan;
• Section C discusses existing sediment pollution, describes planned actions to address
sediment problems, and quantifies the sediment reductions expected from these
measures (Nine Element Plan components a through c);
• Sections D, E and F address analogous issues for nutrients, orchard pesticides and crop
land pesticides, respectively;
• Section G, developed by Henderson County, presents planned educational activities
(Nine Element Plan component e);
• Section H discusses management and monitoring issues (Nine Element Plan components
d and f though i).

5 Watershed Background

5.1 Description of the Clear Creek Watershed

Draining approximately 44.5 square miles in Henderson County, Clear Creek is the largest
tributary of Mud Creek, which flows to the French Broad River. Streams are classified by
NCDWQ primarily as Class C waters. Some tributaries and the upper Clear Creek mainstem
have the supplemental Tr (trout waters) classification.

Clear Creek has been divided into seven sub-watersheds by the Tennessee Valley Authority
(Figure A2). The TVA sub-watershed delineations will be used in the present report.
1. Clear Creek Headwaters (above Cox Creek), including Laurel Fork (6.7 square miles);
2. Cox Creek (2.9 square miles);
3. Lewis Creek to Cox Creek, including Puncheon Camp Creek (5.5 square miles);
4. Lewis Creek (6.5 square miles);
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
5
5. Henderson Creek to Lewis Creek, including Mill Creek and Kyles Creek (6.6 square
miles);
6. Henderson Creek (4.1 square miles);
7. Lower Clear Creek (below Henderson Ck.), including Harper Creek and Wolfpen Creek
(12.2 square miles)

5.2 Land Cover and Condition

The Clear Creek watershed has historically been a primarily rural area. Although it is
currently in transition as the population of Henderson County expands, much of the area
retains its rural character today. About half of the watershed is forested (Table A1), with
much of the forest land located on the northern boundary of the drainage (Figure A3).
Developed and agricultural areas predominate in the remainder of the watershed, with
developed land (primarily residential), pasture and agricultural crops (primarily apple
orchards) each accounting for approximately fifteen percent of the drainage. Combined,
development, crops and pasture comprise 45% of the Clear Creek watershed. The total
imperviousness of the Clear Creek drainage was estimated as 6% in 2001 (NCDWQ, 2003a).

Approximately 23% of the stream length in the Clear Creek drainage has been channelized,
including 43% of the stream length in the Lewis Creek sub-watershed (NCDWQ, 2003a). Only
11% of the perennial stream miles in the Clear Creek drainage were rated as having adequate
riparian vegetation on both banks (NCDWQ, 2003a).

A portion of the lower Clear Creek sub-watershed lies within the Hendersonville corporate
limits and is served by the water and sewer system. The remainder of the area is served by
septic systems, although seven minor NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
discharges exist, primarily in the downstream portion of the drainage (NCDWQ, 2003a). New
development is evident throughout the watershed, but is particularly prevalent in the lower
sub-watershed. Population growth in Clear Creek and Edneyville Townships, which cover
most of the Clear Creek drainage, has been significant in recent years and is projected to
continue (Table A2). Both townships have been growing faster than the county as a whole.

Agriculture has historically been important to the economy of Henderson County and the
Clear Creek area. Apple orchards have been a major component of local agricultural activity
for many decades. Although the extent of apple production (and other crops) has declined in
recent decades, it remains an important economic activity.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
6
Figure A2 Clear Creek Watershed

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
7
Figure A3 Land Cover in the Clear Creek Watershed

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 8 Table A1 General Land Use/Land Cover for the Clear Creek Watershed Sub-watershed Land Use/Land Cover Class (Acres) Name Code Total Low Density Residential Medium-High Density Residential Other Developed Pasture Crop Land Orchard Forest Water and Wetlands Other Clear Ck. Headwaters 0304 4,286 195 0 3 434 16 775 2,806 6 51 Cox Creek 030401 1,825 61 0 5 130 7 145 1,476 1 0 Lewis to Cox 0303 3,538 251 0 16 533 104 751 1,854 16 13 Lewis Ck. 030301 4,153 550 2 126 596 209 1,342 1,204 17 107 Henderson to Lewis 0302 4,228 397 0 17 588 153 354 2,692 9 18 Henderson Ck. 030201 2,603 491 0 101 532 131 491 789 13 55 Lower Clear Creek 0301 7,822 1,385 122 499 1,348 240 506 3,305 90 327 Total 28,455 3,330 124 767 4,161 860 4,364 14,126 152 571 % of Total (11.7%) (0.4%) (2.7%) (14.6%) (3.0%) (15.3%) (49.6%) (0.5%) (2.0%) Source: TVA, 2001 Notes: Low Density Residential = <2 units/acre. Orchard includes active and abandoned orchard, nurseries and Christmas tree farms. Other Developed includes commercial, industrial and transportation. Other Includes mining, disturbed area and other land.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
9

Table A2 Actual and Projected Population Growth (1990-2020), Henderson County and Clear
Creek Area
Population % Population Growth
Location 1990 2000 2020
(Projected)
1990-2000 2000-2020
(Projected)
Clear Creek Township 3,093 4,616 8,200 49.2% 77.6%
Edneyville Township 2,422 3,454 5,400 42.6% 56.3%
Henderson County 69,285 89,173 129,350 28.7% 45.1%
Source: Henderson County, 2004

5.3 Extent of Water Quality Impairment

The NCDWQ has sampled benthic macroinvertebrate communities at sites in the Clear Creek
watershed since the late 1970s. Other monitoring, such as fish community monitoring and
water chemistry, has been much less frequent. During the most recent benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring in 2000 and 2001 (NCDWQ, 2003a and 2003b), the benthic
community in the mainstem of Clear Creek received a Poor rating at S. Mills Gap Road, ratings
of either Fair or Poor at Nix Road, and a Good-Fair rating at Bearwallow Road (see Figure A2).
Ratings of Fair or Poor are indicative of impaired biological communities.

Clear Creek is currently considered impaired from its source to Laurel Fork, and from
Puncheon Camp Creek to its mouth at Mud Creek (NCDWQ, 2006). The intervening section,
from Laurel Fork to Puncheon Camp Creek, had been considered impaired in the past, but is
not currently impaired based on the most recent monitoring in 2001 (NCDWQ, 2006).

None of the tributaries to Clear Creek are considered impaired, but most have not been
formally rated by NCDWQ. Laurel Fork is considered supporting based on benthic community
sampling. Cox Creek, Mill Creek and Kyles Creek were sampled during the WARP study but
were not rated due to their small size. Although they did not receive a formal rating, NCDWQ
noted that benthic communities in Cox Creek and Mill Creek appeared to be degraded.
NCDWQ has not sampled benthic macroinvertebrates in Lewis Creek and Henderson Creek.

Various degrees of habitat degradation were observed, but at most sites sampled, conditions
were considered adequate to support better benthic communities than currently exist
(NCDWQ, 2003a). Observation suggests that Clear Creek and its tributaries transport a
substantial sediment load. Sediment build up in lower velocity reaches is not uncommon,
although riffles of moderate quality are still present.

Conclusions regarding the causes of impairment in Clear Creek were summarized above in
Section 1.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
10

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
11
Section B
Approach for Pollution Estimates

1 Goals

It is the intent of this plan to
• Estimate current pollutant levels for nutrients, sediment, crop and orchard pesticides;
• Describe planned BMPs (Best Management Practices) and other management activities;
and
• Quantify expected pollutant reductions to be achieved from implementation of these
BMPs and management activities.

This is intended to facilitate ongoing restoration work, including both the current 319 grant
and planned future activities. The plan will address these issues to the extent possible given
current data, existing knowledge about watershed conditions, and readily available modeling
tools.

Restoring watersheds the size of Clear Creek with multiple and long standing water quality
concerns requires an iterative process of ‘adaptive management’ (Reckhow, 1997). The scope
of activities, logistical complexities, and scientific uncertainties make it impossible to
identify all actions in advance. Rather, initial management actions must be planned and
implemented, the results of those activities monitored over time, and the resulting
information used as the basis for adapting implementation activities and planning subsequent
efforts. This iterative process is recognized by USEPA in its current guidance on watershed
planning (USEPA, 2005). The implementation plan documented here may require revision as
additional information becomes available, restoration efforts proceed and management
strategies evolve.

2 Planning Period

Given the long-standing nature of water quality problems in the Clear Creek watershed - as
well as the size of the drainage and the diverse types of problems to be addressed - it is
expected that restoration of Clear Creek will take many years to accomplish. This
implementation plan includes recommendations for both short-term and long-term priorities.
Short-term priorities include activities to be conducted under the current 319 grant over a
three-year period. Long-term priorities cover a ten year window, including planned activities
over an additional seven year period beyond the grant. Continued restoration work will in all
likelihood be necessary beyond this point. However, there are too many uncertainties
associated with planning beyond a ten year period to make that a worthwhile undertaking.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
12
3 General Approach

3.1 Primary Water Quality Issues

As discussed above, the NCDWQ has concluded that exposure to toxicants, most likely
pesticides from apple orchards and other agricultural crops, was the primary cause of
impairment in Clear Creek (NCDWQ, 2003a). Sedimentation and nutrient enrichment from
various sources in the watershed were also observed to contribute to water quality
degradation (NCDWQ 2003a). While some of the NCDWQ conclusions remain controversial in
the local community, no additional water quality data has been collected since the NCDWQ
assessment. This implementation plan was developed on the assumption that agricultural
pesticides, sediment and nutrients are indeed currently the major stressors of concern in the
watershed.

3.2 Existing data

Accurate land use/land cover data is critical to source identification and pollutant loading
estimates. The land use data set used here was developed by TVA based on the
interpretation of color infrared aerial photography taken in 2001 during the IPSI project.
Though now five years old, these data are detailed and of high resolution.

In addition to the land use data, the IPSI data sets include an inventory of watershed features
related to aquatic resource condition and pollution sources, such as riparian zone condition,
eroding streambanks and others (see Appendix A).

Gaps and uncertainties remain in the available data, however. For example:
• While the IPSI data can distinguish the location and extent of field and vegetable crops
from orchard areas, the specific crops grown cannot be identified. Different pesticides
are used, and are applied in varying amounts, depending upon the crop.
• Developed areas are identified as major sources of sediment and nutrients. However,
existing data are not adequate to identify the specific activities within developed land
that contribute to this pollution, limiting the ability of the plan to determine
appropriate management activities and quantify their impact. Additional assessment
activities are proposed to enhance our understanding of these and other pollution
sources.
• Loads from some pollutant source categories are likely over or underestimated (see
Appendix A).

3.3 Estimates of Current Pollution Levels

Sediment and nutrients. Annual sediment and nutrient (total nitrogen and total phosphorus)
loadings and source areas will be quantified using a spreadsheet loading model developed by
TVA as part of the IPSI (TVA 2001). This model uses IPSI data sets to predict sediment and
nutrient input loads from various land uses and pollution sources. As discussed further in
Appendix A, this model is a useful scoping level tool, but is limited in the range, detail and
accuracy of the predictions it can produce.

Pesticides. Currently there are no loading data for pesticides. Further, the limited in-stream
pesticide data available are not adequate to derive useful loading estimates, and the
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
13
collection of additional in-stream data has not been welcomed by the local agricultural
community. There is no stream gage in the watershed.

The number of pesticides recommended for use on apples and other local crops is large. The
WARP report lists approximately 90 pesticides potentially used in the watershed (NCDWQ,
2003a), while the 2005 Integrated Orchard Management Guide for Commercial Apples in the
Southeast lists over 80 recommended pesticides (NCSU, 2005). There is no information on
which pesticide(s) may be responsible for stream impairment, and the role of current use
pesticides vs. older pesticides no longer registered for sale is unclear.

Given these circumstances, it is not possible to develop meaningful pesticide loading
estimates at the present time. The approach used here is to estimate existing pesticide use
and anticipated use reductions from proposed management practices, focusing on selected
pesticides believed to be in common use. Pesticide use in apple orchards vs. other
agricultural crop land will be dealt with separately.

Note that rounding in the calculations results in slight variations in the values for some
current pollution and pollution reduction estimates presented in this report.

3.4 Management Practices and Implementation Schedule

Management Practices. The present plan seeks to build upon the management
recommendations made in the original MCWRC restoration plan to address existing problems
(MCWRC, 2003) by specifying management practices and targeting areas in more detail. The
extent to which it will be necessary to implement any of these practices in order to attain
water quality goals is presently unknown.

In addition to recommendations made to address existing water quality degradation, the
original MCWRC plan also included recommendations for preventing future stormwater and
sediment impacts from new development. Impacts from new development are not addressed
in the implementation plan presented here.

Implementation Schedule and Approach. Implementation target levels were established
based on the present and anticipated future capabilities of the MCWRC and are contingent
upon funding availability. The annual rate of implementation is more ambitious than for the
current 319 project, but falls far short of covering all needs within the ten-year planning
period. While watershed improvement needs in the Clear Creek watershed are great, it is
important that the implementation target levels presented in the plan reflect a rate that is
likely to be achievable. Target levels presented in this document are subject to revision
based upon the experience gained with short-term implementation activities and based upon
changing watershed conditions.

This plan targets specific source types (e.g. residential areas with inadequate riparian
conditions, or orchard operations not currently using pest scouts) and establishes
implementation goals for individual practices. The plan does not, however, identify specific
project site locations. These will be determined by the MCWRC based on a variety of factors,
many of them site specific. Voluntary landowner participation will be a critical
consideration.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
14
Restoration efforts under the current 319 grant will focus on the Lewis Creek sub-watershed.
Given restoration needs in Lewis Creek, it is likely that additional work will be necessary in
Lewis Creek beyond the three-year term of this grant. Even while Lewis Creek is the current
focus of attention, some practices may be implemented in other sub-watershed prior to
completion of work in Lewis Creek to begin building landowner support in these areas and to
take advantage of opportunities that become available.

3.5 Pollution Reduction Estimates

Estimated reductions in the pollutant levels anticipated from proposed practices should be
viewed as rough approximations of the level of impact that can be expected. Actual
reductions (e.g. in sediment loading or pesticide use) from any particular practice will depend
on the characteristics of the specific sites on which those practices are implemented. Normal
variations in precipitation and other climatic conditions will result in year to year variations
in observed impacts as well. Other reasons for uncertainty in predicted impacts include:
• Existing land cover and other resource data may not accurately reflect current
conditions on the ground. That is, for a variety of reasons data may over or
underestimate the extent of certain features.
• Assumptions made by the IPSI loading models can result in over or under estimates of
pollutant loads (see Appendix A).
• The impacts of specific practices on pollutant reduction is variable. For example,
studies of the impact of riparian area revegetation on sediment loading have produced
widely differing findings (see Appendix B).
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
15
Section C
Sediment Sources, Management Measures and
Expected Reductions

This section addresses Nine Element Plan components (a) through (c) for sediment
sources. Sediment sources and estimated loads associated with different land
use/land cover classes within the Clear Creek watershed are discussed. This section
also presents strategies for reducing sediment loads and quantifies expected loading
reductions associated with these practices. Specific practices to be implemented
include:
• Restoration of unstable stream channels and banks;
• Revegetation of riparian areas;
• Implementing management practices to reduce sediment from residential
areas and unpaved roads;
• Implementing conservation tillage for field crops;
• Implementing prescribed grazing plans for pastures; and
• Excluding livestock from streams.

1 Sources and Existing Sediment Loads

1.1 Sediment Loads and Association with Land Use

Based on data about land use practices and other sediment sources, the IPSI sediment
model estimated the total sediment load for the Clear Creek watershed at 18,267 tons
per year (Table C1). Total sediment load represents the sum of the estimated loads
per source delivered annually to the downstream end of each sub-watershed. Sub-
watershed sediment loads range from 617 tons/year in the Cox Creek sub-watershed to
6,086 tons/year in the Lower Clear Creek sub-watershed. The land use classes used by
TVA for the IPSI analysis were combined into groups of similar classifications to
develop this summary.

The IPSI data indicated 31% of the total sediment load within the Clear Creek
watershed is associated with eroding unpaved road surfaces and road banks and
ditches (Table C1). These appear to be primarily private roads. Additionally, high
sediment loads are associated with residential areas, primarily low density residential
areas, which account for 29% of the Clear Creek total sediment load. Other major
sediment sources within the watershed include: pasture (9%); eroding streambanks
including channelized streams (9%); and other developed areas (7%). While these land
use areas are the major sources of sediment for the watershed as a whole, sediment
sources are variable between sub-watersheds (see Table C1 and Figure C1).

Though it is likely that the IPSI sediment model overestimates sediment loading from
unpaved roads and residential areas (see Appendix A), it is also probable that these
areas are nonetheless important sources of sediment in the watershed. The IPSI model
underestimates sediment loading from eroding streambanks, since only eroding banks
distinctly visible from aerial photography are included.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 16 Table C1 Sediment Loading (Tons/Year) by Source in the Clear Creek Watershed Sub-Watershed Total Residential Areas Other Developed Areas Cultivated Areas Pasture Orchard Forest Animal Access Stream- banks Eroding Roads Other Cox Cr. (% of total) 617 117 19% 10 2% 7 1% 29 5% 19 3% 75 12% 0 0% 48 8% 312 51% 0 0% Clear Cr. Headwaters (% of total) 1,978 310 16% 3 0% 13 1% 125 6% 84 4% 141 7% 0 0% 159 8% 1,083 55% 61 3% Lewis to Cox (% of total) 2,121 416 20% 11 1% 89 4% 325 15% 85 4% 88 4% 21 1% 226 11% 860 41% 0 0% Lewis Cr. (% of total) 2,881 884 31% 109 4% 133 5% 225 8% 147 5% 98 3% 1 0% 258 9% 891 31% 134 5% Henderson to Lewis (% of total) 2,463 634 26% 15 1% 123 5% 276 11% 39 2% 123 5% 4 0% 199 8% 1,013 41% 40 2% Lower Clear Cr. (% of total) 6,086 2,039 33% 1,059 17% 147 2% 359 6% 48 1% 219 4% 5 0% 559 9% 1,080 18% 571 9% Henderson Cr. (% of total) 2,121 869 41% 107 5% 87 4% 299 14% 60 3% 65 3% 0 0% 161 8% 463 22% 11 0% Clear Cr. Total 18,267 5,269 1,314 598 1,637 482 808 31 1,608 5,702 817 Clear Cr. % of Total 29% 7% 3% 9% 3% 4% 0% 9% 31% 4% Clear Cr. Land Cover % 12% 2% 3% 15% 12% 50% NA NA NA 6% Source: TVA, 2001 ‘Other Developed’ includes commercial, industrial and transportation. ‘Other’ includes mining, disturbed area and other land. Load from ‘Eroding Roads’ is primarily from unpaved road surfaces, but also includes eroding ditches and banks from both paved and unpaved roads. Load from ‘Streambanks’ is predominately sediment classified by the IPSI as streambank erosion, but also includes minor loading from stream channelization.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
17
Figure C1 Major Sediment Source Areas*
*Major sediment source areas include unpaved roads, eroding stream banks, and low density
residential areas.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
18
2 Proposed Management Activities

This section discusses management practices proposed to reduce sediment loads
within the Clear Creek watershed. Proposed practices are outlined and the extent of
target areas is described.

2.1 General Considerations

Sediment from land surfaces reaches streams via a variety of pathways and is
dependent on numerous factors which effect sediment transport. Practices
implemented to reduce sediment transport can be effective in reducing stream
sediment loading. However, the actual effectiveness of transport interception is
highly variable, depending on the management activity specified and its location.
Eliminating or reducing specific sediment sources is a more reliable and effective
approach.

Unfortunately, sufficient information is currently unavailable about the two major
sources (residential areas and unpaved roads) of sediment to the Clear Creek
watershed to allow the identification of the most appropriate source control practices.
Residential areas have been identified by the IPSI as a major sediment source, but no
information is available on the specific activities within residential areas that are
responsible for generating the sediment load. In general, sediment from established
residential areas can originate from a variety of sources, including cut slopes that
were never properly stabilized, eroding driveways and associated ditches, landscaping
and building additions. Similarly, while unpaved road surfaces are believed to be a
critical source, the specific reasons for this are not clear. For example, knowing
whether the road surface is dirt, gravel or grass is critical in estimating erosion rates.
Additionally, rates of road surface erosion can be affected by a variety of drainage
issues, such as improper ditching. Without information on specific activities
associated with these sources, those source control practices that would be most
useful cannot be reliably specified.

Additional assessment is proposed to better characterize the specific issues
responsible for erosion from residential areas and roads. With this information, a
more reliable strategy can be crafted to address specific source activities. See Section
C4 for additional discussion of proposed assessment activities.

Because of the current lack of information about specific source activities, practices
proposed in this plan to address sediment from residential areas are limited to the
establishment of riparian vegetation to reduce sediment loading by intercepting
sediment before it reaches streams. The implementation of such practices in this plan
is confined to low density (2 dwellings per acre or less) residential areas and to
agricultural areas. In denser developed areas (whether residential, commercial or
industrial), storm runoff is more likely to be in concentrated forms (in channels or
ditches), and riparian vegetation alone is not likely to be effective in removing
sediment. Stormwater BMPs may be required to address this issue, but a search for
potential stormwater BMP opportunities has not yet been conducted in the watershed.
See Section C4.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
19
Agricultural areas do not appear to be major sources of sediment, aside from eroding
streams that run through agricultural land. However, since programs are available to
address these sources, recommendations are included to reduce sediment loads by
improving management on selected agricultural acreage. In this study, that includes
only cropped areas without residue and heavily overgrazed pasture.

2.2 Specific Management Practices to be Implemented

Practices Recommended for Long-Term Implementation. The following seven
practices are emphasized by this plan to reduce sediment impacts to streams. The
last two require additional assessment before appropriate practices can be developed
and installed:
1. Restoration of entrenched and channelized streams and streambank
stabilization to reduce sediment loads associated with streambank erosion.
Entrenched streams are detached from their adjacent floodplains, which
reduces or eliminates the ability of the floodplain to mitigate storm flow
velocities. This generally results in an unstable stream and increased bank
erosion and sediment transport. Reaches targeted for this practice are those
identified by the IPSI as eroding. Most of these reaches have also been
channelized.
2. Revegetation of riparian areas along intermittent and perennial streams to
intercept overland sediment transport and to help stabilize streambanks.
Grassed and forested buffers along streams act as filters to reduce sediment
inputs associated with adjacent land use practices. Additionally, riparian
vegetation can reduce streambank destabilization during storm events.
Reaches targeted for this practice are those identified by the IPSI as having
inadequate riparian vegetation (see Appendix B). Note that while riparian
revegetation is typically carried out during stream restoration, the riparian
revegetation practice described here refers to the enhancement of riparian
areas where stream restoration is not being undertaken.
3. Excluding livestock from streams to reduce sedimentation associated with
unstable streambanks associated with damage by livestock. This practice is
approved for cost share under United States Department of Agriculture
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Reaches targeted for this
practice are livestock access areas identified by the IPSI.
4. Implement prescribed grazing plans on overgrazed pasture in order to reduce
sediment transport to streams from overgrazed lands. This practice is
approved for cost share under EQIP. Areas targeted for this practice are
pastures classified by the IPSI as heavily overgrazed.
5. Implement conservation tillage practices to reduce soil erosion from cultivated
areas where crops are currently grown without retaining residue on the field.
The majority of agricultural land within the watershed is located adjacent to
streams. During the non-growing season, agricultural fields with bare soil can
contribute significantly to stream sedimentation. Retaining residue can reduce
erosion rates and sediment transport. This practice is also eligible for cost
share under EQIP. Areas targeted for this practice are cultivated areas
identified by the IPSI as having residue of less than 10%.
6. Implement residential sediment reduction practices to target specific sediment
sources from these areas. Once assessments have been conducted to
determine specific practices (see Section C4), MCWRC will explore grant
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
20
assistance to implement reduction measures associated with these sources.
These may include practices such as: repairing eroding driveways, ditches and
gullies; stabilizing cut slopes created during construction but not properly
stabilized; and educating property owners regarding proper sediment control
procedures during remodeling, landscaping, and septic system repair.
7. Proper grading, maintenance, and other management practices to improve
unpaved gravel roads and eroding ditches can minimize sediment impacts to
streams from these sources. Once assessments have been conducted to
determine specific management practices (see Section C4), MCWRC will
explore seeking grant assistance to implement reduction measures associated
with these sources. These may include measures such as: gravelling dirt roads;
stabilizing eroding banks and ditches; regrading or reditching to restore proper
drainage; sediment traps to remove sediment from road runoff; and educating
property owners regarding proper road maintenance.

Short-term Practices to be Implemented under Current 319 Grant. Following are the
specific activities planned under the current 319 grant, focusing on the Lewis Creek
sub-watershed:
• Restore 1,500 linear feet of stream channel;
• Revegetate 1,500 linear feet of streambanks

2.3 Targeted Areas

The location and extent of sediment from different source areas in the watershed was
documented earlier (Figure C1 and Table C1). The short and long-term
implementation approach is summarized below.

Short-term activities. Over the next three-year span of the current 319 grant, the
MCWRC will target sediment reduction in the Lewis Creek sub-watershed by
implementing stream restoration and riparian area revegetation as listed above.

Long-term activities. Over the next ten years the MCWRC will continue to target Lewis
Creek for all of the activities listed in Section 2.2 above, but will also move into other
sub-watersheds. The focus of activity will be selected based upon existing or
potential stream impacts, landowner participation, and the potential for project
success.

Implementation target levels. Implementation targets were established based on the
present and anticipated future capabilities of the MCWRC and are contingent upon
funding availability (see Section H) and landowner participation. A schedule for the
implementation of these practices is presented in Section H, along with costs and
management milestones. Short and long-term implementation levels are summarized
in Table C2. See Appendix B for information on how these levels were determined.

Note that quantitative target levels are not presented here for all practices. While
eroding unpaved roads and road ditches are estimated to be the largest contributor of
sediment, sufficient information is not available to clearly identify the most
appropriate practices to address these sources or to establish specific implementation
targets. Additionally, information pertaining to specific sediment-generating activities
in residential areas was limited, reducing the ability to apply site specific management
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
21
goals for this source. Additional assessment will be required prior to determining
specific needs for these areas.

Table C2 Implementation Targets for Practices Targeting Sedimentation (1)
Implementation Targets
Short-Term (3 year) Long-Term (10 year)

Practice
Clear Creek
Total
Lewis Creek
Only
Clear Creek
Total
Lewis Creek
Only
Stream
Restoration and
Streambank
Stabilization
1500 linear ft. 1500 linear ft. 11,500 linear ft. 3,000 linear ft.
Riparian Area
Revegetation 1500 linear ft. 1500 linear ft. 16,500 linear ft. 4,500 linear ft.
Conservation
Tillage NA* NA* 12 acres 1.2 acres
Prescribed
Grazing NA* NA* 11.1 acres 3.4 acres
Livestock
Exclusion NA* NA* 143 linear ft. 9 linear ft. (2)
Residential BMPs NA* NA* NA** NA**
Unpaved Road
and Ditch BMP’s NA* NA* NA** NA**
(1) Implementation targets were established based on the present and anticipated future
capabilities of the MCWRC.
(2) Only 9 linear feet of stream damage from livestock access in Lewis Creek is identified by
the IPSI.
*NA. No implementation planned during current 319 grant.
**NA. Sufficient information is not yet available to establish quantitative goals for specific
residential sediment sources or unpaved roads and ditches.

3 Estimated Load Reductions from Management
Activities

This section presents estimated reductions in stream sediment loads to be achieved
from riparian vegetation enhancement, stream restoration, livestock exclusion,
rotational grazing and conservation tillage. No reduction estimates are made for
eroding unpaved roads and ditches or specific residential sediment inputs.

Table C3 shows the anticipated reductions in sediment load from practices
implemented during the current Section 319 grant (three-year period), while Table C4
shows anticipated long-term reductions from all practices proposed for the ten-year
planning period. In both of these tables, reductions are listed by practice rather than
by source. Long term sediment load reductions are documented by source in Table
C5.

Note that in calculating sediment reductions from riparian revegetation it was
necessary to make assumptions about the type of land use adjacent to the enhanced
riparian zones. It was assumed that riparian area revegetation projects implemented
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
22
under this plan would occur in low density residential and agricultural areas, and that
this would occur in proportion to the land area accounted for by these uses.

Long-term (10 year) sediment load reductions are estimated to be approximately 8%
for Lewis Creek and 5% for Clear Creek as a whole (Table C5). See Appendix B for
details on the derivation of these estimates.

Note that these estimates do not account for all reductions from planned activities.
First, these estimates account for reduced bank erosion from stream restoration, but
do not account for reduced upland sediment inputs resulting from the sediment
interception function of the riparian revegetation established as part of stream
restoration projects. Including the effects of riparian revegetation will approximately
double the impact of stream restoration, resulting in an overall sediment reduction for
the Clear Creek watershed of 1096 tons/year (6%), instead of the 820 tons year (4.5%)
shown in Table C5. This load reduction cannot be readily allocated to any of the
source categories used in Table C5. See Appendix B Section 6.4 for additional
discussion.

Secondly these estimates do not account for source reduction efforts focusing on
unpaved roads and residential areas--which are planned for this period but which are
not yet sufficiently detailed to quantify impacts. The implementation of these
practices is likely to increase sediment reductions substantially over the levels shown
in Table C5.

Table C3 Anticipated Sediment Load Reductions in Lewis Creek
Sub-watershed from Practices Implemented Under Current 319 Project
Lewis Creek
Practice
Total
Practice
Implemented
(Linear Feet)
Expected
Reduction
(Tons/Year)
Stream Restoration 1500 35
Riparian Area Revegetation 1500 34
Total Load Reduction 69
% Reduction in Total Lewis
Creek Sediment Load
2%*
*Based on existing Lewis Ck. sediment load of 2881 T/Yr.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 23Table C4 Anticipated Sediment Load Reductions by Practice for the Ten Year Planning Period, Clear Creek Watershed and Lewis Creek Sub-watershed Lewis Creek (1) Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds Total- Clear Creek Watershed Practice Total Practice Implemented Expected Sediment Load Reduction (Tons/Year) Total Practice Implemented Expected Sediment Load Reduction (Tons/Year) Total Practice Implemented Expected Sediment Load Reduction (Tons/Year) Stream Restoration 3,000 linear feet 69 8,500 linear feet 195 11,500 linear feet 264 Riparian Area Revegetation 4,500 linear feet 112 12,000 linear feet 310 16,500 linear feet 422 Conservation Tillage (Improvement from No Residue to Medium Residue) 1.2 acres 2 10.8 acres 20 12 acres 22 Prescribed Grazing (Improvement from Heavily Overgrazed to Fair Condition) 3.4 acres 31 7.7 acres 71 11.1 acres 102 Livestock Exclusion 9 linear feet 1 134 linear feet 9 143 linear feet 10 Total Load Reduction 215 605 820 % Reduction in Total Sediment Load 7.5% (2) 3.9% (3) 4.5% (4) (1) Includes practices implemented during current 319 grant as well as additional practices implemented during planning period. (2) Based on existing Lewis Ck. sediment load of 2881 T/Yr. (3) Based on existing sediment load for other sub-watersheds of 15,386 T/Yr. (4) Based on existing total Clear Ck. sediment load of 18,267 T/Yr.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 24Table C5. Long Term Sediment Loading Reductions (Tons/Year) by Source – Cumulative Reductions for Lewis Creek and the Clear Creek Watershed for Ten Year Planning Period* Location Total – All Sources Resid. Areas Other Devel. Areas Cultivated Areas Pasture Orchard Forest Animal Access Stream- banks** Eroding Roads Other Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed Pre-BMP Sediment Load (Tons/Yr.) 2,881 884 109 133 225 147 98 1 258 891 134 Estimated Sediment Reduction (Tons/Yr.) 215 47 0 51 47 0 0 1 69 0 0 Estimated % Reduction 7.5% 5.3% 0% 38.3% 20.9% 0% 0% 100% 26.7% 0% 0% Clear Creek Watershed-Total Pre-BMP Sediment Load (Tons/Yr.) 18,267 5,269 1,314 598 1,637 482 808 31 1,608 5,702 817 Estimated Sediment Reduction (Tons/Yr.) 820** 233 0 130 183 0 0 10 264 0 0 Estimated % Reduction 4.5% 4.4% 0.0% 21.7% 11.2% 0.0% 0.0% 32.3% 16.4% 0.0% 0.0% ‘Other Developed’ includes commercial, industrial and transportation. ‘Other’ includes mining, disturbed area and other land. * Includes only practices shown in Table C4. Source control practices to address erosion from roads and residential areas are also planned, but sufficient information is currently not available to estimate load reductions. **Reductions from stream restoration include only effects due to reduced streambank erosion, and do not account for reductions from establishment of riparian vegetation. The riparian vegetation effects of stream restoration projects would reduce sediment loading by approximately 276 additional tons/year, raising the total sediment load reduction for the Clear Creek watershed to 1096 tons/year (6%). See Section 6.4 of Appendix B for additional discussion.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
25
4 Proposed Assessment Activities

In the preceding pages, additional assessment work was proposed to better understand
the specific sources of sediment from low density residential areas and unpaved roads.
Section D, to follow, contains a similar proposal for an assessment of nutrient sources
from residential areas. The paragraphs below provide additional information on the
nature of these assessments. Total estimated costs, assuming these activities are
contracted out to a private firm, are approximately $21,600 for the residential area
assessment and $16,500 for the unpaved roads assessment. Costs could be reduced to
$10,800 and $7,700 respectively if the work is performed by a public agency such as
Henderson County. Stormwater BMPs for denser developed areas are also briefly
discussed in this section.

4.1 Low Density Residential Areas

There are numerous potential sediment and nutrient sources in the low density
residential areas that are the predominant type of development in the Clear Creek
watershed. Major potential source activities are listed in Table C6, along with
possible source control practices.

Table C6 Potential Sediment and Nutrient Source Activities in Low Density Residential
Areas*
Source Activity Potential Source Control Practices
Sediment
cut slopes stabilize and revegetate
eroding driveway surfaces drainage improvements;
pave or regravel
eroding driveway and drainage ditches stabilize and revegetate
temporary disturbance (e.g. landscaping,
building additions, septic system repairs) education of property owners and contractors
‘ permanent’ bare soil areas not clearly
associated with temporary disturbance
education of property owners;
revegetation
soil compaction, resulting in reduced
infiltration, and increased pollutant
transport
education;
soil amendments and conditioning

Nutrients
fertilization practices education of property owners and contractors;
soil testing to determine appropriate
fertilization
lawn care/landscaping disposal
(dumping of grass clippings, etc.) education of property owners and contractors
septic system malfunction repair/replacement
straight pipes removal
soil compaction, resulting in reduced
infiltration, and increased pollutant
transport
education;
soil amendments and conditioning
atmospheric deposition --
*Refers to established residential areas, not areas under construction.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
26
However, without additional information on which specific activities associated with
residential areas are the most important sediment and nutrient sources, it is not
possible to plan effectively to address these sources.

Proposed Assessment Approach. The assessment activities proposed here are
comprised of two primary elements:
• Identification of likely sediment/nutrient ‘hot spots’ in low density residential
areas, drawing on the observations of existing Henderson County field staff and
additional field reconnaissance.
• Investigation of the types and extent of particular source activities, based upon
a survey of selected residential areas.

It is likely that residential areas vary greatly in their contribution of sediment and
nutrients to streams in the Clear Creek watershed. Source control activities will be
most efficient if focused primarily on those areas that appear most likely to be major
contributors (hot spots). A comprehensive investigation of the entire watershed (e.g.,
using the approach developed by Wright et al, 2004, for the Center for Watershed
Protection) would be required to identify all of these areas. Such an approach is not
proposed for the Clear Creek watershed at this time because such an effort would be
expensive and may not be necessary. A more selective assessment of residential areas
is proposed here, which should be able to identify most major problem areas and key
practices. A more informed decision regarding the need and appropriate approach for
a more intensive investigation can be made once the effort proposed here is carried
out.

The approach proposed here for hot spot identification consists of the following key
components:
• Interviews or meetings will be conducted with appropriate County staff about
specific residential areas they are aware of that may be significant sources of
sediment and nutrients. Appropriate staff includes: building inspectors;
county health specialists (septic systems); Cooperative Extension Service, Soil
and Water Conservation District, and NRCS staff; other identified field
personnel. The purpose of this step is to tap into existing knowledge of
problem areas in the watershed.
• Field visits to key areas identified above will be varied out to verify site
locations and conditions, and to determine appropriate remedial actions. The
location of sites will be documented by GPS (Global Positioning System) to
facilitate GIS mapping.

A survey of selected residential areas will be conducted to provide needed information
regarding which source activities (Table C6) are most important in the watershed.
This survey will focus on driving/walking through selected residential areas. The
residential area survey will consist of the following key components:
• Select representative residential areas for assessment (further discussion
below).
• Conduct preliminary mapping, develop field forms and contact landowners, if
this is deemed necessary.
• Conduct drive/walk-through of these areas, recording observations on the type
and location of likely source areas/activities listed in Table C6. Some activities
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
27
will be more amenable to observation than others. Document site location
using GPS. This process may reveal additional hot spots not identified above.
• Compile data and develop GIS files.

Following completion of hot spot identification and the residential area survey, an
action plan will be developed. This document will summarize existing conditions as
revealed by the surveys, identify the most important sediment and nutrient source
activities observed, and propose specific focus areas and management practices.

A number of decisions must still be made regarding the conduct of this assessment.
These include:
• Delineation of residential areas. These areas can be conceptualized as
subdivisions, streets or in some other fashion.
• Spatial focus. According to the IPSI, about 43% of the residential development
in the Clear Creek drainage is located in the lower Clear Creek sub-watershed.
This sub-watershed clearly must be a major focus of the assessment, but a
decision must be made regarding the inclusion of other areas.
• The number of residential areas to be included in the survey. Twenty four
areas are proposed here, but this number may be increased or decreased based
on additional planning or resource availability.

The NCWADE program (Waste Discharge Elimination Program) of the NC Division of
Environmental Health could potentially be utilized to conduct a more thorough
investigation of straight piping issues if the above assessment indicates that this is
warranted.

Assessment Staffing Requirements and Costs. Estimated staffing requirements and
costs for the residential area assessment are shown in Table C7. Costs are presented
for two implementation approaches:
• Contracting the assessment to a private consulting firm. An hourly rate of $75
per hour is used. This is likely the minimum rate for which this work could be
contracted as of mid 2006.
• Conducting the work through a government agency (Henderson County or other
unit of government). An hourly rate of $35 per hour is used. While it is
unlikely that current agency staff will have the time available to carry out this
work, the use of public agency staff funded through grants may be an option.

Administrative costs for the government agency approach are not included. The
staffing requirements and costs in Table C7 are rough estimates of the resources
required to do this work. Actual costs may be higher or lower depending upon the
level of detail ultimately chosen for the assessment.

By way of comparison, a more comprehensive assessment, such as the approach
developed by Wright et al (2004) for the Center for Watershed Protection, would be
considerably more expensive. Wright et al (2004) estimated the cost of their approach
to be about $7,300 per 10 square mile sub-watershed, or about $33,000 for an area
the size of the Clear Creek watershed. These estimates are based upon Wright et al’s
staffing cost estimate of $25 per hour in 2004, which is likely an underestimate of
current costs, even for a public agency, unless there is extensive reliance on
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
28
volunteers. Costs of $100,000 or more are likely if the work were contracted to a
private firm.

Table C7 Staffing Requirements and Costs—Residential Area Sediment and Nutrient
Assessment
Task No. of
Hours
Hot Spot Identification
Planning 8
Interviews/meetings with county staff 16
Site visits* 32
GIS mapping and analysis 8
Residential Area Survey
Planning, incl. selection of areas, form 40
development and landowner contact
Site visits** 96
Data entry and compilation 16
GIS mapping and analysis 16
Action Plan Development
Prioritization of focus areas 16
and remedial actions
Develop draft report, circulate for
comments
24
Revise report document 16
Total Hours 288
Total Cost at Contractor Rate ($75/hour) $21,600
Total Cost at Agency Rate ($35/hour) $10,080
*Assumes 2 field days each for 2 staff.
**Assumes 6 field days (including one contingency day) each for 2 staff.

Practices. Potential practices to control sediment and nutrient sources in residential
areas were listed in Table C6. These practices emphasize source control activities
(e.g. controlling erosion rather than sediment transport). Additionally, a variety of
practices to promote infiltration and reduce runoff (e.g. bioretention areas and
downspout disconnection) could also be used to reduce pollutant inputs. Finally,
devices such as level spreaders can be used to convert channelized flow to sheet flow,
allowing vegetated areas to remove pollutants more effectively. The Center for
Watershed Protection (Schueler et al, 2004) has developed profile sheets providing
additional detail for many practices similar to those listed in Table C6.

Based on the assessment described above, the appropriate mix of practices will be
determined and priority locations for practice implementation identified.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
29
4.2 Road Erosion

Potential road erosion problems are listed in Table C8.

Table C8 Potential Sediment Source from Roads
Source Activity Potential Source Control Practices
eroding ditches stabilize and revegetate; reditch if necessary
eroding cut and fill slopes (road banks) stabilize and revegetate; regrade if necessary
eroding road surfaces
drainage improvements (recrown road, establish
ditches or swales, install culverts and energy
dissipaters, etc);
pave or regrade

As discussed above, unpaved roads are believed to be a major sediment source in the
Clear Creek watershed, but sufficient information is not currently available to develop
a specific plan for remediation. Most of these roads are on private property and are
not publicly maintained.

Erosion from road surfaces is highly variable depending upon road surface (dirt, grass
or gravel), drainage conditions, maintenance practices and traffic levels. The
likelihood that eroded material reaches streams or drainage ways is also highly
variable, depending upon proximity and other local conditions. It is likely that some
sections of unpaved roads are significant sediment contributors to streams in the
watershed while others are not. To develop a plan for addressing erosion from roads,
it is critical to identify which road segments should be prioritized for remediation.
The IPSI (TVA, 2001)indicates that there are approximately 152 miles of unpaved roads
in the Clear Creek watershed (see Figure C1). It does not provide information on road
surface condition, although areas where eroding road banks/ditches were apparent
have been identified. It will be necessary to drive the roads to determine where
active erosion is most severe.

Proposed Assessment Approach. The following activities are proposed:
• Conduct review of IPSI data and preliminary mapping.
• Develop field forms and schedule, and contact landowners if this is deemed
necessary.
• Drive all unpaved roads, with priority to those identified by the IPSI as having
eroded ditches/banks. Record information on road surfaces, severity of road
surface erosion, drainage problems, road bank and ditch erosion, proximity to
streams, opportunities for directing runoff to pervious areas for infiltration or
settling of sediment, and constraints limiting opportunities for remediation.
Document important features using GPS.

Following completion of the survey, an action plan will be developed. This document
will summarize existing conditions as revealed by the surveys, identify the most
important sediment sources observed, and propose specific focus areas and
management practices.

Assessment Staffing Requirements and Costs. Estimated staffing requirements and
costs for the roads assessment are shown in Table C9. Costs are presented for the
same two implementation approaches used for the residential area assessment
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
30
(contracting to a private firm and conducting the work through a government agency).
The same hourly rates were used.

The staffing requirements and costs in Table C9 are rough estimates of the resources
required to do this work, and actual costs may vary depending upon the level of detail
ultimately chosen for the assessment. Administrative costs for the government agency
approach are not included.

Table C9 Staffing Requirements and Costs—Unpaved Roads Erosion Assessment
Task No. of
Hours
Planning, incl. preliminary mapping, form 32
development and landowner contact
Site visits* 96
Data entry and compilation 24
GIS mapping and analysis 16
Prioritization of focus areas 12
and remedial actions
Develop draft report, circulate for
comments
24
Revise report document 16
Total Hours 220
Total Cost at Contractor Rate ($75/hour) $16,500
Total Cost at Agency Rate ($35/hour) $7,700
*Assumes 6 field days each for 2 staff, which includes one contingency day.

Practices. Practices to reduce road erosion were listed in Table C8. Additionally a
variety of practices can be used to help remove sediment from roadway and road ditch
runoff. These include sediment traps and devices such as level spreaders, which can
be used to convert channelized flow to sheet flow, allowing vegetated areas to
remove pollutants more effectively. Based on the assessment described above, the
appropriate mix of practices will be determined and priority locations for practice
implementation identified.

Some road erosion problems will be difficult to address. For example some roads will
likely be found to be on slopes too steep to allow for effective erosion and runoff
control. Other roads may have severe space constraints that limit remediation
options. Additionally unpaved roads require ongoing maintenance to insure proper
erosion control and hydrologic condition. Even if active erosion areas are remediated,
problems may return in the future if property owners do not engage in proper
maintenance practices. These issues must be given careful consideration in
developing an action plan to address road erosion.

4.3 Stormwater Issues

As discussed earlier, stormwater treatment BMPs may be useful pollutant (sediment
and nutrient in particular) removal practices in the portions of the watershed with
relatively dense development. This includes medium density residential areas, as well
as commercial, industrial and institutional sites. These areas, located primarily in the
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
31
lower Clear Creek sub-watershed, have generally been developed without stormwater
controls.

A stormwater BMP site identification process will be initiated in the Clear Creek
watershed. Initially this effort will focus on known institutional (e.g. schools),
commercial and industrial sites, primarily in the lower Clear Creek area. The intent of
this effort will be to identify projects that can both provide effective stormwater
treatment, as well as serve as demonstration projects to educate citizens and
businesses regarding stormwater management.

A more formal stormwater BMP site screening may be conducted at a later date. The
goals of such a screening would be to systematically identify candidate stormwater
BMP sites and obtain an initial indication of whether landowners are interested in BMP
installation if funding sources can be found.

If implemented, this screening process would consist of three general steps:
• Reviewing aerial photographs and GIS data to identify sites with concentrations
of impervious areas where stormwater controls may be beneficial and where
sufficient area may exist to install controls.
• Conducting field reconnaissance of promising sites to: verify the need for
stormwater control; determine the potential treatment area; verify that an
appropriate BMP location exists; determine the appropriate BMP type; and
evaluate constraints.
• Contacting property owners regarding interest in BMP installation.

For planning purposes, typical pollutant removal rates for common stormwater BMPs
are listed in Table C10.

Table C10 Median Pollutant Removal Efficiencies from
BMP Studies in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic.*
Removal Efficiency (%) BMP Type TSS TP TN
Wet Ponds 65 46 28
Stormwater Wetlands 61 33 22
Sand Filters 79 59 41
Bioretention NA 71 45
*Source: Wossink and Hunt (2003)
Notes: TSS= total suspended solids, TP= total phosphorus,
TN= total nitrogen, NA= not available
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
32

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
33
Section D
Nutrient Sources, Management Measures and
Expected Reductions

This section addresses Nine Element Plan components (a) through (c) for nutrient
sources. Nutrient sources and estimated loads associated with different land use/land
cover classes within the Clear Creek watershed are discussed. This section also
presents strategies for reducing nutrient loads and quantifies expected loading
reductions associated with these practices. Specific practices to be implemented
include:
• Revegetating riparian areas;
• Implementing management practices to reduce nutrients from residential
areas;
• Implementing conservation tillage for field crops;
• Implementing prescribed grazing plans for pastures; and
• Excluding livestock from streams.

1 Sources and Existing Nutrient Loads

1.1 Nutrient Loads and Association with Land Use

Based on land use data and data on other nutrient sources, the IPSI nonpoint source
model estimated the total phosphorus and total nitrogen loads for the Clear Creek
watershed at 4.7 and 29.2 tons per year respectively (Tables D1 and D2). Total
phosphorus and nitrogen loads represent the sums of the estimated loads delivered
annually to the downstream end of each sub-watershed. The land use land classes
used by TVA for the IPSI analysis were combined into groups of similar classifications
for this summary.

The IPSI data indicate that 78% of the total phosphorus load comes from developed
areas, 50% from residential areas alone (Table D1). The situation is similar for
nitrogen, with 79% of the load coming from developed portions of the watershed,
including 53% from residential areas (Table D2). Agricultural land is generally only a
small contributor to nutrient loads, although 15% of the nitrogen is estimated to come
from livestock. Nutrient sources vary between sub-watersheds (see Tables D1 and D2).

As discussed in Appendix A, the IPSI nonpoint source model likely overestimates
nutrients from developed areas and underestimates nutrients (especially nitrogen)
from rural areas. It is probable, however, that developed areas remain an important
source of nutrients in the watershed.

The NCDWQ’s WARP report (NCDWQ 2003a) reported that nutrient impacts to fish and
benthic macroinvertebrate communities were evident at two sites on Clear Creek, at
Mills Gap Road and North Clear Creek Road. Livestock operations where cattle had
direct stream access were evident directly upstream from these stations.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 34Table D1 Total Phosphorus Loading (Tons/Year) by Source in the Clear Creek Watershed Cox Creek 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.000.000.01 0.00 0.00%of total for WS 100% 65% 16% 0% 0%2%16% 0% 0%Clear Creek Headwaters 0.21 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.010.010.01 0.04 0.00%of total for WS 100% 63% 5% 0% 5%3%5% 19% 0%Lewis to Cox 0.34 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.030.010.01 0.10 0.00%of total for WS 100% 48% 6% 3% 9%2%3% 30% 0%Lewis Creek 0.76 0.36 0.24 0.01 0.020.010.01 0.10 0.01%of total for WS 100% 47% 32% 1% 3%1%1% 13% 1%Henderson to Lewis 0.47 0.26 0.03 0.01 0.020.000.01 0.14 0.00%of total for WS 100% 55% 6% 2% 4%1%2% 30% 0%Lower Clear Creek 2.17 1.07 0.79 0.01 0.030.000.02 0.21 0.04%of total for WS 100% 49% 36% 0% 1%0%1% 10% 2%Henderson Creek 0.66 0.32 0.21 0.01 0.020.000.01 0.09 0.00100% 48% 32% 2% 3%1%2% 14% 0%Clear Ck Total 4.67 2.34 1.31 0.05 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.68 0.05Clear Ck % of Total 100% 50% 28% 1% 3% 1% 2% 15% 1%Clear Ck Land Cover % 12 2 3 15 12 50 NA 6Barren LandForest LivestockCultivated Areas PastureOrchards Vineyards NurseriesSub-watershed Total Resid. AreasOther Developed Areas Source: TVA, 2001 ‘Other Developed’ includes commercial, industrial and transportation.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 35Table D2. Total Nitrogen Loading (Tons/Year) by Source in the Clear Creek Watershed Cox Creek 0.43 0.26 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00%of total for WS 100% 61% 7% 2% 7% 4% 19% 0% 0%Clear Creek Headwaters 1.44 0.84 0.04 0.01 0.14 0.08 0.15 0.11 0.07%of total for WS 100% 58% 3% 1% 10% 5% 10% 8% 5%Lewis to Cox 2.10 1.08 0.12 0.10 0.36 0.08 0.10 0.26 0.00%of total for WS 100% 51% 6% 5% 17% 4% 5% 12% 0%Lewis Creek 4.99 2.39 1.55 0.15 0.25 0.13 0.11 0.26 0.15%of total for WS 100% 48% 31% 3% 5% 3% 2% 5% 3%Henderson to Lewis 2.88 1.71 0.21 0.14 0.30 0.04 0.13 0.31 0.04%of total for WS 100% 59% 7% 5% 10% 1% 5% 11% 1%Lower Clear Creek 13.29 7.03 4.37 0.16 0.40 0.04 0.24 0.52 0.53%of total for WS 100% 53% 33% 1% 3% 0% 2% 4% 4%Henderson Creek 4.04 2.12 1.13 0.10 0.33 0.05 0.07 0.24 0.00%of total for WS 100% 52% 28% 2% 8% 1% 2% 6% 0%Clear Ck Total 29.17 15.43 7.45 0.67 1.81 0.44 0.88 1.70 0.79Clear Ck % of Total 100% 53% 26% 2% 6% 2% 3% 6% 3%Clear Ck Land Cover % 12 2 3 15 12 50 NA 6Sub-watershed Total LoadResid. Areas LivestockBarren LandCultivated Areas PastureOrchards Vineyards Nurseries ForestOther Developed Areas Source: TVA, 2001 ‘Other Developed’ includes commercial, industrial and transportation.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
36

2 Proposed Management Activities

This section discusses management practices proposed to reduce nutrient loads within
the Clear Creek watershed. Proposed practices are outlined and the extent of target
areas is described.

2.1 General Considerations

As with sediment, nutrients can reach streams via a variety of pathways. Practices
can either intercept nutrient transport or address nutrient source activities. While
developed areas are believed to be the major nutrient source areas, no information is
available on which activities within these areas are at issue. Among the management
activities which could be useful are: education of homeowners regarding proper
fertilizer use; education of lawn care companies; elimination of straight pipes and
replacement/repair of malfunctioning septic systems; and various stormwater
treatment and infiltration practices. However, without information on which source
activities are most important, it is not clear which specific source control practices
should be emphasized.

Additional assessment is recommended to better characterize specific nutrient source
activities in developed portions of the watershed, especially in residential areas (see
Section C4 for additional discussion). With this information, a more reliable strategy
can be crafted to address these issues.

Practices recommended in this plan to reduce nutrients are a subset of those
recommended for sediment reduction. Specific practices to address nutrients from
residential areas are limited to the establishment of riparian vegetation. The
implementation of such practices in this plan is confined to low density residential
areas (2 dwellings per acre or less) and to agricultural areas. In denser developed
areas (whether residential, commercial or industrial), storm runoff is more likely to be
in concentrated forms (in channels or ditches), and riparian vegetation alone is not
likely to be effective in removing nutrients. Stormwater BMPs may be required to
address this issue, but a search for potential stormwater BMP opportunities has not yet
been conducted in the watershed (see Section C4 for further discussion).

The IPSI model estimates that livestock operations (primarily cattle) account for 15%
of the phosphorus load (Table D1). Much of this loading occurs when livestock spend
time in or adjacent to streams.

2.2 Specific Management Practices to be Implemented

Practices Recommended for Long-Term Implementation. The following five practices
will be emphasized to reduce nutrient impacts to streams (see Section C for additional
description):
1. Revegetation of riparian areas along intermittent and perennial streams;
2. Excluding livestock from streams to reduce nutrient loading.
3. Implementing prescribed grazing plans on heavily overgrazed pasture land to
reduce nutrient transport to streams from livestock.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
37
4. Implementing conservation tillage practices to reduce soil erosion and nutrient
loss from cultivated areas currently without residue.
5. Implementing residential nutrient reduction practices to target specific
nutrient sources from these areas. Once assessments have been conducted to
determine specific practices (see Section C4), MCWRC will explore grant
assistance to implement reduction measures associated with these sources.
These may include practices such as septic system repair and straight pipe
elimination, and educating land owners regarding fertilizer use.

Practices Implemented under Current 319 Grant. Revegetation of 1,500 linear feet of
streambanks is planned under the current 319 grant, focusing on the Lewis Creek sub-
watershed.

2.3 Targeted Areas

The location and extent of nutrient loading from different source areas in the
watershed was documented earlier (Tables D1 and D2). The short and long-term
implementation approach is summarized below.

Short-term activities. Over the next three-year span of the current 319 grant, the
MCWRC will target nutrient reduction in the Lewis Creek sub-watershed by
implementing riparian area revegetation as listed above.

Long-term activities. Over the next ten years the MCWRC will continue to target Lewis
Creek for all of the activities listed in Section 2.2, but will also move into other sub-
watersheds. The focus of activity will be selected based upon existing or potential
stream impacts, landowner participation, and the potential for project success. As
noted earlier, NCDWQ (NCDWQ, 2003a) has observed evidence of nutrient impacts to
benthic communities in Clear Creek at Mills Gap Road and North Clear Creek Road,
possibly due to cattle operations upstream of these sites. Addressing potential
livestock impacts in these two areas will be specifically examined in the future.

Implementation target levels. Implementation targets were established based on the
present and anticipated future capabilities of the MCWRC and are contingent upon
funding availability (see Section H) and landowner participation. Short and long-term
implementation levels are summarized in Table D3. See Appendix B for information on
how these levels were determined. A schedule for the implementation of these
practices is presented in Section H, along with costs and management milestones.

Note that quantitative target levels are not presented here for all practices.
information pertaining to specific nutrient-generating activities in residential areas
was limited, reducing the ability to apply site specific management goals for this
source. Additional field assessments (see Section C4) will be required prior to
determining specific needs.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
38

Table D3 Implementation Targets for Practices Targeting Nutrients (1)
Implementation Targets
Short-Term (3 year) Long-Term (10 year)

Practice
Clear Creek Lewis Creek Clear Creek Lewis Creek
Riparian Area
Revegetation 1500 linear ft. 1500 linear ft. 16,500 linear ft. 4,500 linear ft.
Conservation
Tillage NA* NA* 12 acres 1.2 acres
Prescribed
Grazing NA* NA* 11.1 acres 3.4 acres
Livestock
Exclusion NA* NA* 143 linear ft. 9 linear ft. (2)
Residential BMPs NA* NA* NA** NA**
(1) Implementation targets were established based on the present and anticipated future
capabilities of the MCWRC.
(2) Only 9 linear feet of stream damage from livestock access in Lewis Creek is identified by
the IPSI.
*NA. No implementation planned during current 319 grant.
**NA. Sufficient information is not yet available to establish quantitative goals for specific
residential nutrient sources.

3 Estimated Load Reductions from Management
Activities

This section presents estimated reductions in stream nutrient loads from riparian
vegetation enhancement, rotational grazing and conservation tillage. No reduction
estimates are made for specific residential source control activities. Additionally, the
IPSI nonpoint source model does not include a method for readily estimating nutrient
reductions from livestock exclusion.

Table D4 shows the anticipated reductions in nutrient load from practices
implemented during the current Section 319 grant (three-year period), while Tables D5
and D6 show anticipated long-term phosphorus and nitrogen reductions from all
practices proposed for the ten-year planning period. In these tables, reductions are
listed by practice rather than by source area. Long term load reductions are
documented by source area in Table D7 and D8 for total phosphorus and total nitrogen
respectively.

Note that in nutrient reductions from riparian revegetation it was necessary to make
assumptions about the type of land use adjacent to the enhanced riparian zones. It
was assumed that riparian area revegetation projects implemented under this plan
would occur in low density residential and agricultural areas, and that this would
occur in proportion to the land area accounted for by these uses.

Long-term (10 year) phosphorus and nitrogen load reductions are estimated to be on
the order of 1 to 2 % both for Lewis Creek and for Clear Creek as a whole (Tables D7
and B8). See Appendix B for details on the derivation of these estimates. Since these
estimates do not account for source reduction efforts focusing on residential areas--
which are planned for this period but which are not yet sufficiently detailed to
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
39
quantify impacts--the actual nutrient reductions anticipated over the planning period
should be greater than shown in Tables D7 and D8.

Table D4 Anticipated Nutrient Load Reductions in Lewis Creek
Sub-watershed from Practices Implemented Under Current 319 Project
Expected Reduction
(Tons/Year) Practice
Total
Practice
Implemented
(linear feet)
Total
Phosphorus
Total
Nitrogen
Riparian Area Revegetation 1500 0.00015 0.0027
% Reduction in Total Lewis
Creek Nutrient Load
<0.1% <0.1%

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 40Table D5 Anticipated Total Phosphorus Load Reductions by Practice for the Ten Planning Period, Clear Creek Watershed and Lewis Creek Sub-watershed Lewis Creek (1) Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds Total- Clear Creek Watershed Practice Total Practice Implemented Expected Phosphorus Reduction (Tons/Year) Total Practice Implemented Expected Phosphorus Load Reduction (Tons/Year) Total Practice Implemented Expected Phosphorus Load Reduction (Tons/Year) Riparian Area Revegetation 4,500 linear feet 0.0056 12,000 linear feet 0.0191 16,500 linear feet 0.0247 Conservation Tillage (Improvement from No Residue to Medium Residue) 1.2 acres 0.0002 10.8 acres 0.002 12 acres 0.0022 Prescribed Grazing (Improvement from Heavily Overgrazed to Fair Condition) 3.4 acres 0.002 7.7 acres 0.006 11.1 acres 0.008 Total Load Reduction 0.0078 0.0271 0.0349 % Reduction in Total Phosphorus Load 1% (2) 0.7% (3) 0.7% (4) (1) Includes practices implemented during current 319 grant as well as additional practices implemented during planning period. (2) Based on existing Lewis Ck. phosphorus load of 0.76 T/Yr. (3) Based on existing phosphorus load for other sub-watersheds of 3.91 T/Yr. (4) Based on existing total Clear Ck. phosphorus load of 4.67 T/Yr.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 41Table D6 Anticipated Total Nitrogen Load Reductions by Practice for the Ten Planning Period, Clear Creek Watershed and Lewis Creek Sub-watershed Lewis Creek (1) Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds Total- Clear Creek Watershed Practice Total Practice Implemented Expected Nitrogen Reduction (Tons/Year) Total Practice Implemented Expected Nitrogen Load Reduction (Tons/Year) Total Practice Implemented Expected Nitrogen Load Reduction (Tons/Year) Riparian Area Revegetation 4,500 linear feet 0.053 12,000 linear feet 0.212 16,500 linear feet 0.265 Conservation Tillage (Improvement from No Residue to Medium Residue) 1.2 acres 0.002 10.8 acres 0.022 12 acres 0.024 Prescribed Grazing (Improvement from Heavily Overgrazed to Fair Condition) 3.4 acres 0.034 7.7 acres 0.078 11.1 acres 0.112 Total Load Reduction 0.109 0.312 0.401 % Reduction in Total Nitrogen Load 2% (2) 1% (3) 1% (4) (1) Includes practices implemented during current 319 grant as well as additional practices implemented during planning period. (2) Based on existing Lewis Ck. nitrogen load of 4.99 T/Yr. (3) Based on existing nitrogen load for other sub-watersheds of 24.71 T/Yr. (4) Based on existing total Clear Ck. nitrogen load of 29.7 T/Yr.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 42Table D7. Anticipated Long Term Total Phosphorus Loading Reductions (Tons/Year) by Source –Cumulative Reductions for Lewis Creek and the Clear Creek Watershed for Ten Year Planning Period* Location Total – All Sources Resid. Areas Other Devel. Areas Cultivated Areas Pasture Orchard Forest Livestock Barren Land Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed Pre-BMP Phosphorus Load (Tons/Yr.) 0.76 0.36 0.24 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.01 Estimated Phosphorus Reduction (Tons/Yr.) 0.0078 0.005 0 0.0005 0.0023 0 0 0 0 Estimated % Reduction 1.0% 1.4% 0% 5.0% 11.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% Clear Creek Watershed-Total Pre-BMP Phosphorus Load (Tons/Yr.) 4.67 2.34 1.31 0.05 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.68 0.05 Estimated Phosphorus Reduction (Tons/Yr.) 0.0347 0.023 0 0.0024 0.0093 0 0 0 0 Estimated % Reduction 0.7% 1.0% 0% 4.8% 7.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% ‘Other Developed’ includes commercial, industrial and transportation. * Includes only practices shown in Table D5. Source control practices to address nutrients from residential areas are also planned, but sufficient information is currently not available to estimate load reductions.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 43Table D8. Anticipated Long Term Total Nitrogen Loading Reductions (Tons/Year) by Source –Cumulative Reductions for Lewis Creek and the Clear Creek Watershed for Ten Year Planning Period* Location Total – All Sources Resid. Areas Other Devel. Areas Cultivated Areas Pasture Orchard Forest Livestock Barren Land Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed Pre-BMP Nitrogen Load (Tons/Yr.) 4.99 2.39 1.55 0.15 0.25 0.13 0.11 0.26 0.15 Estimated Nitrogen Reduction (Tons/Yr.) 0.089 0.044 0 0.006 0.039 0 0 0 0 Estimated % Reduction 1.8% 1.8% 0% 4.0% 15.6% 0% 0% 0% 0% Clear Creek Watershed-Total Pre-BMP Nitrogen Load (Tons/Yr.) 29.17 15.43 7.45 0.67 1.81 0.44 0.88 1.70 0.79 Estimated Nitrogen Reduction (Tons/Yr.) 0.401 0.219 0 0.044 0.138 0 0 0 0 Estimated % Reduction 1.4% 1.4% 0% 6.6% 7.6% 0% 0% 0% 0% ‘Other Developed’ includes commercial, industrial and transportation. * Includes only practices shown in Table D6. Source control practices to address nutrients from roads and residential areas are also planned, but sufficient information is currently not available to estimate load reductions.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 44
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
45
Section E
Apple Orchard Pesticides - Management Measures and
Expected Reductions

This section addresses Nine Element Plan components (a) through (c) for orchard pesticides.
Apple orchard pesticide issues, the location and extent of orchard areas are identified and
estimates of pesticide use are presented. This section also presents strategies for reducing
the use of apple orchard pesticides and addressing potential transport issues. Specific
practices to be implemented include:
• Use of improved efficiency sprayers;
• Use of pest scouts;
• Use of insect pheromones/mating disruption;
• Abandoned orchard removal;
• Enhancing riparian areas;
• Stabilization of eroding streambanks in orchard areas; and
• Upgrading of chemical mixing and handling facilities.

Areas targeted for implementation of these practices are discussed, and estimates of
anticipated reductions in pesticide use are presented.

1 Source Areas and Current Pesticide Use

1.1 Apple Orchard Extent and Location

About 70-80% of the North Carolina apple crop is produced in Henderson County (Toth, 2004).
There are approximately 200 apple growing operations in the county, located predominately
in the Clear Creek watershed (Marvin Owings, Henderson County Cooperative Extension
Service, personal communication). Operations range in size from about five acres to several
hundred acres.

The IPSI land use data indicate that 3552 acres of active apple orchard were located in the
Clear Creek drainage in 2001 (Table E1). While orchards are located throughout the drainage,
they are concentrated in three sub-watersheds: Lewis Creek (1087 acres, or 31% of the Clear
Creek active orchard area), Clear Creek Headwaters (681 acres, or 19%), and the Lewis to Cox
sub-watershed (613 acres, or 17%). See Table E1 and Figure E1. Additionally, there are
approximately 779 acres of abandoned orchard (classified as ‘transitional’ by the IPSI).
Assuming the approximately 200 operations in the County are distributed proportionally to
active orchard acreage, the estimated numbers of orchard operations in the Clear Creek and
Lewis Creek drainages are approximately 150 and 45 respectively (see Appendix C).

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
46

Figure E1 Apple Orchard and Crop Land Areas in the Clear Creek Watershed

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
47

Table E1 Active and Abandoned Orchards in the Clear Creek Watershed
Active Orchard Abandoned
Orchard
Total
Orchard
Area
% of Clear Creek
Total Orchard Area
Sub-watershed
Acres
% of
Sub-
WS
Acres
% of
Sub-
WS
Acres Active
Orchard*
Abandoned
Orchard**
Clear Ck. Headwaters (0304) 681.2 15.9% 93.7 2.2% 774.8 19.2% 12.0%
Cox Ck. (030401) 124.3 6.8% 21.1 1.2% 145.5 3.5% 2.7%
Lewis to Cox Ck. (0303) 613.2 17.3% 133.5 3.8% 746.7 17.3% 17.1%
Lewis Ck. (030301) 1087.0 26.2% 233.2 5.6% 1320.3 30.6% 29.9%
Henderson to Lewis Ck. (0302) 284.7 6.7% 69.1 1.6% 353.7 8.0% 8.9%
Henderson Ck. (030201) 365.7 14.0% 125.1 4.8% 490.7 10.3% 16.1%
Lower Clear Ck. (0301) 396.1 5.1% 103.3 1.3% 499.4 11.2% 13.3%

Total, Clear Creek 3552.1 779.0 4331.1 100.0% 100.0%
Source: TVA, 2001
Note: Includes only active and abandoned orchard. Totals differ somewhat from the broader orchard
category used in Table A1, which included a small amount of nursery and Christmas tree farm acreage.
* Percentages represent % of Clear Ck. active orchard acres (3552.1) located in each sub-watershed.
** Percentages represent % of Clear Ck. abandoned orchard acres (779) located in each sub-watershed.

1.2 Background Information on Pesticide Use

Numerous pests and diseases threaten apple production. More than 20 arthropod pests can
potentially damage local apple crops, and at least 10 of these occur annually in almost every
orchard (Toth, 2004). North Carolina apples are also affected by 13 major diseases of fruit
and foliage, in addition to a number of root and crown diseases (Toth, 2004).

Agricultural chemicals are widely used to control these and other pest problems. Among the
pesticides recommended for potential use by the 2005 Integrated Orchard Management Guide
for Commercial Apples in the Southeast (NCSU, 2005) are: 23 fungicides and bactericides; 43
insecticides and miticides (including insect growth regulators); 20 herbicides; and a number
of apple growth regulating chemicals, rodenticides, and other pesticides. Depending on pest
pressure in a particular year, six to ten insecticide applications may be made (Toth, 2004).

Application practices and specific pesticides used by apple growers have changed over time.
Most growers now utilize some IPM (Integrated Pest Management) practices, applying
pesticides based on pest presence and damage potential rather than according to a standard
spray schedule. During the 1960s and 70s organophosphate insecticides replaced most
organochlorines, such as DDT. Organophosphates have remained an important element of
insect control strategies since that time, although the specific pesticides used have changed
as new products were developed. Many growers are now gradually switching from
organophosphates to neonicotinoids and other compounds meeting USEPA’s ‘reduced risk’
criteria (USEPA, 1997).

Growers in the watershed selling apples to Gerber Products Company have participated in the
Southern Appalachian Apple IPM Project, initiated by the company in 1999 to eliminate the
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
48
use of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides (see
http://www.pesp.org/2001/gerber01.htm.). Other growers have participated in the United
States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP).
North Carolina State University faculty at the Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and
Extension Center (MHCREC) in Fletcher worked with both programs for a number of years,
including some Clear Creek growers.

1.3 Estimates of Current Orchard Pesticide Use

Statistics on actual apple pesticide use in the Clear Creek drainage do not exist, but dozens of
such chemicals are likely in use in the watershed. Specific pesticides of concern from a water
quality perspective have not been identified (NCDWQ, 2003a).

Since estimating usage for the large number of pesticides potentially utilized is impractical,
this plan focuses on a small number of pesticides that are commonly used. The current use
(and projected use reduction) of these selected pesticides is intended to illustrate current
pesticide use (and use reduction) patterns in the watershed. Insecticides are the primary
focus because, as a group, they may have a higher potential for impacting aquatic
macroinvertebrates than do other agricultural chemicals used on apple orchards. In
consultation with the MHCREC, which has worked extensively with growers in the area on pest
control and pesticide use issues, five commonly used pesticides were selected (Table E2).

Table E2 Apple Orchard Pesticides Selected for Analysis
Trade Name
Chemical Name
of Active
Ingredient
Type
Imidan phosmet Organophosphate Insecticide
Guthion azinphos-methyl Organophosphate Insecticide
Asana esfenvalerate Pyrethroid Insecticide
Danitol fenpropathrin Pyrethroid Insecticide
Assail acetamiprid Neonicotinoid Insecticide

Per acre application rates for these pesticides were estimated based upon knowledge of
common practices in the area, as documented in Appendix C. Current usage (total
pounds/year) was then estimated by multiplying these rates by the acreage of active orchard,
as estimated from available IPSI data. Since Lewis Creek will be the initial focus for pesticide
use reduction activities, estimates are presented for this sub-watershed as well as Clear
Creek as a whole (Table E3). These estimates are intended to reflect use under the
assumption that pest scouts are used, which is the case for most operations in the area.
Where pest scouts are not used, pesticide use will generally be somewhat higher (see
Appendix C).

It must be emphasized that the intent here is not to estimate cumulative insecticide use, but
to estimate usage of selected individual chemicals. Since other insecticides (and other types
of pesticides) are used, the five insecticides selected do not represent all agricultural
chemical use. Further, the usage of the five insecticides selected is not additive. Some of
these pesticides are used to control similar pests. All pesticides would likely not be used on
the same fields in a given year. In particular, Assail would most likely be used by growers
who have switched to ‘reduced risk’ pesticides and no longer use organophosphates. Growers
still using organophosphates would use Imidan and Guthion instead of Assail. While both
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
49
usage patterns are common in the watershed, there are no data available on the number of
growers in each category.

Table E3 Estimated Annual Use of Selected Insecticides on Apple Orchards
Annual Pesticide Use (lbs)
Pesticide
Active
Ingredient
Applied Annually
Per Acre (lbs)*
Clear Creek
Watershed (1)
Lewis Creek
Sub-watershed (2)
Imidan (phosmet) 6.30 22,378 6,848
Guthion (azinphos-methyl) 3.00 10,656 3,261
Asana (esfenvalerate) 0.05 183 56
Danitol (fenpropathrin) 0.53 1,865 571
Assail (acetamiprid) 0.45 1,598 489
*Assumes pest scouts are used. Where pest scouts are not used, insecticide use will be higher. See
Appendix C.
(1) Based on 3552.1 acres of active orchard.
(2) Based on 1087.0 acres of active orchard.

2 Proposed Management Activities

This section discusses management practices proposed to reduce pesticide use on apple
orchards and addresses potential pesticide transport issues. Proposed practices are outlined,
the extent of target areas is described, and anticipated reductions in pesticide use are
estimated.

2.1 General Considerations

The original MCWRC restoration plan (MCWRC, 2003) recommended measures both to reduce
pesticide use and to reduce the likelihood of pesticide transport to streams. Practices of
both types of considered here.

Pesticides applied to orchards may reach streams in a variety of pathways, among them spray
drift, soil erosion, improper chemical mixing and handling, and transport in storm runoff or
groundwater. No data are available on which of these mechanisms may be most important,
though widespread sediment transport from orchards seems unlikely since most orchard floors
are well vegetated with herbaceous cover.

Practices intended to impact pesticide use can reduce the amount of agricultural chemicals
released into the environment, thus reducing the amount of material available for transport
to streams through various mechanisms. Some of these practices can also reduce production
costs. Various Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices are already used by many
growers, resulting in lower pesticide use per acre than in decades past. A key component of
the MCWRC strategy to address potential apple orchard pesticides in Clear Creek is to further
increase use of IPM measures, especially new technology currently available, by providing
financial and other incentives to growers.

The role of ‘legacy’ pesticides (pesticides such as DDT which are no longer in use) on stream
impairment is not clear (NCDWQ, 2003a). These substances can persist for long periods in the
environment and tend to attach strongly to sediments. DDT and related compounds measured
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
50
in stream sediment by NCDWQ (NCDWQ, 2003a) may be there due to past erosion, with
minimal new inputs occurring. Since active orchards generally have good ground cover, any
current inputs of these pesticides are most likely due to streambank erosion or erosion from
former orchard areas that do not have appropriate cover.

2.2 Specific Management Practices to be Implemented

Practices Recommended for Long-Term Implementation. The following seven practices will
be emphasized. The first four practices have the potential to reduce pesticide use. The final
three practices will not impact pesticide usage, but have the potential to reduce pesticide
transport to streams.
1. Use of improved efficiency sprayers, such as the SmartSpray technology marketed by
Durand Wayland. These sprayers use a system of sensors and an onboard computer to
sense tree size and location. Nozzles are activated only when trees are present and
only the particular nozzles needed are activated for any particular tree. Cost share
assistance for the purchase of improved efficiency sprayers has recently become
available through EQIP, but available funding is inadequate to purchase sprayers for all
interested growers. Three growers in the area are already using this technology (Mr.
Marvin Owings, Henderson County Cooperative Extension Service, personal
communication).
2. The use of pest scouts to monitor the nature and extent of pest infestation and
determine the need for pesticide application. This IPM practice reduces pesticide
applications by insuring that pesticides are applied only when needed and not
according to a predetermined schedule. Currently about 75% of the orchards in the
area use pest scouts in some form (Mr. Marvin Owings, Henderson County Cooperative
Extension Service, personal communication). This practice is also approved for cost
share under EQIP.
3. The use of insect pheromones to disrupt pest reproduction cycles has the potential to
reduce infestations and thus the need for spraying (see Appendix C). This relatively
new practice is also eligible for cost share under EQIP for coddling moths and oriental
fruit moths.
4. Removal of abandoned apple orchards is another recommended practice. Abandoned
orchards serve as a breeding ground for pests that can migrate to neighboring orchards
and increase the need for pest control measures. Removing trees from abandoned
orchards removes this potential reservoir of pest organisms. See Appendix C.
5. Enhancing riparian areas by planting woody vegetation could, among other
environmental benefits, reduce the potential for spray drift into streams. Observation
of the watershed suggests that, where streams flow through orchard areas, apple trees
commonly grow within about 50 feet of streams, sometimes much closer. Riparian
vegetation in these areas is often grass. Given the need for some open area between
orchards and streams for equipment passage, planting of any significant riparian
woody vegetation may often require the removal of some apple trees, making it an
unattractive option for growers. However replanting of riparian areas in woody
vegetation will be explored at locations in which it is a feasible option.
6. Stabilization of eroding streambanks was proposed earlier for purposes of reducing
sediment inputs (see previous section on sediment). These efforts may also serve to
reduce inputs of legacy pesticides.
7. Installation of adequate chemical mixing and handling facilities can help limit another
mechanism by which pesticides can reach streams. In the past many handling areas
were located near streams. Some still are, and the impacts of accidental spillage in
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
51
these areas is a potential concern (Bob Carter, NRCS retired, personal communication;
NCDWQ, 2003a). Financial assistance for the construction of agrochemical mixing
facilities is available through the EQIP program. At a typical cost of $28,000,
however, the 25% cost share requirement can be a substantial investment for growers.
Once current mixing stations adjacent to streams have been identified, MCWRC will
explore seeking grant assistance to construct handling facilities for interested growers.

Practices Implemented under Current 319 Grant. Following are the specific activities planned
under the current 319 grant to reduce orchard pesticide use, focusing on the Lewis Creek sub-
watershed:
• Provide improved efficiency sprayers for four apple growers;
• Mitigate up to 10 acres of abandoned apple orchard; and
• Provide Integrated Pest Management methods such as pest scouts or use of insect
pheromones for up to 35 acres of active orchard.

2.3 Targeted Areas

The location and extent of active and abandoned orchards in the watershed was documented
earlier (Figure E1 and Table E1). Specific orchards selected for practice implementation will
be determined based upon a variety of site specific factors, including voluntary grower
participation. The short and long-term implementation approach is summarized below.

Short-term activities. Over the three-year span of the current 319 grant, the MCWRC will
target growers in the Lewis Creek sub-watershed for the specific practices listed above. In
addition to implementing the activities specified under the grant, the MCWRC will work with
local resource professionals to encourage local landowners to pursue voluntary
implementation of similar practices using other available funding sources, including state and
federal cost share programs.

Long-term activities. Beyond the period of the 319 grant, the MCWRC will continue to target
Lewis Creek for all of the above practices, but work will also be initiated in other sub-
watersheds. The focus of activity will be selected based upon existing or potential stream
impacts, landowner participation, and the potential for project success.

Implementation target levels. Implementation goals were established based on the present
and anticipated future capabilities of the MCWRC and are contingent upon funding availability
(see Section H). Short and long-term implementation target levels are summarized in Table
E4. See Appendix C for information on how these levels were determined. A schedule for the
implementation of these practices is presented in Section H, along with costs and
management milestones.

Note that quantitative target levels are not presented here for all practices. Targets for
riparian area enhancement were discussed previously in Section C. Sufficient information is
not available to establish specific goals for chemical mixing and handling facilities.
Additional information on the status of these facilities in the watershed must be obtained to
evaluate specific needs in this area (see Section E4).

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
52
Table E4 Target Levels for Implementation of Practices for Apple Orchard Pesticides (1)
Implementation Targets
Short-Term (3 year) Long-Term (10 year total) Practice
Clear Ck. Lewis Ck. Clear Ck. Lewis Ck.
Improved Efficiency Sprayers 4 orchards 4 orchards 32 orchards 16 orchards
Pest Scouts 35 acres 35 acres 280 acres 140 acres
Mating Disruption- Insect
Pheromones 20 acres 20 acres 230 acres 110 acres
Abandoned Orchard Removal 10 acres 10 acres 150 acres 70 acres
Streambank Stabilization see section C* see section C* see section C* see section C*
Enhancing Riparian Areas see section C* see section C* see section C* see section C*
Chemical Mixing and
Handling Facilities NA** NA** NA** NA**
(1) Implementation targets were established based on the present and anticipated future capabilities
of the MCWRC
*Goals for riparian area enhancement and streambank stabilization are discussed in Section C, which
addresses sediment impacts.
**NA. Sufficient information is not yet available to establish quantitative goals for chemical mixing and
handling facilities (see Section E4).

3 Estimated Use Reductions from Management Activities

This section presents estimated reductions in pesticide use from those practices which target
pesticide application (improved efficiency sprayers, pest scouts, insect pheromones and
abandoned orchard removal). No pesticide impact estimates are made for chemical handling
facilities, streambank stabilization and riparian area enhancement, which may impact
pesticide loading to streams, but not pesticide application. Sediment reduction estimates
from the latter two practices were presented in Section C.

Table E5 shows anticipated short-term reductions in use for selected insecticides from the
implementation of planned practices during the current 319 grant project in Lewis Creek.
Table E6 shows anticipated long-term reductions in pesticide use from all planned practices
over the ten year planning period. In both cases the cumulative impacts of all planned
practices is shown. See Appendix C for details on the derivation of these estimates, including
information on use reductions from individual practices.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
53
Table E5 Anticipated Reduction in Orchard Pesticide Use from Current 319 Project –
Cumulative Reduction from All Practices*
Clear Creek Lewis Creek
Expected Expected
Pesticide Current Use % Current Use %
Use Reduction Reduction Use Reduction Reduction
(lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr)
phosmet (Imidan) 22,378 619 3% 6,848 619 9%
azinphos-methyl (Guthion) 10,656 284 3% 3,261 284 9%
esfenvalerate (Asana) 183 4 2% 56 4 7%
fenpropathrin (Danitol) 1,865 51 3% 571 51 9%
acetamiprid (Assail) 1,598 43 3% 489 43 9%
*Cumulative results for improved efficiency sprayers, pest scouts, mating disruption and abandoned
orchard removal. See Appendix C for reduction estimates for individual practices.

Table E6 Anticipated Reduction in Orchard Pesticide Use from Long Term Practice
Implementation - Cumulative Reduction from All Practices*
Clear Creek Lewis Creek
Expected Expected
Pesticide Current Use % Current Use %
Use Reduction Reduction Use Reduction Reduction
(lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr)
phosmet (Imidan) 22,378 2,578 12% 6,848 1,783 26%
azinphos-methyl (Guthion) 10,656 1,373 13% 3,261 905 28%
esfenvalerate (Asana) 183 12 7% 56 10 18%
fenpropathrin (Danitol) 1,865 199 11% 571 141 25%
acetamiprid (Assail) 1,598 208 13% 489 137 28%
*Cumulative results for improved efficiency sprayers, pest scouts, mating disruption and abandoned
orchard removal. See Appendix C for reduction estimates for individual practices.

4 Proposed Assessment Activities

As discussed above, chemical mixing and handling activities are a potential concern in the
watershed, but adequate information is not readily available to allow targeting of
management activities. Two factors are important in assessing the potential risk of water
quality impacts from a particular operation: the type of facility in which chemical handling
occurs, and its location. The risk of water quality impacts is minimized when chemical
handling and storage takes place in a structure that provides adequate containment for any
spills that may occur during handling and that also provide for safe storage of materials. Cost
share programs have funded a number of such facilities in the watershed. Where facilities
are not adequate to insure containment, the risk of water quality impacts is greatest where
chemical handling activities are situated near streams or drainageways, and less significant
where the risk of transport is more limited.

In order to effectively address potential threats from chemical handling activities it is
necessary to prioritize orchard operations in the watershed based on these two factors.
While a comprehensive survey of all operations could be conducted, such an undertaking
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
54
would be time consuming and would likely not be welcomed by growers. The MCWRC believes
that considerable progress can be made by taking an incremental approach that builds on the
existing knowledge of local professionals and emphasizes partnerships with apple growers.
The approach proposed here involves four basic activities, which over time will allow the
MCWRC to identify and address priority locations for improvement of chemical handling
facilities:
• Pooling the current knowledge of local professionals (Cooperative Extension Service,
Soil and Water Conservation District, and Natural Resources Conservation Service) to
determine where appropriate chemical mixing facilities are known to exist (e.g., where
these facilities have been constructed with cost share funding), where containment
facilities are lacking and mixing facilities are believed to be located near streams, and
where information is unavailable.
• Developing management priorities based upon existing information. Once the
available information has been synthesized, it will be possible to develop a priority list
of operations where enhancing chemical mixing facilities would likely be beneficial, as
well as a list of operations for which additional information is needed.
• Initiating efforts to work with growers where improved facilities would be beneficial
to obtain their cooperation in installing these facilities. At the same time, funding for
facility design and construction must be secured.
• Initiating efforts to obtain more information about mixing facilities for growers for
whom the location and nature of existing chemical handling operations is not known.
Much of this effort will proceed incrementally by local staff in the course of their work
with agricultural operations.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
55
Section F
Crop Land Pesticides - Management Measures and
Expected Reductions

This section addresses Nine Element Plan components (a) through (c) for crop land pesticides.
Crop land is defined here as areas other than orchards or nurseries where agricultural crops
are grown. The section discusses crop land pesticide issues, identifying the location and
extent of cropped areas and presenting estimates of pesticide use for vegetable crops. This
section also presents strategies for reducing the use of pesticides and addressing potential
transport issues. Specific practices to be implemented include:
• Use of pest scouts;
• Upgrading of chemical mixing and handling facilities;
• Riparian area enhancement;
• Stabilization of eroding streambanks; and
• Planting of vegetative strips between crop rows.

Areas targeted for implementation of these practices are discussed, and estimates of
anticipated reductions in pesticide use are presented.

1 Source Areas and Current Pesticide Use

1.1 Crop Land Extent and Location

The IPSI land use data indicate that 860 crop land acres were located in the Clear Creek
drainage in 2001 (Table F1).

Table F1 Crop Land Acreage in the Clear Creek Watershed, by Residue Class
Crop Land Acres, by Residue Total Crop Land Area
Sub-watershed < 10%
Residue
10-30%
Residue
>30%
Residue Acres
% of
Sub-
WS
% of Clear
Creek
Total Crop
Land Area
Clear Ck. Headwaters (0304) 6.9 9.1 0.0 16 0.4% 1.9%
Cox Ck. (030401) 3.2 3.5 0.0 7 0.4% 0.8%
Lewis to Cox Ck. (0303) 52.4 44.6 7.1 104 2.9% 12.1%
Lewis Ck. (030301) 51.3 84.1 74.0 209 5.0% 24.3%
Henderson to Lewis Ck. (0302) 79.9 47.0 25.6 153 3.6% 17.7%
Henderson Ck. (030201) 34.6 24.3 72.3 131 5.0% 15.2%
Lower Clear Ck. (0301) 79.0 108.3 53.0 240 3.1% 27.9%

Total, Clear Creek 307.2 320.8 232.0 860 100.0%
Note: Includes areas classified as “row crops” by TVA, 2001.
This land includes areas classified as row crops by TVA, a term intended to include both field
crops and vegetables. Most of this land is located near and along Clear Creek, near Lewis
Creek, and along the lower portion of Henderson Creek and other tributaries (Figure E1).
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
56
More than half of the acreage is in the Lower Clear Creek and Lewis Creek sub-watersheds.
The TVA land cover classification classified crop land according to the amount of residue
observed on fields.

1.2 Background Information on Crops and Pesticide Use

While there is observational information on which crops are grown in the watershed, hard
data on actual acreage do not exist. USDA estimates of the primary crops (other than apples)
grown in Henderson County in 2002 are shown in Table F2. More recent NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) data are available for field corn, but other crops are not tabulated by the
NCDA due to the limited acreage harvested.

Table F2 Harvested Crop Land in Henderson County, 2002
Crop Acres Harvested
field corn 5224
snap beans 2959
cucumbers 797
tomatoes 307
sweet corn 141
squash 87
peppers 61
Source: US Dept. of Agriculture. 2002 US Census of Agriculture
NC State and County Data Vol1, Chapter 2, Tables 24, 26 and 29

Much of the agricultural land in the county lies in the Mills River area, where farms tend to be
larger than in Clear Creek, so the distribution of crops grown in the Clear Creek drainage may
differ from the USDA data. However, anecdotal information indicates that all of the crops
listed in Table F2 are indeed grown in Clear Creek, in addition to smaller amounts of other
crops, including strawberries (Mr. Bob Carter, NRCS retired, personal communication).

2005 data from the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) office in Hendersonville were reviewed in
an attempt to determine crop acreage in Clear Creek. Farms located in the specific areas
denoted by the IPSI data as crop land were identified from FSA records, and 2005 crop
registration information examined. Of 30 operations examined in this manner, none indicated
that vegetables were being grown in 2005 (see Appendix C). This may be due to the fact that
vegetable operations are relatively small in this watershed. Growers may not participate in
USDA programs and may thus tend not to register their crops.

Anecdotal information indicates that corn (primarily for feed, with some sweet corn) is the
major crop and likely has considerable acreage (Mr. Bob Carter, NRCS retired, personal
communication). A variety of vegetable crops are also grown, with the mix varying from year
to year depending on growers’ reading of the market and their willingness to experiment.
There is also considerable sod acreage in the watershed, primarily affiliated with Turf
Mountain Sod, located on US Highway 64.

Based upon available information the approximate distribution of crop land acreage is
estimated as follows (see Appendix C for derivation):
• sod - 300 acres;
• vegetables - 220 acres; and
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
57
• field corn - 340 acres.

No data are available to estimate the acreage of specific vegetable crops.

Vegetables have a significantly higher value per acre than field corn, and are generally
cultivated in the bottomlands, where soils are best. Much of the vegetables are grown on
rented land, and individual operations may consist of several small fields. Upland fields are
generally in corn, though some corn is also grown in bottomland areas. Where corn is grown,
some residue is often left on the field. Tomatoes are generally grown with a plastic mulch
and drip irrigation. Other vegetables may also be irrigated, depending upon the grower.
Vegetable fields are generally kept clean of residue and lack vegetative strips between rows.

Since its relatively low value requires growers to keep production costs low, only limited
pesticide applications occur with field corn, especially for insecticides. Some pesticides are
used in sod production, though generally use is less intensive than for some other segments of
the turfgrass industry (Pettis, 2004). Herbicide application is more significant than
insecticide use.

Vegetable crops are threatened by a variety of pests (for example, see Toth 2005a and 2005b)
and, due their higher economic value, these crops can support greater pesticide use.
Pesticide use is probably most intensive on tomatoes, which are the highest value crop grown
in the watershed.

1.3 Estimates of Current Pesticide Use

Vegetables will be the focus of the pesticide usage analysis, since pesticide use is much more
intensive than for other crops. The fact that these crops are most often grown in bottomland
areas may increase the potential for pesticide transport to streams.

As with orchard pesticides, the approach used here is to select a small number of insecticides
that are commonly used. The situation is less clear than with apple orchards, however,
because the acreage on individual crops is not known and there is little information on
pesticide use.

Based on the limited existing information on crop land pesticide use in the watershed, three
insecticides used on a variety of vegetables were selected for analysis (Table F3). See
Appendix C for additional details on how these insecticides were selected.

Table F3 Vegetable Pesticides Selected for Analysis
Trade Name
Chemical Name
of Active
Ingredient
Type
Cygon dimethoate Organophosphate Insecticide
Lannate methomyl Carbamate insecticide
Asana esfenvalerate Pyrethroid Insecticide

Application rates per acre (Table F4) were estimated based upon data from a statewide
survey of 2004 agricultural pesticide use conducted by USDA (USDA, 2005). Total use for the
Clear Creek watershed and Lewis Creek sub-watershed (Table F4) was then estimated by
multiplying these per acre rates by the acreage of vegetables (220 acres for Clear Creek, 44
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
58
acres in Lewis Creek). The vegetable acreage in Lewis Creek was estimated based on the
proportion of total Clear Creek crop land located in this sub-watershed (see Appendix C). It
was assumed that these pesticides are applied to all vegetable acres in the watershed. See
Appendix C for additional details of these calculations.

Table F4 Estimated Annual Use of Selected Insecticides on Vegetable Crops
Annual Pesticide Use (lbs)
Pesticide
Active
Ingredient
Applied Annually
Per Acre (lbs)*
Clear Creek
Watershed (1)
Lewis Creek
Sub-watershed (2)
Cygon (dimethoate) 0.1 22 4.4
Lannate (methomyl) 2.5 550 110
Asana (esfenvalerate) 0.1 22 4.4
*see Appendix C
(1) Vegetable acreage in Clear Ck. watershed = 220 acres
(2) Vegetable acreage in Lewis Ck. Sub-watershed = 44 acres

2 Proposed Management Activities

This section discusses management practices proposed to reduce pesticide use on vegetable
crops and address potential pesticide transport issues. Proposed practices are outlined, the
extent of target areas is described, and anticipated reductions in pesticide use are estimated.

2.1 General Considerations

As was the case with apple orchards, pesticides from crop land may reach streams through a
variety of pathways, and there are no data available on which transport mechanisms may be
most important.

Based on existing information, a number of factors merit consideration. First, as discussed
above, vegetable crops are generally grown on fields kept clear of residue and between-row
vegetation. This situation provides opportunities for field erosion and sediment transport, as
well as opportunities for stormwater runoff from cropped areas. Pesticide transport from the
field must be considered a risk under these circumstances, especially when significant rainfall
occurs soon after pesticide application.

Secondly, as was the case with orchard pesticides, concern has been expressed with the
location of some pesticide mixing locations near streams and with the impacts of accidental
spillage (Mr. Bob Carter, NRCS retired, personal communication; NCDWQ, 2003a).

Practices intended to reduce pesticide use, such as pest scouts, have the potential to reduce
the amount of material applied to the environment, thus reducing likelihood to transport
through various mechanisms. Currently pest scouting for vegetables in Henderson County and
surrounding areas is used primarily by large growers of high value crops such as tomatoes (Ms.
Diane Ducharme, NCCES, personal communication). It has not been cost effective for smaller
growers to hire pest scouts on their own, though some may be interested in the practice if
funding were available. However IPM practices may provide more limited opportunities to
reduce pesticide use on vegetables than was the case for apples. Pest pressure on vegetables
is intense and the economic consequences of pest damage severe, which may make many
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
59
growers wary of reducing spray applications (Dr. Jim Walgenbach, MHCREC, personal
communication).

As was discussed earlier, whether ‘legacy’ pesticides play an important part in stream
impairment is not clear. Any current inputs of these substances are most likely due to
streambank erosion or erosion from crop land (or former crop land) where the pesticides were
once applied.

2.2 Specific Management Practices to be Implemented

The management practices discussed here focus primarily on vegetables, because of the
relatively high rate of pesticide use on those crops. Opportunities to reduce pesticide use are
more limited for field corn, though many practices to reduce pesticide transport from
vegetable fields are also applicable to corn. Sod cultivation is likely primarily associated with
Turf Mountain Sod, and no information is available on the practices used by this operation.

Practices Recommended for Long-Term Implementation. The following six practices will be
emphasized. The first practice has the potential to reduce pesticide use. The remaining
practices will not impact pesticide usage, but have the potential to reduce pesticide
transport to streams.
1. The use of pest scouts to monitor the nature and extent of pest infestation and
determine the need for pesticide application. This IPM practice reduces pesticide
applications by insuring that pesticides are applied only when need and not according
to a predetermined schedule. Most vegetable operations in the Clear Creek drainage
are small and few likely use pest scouts at the present time. This practice is approved
for cost share under EQIP.
2. Installation of adequate chemical mixing and handling facilities can help limit another
mechanism by which pesticides can reach streams. There are several challenges in
improving practices in this area. First, since many vegetables are grown on rented
land, it is impractical for growers to invest in expensive permanent facilities.
Secondly, many vegetable fields are small, and individual operations often span
several fields. Portable facilities are usually the only practical option. Truck-
mounted chemical mixing facilities designed for use with drip irrigation systems have
been commercially available for some time. These were designed for use with pumps
of about 20 horsepower or greater, generally implying a field size of greater than 10
acres (Mr. Bill Yarborough, NCDA Agronomic Division, personal communication). Cost
share assistance is not available for the purchase of this equipment. Recently the
NCDA collaborated with commercial providers to develop a truck mounted chemical
handling facility for smaller systems. To date these systems have not been used in
Henderson County (Mr. Bill Yarborough, NCDA Agronomic Division, personal
communication). Cost share under the state cost share program is available for these
small systems. Once current mixing stations adjacent to streams have been identified,
MCWRC will work with local agricultural agency personnel to encourage use of these
portable facilities by vegetable growers.
3. Enhancing riparian areas by planting woody vegetation could, among other
environmental benefits, reduce the potential for pesticide transport into streams.
Riparian vegetation is limited in many bottomland areas, so opportunities are
numerous. One of the challenges will be that installation of wider vegetated riparian
zones may often require loss of some crop land. Replanting of riparian areas in woody
vegetation will be explored at locations in which it is a feasible option.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
60
4. Installation of grass vegetation between vegetable rows has the potential to reduce
erosion as well as sediment and stormwater transport, reducing potential pesticide
transport.
5. Stabilization of eroding streambanks was proposed earlier for purposes of reducing
sediment inputs (see Section C), as was increasing residue and vegetative cover on
cultivated areas. These efforts may also serve to reduce inputs of legacy pesticides,
but no data are available to estimate potential loading reductions.

Practices Implemented under Current 319 Grant. For the most part, this grant does not
emphasize crop land pesticide issues. However, the grant does include the revegetation of
1500 linear feet of streambank, with the intention that this work be located adjacent to crop
land if possible.

2.3 Targeted Areas

The location and extent of crop land in the watershed was documented earlier (Figure E1 and
Table F1). Fields where vegetables are grown have not been specifically identified. The
short and long-term implementation approach is summarized below.

Short-term activities. Over the three-year span of the current 319 grant, the MCWRC will
implement riparian area vegetation on 1500 linear feet of stream in cropped areas.
Additionally, the MCWRC will work with local resource professionals to encourage local
landowners to pursue voluntary implementation of the practices listed above using other
available funding sources, including state and federal cost share programs.

Long- term activities. Beyond the current 319 grant, the MCWRC will target Lewis Creek for
all of the activities listed in Section 2.2 above but work will also be initiated in other sub-
watersheds. The focus of activity will be selected based upon existing or potential stream
impacts, landowner participation, and the potential for project success.

Implementation target levels. Long-term implementation target levels for pest scouts are as
follows. Pest scouts will be provided for 8 acres of vegetables in Lewis Creek for each of the
first three years following the 319 grant (total of 24 acres in Lewis Creek). Additionally,
during the final four years of the ten-year planning period, pest scouting will be provided on
12 acres of vegetables per year in areas outside of the Lewis Creek sub-watershed (total of
72 acres in the Clear Creek watershed). These target levels are contingent upon grower
participation and the availability of commercial pest scouts, which is limited in the region.
See Appendix C for information on how these levels were determined.

Goals for riparian area enhancement and bank stabilization were discussed previously in
Section C. Sufficient information is not available to establish specific goals for chemical
mixing and handling facilities or for use of vegetative strips. Additional information on the
status of practices in the watershed must be obtained to evaluate specific needs in this area
(see Section F4).

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
61
3 Estimated Use Reductions from Management Activities

This section presents estimated reductions in pesticide use from the use of pest scouts, the
only practice considered here that targets pesticide use on vegetable crops. No impact
estimates are made for the remaining practices, which may impact pesticide loading to
streams, but not pesticide application.

No reductions in pesticide use on vegetables are anticipated under the current 319 project,
since practices implemented under the grant do not focus on this issue. Reductions expected
from pest scout activity undertaken later in the ten-year planning period are shown in Table
F5. See Appendix C for further details.

4 Proposed Assessment Activities

As discussed in Section F2.2, chemical mixing and handling activities by vegetable operations
are a potential concern in the watershed, but adequate information is not readily available to
allow targeting of management. While the specific nature of the activities differs between
vegetable growers and orchards (e.g., vegetable growers use truck-mounted mixing
equipment and may use drip irrigation systems to apply some chemicals), many of the general
issues are similar to those discussed earlier for orchards. The same incremental approach
described earlier for addressing chemical mixing issues for apple orchards is proposed here
(see Section E4 for details):
• Pooling the current knowledge of local professionals to determine where appropriate
chemical mixing facilities are known to exist;
• Developing management priorities based upon existing information;
• Initiating efforts to work with growers where improved facilities would be beneficial;
and
• Initiating efforts to obtain more information about mixing activities for growers for
whom the location and nature of existing chemical handling operations is not known.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 62Table F5 Anticipated Reduction in Vegetable Pesticide Use – Reductions from Use of Pest Scouts Over Ten Year Period Clear Ceek WatershedAreas Using Pest Scouts--Current Annual Rate Annual Rate Current No. of Use with Use %Pesticide of Application of Application Use Acres Pest Scouts Reduction Reduction per Acre (lbs) per Acre (lbs) (lbs/yr) Targeted (lbs/yr)* (lbs/yr)dimethoate (Cygon) 0.10.08522 72 21 1 5%methomyl (Lannate) 2.52.1550 72 521 29 5%esfenvalerate (Asana) 0.10.08522 72 21 1 5%Lewis Creek Sub-WatershedAreas Using Pest Scouts--Current Annual Rate Annual Rate Current No. of Use with Use %Pesticide of Application of Application Use Acres Pest Scouts Reduction Reduction per Acre (lbs) per Acre (lbs) (lbs/yr) Targeted (lbs/yr)* (lbs/yr)dimethoate (Cygon) 0.10.0854.4 24 4 0.4 8%methomyl (Lannate) 2.52.1110 24 100 9.6 9%esfenvalerate (Asana) 0.10.0854.4 24 4 0.4 8%*Pest scout application rate used for targeted acreas. Original application rate used for remaining acres.See Appendix C for discussion.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
63
Section G
Education and Outreach

This section discusses public education and outreach activities proposed to support and
enhance the nutrient, pesticide, and sediment reduction activities outlined in this Plan.

1 Voluntary vs. Required Participation

All of the proposed load reduction activities discussed in this plan are voluntary on the part of
private landowners. A key component of success in reducing the various pollutant loads
identified will be securing the voluntary participation of private landowners. To secure
participation, education and outreach is needed to influence knowledge, motivation, and
behavior of the targeted participants. The goal of education and outreach activities is to
achieve the necessary motivation that will result in participation in the load reduction
practices identified.

2 Conservation Behavior Model
Knowledge (cognitive), motivation (affective/tangible), action (behavioral)
To achieve actual behavior change among the targeted audience (i.e., participation in
targeted practices), a behavior change model is instructive (see figure G-1):

Behavior may be influenced by a number of internal or external motivating factors: Internal
motivators include personal values, attitudes, and self-identity. These are a core element of
most conservation behavior. Individuals who consider themselves conservationists or
environmentalists, who value a healthy and extensive natural environment for its own worth
or for personal enjoyment, are the most likely individuals to engage in behavior that protects
natural resources.

Improved actions toward the environment may be influenced by providing new information if
some basic level of value for natural resources pre-exists. New information applies general
moral beliefs to specific environmental contexts. For example, a widespread lack of
knowledge about where stormwater run-off goes may result in careless dumping of pollutants
in storm drains and on the landscape. An education campaign designed to increase awareness
that stormwater run-off, and its associated pollutants, goes directly to streams with no
filtering or treatment, may result in improved practices. This example presumes a pre-
existing value (“I care about water quality”), and a specific lack of information (“I didn’t
realize stormwater doesn’t get treated.”) In this case, providing new information activates
an internal motivator and may result in behavior change.

However, if the necessary values and attitudes toward the environment do not pre-exist,
providing new information will not result in successful behavior change. For example,
educating landowners about the value of stream buffers for filtering pollutants and reducing
the volume and velocity of run-off has not been effective in motivating landowners to install
stream buffers on their property. New information alone is not sufficient. The underlying
reasons for non-participation are unknown; surveys and/or focus groups would be needed to
determine them. A few possibilities include: landowners don’t care that much about water
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
64
quality once it leaves their property; landowners care about water quality, but not as much
as other more pressing problems, such as financial security.

Developing/changing internal motivators (values, attitudes, self-identify as a
conservationist) when they do not pre-exist is extremely difficult in adults. Attitudes can
be influenced through a variety of factors. Repeated experiences with nature that result in a
positive emotional reaction can develop environmental values. Outdoor recreation is a
common mechanism. Those who enjoy forests, lakes and wildlife are most likely to protect
them. However, this process is extremely slow, and usually works in tandem with other
influences. Emulating someone who is highly respected and admired is another mechanism
for changing values. The use of a popular figure as a spokesperson for a cause capitalizes on
this strategy. The most effective mechanism for influencing values is to change behavior
through an external motivator. Repeated engagement in the activity, and enjoyment of
resulting consequences, may eventually develop an internal value that did not previously
exist. For example, a landowner who engages in a variety of conservation practices, based on
external motivators, and is hailed as a hero in his community, may eventually adopt
additional practices through internal motivation, or may maintain practices once external
motivators are removed. In other words, he begins behaving like a conservationist and
eventually comes to see himself as one. Self-identify may be changed through behavior.

It is important to note that while influencing attitudes, values, and self-identify in adults is
extremely difficult, there is great potential for developing environmental values in children
and adolescents. Societal change in conservation behavior due to personal values is usually
generational. That is, repeated exposure to environmental education and affective
experiences over the course of childhood and adolescence may result in a new generation of
adult decision makers who value nature, consider themselves conservationists, and
incorporate a variety of conservation practices in their everyday lifestyles. Providing such
environmental education experiences for children and adolescents is a worthwhile investment
in improved practices in the long-run, but measurable results in the environment may not be
evident for ten, 20, or 30 years.

Because changing internal motivators in adults is so difficult, efforts to achieve behavior
change for conservation depends strongly on external motivators. External motivators include
tangible benefits for participating or not participating, and intangible benefits such as
reputation in the community.

Tangible benefits include financial assistance, rewards, or avoidance of fees. A variety of
program strategies may be devised to offer tangible incentives for participation. These
include cost-share programs for installing Best Management Practices; grant incentives (direct
payment for participating or 100% cost of installations); and tax benefits for conservation
easements. Financial benefits may also be derived directly from a new practice. This is
considered a win-win situation – a practice that benefits the environment while also providing
improved efficiency, yield, or profit, or reduction in operating costs for the practitioner.
Demonstration projects that build trust and confidence in the value of a practice are often
effective in achieving behavior change (adoption of the practice without additional
incentives).

Intangible benefits include public recognition and awards programs.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
65

Whether behavior is internally or externally motivated, obstacles may prevent adoption of a
practice. Desired behaviors may include one-time, “big” practices, such as a new installation
(putting in a stream buffer, or a raingarden or a chemical mixing facility); or they may be
“small” behaviors that must be sustained over time, such as recycling, or conserving water, or
changing the way chemical mixing or tilling is done. For big, one-time practices such as
installations, obstacles are usually financial, either in the cost of the installation itself, or in
the opportunity cost of the land-use (e.g., loss of the productive use of land by installing a
stream buffer). For small, lifestyle changes, convenience is a key factor. This includes how
much time the new practice requires (e.g., taking recyclables to a central location vs. curb-
side pick-up); how difficult or complicated the practice is (e.g., conducting soil tests and
calculating fertilizer needs); and acquisition, maintenance, and storage of required
equipment (e.g., storage space for multiple recycling bins vs. just one bin for all recyclables).
Identifying and removing such obstacles is critical to achieve actual adoption of new
practices.

Education vs. Outreach
To design an effective program, it is important to differentiate between education and outreach.
Education involves conveying new information and/or experiences to the targeted audience.
Education may be effective when positive values and attitudes pre-exist, so that new information
may result in changed practices (e.g., awareness that storm water run-off does not get filtered or
treated). Education may be effective over the long term (generational change) to develop desired
values and attitudes. Education may also be effective to convey the technical or economic
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
66
benefits of a new practice to create financial motivation (for example, educating growers on the
cost of product wasted through spills, and the savings that may be achieved through use of a
chemical mixing facility).

Outreach involves marketing a particular program – soliciting participation in a program for the
external benefits that are offered, or marketing the removal of barriers so that internal motivators
may be acted upon. For example, if it is determined that residents don’t recycle because it is
inconvenient, a new curbside service may remove that barrier. Marketing is then needed to
inform the audience of the new convenience to motivate utilizing it. External rewards and
modeling for emulation may be needed to get people started. These also require marketing.

For “small,” lifestyle changes aimed at a large population, such as recycling, or water
conservation, social marketing techniques are used. For “big,” one-time practices, such as
installations, one-on-one outreach, or outreach to very small groups, is needed. This is the door-
to-door approach.

The distinction made here between education and outreach is that education is conceptual – it
involves increasing understanding of how nature or technology works --- why sediment in
streams is bad for aquatic communities; how hydrology is changed when land is cleared; the
chain of events that results from excess nutrients in streams. Outreach involves selling a
particular practice or program: new curbside pick-up makes recycling super-convenient; cost-
share available for fencing cattle out of streams. Outreach programs usually are based on
external motivators, while education stimulates internal motivators to alter behavior.

To truly change behavior, or to secure participants in conservation efforts, an analysis is required
of the desired behavior, the targeted audience, the motivators at work, and the potential
obstacles. Research of the target audience (surveys, focus groups, interviews) may be necessary
to determine motivators and obstacles. From this analysis, program strategies may be identified,
and specific outreach or education programs may then be designed.

Following is discussion of the targeted audience for the pollutant load reduction practices
identified in this Plan, hypotheses and anecdotal data regarding motivators and obstacles, and
initial education and outreach plans for securing participation in the targeted practices.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
67
3 Target Audiences, Motivations, Barriers

Table G-1 lists the pollutant load reduction activities proposed in the Plan, and their related
target audiences

Table G-1: Proposed pollutant load reduction activities, and their related target audiences:
Load reduction activity Targeted Audience
Restoration of unstable and eroding streams to reduce sediment
loading (11,500 linear feet);
All landowners, and
leasers
Revegetation of riparian areas to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs
from residential areas, crop land and pastures (16,500 linear feet);
All landowners, and
leasers
Conservation tillage to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from land
currently cultivated with minimal field residue (12 acres);
Crop growers - owners or
leasers
Prescribed grazing to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from
pasture considered to be heavily overgrazed (11 acres); Livestock growers
Livestock exclusion to reduce sediment inputs due to cattle access to
streams (143 linear feet); Livestock growers
Use of pest scouts in vegetable growing operations to reduce
pesticide use (72 acres);
Vegetable growers -
owners or leasers
Use of pest scouts in apple orchards to reduce pesticide use (280
acres);
Apple growers - owners
or leasers
Use of mating disruption in apple orchards to reduce pesticide use
(230 acres);
Apple growers - owners
or leasers
Use of improved efficiency sprayers to reduce pesticide use in apple
orchards (32 orchards);
Apple growers - owners
or leasers
Removal of abandoned apple orchards to reduce pesticide use in
surrounding active orchards (150 acres);
Apple growers - owners
or leasers
Improved chemical handling facilities for apple and vegetable
operations (specific targets not developed).
Apple & vegetable
growers - owners or
leasers

For all of the proposed pollutant load reduction activities, experience and anecdotal data
suggests that behavior related to these practices is primarily externally motivated. While
some landowners certainly value the natural and/or cultural resource values of their
property, this internal motivator is not dependable throughout the targeted audience. Most
landowners and growers are concerned first and foremost with financial security – the ability
to make a living, succeed in their business, and plan for retirement. Conservation of land and
protection of natural resources is valued primarily in terms of the economic value of the
resource. It is important to note that this is a generalization based on limited experience of
project managers and colleagues. Focus groups with representatives of each audience group
would be needed to more accurately describe trends in motivations for each group.

Based on primarily external motivation, achieving participation in the above targeted
practices will be dependent on financial incentive programs and providing new experiences
with targeted practices.

Experience with New Technologies:
External motivators can be activated through experience with new technologies that improve
the potential participant’s financial outcome. Trying out a new technology carries risk for
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
68
the practitioner. Until the practice is well-proven, the risk of financial loss may make it
unpalatable. Tendency to participate in practices that involve new technology will be greater
among “early adopters” – individuals who have a naturally high tolerance for risk, or who
derive some internal benefit from participation (such as the thrill of being a pioneer) that
offsets the potential financial loss. “Late adopters” are individuals who will be resistant to
adopting a new practice until its financial viability is well proven.

Increasing participation in new technologies can be achieved two ways:

1) Marketing the financial benefits inherent in the practice to early adopters.
2) Providing additional financial incentives to reduce the financial risk for late adopters.
Programs that remove the financial risk of adopting new practices and enable participants to
experience the benefits first-hand can be effective in accelerating participation rates.
Proving the value of the practice to the participant’s bottom line may eventually lead to
continued participation in the practice, even without additional financial incentives.

Of the practices targeted in this plan, the following involve the use of relatively new
technologies that may be postponed by “late adopters,” but in which participation may be
accelerated by additional financial incentives:
• Use of pest scouts in apple orchards to reduce pesticide use;
• Use of mating disruption in apple orchards to reduce pesticide use;
• Use of improved efficiency sprayers (“smart” sprayers) to reduce pesticide use in
apple orchards;
• Use of pest scouts in vegetable growing operations to reduce pesticide use;

By reducing pesticide use, these practices are considered cost-effective. Over-time,
participation costs should be recouped and perhaps even exceeded by savings in cost of
production. However, for late adopters, the financial risk of installing the “smart” spray
technology or hiring the pest scout may be too great and is therefore a barrier to
participation.

To achieve the implementation levels targeted in this plan, it is likely that the natural rate of
adoption of these practices will need to be accelerated. Thus, additional financial incentives
must be used to entice late adopters to participate sooner.

The primary program established to perform this function is the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP), administered through the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). This program offers incentive payments for
on-going conservation practices and cost sharing up to 75% for conservation installations,
according to a site-specific conservation plan. Incentive payments help reduce the financial
risk of trying new technologies. However, the program is limited in duration. Incentives for
any given practice on particular acreage is limited to an initial contract period (generally 3-5
years). Once this time period is complete, the same acreage may not be re-enrolled for the
same practice. This is in keeping with the Education/Outreach model: personal experience
with the new technology is intended to create trust and confidence in its inherent value. The
pest scouting and mating disruption practices are so new that there is insufficient information
to determine whether the practices are sufficiently cost-effective on their own for
participants to continue them at their own cost once their incentive contract expires. If the
savings in production costs is significantly greater than the cost of hiring the scout, then the
practice is likely to be continued, and incentive program will be successful. Increasing
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
69
participation in these practices will simply be a matter of marketing of the incentive
program. However, if the cost savings is only marginally greater than the cost of the scout,
or if the cost-savings balance is null (a break-even situation), then the incentive must be
continued for the practice to be maintained. In other words, if the practice is not truly cost-
effective, then the true barrier to participation is not lack of confidence in the practice, but
rather, cost. In that case, continued financial incentives may be needed.

Financial incentive programs:

Because the practices targeted in this plan are expensive to implement, cost of installation or
acquisition of equipment has been shown anecdotally to be a barrier to participation1. For
this reason, financial incentive programs must be a key component of any program aimed at
increasing participation in all of these practices. Some financial incentive programs currently
exist through various agencies2:

• The Agricultural Cost-Share (ACS) Program, administered through the Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, provides 75% cost-share funding for certain practices. Of the
practices targeted in this plan, cost-share is available through this program for:
restoration of unstable and eroding streams (related to agricultural activities only);
revegetation of riparian areas (for cropland and pastures only); conservation tillage;
livestock exclusion; use of improved efficiency (smart) sprayers (on a trial basis –
pending approval as a standard funded practice); and improved chemical handling
facilities.

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), administered through the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
offers incentive payments for on-going conservation practices and cost sharing up to
75% for conservation installations, according to a site-specific conservation plan.
Applications are competitive and are funded based on priority ranking; specific dollar
amounts are not earmarked for specific practices. Of the practices targeted in this
watershed plan, those qualifying for assistance through this program are: Restoration
of unstable and eroding streams to reduce sediment loading; conservation tillage to
reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from land currently cultivated with minimal field
residue; prescribed grazing to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from pasture
considered to be heavily overgrazed; livestock exclusion to reduce sediment inputs
due to cattle access to streams; use of pest scouts in vegetable growing operations
to reduce pesticide use; use of pest scouts in apple orchards to reduce pesticide use
(280 acres); use of mating disruption in apple orchards to reduce pesticide use; use
of improved efficiency sprayers to reduce pesticide use in apple orchards; removal
of abandoned apple orchards to reduce pesticide use in surrounding active orchards;
improved chemical handling facilities for apple and vegetable operations.

1 Anecdotal observations from District Conservationist, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 2004, and Mud Creek Watershed Coordinator, 2004. 2 For more details on the programs described, see A Guide for North Carolina Landowners: Financial Incentives
and Technical Assistance programs Which Apply to Wetlands, Streams, and Streamside (Riparian) Areas, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, September 1999.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
70
The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), administered through the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), provides 75% cost-
share for restoration of qualifying wetland areas, or will pay landowners for putting
wetland property into 30-year or permanent conservation easements. (Payments vary
based on duration of the easement). Of the practices targeted in this plan, assistance
or payment is potentially available through this program for: Revegetation of
riparian areas to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from residential areas, crop
land and pastures.

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), administered through the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Farm Services Agency (FSA), offers annual rental payments,
incentive payments, and cost-share assistance for establishing approved cover on
eligible cropland. Of the practices targeted in this plan, financial assistance is
available through this program for: Revegetation of riparian areas to reduce
sediment and nutrient inputs (crop land and pastures only); and conservation tillage
to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from land currently cultivated with minimal
field residue.

The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), an agency within the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), carries out stream and
wetland restoration projects at 100% cost, for qualifying sites where landowners agree
to various land-use restrictions. Of the practices targeted in this plan, financial
assistance is available through this program for: Restoration of unstable and eroding
streams to reduce sediment loading.

Barriers to financial incentive programs:

While it seems that many options are available for providing financial incentives for
landowners to adopt the targeted practices, the level of participation in these practices is not
sufficient to meet the implementation targets in this plan. Non-participation may be
attributed to two possible scenarios:

1) Financial incentives for some practices are popular with growers and landowners, but
insufficient funding exists to fully serve all potential participants. Of the practices targeted
in this plan, observation and anecdotal data suggests this to be the case for the following
targeted practices3:
• Use of pest scouts in apple orchards to reduce pesticide use;
• Use of mating disruption in apple orchards to reduce pesticide use;
• Use of improved efficiency sprayers to reduce pesticide use in apple orchards;
• Removal of abandoned apple orchards to reduce pesticide use in surrounding active
orchards
• improved chemical handling facilities for apple and vegetable operations.

3 Anecdotal observations from Mud Creek Watershed Coordinator, 2004-2006. No data exists documenting
attitudes among the targeted audience related to the targeted practices, or barriers to participation in the targeted
practices. Focus groups, surveys, and other behavioral field research would be needed to confirm and fine-tune
these observations.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
71
To increase participation in these practices, additional funding must be allocated to provide
the necessary financial incentives.

However, there are obstacles within the administrative structure of the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) that may potentially prevent additional funding from
supporting the targeted practices: EQIP is administered as a lump sum allocation to each
county. The county NRCS agent accepts applications for all approved practices, ranks them
according to a priority point system, and allocates the budgeted total according to the
competitive ranking. Simply increasing the county NRCS budget may not necessarily result in
the additional funding being applied to the targeted practices if other applications outrank
them in priority. A solution might be for NRCS to designate a local priority area, which would
boost the point value in the ranking score for projects within that area. However, this would
increase priority for all applications within the designated area, and could result in the entire
NRCS budget being used for that area, to the detriment of other areas in the county. This
would be shortsighted in its impact on other areas, and would also create ill will toward the
Mud Creek Project within the agriculture community. This is strongly discouraged. Rather,
administrative structures within the EQIP program need to be adjusted to allow increased
funding earmarked for targeted practices within a targeted area.

In addition to insufficient funding in the Agricultural Cost-Share (ACS) and Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) for these practices, the use of pest scouts and mating
disruption is limited by the availability of trained scouts to carry out the practice (i.e., there
is a labor shortage – currently there are only two apple pest scouts in Henderson County, and
there are no vegetable pest scouts. Vegetable scouting has never been promoted in
Henderson County so motivations and levels of willing participation are unknown).
Recruitment and training to build local human resources in this field will be needed to
increase participation in this practice.

Finally, as discussed above, the pest scouting and mating disruption practices have yet to
prove their durability – i.e., whether the practices will be maintained after the time limit on
the incentive program expires. If the practices are not maintained by participants who
received initial incentive funding, it would suggest that cost, rather than unfamiliarity is the
true barrier, and a continued subsidy program would be needed.

2) In spite of the financial incentives offered, the programs are not appealing to the target
audience. This lack of appeal is due to barriers that represent a mismatch between the
program design and the true interests of the targeted audience. Of the practices targeted in
this plan, observation and anecdotal data suggests this to be the case for the following
targeted practices:

• Restoration of unstable and eroding streams to reduce sediment loading
• Revegetation of riparian areas to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from residential
areas, crop land and pastures
• Livestock exclusion to reduce sediment inputs due to cattle access to streams

For restoration of unstable and eroding streams, the stringent requirements of the WRP
and EEP programs appear to be the critical barriers to participation: EEP requires a
minimum of 2000 feet of stream length, requires participation by landowners on both
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
72
sides of the stream, and requires placing land in a conservation easement. WRP also
requires a conservation easement. This alone is often a deal-breaker in marketing the
program.

Stringent requirements, such as conservation easements, under existing programs also
appear to be barriers for revegetation of riparian areas. Additional barriers to this
practice include:

o Insufficient cost sharing -- Even with cost-sharing levels, practices are still too
expensive for landowners
o Loss of land-use in production is not sufficiently compensated (at least, in
perception). I.E., the value of production over the years is considered greater
than the value paid for the conservation easement. Economic analysis
indicates that it is more advantageous to continue farming the land than to sell
an easement on it.
o Design specifications create obstacles, (e.g., additional loss of productivity on
adjacent land due to shading), and specifications are not sufficiently flexible to
allow designs tailored to individual landowners’ needs.

In addition to barriers blocking willing participation of landowners in these practices,
effective stream restoration and stabilization may be limited by the availability of
trained contractors to carry out best practices (i.e., there is a labor shortage, or a
shortage of QUALITY labor. Many contractors and do-it-yourself landowners use old
practices that may provide temporary improvement, but are not considered best
practices by current standards.). Recruitment and training to build local human
resources in this field is needed to increase participation in this practice. This training
is addressed through the Stream Dr. program for local landscapers, for which
continued funding and support is needed.

Additional audience research may be needed to determine other barriers to participation
in these practices.

In addition, although current interest in the use of improved efficiency sprayers under the
current incentive program is greater than available funding, even more potential
participants could be added if additional barriers were overcome. These barriers are:

• Financial incentive is too low for some potential participants -- under EQIP, the
maximum payment represents only 50% cost-share, and payment is per acre, so the
maximum payment may not be reached. In that case, the incentive is less than
50% cost-share.
• Under EQIP, payment is made over three years on a per-acre basis for the acreage
on which the sprayer is used. However, the owner must first purchase the sprayer.
At $15,000 just for the “smart” technology (on top of ~ $40,000 if a new physical
sprayer is needed) this up-front capital investment is not possible for many
potential participants. Even though 50% of the cost may be reimbursed through
the incentive program, and additional savings over the years may re-coup the
investment, many operators simply do not have the cash on hand and do not wish
to take on additional debt. A financing program is needed for the cost share borne
by the participant.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
73

For the following practices, reasons for non-participation are unknown:
• Prescribed grazing to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from pasture considered to
be heavily overgrazed;
• Livestock exclusion to reduce sediment inputs due to cattle access to streams;
• Conservation tillage to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from land currently
cultivated with minimal field residue.

It is hypothesized that the barriers are a combination of insufficient financial incentives
and inconvenience – the minimal payment per acre is not worth the mountains of
paperwork required to participate in the EQIP program.

Initial audience research is needed to determine whether barriers have not yet been
addressed by current programs, or whether interest and inclination to participate exist if
financial incentives were available (i.e., more funding provided). Focus groups and surveys
need to be conducted related to these practices to design programs that provide sufficient
motivation for the targeted audience to participate.

Table T-2 summarizes the Pollutant Load Reduction activities recommended in this Plan and
the accompanying barriers to participation that have been identified to date.

Table T-2: Barriers to Participation in Targeted Pollutant Load Reduction Practices
Load reduction activity Barriers to Participation
Restoration of
unstable and eroding
streams to reduce
sediment loading
(11,500 linear feet);
• WRP and EEP requirements are too stringent
• Minimum stream length of 2000 feet (under EEP)
• Requirement for participation by landowners on both sides of the
stream (under EEP)
• Requirement of placing land in conservation easement
• 50% cost-share under EQIP still too expensive for landowner –
financial incentive too low
Revegetation of
riparian areas to
reduce sediment and
nutrient inputs from
residential areas, crop
land and pastures
(16,500 linear feet);
• WRP & CRP requirements are too stringent
• Requirement of placing land in conservation easement; (under
some WRP options)
• Even with cost-sharing (75% under CRP), practices are still too
expensive for landowners
• Loss of land-use in production is not sufficiently compensated (at
least, in perception). I.E., the value of production over the
years is considered greater than the value paid for the
conservation easement (WRP) or payment based on soil rental
rates (CRP) -- financial incentive too low
• Design specifications create obstacles, (e.g., additional loss of
productivity on adjacent land due to shading), and
specifications are not sufficiently flexible to allow designs
tailored to individual landowners’ needs.
Conservation tillage
to reduce sediment
and nutrient inputs
from land currently
cultivated with minimal
field residue (12
acres);
Barriers not known. Audience research is needed.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
74
Prescribed grazing to
reduce sediment and
nutrient inputs from
pasture considered to
be heavily overgrazed
(11 acres);
Cost and inconvenience: $15 /acre EQIP incentive not enough to be
worth the paperwork and the hassle.
Livestock exclusion
to reduce sediment
inputs due to cattle
access to streams (143
linear feet);
Barriers not known. Audience research is needed.
Use of pest scouts in
vegetable growing
operations to reduce
pesticide use (72
acres);
• Levels of audience willingness unknown – program has never been
promoted.
• Lack of qualified scouts -- labor shortage
Use of pest scouts in
apple orchards to
reduce pesticide use
(280 acres);
• Lack of funding to meet need and interest
• Lack of qualified scouts -- labor shortage
• Unclear whether cost effectiveness will sustain practice without
continuous subsidy.
Use of mating
disruption in apple
orchards to reduce
pesticide use (230
acres);
Used in conjunction with pest scouting. Same as above.
Use of improved
efficiency sprayers to
reduce pesticide use in
apple orchards (32
orchards);
• Lack of funding to meet need and interest
• Incentive payment too low for some potential participants -- under
EQIP, maximum payment represents only 50% cost-share, and
payment is per acre, so maximum may not be reached
• Under EQIP, payment is made over three years, but owner must
make $15K capital purchase up front – cash flow challenge.
Removal of
abandoned apple
orchards to reduce
pesticide use in
surrounding active
orchards (150 acres);
Lack of funding to meet need and interest
Improved chemical
handling facilities for
apple and vegetable
operations (specific
targets not developed).
Lack of funding to meet need and interest

4 Education/Outreach Strategies

The time frame for this Plan is ten years, with targeted milestones throughout that period.
This is considered short term for achieving behavior change. In this time frame, education
aimed at increasing audience knowledge about the environmental benefits of the targeted
practices will only result in the level of behavior change desired if internal motivators are
already present. That is, motivating participants to adopt the desired practices simply
because “it’s the right thing to do,” is unlikely in this time frame for audiences who are not
already predisposed to conservation behavior. Efforts in the last three years to obtain
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
75
project participants for the targeted practices have not been successful. This indicates that
sufficient internal motivation is not present.

Behavior change in the time frame desired requires the use external motivators. For all of
the practices targeted in this plan, education and outreach activities will not be effective
until programs address true landowner interests and needs (overcome barriers to
participation) AND sufficient funding is available to provide financial incentives at the
participation level desired. Once these conditions are met, outreach activities can be used to
market the program opportunities to the targeted audience.

Social Marketing of Conservation Programs

A dual strategy is planned for marketing the programs offered to the target audience:
1) Targeted publicity:
a) Media – articles and/or advertisements (public service announcements)
published in local newspapers, as well as community and commodity
newsletters, and newsletters of program partners, such as Extension Agents’ or
NRCS agents’ newsletters to their clientele. Articles should describe the
program goals, and especially the benefits to participants, as well as give
contact information, background information, etc. Radio spots and guest
appearances on local media may also be helpful. A marketing campaign

b) Literature - simple hard-copy literature should be created that describes the
program(s) offered. Landowners need time to consider the opportunity, discuss
it, research various options, etc. Having program literature to take home is an
important marketing tool.

c) Direct mailing – A letter from the program coordinator, with program
literature enclosed, direct mailed to targeted eligible landowners.

2) One-on-one outreach (door-to-door sales). The most successful means of securing
project participants is likely to be individual discussions with landowners. For stream
restoration and stream bank stabilization, this involves project staff researching a
targeted area to identify potential project sites where work is needed. For the
remaining practices (conservation tillage; cattle exclusion; prescribed grazing; use of
pest scouts, mating disruption, and smart sprayers; abandoned orchard mitigation, and
installation of chemical mixing facilities), research should be coordinated with partner
agencies such as Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) to identify landowners and agricultural operators within the targeted
area who are not currently participating in these practices, and whose operations are
the biggest contributors of pollutant loading. These targeted “recruits” should then
be approached individually to solicit their participation in the program.

Note: if these strategies are not successful in securing the desired level of participation to
achieve the targeted implementation levels in this plan, then audience research needs to be
conducted to further identify barriers to participation. Several components of this outreach
plan are based on limited experience and anecdotal data regarding the needs and preferences
of the target audience. This analysis is discussed above. If these assumptions are inaccurate,
then participation may not be achieved, in spite of high quality outreach efforts. If this
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
76
occurs, then time and resources must be devoted to stepping back and conducting more
thorough audience research and redesigning programs based on results.

Long-Term Education

In addition to marketing and outreach of program opportunities to solicit participation in
targeted practices, true education over the long-term is recommended as an investment in
future conservation behavior.

Education programs that address internal motivators (i.e., provide general knowledge and
awareness, and work to influence attitudes and values) are unlikely to translate directly into
immediate changes in behavior or measurable improvement in stream quality over the first
ten years. However, such programs can result in meaningful change over a longer term.
First, programs that provide general knowledge and awareness can be successful with a
subset of the targeted audience who are already predisposed to conservation behavior (i.e.,
attitudes and values already exists). Second, repeated exposure to information combined
with adoption of practices in the community (modeling) can lead to slow change in attitudes
and values and eventual change in behavior. Accordingly, continued public education related
to stream quality is recommended. General education includes media presence (newspaper
articles, radio spots, and local TV messages on a regular basis), distribution of literature
and/or take-home items (magnets, key chains, etc.), availability of resource professionals to
speak at schools, civic and community groups and other venues, and availability of resource
professionals to respond to constituent inquiries related to stream problems. In addition,
general public education includes publicizing successful practices achieved through the
programs described above.

Finally, and most importantly, environmental education programs for youth can provide
lasting impacts in both knowledge and attitudes. Such programs can help develop the next
generation of decision makers to be one that more readily adopts the practices targeted in
this plan as well as other conservation practices. It is strongly recommended to continue
offering the Kids-in-the-Creek Program, or other similar programs that partner with schools to
provide school children meaningful experiences with stream environments as well as
ecological knowledge and skills related to stream quality.

5. Education and Planning efforts related to additional
problems with unidentified practices

While unpaved roads and residential areas are identified in Section C as major sources of
sediment, current information on these areas is not sufficient to identify which specific
source control practices are most needed. This plan recommends that additional assessment
activities be conducted to identify sediment source control practices for low density
residential areas and unpaved roads, and recommends that those measures be implemented
within the ten year planning period. Nutrient source control practices are also
recommended for developed areas. These practices are not reflected in the implementation
targets, cost estimates and anticipated pollutant reduction estimates presented in this Plan.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
77
Once the sources of sediment and nutrient loading from developed areas and related control
practices are identified, a process similar to that outlined above can be implemented to
conduct education or outreach for these practices:

• Identify the target audience for each pollutant load reduction practice.
• Identify motivations and barriers to participation for the targeted audience(s) –
conduct audience research through focus groups, surveys, and interviews.
• Design programs that will activate motivations within the desired time frame and
address barriers.
• Market the programs to the target audience using media, targeted mailings, literature,
and door-to-door sales.

Anticipated education programs for these sediment sources include promotion of on-site
stormwater management practices for homes, businesses, and industries: The use of
bioretention areas to capture, store, and slowly discharge stormwater run-off is likely to be
an important practice. Similarly, use of other storage or interception strategies, such as
cisterns, green roofs and porous paving are likely, though as yet undocumented, target
practices. Similarly, reducing illicit discharges to stormwater systems or discharges to
impervious surfaces, such as leaking dumpsters, leaking vehicles, dumping on parking lots,
etc., may be targeted practices for reducing nutrient and sediment sources from developed
areas. For many of these practices, education (raising knowledge and awareness), may be
sufficient to achieve behavior change through internal motivators, if conservation values and
attitudes are present in a majority of the targeted audience. For many, these behaviors may
truly be the result of simply not knowing better. However, some external motivators may be
needed to overcome obstacles such as habits, time, inconvenience, or expense before
practices are widely adopted.

In some local areas of the watershed, for some targeted pollutants, Federal, state, or local
laws and ordinances may support some of the proposed load-reduction activities. For
example, sediment and nutrient loads from developed areas may be due to run-off from
construction sites, run-off from unpaved roads and eroding roadbeds, and/or run-off from
hard surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and rooftops. State law already exists prohibiting
sediment run-off from construction sites. Similarly, other practices, such as on-site
management of stormwater from impervious sites, may be required by local ordinances in the
near future. In such cases, adequate monitoring and enforcement of the laws is needed in
combination with an education campaign. An education campaign for these practices would
have a dual approach:

• raising audience awareness of the law, including the penalties it carries, and
• training the targeted audience in the technical implementation of the desired
practices (e.g. Clearwater Contractor training to improve skills of contractors in
effectively maintaining sediment on construction sites).

Details on education or outreach plans for targeted practices related to these pollutant loads
will be developed once actual pollutant sources have been identified and load reduction
targets are developed.

Techniques such as use of prompts and other strategies for promoting repetitive conservation
behaviors, such as recycling regularly, or water or energy conservation practices, are not
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
78
addressed here as the current and anticipated targeted practices in this plan are one-time
installations, rather than repetitive lifestyle practices.

6. Summary of Education and Outreach Plan

1. Identify target audience for each pollutant load reduction practice.
2. Identify motivations and barriers to participation for the targeted audience(s). We
THINK we know the motivations of our target audience for some of the targeted
practices, based on experience of NRCS, SWCD, and CES agents, limited experience of
the MCWRP coordinator, and anecdotal data from limited audience representatives.

3. Increase funding for popular programs: pest scouts, mating disruption, smart sprayers,
and abandoned orchard mitigation, and chemical mixing facilities.
a. Marketing outreach to inform interested participants of increased funding
availability
i. Media, commodity newsletters, targeted mailings, door-to-door sales.
b. If participation does not increase, then assumed motivations are incorrect
i. Audience research to determine true reasons behind low participation
c. Recruitment and training of pest scouts to increase labor supply for this
practice.

4. Funding for stream restoration and stabilization with more flexibility in design.
a. Audience research to determine additional barriers that make CRP, WRP, and
EEP unattractive.
b. Door-to-door sales of stream restoration and stabilization options.
c. Training local contractors in best practices for stream restoration and
streambank stabilization (Stream Dr. program or similar technical training).

5. Audience research to determine reasons behind low participation in prescribed
grazing, livestock exclusion, and conservation tillage
a. Focus groups, surveys, interviews
i. Based on results, design programs to provide incentives and address
identified obstacles
1. Market programs – media, commodity newsletters, targeted
mailings, door-to-door sales

6. General public education for long-term change
a. media presence (newspaper articles/PSAs, radio spots, and local TV messages)
b. distribution of literature and/or take-home items (magnets, key chains, etc.)
c. availability of resource professionals to speak at schools, civic and community
groups and other venues
d. availability of resource professionals to respond to constituent inquiries related
to stream problems
e. publicity for success stories
f. Stream-related Environmental Education for youth – Kids-in-the-Creek or
similar programs

7. Develop plan for addressing sediment and nutrient loading from developed areas
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
79
a. Research pollutant load sources for these areas, develop target load
reductions, and identify target practices for load reductions
b. Identify the target audience for each pollutant load reduction practice.
c. Identify motivations and barriers to participation for the targeted audience(s) –
conduct audience research through focus groups, surveys, and interviews.
d. Design programs that will activate motivations within the desired time frame
and address barriers.
e. Market the programs to the target audience using media, targeted mailings,
literature, and door-to-door sales.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
80
Section H
Management and Monitoring

This section discusses the management and monitoring activities that constitute the
remaining Nine Element Plan components:
• Implementation schedule and management milestones (elements f and g);
• Cost and technical assistance information (element d);
• Evaluation criteria (element h); and
• Planned monitoring activities (element i).

A summary of sediment, nutrient and pesticide reduction rates is also included for use in
future planning and management efforts.

1 Implementation Schedule and Management Milestones

A schedule for the implementation of activities outlined in this plan is provided in Table H1.
Activities are organized into three categories: 1) planning, management and monitoring; 2)
implementation of sediment and nutrient practices; 3) implementation of orchard and crop
land pesticide practices. Annual numeric implementation targets are included for practices
for which such targets were developed earlier in this report. For planning purposes it is
assumed here that specific practices listed in years 1-6 will occur largely in Lewis Creek
(years 1-3 represent the current 319 grant), while implementation in years 7-10 will occur in
other sub-watersheds.

Table H1 also includes the management milestones to be used for tracking progress in
implementing proposed practices. Milestones represent implementation targets (defined in
acres, linear feet, or other appropriate units) for various practices expected over both the
short term (current 319 grant, or 3 years) and long term (entire ten year period).

The Mud Creek Watershed Coordinator will track the practices implemented and report to the
MCWRC on an annual basis, or more often if requested by the Council. The Council will
review the status of implementation on an annual basis and take appropriate action to
address any problems that are impeding the plan from being implemented expeditiously (e.g.
lack of funding, staff time or land owner participation).

It is the intention of the MCWRC to implement restoration practices as expeditiously as
possible. The Council will evaluate the results of these practices in terms of water quality
impacts and logistical considerations. Over time, the mix of practices implemented may
evolve based upon these considerations as well as additional knowledge of watershed
pollution sources.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 81Table H1 Implementation Schedule and Management Milestones for Clear Creek Restoration Activities Task Year Milestone3 year 10 year Responsible12 3 45 678910 PartyPlanning, Management and MonitoringAssess specific sources of sediment/nutrients x x MCWRC in developed areasDetermine appropriate sediment/nutrient x x MCWRC strategies for developed areasAssess unpaved roads x x MCWRCDetermine appropriate sediment strategy x x MCWRC for unpaved roadsDetermine need for repair/replacement of x x MCWRC septic systemsBenthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring x x x x x x x x x x NCDWQOutreach and education x x x x x x x x x x MCWRCOngoing project planning and x x x x x x x x x x MCWRC progress assessmentSediment/nutrient BMP ImplementationStream restoration (linear feet) 1,5001,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,500 1,500 11,500 MCWRCRiparian area revegetation-1,500 1,500 750 750 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500 16,500 MCWRC enhancement (linear feet)Conservation tillage (acres) 1.2 5 5.8 0 12 MCWRCPrescribed grazing (acres) 3.4 7.7 0 11.1 MCWRCLivestock exclusion (linear feet) 9 50 50 34 0 0 143 MCWRCImplement additional sediment/nutrient x x x x x MCWRC strategies for developed areasRepair of eroding roads x x x x x MCWRCPesticide BMP ImplementationPest scouts-vegetables (acres) 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 0 72 MCWRCPest scouts-apples (acres) 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 280 MCWRCMating disruption-apples (acres) 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 230 MCWRCImproved efficiency sprayers (no. operations) 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32 MCWRCAbandoned Orchard Removal (acres) 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 150 MCWRCChemical handling facilities- x x x x x x x MCWRC apples and vegetablesNumbers in cells indicate level of BMP implementation for the specified year. X denotes activity is scheduled for a particular year, but no quantitative target exists.Targets represent planning goals. Implementation is contingent upon landowner participation and the availability of funding and staff resources.MCWRC= Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council; NCDWQ= NC Division of Water Quality
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
82

2 Practice Costs and Technical Assistance

Anticipated costs for individual practices are shown in Tables H2 (pesticides) and H3
(sediment and nutrients). Actual costs depend on a variety of site specific factors. It is
difficult to accurately assess the cost of some practices (e.g. stream restoration) until
specific designs are developed. The figures presented here should be considered rough
estimates of anticipated costs based on past experience. Sources of technical assistance
needed are also included in Tables H2 and H3.

Note that some funding sources, such as NRCS-EQIP and NCACSP (NC Agricultural Cost Share
Program) are limited to specific practices, while others (such as EPA Section 319 grants and
the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund or CWMTF) can potentially be used for a wider
variety of purposes. EQIP and NCACSP funding are available on an ongoing basis, but levels of
funding in any year may be inadequate to meet demand. EPA Section 319 and CWMTF funding
are available only through competitive individual grants awarded to implement specific
activities.

Most NRCS and NCACSP practices are subject to specific limits such as the number of years
over which payment can be made or total maximum amounts payable to a single operation.
These are not shown in Tables H2 and H3.

Following are comments on individual cost estimates:
• Costs for pest scouts, mating disruption, abandoned orchard removal and chemical
mixing stations (orchards) were taken from NRCS EQIP specifications. The entire
practice cost was used. If these practices are actually implemented through EQIP, a
portion of the cost will be assumed by the landowner/operator.
• Costs for portable chemical mixing stations (vegetables) are from Mr. Bill Yarborough
(NCDA, personal communication).
• Costs for improved efficiency sprayers are based upon recent experience in Henderson
County.
• Stream channel restoration costs are based on recent NCEEP and Equinox
Environmental experience in rural areas.
• Riparian enhancement costs are based upon recent Equinox experience. This cost
assumes a 30 foot wide riparian area on each streambank. The cost estimate covers
land preparation and planting work only and does not include bank stabilization. The
cost of nonstructural bank stabilization (reshaping and replanting of the bank,
including required erosion control practices during construction) is approximately $40
per linear foot. Stabilization costs could be significantly higher where hardening or
use of structures is necessary. The extent to which bank stabilization will be needed
in the areas where riparian enhancement is to occur is unknown. For illustrative
purposes, if it is assumed that one bank must be stabilized on 50% of the 16,500 linear
feet where riparian enhancement is planned, the cost of stabilization would be
$333,000 at $40 per linear foot. This would be more than double the estimated total
cost of riparian enhancement alone.
• Conservation tillage costs depend on which specific conservation practice is used.
Among the possibilities are conservation crop rotation (NRCS practice code 328) and
residue management (practice code 329A). A conservation crop rotation cost of $130
per acre is used here, but actual cost may vary.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
83
• Livestock exclusion costs vary greatly depending upon the costs of specific project
components such as establishing a water supply for livestock. Recent Equinox
experience includes projects with costs ranging from $10,000 to $100,000, with most
projects in the range of $20-30,000. Project costs are often unrelated to the length of
stream impacted.

Total projected ten-year costs for implementation of those practices for which cost
estimates are available are approximately:
• $2.5 Million for sediment and nutrient practices (primarily for stream restoration);
• $0.5 Million for pesticide practices (primarily for improved efficiency sprayers).
These figures do not include the cost of implementing practices to address issues associated
with road erosion, sediment and nutrients from residential areas and agricultural chemical
mixing facilities. Costs for these elements cannot be determined until additional
information is gathered, but they are likely to be substantial.

Only the first year cost of most new agricultural practices (e.g., pest scouts) are included in
these estimates. That is, the cost of grant or cost share funding for the first year of these
practices is included in the total, but not costs for subsequent years. It is assumed that
growers will continue to implement these practices without assistance after the first year.

3 Evaluation Criteria

Monitoring is critical to determine if measurable progress is being made toward the goal of
improving water quality to the point that Clear Creek fully supports its designated uses. Clear
Creek is considered to be impaired due to the highly degraded condition of its benthic
macroinvertebrate communities. The status of the benthic macroinvertebrate community, as
reflected by ongoing monitoring, will therefore be used as the primary criteria for evaluating
water quality improvement.

The key indicator is the bioclassification rating assigned to benthic samples. Ratings of Good-
Fair or better are indicative of a stream that supports its designated aquatic life uses. The
bioclassification will be assessed at both the watershed and sub-watershed scales. Given the
size of Clear Creek (and even of some sub-watersheds such as Lewis Creek), and the wide
extent of potential pollutant source areas, significant improvements in stream condition are
likely to be the cumulative result of many projects implemented over time.

Resource constraints prevent use of benthic community monitoring on the project scale.
For projects targeting sediment inputs, physical measures such as pebble counts and riffle
embeddedness can be used to assess progress.

At this point it is not possible to predict at what point in project implementation
improvements in the benthic macroinvertebrate community will be observable. There may be
a time lag between project completion and stream improvement, especially for impacts due
to sediment and sediment-attached pollutants.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 84Table H2 Cost and Technical Assistance Summary--Pesticides Practice No. of Units Planned— 10 Year Total Cost per Unit Total Cost Potential Funding Sources Technical Assistance Needs and Sources Notes Apples Pest Scouts 280 acres $30 $8,400 NRCS-EQIP (#595); USEPA; CWMTF NRCS, NCCES 50% cost share Mating Disruption 230 acres $7.5 $1,725 NRCS-EQIP (#595); USEPA; CWMTF NRCS, NCCES 50% cost share Improved Efficiency Sprayers 32 sprayers $16,000 $512,000 NRCS-EQIP (#595); USEPA; CWMTF NRCS, NCCES NRCS cost share is max. of $7500 over 3 years, depending upon acreage Abandoned Orchard Removal 150 acres $200 $30,000 NRCS-EQIP (#595); USEPA; CWMTF NRCS, NCCES 50% cost share Chemical Mixing Stations unknown $28,000 each -- NRCS-EQIP (#702); USEPA; CWMTF NRCS, NCCES 75% cost share Vegetables Pest Scouts 72 acres $24 $1,728 NRCS-EQIP (#595); USEPA; CWMTF NRCS, NCCES 50% cost share Portable Chemical Mixing Stations unknown $1350 each -- NCACSP; USEPA; CWMTF NCDA, NCCES 75% cost share All Crops Riparian Zone Enhancement see Table H3 Streambank Stabilization see Table H3 Funding and technical assistance source abbreviations: NRCS-EQIP = Natural Resources Conservation Service Environmental Quality Incentives Program (practice # in parenthesis); NCACSP = NC Agricultural Cost Share Program; CWMTF = Clean Water Management Trust Fund; USEPA = US Environmental Protection Agency Section 319 Program; NCEEP = NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program; NCCES = NC Cooperative Extension Service; NCDA – NC Department of Agriculture; PSP = private service provider (e.g. private firm designing stream or riparian project).
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 85Table H3 Cost and Technical Assistance Summary—Sediment and Nutrients Practice No. of Units Planned Cost per Unit Total Cost Potential Funding Sources Technical Assistance Needs and Sources Notes Stream Channel Restoration 11,500 linear ft. $210 $2,415,000 NCEEP,USEPA; CWMTF, NRCS EQIP NCEEP, NCCES, PSP, NRCS Riparian Zone Enhancement 16,500 linear ft. $8.5 $140,250 USEPA; CWMTF, NCEEP, NRCS EQIP, NCACSP NCEEP, NCCES, PSP, NRCS Conservation Tillage 12 acres $130 $1560 NRCS EQIP, NCACSP, USEPA NRCS, NCCES Prescribed Grazing 11.1 acres unknown unknown NRCS EQIP, NCACSP, USEPA NRCS, NCCES Livestock Exclusion 143 linear ft. unknown unknown NRCS EQIP, NCACSP, USEPA NRCS, NCCES Source Control in Residential Areas unknown unknown USEPA, CWMTF USEPA, CWMTF Sediment Practices for Unpaved Roads unknown unknown USEPA, CWMTF USEPA, CWMTF Funding and technical assistance source abbreviations: NRCS-EQIP = Natural Resources Conservation Service Environmental Quality Incentives Program (practice # in parenthesis); NCACSP = NC Agricultural Cost Share Program; CWMTF = Clean Water Management Trust Fund; USEPA = US Environmental Protection Agency Section 319 Program; NCEEP = NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program; NCCES = NC Cooperative Extension Service; NCDA – NC Department of Agriculture; PSP = private service provider (e.g. private firm designing stream or riparian project).
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
86

4 Monitoring Plan

NCDWQ will monitor benthic macroinvertebrates bi-annually at seven sites in the watershed
(see Figure H1). These include:
• Four sites on Clear Creek. These include several long-term NCDWQ sampling sites
where Clear Creek has generally been observed to be impaired. These sites are
appropriate locations to monitor Clear Creek for long term improvement. These sites
are:
> Clear Creek at Nix Road (map ID# 1);
> Clear Creek at Mills Gap Road (map ID# 2);
> Clear Creek at Bearwallow Road (map ID# 3)
> Clear Creek at North Clear Creek Road (map ID#4).
• One reference site on a tributary where biological communities have consistently
remained in relatively unimpacted condition:
> Laurel Fork at Wash Freeman Road (map ID# 5).
• Two sites in the Lewis Creek sub-watershed that will be used to evaluate changes in
the benthic community from ongoing restoration work in this focus area:
> Lewis Creek at US HW 64 (map ID# 6);
> Byers Creek at Byers Cove Road (map ID# 7.)

The locations of the two sites in the Lewis Creek sub-watershed are not ideal for monitoring
stream recovery, but more suitable locations are not readily available. The site on Lewis
Creek at US 64 is the most downstream location that is publicly accessible, but a considerable
length of stream bordered by crop land lies downstream of this site. If private land access
can be arranged, this site will be moved closer to the mouth of the creek. One option may be
a site located off of Pryor Drive, about halfway between US 64 and the mouth of Lewis Creek.
The County has obtained permission to do monitoring work here in the past.

It is not possible identify a monitoring location that lies above all agricultural activity and
development in the sub-watershed. Orchards occur throughout the Lewis Creek drainage.
The Byers Creek site provides a second monitoring location in this sub-watershed, but still lies
downstream of considerable agricultural acreage. Nonetheless, this site may be useful for
monitoring results of practices implemented in the upper part of this large drainage.

All sites should be sampled bi-annually for the duration of the 10 year planning period. While
Lewis Creek will not be a major focus of implementation efforts for the entire period, there
may be a time lag in recovery of the stream. For this reason it would be valuable to continue
monitoring in this sub-watershed even after the implementation focus has shifted to other
areas.

As the implementation emphasis changes to other sub-watersheds, benthic macroinvertebrate
sites should be added in those sub-watersheds. If NCDWQ resources allow, it would be
valuable to establish these site locations and initiate monitoring within the next few years, to
allow for data collection prior to large scale project implementation.

Sediment impacts on aquatic habitat will be evaluated based on substrate characteristics.
NCDWQ will evaluate overall aquatic habitat quality as part of its benthic sampling
procedures. However, because of the concern with sediment impacts in the watershed, a
more detailed monitoring of stream substrate will be undertaken. This monitoring will consist
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
87
of riffle pebble counts and embeddedness measurements taken twice a year at selected sites.
Sites will include:
• The seven NCDWQ benthic macroinvertebrate sampling sites listed above;
• Sites located upstream and downstream of areas in which projects targeting sediment
inputs are located. These sites cannot be identified until the specific location of
project areas has been determined.

Such monitoring could be contracted to private firms if public agencies cannot commit the
staff resources to perform these activities. Conducting one round of pebble counts and
embeddedness measurements at a dozen sites, would take approximately three days,
including data entry.

Pesticide sampling is not included in this monitoring plan. There is strong grower opposition
to such sampling. Since the timing of any current pesticide presence in streams is likely to be
tied to local pesticide use patterns, it would be difficult to carry out a meaningful monitoring
program without specific knowledge of which pesticides are being applied, and where and
when that application occurs. It is not possible to obtain this information without grower
cooperation. Until there is a change in this situation, the collection of in-stream pesticide
data will not be undertaken.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
88
Figure H1 Proposed Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Sites

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
89
5 Summary of Unit Loading and Use Reduction Rates

To facilitate ongoing planning and the development of future proposals for grant funding, unit
loading and use reduction rates are summarized in Tables H4 and H5. These rates represent
the anticipated reduction in sediment and nutrient loads, or reductions in pesticide use,
presented earlier. They are listed here in unit form (e.g. reduction per linear foot or per
acre of practice implemented) to facilitate future calculations.

Table H4 Summary of Loading Reduction Rates for Sediment and Nutrients
Annual Reduction in Pollutant Load Practice Sediment Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Stream Restoration 23 tons/1000
linear feet -- --
Riparian Area Revegetation (single bank)
in residential areas 20 tons/1000
linear feet
4.0 lbs/1000
linear feet
40 lbs/1000
linear feet
in crop land 10 tons/1000
linear feet
0.1 lbs/1000
linear feet
5 lbs/1000
linear feet
in pasture 7 tons/1000
linear feet
0.2 lbs/1000
linear feet
4 lbs/1000
linear feet
Conservation Tillage 1.8 tons/acre 0.4 lbs/acre 4 lbs/acre
Prescribed Grazing 9.2 tons/acre 1.4 lbs/acre 20 lbs/acre
Livestock Exclusion 0.07 tons/
linear foot -- --
Notes: (1) See text for discussion of practices and derivation of reduction rates.
(2) Units used here may vary from units used in previous tables.
(3) -- indicates that rate was not calculated.
(4) Rates for riparian area vegetation are for a single streambank.
(5) Rates for crop land and pasture are composite rates. Actual reductions will depend on
extent of residue on crop land and condition of pasture.

Table H5 Summary of Use Reduction Rates for Selected Agricultural Pesticides
Annual Reduction in Pesticide Use (lbs/acre)
Pesticide Pest
Scouts
Increased
Efficiency
Sprayers
Mating
Disruption
Abandoned
Orchard
Removal
Orchards
Imidan (phosmet) 2.10 1.58 2.08 0
Guthion (azinphos-methyl) 0 0.75 0 0.99
Asana (esfenvalerate) 0 0.01 0 0
Danitol (fenpropathrin) 0.26 0.13 0 0
Assail (acetamiprid) 0 0.11 0.11 0.11
Vegetables
Cygon (dimethoate) 0.015 NA NA NA
Lannate (methomyl) 0.375 NA NA NA
Asana (esfenvalerate) 0.015 NA NA NA
Notes: (1) Orchard pesticide estimates assume that sprayers, mating disruption and orchard removal
are applied to acres on which pest scouts are already used.
(2) See text for discussion of practices and derivation of reduction rates.
(3) NA indicates rate is not applicable.
(4) Mating disruption is for oriental fruit moth.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
90
References

Henderson County, 2004. Henderson County 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Adopted July 6,
2004.

Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council, 2003. Watershed Restoration Plan for the Mud
Creek Watershed.

NCDWQ, 2003a. Biological Impairment in the Mud Creek Watershed. Planning Branch. June

NCDWQ, 2003b. Basinwide Assessment Report-French Broad River Basin. Environmental
Sciences Branch. June.

NCDWQ, 2005. French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Planning Section. April.

NCDWQ, 2006. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List [2006
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report]. Public Review Draft. February. Planning Section.

NCSU, 2005. 2005 Integrated Orchard Management Guide for Commercial Apples in the
Southeast. NC Cooperative Extension Service. Publication AG-572.

Pettis, G (ed). 2004. Pest Management Strategic Plan for Turfgrass in the Southern United
States. Summary of a Workshop held October 21-22, 2004 in Griffin, Ga. Sponsored by
Southern Region Integrated Pest Management Center.

Reckhow, K.H. 1997. Adaptive Management: Responding to a Dynamic Environment. WRRI
News. Number 307. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina.

Schueler, Tom et al. 2004. Pollution Source Control Practices. Urban Subwatershed
Restoration Manual No. 8. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 2001. Mud Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Inventory
and Pollution Load Estimates. Report Prepared for the NC Wetlands Restoration Program.

Toth, S. (ed). 2004. Crop Profile for Apples in North Carolina. USDA Southern Regional IPM
Center. February. Online at http://www.impcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/ncapples.html.

Toth, S (ed). 2005a. Crop Profile for Tomatoes in North Carolina. USDA Southern Regional
IPM Center. June. Online at http://www.impcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs.

Toth, S (ed). 2005b. Crop Profile for Cucumbers in North Carolina. USDA Southern Regional
IPM Center. June. Online at http://www.impcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs.

USDA, 2005. Agricultural Chemical Usage - 2004 Vegetables Summary. Released July 27,
2005,National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board.

USEPA, 1997. Guidelines for Expedited Review of Conventional Pesticides under the Reduced
Risk Initiative and for Biological Pesticides. Pesticide Registration Notice (PR) 973. September
4. Online at http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/epaprintonly.cgi.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
91

USEPA, 2003. Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories.
Online at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2003/October/Day-23/w26755.htm.

USEPA, 2005. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters.
Draft Report. USEPA Office of Water. Publication Number 841-B-05-005. October.

Wossink, A. and B. Hunt, 2003. The Economics of Structural Stormwater BMPs in North
Carolina. Report No. 344. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of NC.

Wright, Tiffany et al. 2004. Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance: a User’s Manual.
Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual No. 11. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott
City, MD.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
92

Appendix A

IPSI Pollutant Loading Models

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
93

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
94
IPSI Pollutant Loading Models

An Integrated Pollution Source Identification (IPSI) for the entire Mud Clear drainage,
including Clear Creek, was completed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in December
2001. The IPSI includes a nonpoint source inventory as well as two pollutant loading models.
The nonpoint source inventory is based largely upon the interpretation of low altitude color
infrared photography taken in March 2001. The inventory consists of a geospatial data base
including a variety of data elements. Data most relevant to the planning effort described in
the current document include: land use/land cover, streambank erosion sites, eroding road
ditches, livestock operations, and a classification of the type and condition of riparian area
vegetation.

The nonpoint source and sediment loading models use Microsoft Excel to estimate annual
pollutant loads based upon the data in the nonpoint source inventory. The nonpoint source
loading model predicts total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), five-day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) loads for each sub-watershed. The
sediment model estimates sediment loading for each sub-watershed.

The IPSI data base and models are described in a report by TVA (TVA, 2001). This Appendix
presents only a brief summary and evaluation of selected features of the IPSI particularly
relevant to the pollution estimates presented in the current plan.

1 IPSI Data Base (Nonpoint Source Inventory)

• The components of the IPSI data base are derived from manual interpretation of color
infrared aerial photography by experienced TVA analysts.
• The land use/land cover classification is quite detailed. Several types of developed
areas are distinguished, among them: commercial areas, industrial areas, and
residential areas of various densities. Crop land is classified according the degree of
residue observed on the field. Analysts were able to distinguish between active
orchards, transitional (abandoned) orchard and related activities such as nurseries and
Christmas tree farms.
• Riparian areas were classified as adequate, inadequate and marginal based upon the
width of vegetation and the extent of coverage (extent of canopy coverage for forest,
quality of vegetation for grass). All riparian areas with a vegetated zone of less than
30 feet in width are considered inadequate, regardless of other factors.
• While the inventory includes eroding streambanks and road ditches, these features are
under-identified. That is, only some of these features are observable from aerial
photographs, and they occur more frequently on the ground than depicted in the data
set.

2 Pollutant Models

• The IPSI nonpoint source and sediment models are spreadsheet-based screening level
models. Like all models of this type, and indeed all models, simplifying assumptions
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
95
are made to approximate complex real world processes. Both the nonpoint source and
sediment loading models are intended to predict average annual pollutant loads.
Loads are predicted for each land use/land cover classification, as well as for other
features in the nonpoint source inventory, such as eroding streambanks, unpaved
roads and livestock. While the nonpoint source model predicts TP, TN, BOD5 and TSS
loads, only TP and TN estimates are used in this plan. Sediment load predictions from
the sediment model were also used in this plan.

Nonpoint source model – nutrient inputs from developed areas:
• Nutrient loads from developed land classes were estimated using an equation obtained
from a USEPA report. This equation appears to the be the SIMPLE Method, developed
by Schueler (1987). This method is commonly used for quick approximations of loading
from urban stormwater. The amount of runoff is estimated based on rainfall (annual,
in this case) and watershed imperviousness. Runoff is multiplied by average pollutant
concentrations to obtain a loading estimate.
• Twenty percent was used as the impervious area estimate for low density residential
areas (2 dwellings per acre or less), the predominant form of development in the
watershed. While this is a reasonable percentage for areas with two units/acre, this
density is the upper limit of the class, not the mean density. Runoff from low density
residential areas (and thus nutrient loads) is likely slightly overestimated as a result.
• The concentrations used in the model were obtained from EPA’s National Urban Runoff
Program (NURP). The figures used appear to be national overall averages for urban
areas.
• Concentrations include both dissolved and sediment attached nutrients.
• Data from the NURP are primarily from large northeastern and midwestern cities from
the 1970s. For each pollutant, the same concentration values were assigned to each
developed land use class.
• More recent nutrient urban concentration data available for North Carolina
(CH2MHILL, 2000; USEPA, 2001) indicate considerably lower concentrations than the
NURP data. The NC data also indicate a gradient related to imperviousness, with areas
of lower imperviousness (such as low density residential areas) having lower
concentrations than areas with greater imperviousness.
• Given this, and the fact that most development in the Clear Creek watershed is low
density residential, it is likely that nutrient inputs from developed areas are
significantly overestimated by the model.
• The calculations assume that all of the load from developed areas is delivered to
steams and to the bottom of each sub-watershed. While the assumption of 100%
delivery to streams is reasonable for denser urban areas, it is probably not accurate
for the low density areas that predominate in the Clear Creek watershed.

Nonpoint source model – nutrient inputs from rural areas:
• Pollutant loads for rural areas and disturbed lands were derived from soil loss
estimates obtained from the application of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).
USLE factor values for each land use/land cover class were provided by the Henderson
County District Conservationist (Natural Resources Conservation Service).
• Nutrient loss was estimated by applying soil pollution coefficients (lbs. of pollutant per
ton of soil) to the soil loss estimates. Pollution coefficients were developed by TVA
from a study of Alabama pastureland. The same coefficient values were used for all
rural land uses. How well the Alabama nutrient coefficients reflect North Carolina
conditions is not discussed.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
96
• Since pollution load estimates are tied entirely to soil loss, dissolved nutrients are not
included. While this may result in only a minor underestimate of phosphorus loads,
the underestimate for nitrogen is likely to be considerably larger.
• Nutrient inputs from animal operations were dealt with separately, based on the
estimated number of livestock, typical daily nutrient production and a delivery factor.
• The USLE estimates soil loss (and, with the pollution coefficients, nutrient loss) at the
edge of field. Sediment delivery ratios were used to estimate the proportion of
pollutants generated on the land surface of each sub-watershed that are actually
delivered to the outlet (most downstream point) of each sub-watershed. Under this
approach, the proportion of pollutants delivered is a function of drainage area size
(delivery rates decline with increasing sub-watershed size). Pollutant delivery is a
complex process that is difficult to estimate using simple approaches. The sediment
delivery approach used here is crude but commonly used.
• Because nutrients from developed areas are overestimated and non-developed sources
are underestimated (especially in the case of nitrogen), the model indicates that
developed areas account for a higher proportion of nutrients than is likely the case.
This does not mean that developed areas are not important sources of these
pollutants, but does imply that their significance is somewhat less than would be
concluded by taking the model estimates at face value.

Sediment model:
• The sediment model estimates soil loss for all land classes, urban and rural, using the
USLE.
• Delivery of sediment for all land classes was estimated using the same delivery ratio
approach used in the nutrient model for non-developed areas.
• The USLE was applied to the entire area classified as developed land, including
impervious areas that by definition cannot be sediment sources.
• The model estimates that a high proportion of the overall sediment load comes from
low density residential areas. A primary reason for this is the high value for the USLE
C (cover) factor assigned to this land use category by the district conservationist
(C=0.12). This reflected his judgment that, while considerable portions of residential
areas are covered in turf (which would normally receive a relatively low C value)
residential areas were observed to be significant sediment sources. A high C value was
assigned to reflect this (Mr. Bob Carter, NRCS retired, personal communication). The
value of 0.12 assigned is approximately equivalent to assuming that the average one-
acre lot has 12% of its area eroding at the same rate as an active construction site or
other bare soil area (C value of 1).
• Sediment inputs from other sources, such as livestock access areas, eroding
streambanks, unpaved roads, and eroding road ditches (for both paved and unpaved
roads) were estimated separately.
• Soil loss from unpaved roads was estimated assuming an average erosion rate of 100
tons per year per acre of road surface (a figure obtained from the Henderson County
District Conservationist) and assuming an average road width of 15 feet. The 100
tons/acre rate--which is intended to reflect unpaved road surfaces only, not other
road-related sources such as eroding banks--seems high (Mr. Jim Hagerman, TVA,
personal communication). While some unpaved roads sections undoubtedly equal or
exceed this figure, it probably overestimates average conditions.
• It was assumed that 100% of road sediment is delivered to the watershed outlet. This
is certainly an overestimate of delivery, since it is likely that some portion of road
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
97
runoff is routed to forest and field areas where it infiltrates and drops its sediment
load.
• Streambank erosion was estimated based on assumed soil loss rates applied to typical
bank heights, which varied by stream order. It is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of
these estimates. The linear feet of bank erosion is underestimated, however, since
many erosion areas are not visible from aerial photography.
• It was assumed that all streambank erosion occurring in each sub-watershed was
delivered to the sub-watershed outlet. While all bank erosion is delivered to stream
channels by definition, some of it may not be delivered to sub-watershed outlets.

References

CH2M Hill. 2000. Technical Memorandum 1. Urban Stormwater Pollution Assessment.
Prepared for the NC Division of Water Quality. August.

USEPA. 2001. PLOAD Version 3.0 User’s Manual. Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/bsnsdocs.html.

Schueler. T. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban
BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. July.

Tennessee Valley Authority. 2001. Mud Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Inventory
and Pollution Load Estimates. Report Prepared for the NC Wetlands Restoration Program.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
98

Appendix B

Sediment and Nutrient Loads
and Reduction Estimates
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
99
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
100
Appendix B Sediment and Nutrient
Loads and Reduction Estimates

Appendix B discusses the derivation of sediment and nutrient loads from low density
residential, crop land, and pasture land uses. Nutrients include total phosphorus (TP) and
total nitrogen (TN). A derivation of sediment loads is also provided for livestock access areas
and eroding streambanks. The estimated reduction in sediment and nutrient loads from these
sources has been calculated based upon the implementation of the following management
practices where they are applicable:
• Riparian area revegetation;
• Conservation tillage;
• Prescribed grazing;
• Livestock exclusion; and
• Stream restoration.

This Appendix is organized as follows. Riparian area revegetation--which is applied across
land cover classes--is addressed first, followed by a discussion of sediment and nutrient loads
from residential areas, crop land and pasture, respectively. Finally, sediment loading from
streambanks is addressed.

1 Estimation of Load Reductions from Riparian Area
Revegetation

The pollutant loading reductions anticipated from riparian area revegetation (establishment
of riparian buffers) were estimated for several land uses (low density residential, crop land
and pasture) using a single approach for all land classes and all pollutants (sediment, TP and
TN). This methodology is summarized below. The discussion addresses:
1. the width of buffers to be established;
2. the delineation of those areas for which buffer establishment is likely to be effective
at removing pollutants (buffer impact zones);
3. the pollutant removal efficiency of buffers; and
4. the estimation of pollutant loading.

1.1 Buffer Width

Riparian enhancement projects implemented in the Clear Creek watershed are likely to vary
in width and vegetation type due to landowner preferences and other factors. For purposes
of the load reduction analyses reported here it was assumed that riparian revegetation
projects implemented in the watershed will involve the establishment of 30 foot wide buffers
of grass and forest vegetation on both streambanks.

1.2 Delineation of Buffer Impact Zones

The first step in calculating pollutant removal due to riparian revegetation is to define the
area for which these buffers are likely to be effective in preventing pollutants from reaching
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
101
streams. Riparian buffer effectiveness is low when slopes are steep, when sediment loads are
extremely high or when storm runoff enters the riparian area as concentrated flow (Palone
and Todd, 1998). These factors are site specific and difficult to quantify.

Given that riparian vegetation is more effective at removing pollutants when runoff enters
the riparian area as sheet flow, the analysis conducted for this plan considered distance
between adjacent land uses and the riparian buffer as a critical factor for delineating the
areas for which buffers are likely to be effective in removing pollutants. For the purposes of
this plan it was assumed that vegetated riparian areas could effectively treat runoff from
source areas that are up to 250 feet in width outside of the buffer itself. These source areas
are referred to here as ‘buffer impact zones’.

This assumption has been based upon results of other research. The Chesapeake Bay Riparian
Handbook (Palone and Todd, 1998) notes that there is no simple method of quantifying
concentrated flow and suggests 250 feet as an initial approximation. The Soil Conservation
Service Technical Release 55 (USDA, 1986) states that sheet flow becomes concentrated flow
at a maximum of 300 feet. According to Schueler (1995), buffers in urban areas can only
treat runoff from 150 feet of pervious areas, assuming these areas are receiving runoff
discharged from rooftops.

Buffer impact zones along perennial streams. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) IPSI
(Integrated Pollution Source Identification) evaluated riparian area width and condition for
each bank of all streams considered perennial (TVA, 2001). Riparian conditions considered
‘inadequate’ by TVA were generally characterized by a vegetated riparian width of less than
30 feet. Where riparian condition was classified as inadequate on either bank, GIS
(Geographic Information System) analysis was used to delineate a 280 foot buffer zone on
each side of the stream. The 280 foot zone includes the 250 foot impact zone described
above plus 30 feet, assuming that a 30 foot wide area of vegetation would be established.
Low density development, crop land and pasture falling within this 280 foot area were
considered a likely ‘zone of impact’ for which riparian buffers could potentially be effective
at removing sediment and nutrients.

Buffer impact zones along intermittent streams. The IPSI did not evaluate riparian vegetation
for non-perennial streams, which comprise most of the stream length in the watershed. For
purposes of the current plan it was assumed that low density residential areas classified as
predominately cleared were likely to benefit from riparian revegetation, while this was much
less likely in those low density developed areas classified as predominately forested. Using
GIS, a 280 buffer was delineated around non-perennial streams, and predominately cleared
low density residential areas falling within this buffer were considered a likely ‘zone of
impact’. Since GIS data on riparian conditions along non-perennial streams were not
available for crop land and pasture, these areas were not included in this analysis.

1.3 Pollutant Removal Efficiency

The effectiveness of riparian vegetation at removing sediments and nutrients depends on
buffer width and vegetation type as well as slope and other site specific factors. The
effectiveness of riparian vegetation on sediment and nutrient reduction is highly variable in
the literature (for example, see: USEPA, 2005; Osmond et al, 2002; Schueler, 1995), ranging
from removal rates in the single digits to over 90%. Most studies have been conducted in
coastal and piedmont areas. A removal rate of 50% was used here for all pollutants
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
102
(sediment, total phosphorus and total nitrogen). These are conservative estimates and allow
for the possibility of greater slope impacts than are typical in coastal or piedmont studies, as
well as the reality that some buffers will be subject to disturbance or bypassed by
channelized flow. The IPSI nonpoint source model (see Appendix A) includes only sediment-
attached nutrients for rural areas. Thus, the pollutant removal processes discussed here for
crop and pasture areas do not pertain to dissolved constituents.

1.4 Estimation of Pollutant Loads

Pollutant load reductions were derived as follows.
• First, the existing pollutant loading from land falling within the 280 foot impact zone
was calculated. Loads were calculated separately for the three land uses (low density
residential, crop land and pasture). Loads were calculated using the same approach
for estimating soil loss, including attached nutrients, as the IPSI loading models (see
Appendix A), although a higher delivery ratio was used.
• The delivery ratio represents the proportion of pollutants that is estimated to reach
the outlet of each sub-watershed. The delivery ratios used by the IPSI for the various
Clear Creek sub-watersheds range from approximately 17% to 24% (see Appendix A).
However delivery from the 280 foot impact zone discussed above is likely to be higher
than this due to its closer proximity to streams. Existing sediment and nutrient loads
from these candidate impact zones were recalculated using a delivery ratio of 0.8
(80%). This is the ratio obtained from the equation used by TVA for the original IPSI
calculations (TVA, 2001) using a drainage area of 1 to 2 acres.
• Secondly, the estimated reduction from the existing load (in tons/year) was calculated
using the 50% pollutant removal efficiency discussed previously, assuming that stream
segments adjacent to all areas within the 280 foot zone (for each of the three land
uses) were revegetated.
• For each of the three land uses, an estimate of the load reduction per linear foot of
stream revegetated was calculated for each pollutant by dividing the load reduction
from the previous step (tons/year) by the linear feet of revegetated stream adjacent to
the impacted areas. For example, revegetation of streams adjacent to low density
residential areas yields a sediment reduction of approximately 0.04 tons per year per
linear feet of stream revegetated.
• These estimates of the loading per linear foot were then multiplied by the actual
number of linear feet to be revegetated during the planning period to obtain an
anticipated loading reduction for each pollutant for each of the three land uses. The
number of linear feet of buffer establishment planned for each land use is discussed in
the following sections of this Appendix, which summarize load reductions for low
density residential areas, crop land and pasture, respectively.

2 Application of Management Practices to Low Density
Residential Areas

As discussed in the main text, sufficient information is not available to identify the most
appropriate practices for sediment and nutrient source control associated with low density
residential land use. As a result, riparian revegetation is the only practice analyzed in this
study for reducing sediment and nutrient loads from this land class.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
103

2.1 Approach to Load Reduction Estimation

The pollutant removal effectiveness of vegetated riparian areas from low density residential
areas will be variable due to buffer width, slope, and other factors. The approach to
estimating load reduction from riparian vegetation was discussed above in Section 1.

2.2 Existing Sediment and Nutrient Loads

Existing sediment loads for low density residential areas were based on the acreage within
the buffer impact zone as determined in Section 1, the sediment delivery ratio of 0.8, and
the annual soil loss factor of 8.122 tons/acre (USLE soil loss estimate for this land class from
the IPSI model). Existing nutrient loads were based on the buffer impact zone acreage and
the annual nutrient loading rates for this land class as estimated by the IPSI model (0.001
tons/acre for phosphorus and 0.004 tons/acre for nitrogen).

The recalculated existing sediment and nutrient loads for low density residential areas within
the 280 foot zone are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Existing Sediment and Nutrient Loads for Low Density Residential Areas within the
280 Foot Zone of Impact
Low Density
Residential Area
within 280 Foot
Zone
(acres)
Current Sediment
Load from 280
Foot Zone
(Tons/Year)
Current Total
Phosphorus Load
from 280 Foot
Zone
(Tons/Year)
Current Total
Nitrogen Load
from 280 Foot
Zone
(Tons/Year)
Lewis Creek-
Perennial 7 48 0.005 0.032
Lewis Creek-
Intermittent 145 939 0.095 0.625
Other Clear Creek
Sub-Watersheds-
Perennial
150 973 0.098 0.647
Other Clear Creek
Sub-Watersheds-
Intermittent
388 2,520 0.253 1.676

2.3 Effectiveness of Planned Management Practices

Removal of sediments and nutrients by riparian vegetation depends on buffer width and
vegetation type as well as slope and other site specific factors. The width and vegetation
type of riparian enhancement projects implemented in the Clear Creek watershed is likely to
vary depending on context and landowner acceptance. A 30 foot average buffer width of
grass and forested vegetation was assumed for purposes of the analyses reported here.

2.4 Extent of Targeted Areas

A map showing the location and extent of low density residential areas as well as proximity to
streams was shown in the main body of this report (Section C). The specific location of
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
104
streambank revegetation implementation will be selected based upon landowner
participation, funding availability, and a variety of site specific factors that will determine
the overall effectiveness.

Short term (current 319 project). Sediment and nutrient reduction from developed areas is
not targeted in this grant. The riparian vegetation to occur during this project is likely to be
carried out in crop land areas.

Long term (10 year period). Over the 10 year planning period, 1,200 linear feet of
streambank revegetation is proposed adjacent to low density residential areas within the
Lewis Creek sub-watershed, with an additional 4,800 linear feet adjacent to low density
residential areas for the other Clear Creek sub-watersheds.

2.5 Derivation of Expected Sediment and Nutrient Load Reductions

The sediment load reduction was derived by applying the reduction rate of 0.04
tons/year/linear foot of stream revegetated to the actual number of linear feet to be
revegetated during the planning period (1200 linear feet in Lewis Creek, 4800 linear feet
elsewhere) to obtain the estimated sediment load reduction from planned management
practice. Load reductions for nitrogen and phosphorus were derived by applying the
calculated reduction rates (0.000004 tons/yr./linear ft. for TP, and 0.00004 tons/yr./linear
ft. for TN) to the linear feet revegetated. Expected sediment reductions associated with
implementing riparian vegetation along perennial and intermittent stream adjacent to low
density residential areas are shown in Table 2. Reductions for phosphorus and nitrogen are
shown in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 105Table 2 Reduction in Low Density Residential Sediment Loads Expected from Riparian Buffer Establishment Current Sediment Load From 280 Foot Zone (tons/year) Proposed Streambank Revegetation (linear feet) Annual Load Reduction (tons/lf/year) Sediment Reduction (tons/year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 987 1,200 0.04 47 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 3,493 4,800 0.04 186 Total 4,480 6,000 0.04 233 Table 3 Reduction in Low Density Residential Total Phosphorus Loads Expected from Riparian Buffer Establishment Current Phosphorus Load from 280 Foot Zone (tons/year) Proposed Streambank Revegetation (linear feet) Annual Load Reduction (tons/lf/year) Phosphorus Reduction (tons/year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 0.100 1,200 0.000004 0.005 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 0.351 4,800 0.000004 0.019 Total 0.451 6,000 0.000004 0.024 Table 4 Reduction in Low Density Residential Total Nitrogen Loads Expected from Riparian Buffer Establishment Current Nitrogen Load from 280 Foot Zone (tons/year) Proposed Streambank Revegetation (linear feet) Annual Load Reduction (tons/lf/year) Nitrogen Reduction (tons/year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 0.657 1,200 0.00004 0.044 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 2.323 4,800 0.00004 0.175 Total 2.98 6,000 0.00004 0.219
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
106
3 Application of Management Practices to Crop Land Areas

Crop land is not a significant source of sediment and nutrients according to the IPSI pollutant
loading model. However programs currently exist to address these issues, and information is
available to estimate loading reductions. Loading reductions were estimated from riparian
revegetation projects and conservation tillage applications implemented in crop land areas.

3.1 Approach to Load Reduction Estimation

It is not realistic to expect that vegetated riparian areas and conservation tillage will be
effective at removing pollutants from all crop land types due to variables such as buffer
width, slope, crop residue and other factors. Reductions can be achieved by implementing a
combination of practices tailored for particular agricultural and environmental conditions, as
well as for a particular pollutant. Riparian revegetation as a transport interceptor and
conservation tillage practices to improve crop lands from no residue to medium residue were
analyzed in this report for reducing sediment and nutrient loads from this land class.

Riparian Vegetation. Pollutant loads associated with different tillage practices and crops are
variable. As stated previously, the IPSI did not evaluate riparian vegetation condition for non-
perennial streams. While the majority of the stream length in the watershed is comprised of
non-perennial streams, most of the crop land demarcated in the IPSI report is adjacent to
perennial systems. Load reduction methods pertaining to vegetated riparian areas were
described in Section 1.

Conservation Tillage. The IPSI analysis applied different soil loss rates based on crop land
residue class to calculate pollutant loads associated with existing agricultural practices.
Pollutant load reduction estimates for conservation tillage practices were derived for this
plan based on the existing IPSI calculations for no residue and medium residue crop land as
applied to the demarcated acreage within the buffer impact zone.

3.2 Existing Sediment and Nutrient Loads

Existing sediment loads within the 280 foot zone of impact for the three crop land
classifications were derived based on the acreage of crop land for each classification within
this zone, the recalculated sediment delivery ratio of 0.8, and the IPSI USLE-based annual soil
loss factor for each residue class (5.391 tons/acre for No Residue; 3.117 tons/acre for Medium
Residue; 1.852 tons/acre for High Residue).

Existing nutrient loads within the 280 foot zone of impact were estimated for each crop land
classification based on the acreage of crop land for each classification within this zone, the
recalculated sediment delivery ratio of 0.8, the IPSI soil loss factor for each classification, the
IPSI pollution coefficient factor (2.2 pounds pollutant per ton of soil loss for nitrogen and 0.16
for phosphorus), and the unit conversion factor of 0.0005.

The recalculated existing sediment and nutrient loads for crop land areas within the 280 foot
impact zone are shown in Table 5.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
107
Table 5 Calculations of Existing Sediment and Nutrient Loads for Crop Land Areas within the
280 Foot Zone of Impact
Crop land Area
within 280 Foot
Zone
(acres)
Current Sediment
Load from 280
Foot Zone
(Tons/Year)
Current Total
Phosphorus Load
from 280 Foot
Zone
(Tons/Year)
Current Total
Nitrogen Load
from 280 Foot
Zone
(Tons/Year)
Lewis Creek-
Perennial 57 125 0.001 0.035
Other Clear Creek
Sub-Watersheds-
Perennial
326 948 0.005 0.235

3.3 Effectiveness of Planned Management Practices

Removal of sediment and nutrients by riparian vegetation and conservation tillage practices
depends on buffer width and vegetation type, retention capability, slope, existing crop and
tillage practice as well as other site specific factors. Riparian enhancement and
conservation tillage practices implemented in the Clear Creek watershed will vary depending
on context and landowner acceptance. A 30 foot average vegetated riparian width was used.

Riparian Vegetation. The effectiveness of riparian vegetation on sediment and nutrient
removal from crop land sources is highly variable (Lowrance et al, 1995; Dillaha et al, 1989).
As described in Section 1.4 a conservative removal rate of 50% for residential areas was used
for all crop land-derived pollutants to allow for possible impacts associated with topography
and existing agricultural practices which may reduce the effectiveness.

Conservation Tillage. The effectiveness of conservation tillage practices will vary depending
on existing crop land condition. Based on information from the IPSI analysis, soil loss ranged
from 5.391 tons/acre on crop lands with no residue to 1.852 tons/acre on crop lands with
adequate residue. Implementing conservation tillage practices on crop lands with no residue
can result in reduced sediment transport from these sources.

3.4 Extent of Targeted Areas

The specific location of riparian revegetation and conservation tillage implementation will be
selected based upon landowner willingness, funding availability, and a variety of site specific
factors.

Short term (current 319 project). The current project proposes 1,500 linear feet stream
restoration and riparian area revegetation. This plan assumed that these practices would be
implemented adjacent to crop land.

Long term (10 year period). Over the 10 year planning period, 660 linear feet of streambank
revegetation is proposed adjacent to crop land within the Lewis Creek sub-watershed, with an
additional 2,640 linear feet adjacent to crop land in other Clear Creek sub-watersheds.
During this period, conservation tillage practices are proposed on 1.2 acres of crop land
within the Lewis Creek sub-watershed with an additional 10.8 acres for the other Clear Creek
sub-watersheds.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
108

3.5 Derivation of Expected Sediment and Nutrient Load Reductions

Riparian Vegetation. Sediment load reductions from crop land were derived by applying the
reduction rate of 0.02 tons/year per linear foot of stream revegetated to the actual number
of linear feet to be revegetated during the planning period (2,160 linear feet in Lewis Creek,
2,640 linear feet elsewhere) to obtain the estimated sediment load reduction from planned
management practices. Load reductions for phosphorus were derived by applying the
reduction rate of 0.0000001 tons/year/linear foot of stream revegetated in the Lewis Creek
sub-watershed and 0.00000002 tons/year/linear foot of stream revegetated in the other Clear
Creek sub-watersheds. Reduction rates for nitrogen were 0.000002 tons/year/linear foot for
the Lewis Creek sub-watershed and 0.000006 tons/year/linear foot for the other Clear Creek
sub-watersheds.

Conservation Tillage. Pollutant load reductions were derived assuming that the targeted no
residue crop land would be improved to medium residue status (1.2 acres in the Lewis Creek
sub-watershed and 10.8 acres in the other Clear Creek sub-watersheds). Load reductions
were calculated using the same method described above for calculating existing loads
(Section 3.2), except that the soil loss factor for medium rather than no residue was used for
the targeted acres.

Expected sediment reductions associated with implementing riparian vegetation along
streams adjacent to crop lands are shown in Table 6. Reductions for phosphorus and nitrogen
associated with riparian vegetation are shown in Tables 7 and 8 respectively. Expected
sediment reductions associated with implementing conservation tillage are shown in Table 9.
Reductions for phosphorus and nitrogen associated with conservation tillage are shown in
Tables 10 and 11 respectively.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 109Table 6 Reduction in Crop Land Sediment Loads Expected from Riparian Buffer Establishment Current Sediment Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Proposed Streambank Revegetation (linear feet) Annual Load Reduction (tons/lf/year) Sediment Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 125 2,160* 0.02 49 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 948 2,640 0.02 59 Total 1,073 4,800 0.02 108 *Includes streambank revegetation for both short term and long term projects. Table 7 Reduction in Crop Land Total Phosphorus Loads Expected from Riparian Buffer Establishment Current Phosphorus Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Proposed Streambank Revegetation (linear feet) Annual Load Reduction (tons/lf/year) Phosphorus Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 0.001 2,160* 0.0000001 0.0003 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 0.005 2,640 0.00000002 0.00006 Total 0.006 4,800 0.00000008 0.0004 *Includes streambank revegetation for both short term and long term projects. Table 8 Reduction in Crop Land Total Nitrogen Loads Expected from Riparian Buffer Establishment Current Nitrogen Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Proposed Streambank Revegetation (linear feet) Annual Load Reduction (tons/lf/year) Nitrogen Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 0.035 2,160* 0.000002 0.004 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 0.235 2,640 0.000006 0.016 Total 0.270 4,800 0.000004 0.020 *Includes streambank revegetation for both short term and long term projects.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 110Table 9 Reduction in Crop Land Sediment Loads Expected from Conservation Tillage Practice Current Sediment Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Land Use Area within 280 Foot Zone (acres) Proposed Conservation Tillage (acres) Sediment Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 125 57 1.2 2 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 948 326 10.8 20 Total 1,073 383 12 22 Table 10 Reduction in Crop Land Total Phosphorus Loads Expected from Conservation Tillage Practice Current Phosphorus Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Land Use Area within 280 Foot Zone (acres) Proposed Conservation Tillage (acres) Phosphorus Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 0.001 57 1.2 0.0002 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 0.005 326 10.8 0.002 Total 0.006 383 12 0.0022 Table 11 Reduction in Crop Land Total Nitrogen Loads Expected from Conservation Tillage Practice Current Nitrogen Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Land Use Area within 280 Foot Zone (acres) Proposed Conservation Tillage (acres) Nitrogen Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 0.035 57 1.2 0.002 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 0.235 326 10.8 0.022 Total 0.270 383 12 0.024
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
111
4 Application of Management Practices to Pasture Areas

Pasture land is not a significant source of sediment and nutrients according to the IPSI
pollutant loading model. However programs currently exist to address these issues, and
information is available to estimate loading reductions. Loading reductions were estimated
from riparian revegetation projects and prescribed grazing applications implemented in
pasture land areas.

4.1 Approach to Load Reduction Estimation

Pollutant inputs associated with different pasture management regimes are similar to those
for crop lands. Riparian revegetation as a transport interceptor and prescribed grazing
practices to improve pasture from overgrazed to fair condition were analyzed in this report
for reducing sediment and nutrient loads from this land class.

Riparian Vegetation. Pollutant loads associated with different pasture management practices
and uses are variable. Load reduction methods pertaining to vegetated riparian areas were
described in Section 1.

Prescribed Grazing. The IPSI analysis estimates soil loss rates based on pasture condition in
order to calculate pollutant loads associated with existing management regimes. Pollutant
load reduction estimates for prescribed grazing practices were derived for this plan based on
the existing IPSI calculations for heavily overgrazed and fair residue pasture as applied to the
demarcated acreage within the buffer impact zone.

4.2 Existing Sediment and Nutrient Loads

Existing sediment loads within the 280 foot zone of impact for the three pasture
classifications were derived based on the acreage of pasture for each classification within this
zone, the recalculated sediment delivery ratio of 0.8, and the IPSI annual soil loss factor for
each condition class (12.41 tons/acre for Heavily Overgrazed; 0.949 for Fair; and 0.139 for
Good).

Existing nutrient loads within the 280 foot zone of impact were estimated for each pasture
classification based on the acreage of pasture for each classification within this zone, the
recalculated sediment delivery ratio of 0.8, the IPSI soil loss factor for each classification, the
IPSI pollution coefficient factor (2.2 pounds pollutant per ton of soil loss for nitrogen and 0.16
for phosphorus), and the unit conversion factor of 0.0005.

The recalculated existing sediment and nutrient loads for pasture areas within the 280 foot
zone are shown in Table 12.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
112
Table 12 Existing Sediment and Nutrient Loads for Pasture Areas within the 280 Foot Zone of
Impact
Pasture Area
within 280 Foot
Zone
(acres)
Current Sediment
Load from 280
Foot Zone
(Tons/Year)
Current Total
Phosphorus Load
from 280 Foot
Zone
(Tons/Year)
Current Total
Nitrogen Load
from 280 Foot
Zone
(Tons/Year)
Lewis Creek-
Perennial 86 169 0.004 0.046
Other Clear Creek
Sub-Watersheds-
Perennial
571 1,122 0.021 0.304

4.3 Effectiveness of Planned Management Practices

Sediment and nutrient removal by riparian vegetation and prescribed grazing will be
dependent on buffer width and vegetation type, retention capability, slope, existing
condition as well as other site specific factors. Riparian enhancement and prescribed grazing
practices implemented in the Clear Creek watershed will vary depending on context and
landowner acceptance.

Riparian Vegetation. The effectiveness of riparian vegetation on sediment and nutrient
removal from pasture sources is comparable to crop land sources. The same removal rate of
50% was used for all pasture as was applied to other lands.

Prescribed Grazing. The effectiveness of prescribed grazing practices will vary depending on
existing pasture condition. Based on information from the IPSI analysis, soil loss ranged from
0.139 tons/acre on well maintained pastures to 12.41 tons/acre on overgrazed pastures.
Implementing prescribed grazing plans to raise the condition class of a pasture will reduce
predicted sediment and nutrient loadings.

4.4 Extent of Targeted Areas

The specific location of streambank revegetation and prescribed grazing implementation will
be selected based upon landowner willingness, funding availability, and a variety of site
specific factors that will determine the overall effectiveness.

Short term (current 319 project). Sediment and nutrient reduction from pasture land is not
targeted in this grant.

Long term (10 year period). Over the 10 year planning period, 1,140 linear feet of
streambank revegetation is proposed adjacent to pasture areas within the Lewis Creek sub-
watershed, with an additional 4,560 linear feet adjacent to pasture areas for other Clear
Creek sub-watersheds. During this period, prescribed grazing practices are proposed on 3.4
acres of pasture land within the Lewis Creek sub-watershed with an additional 7.7 acres for
other Clear Creek sub-watersheds.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
113
4.5 Derivation of Expected Sediment and Nutrient Load Reductions

Riparian Vegetation. Sediment load reductions for pasture land were derived by applying the
reduction rate of 0.014 tons/year/linear foot of stream revegetated to the actual number of
linear feet to be revegetated during the planning period (1,140 linear feet in Lewis Creek,
4,560 linear feet elsewhere) to obtain the estimated sediment load reduction from planned
management practice. Load reductions for phosphorus and nitrogen were derived by applying
the reduction rates (0.0000002 tons/yr./linear ft. and 0.000004 tons/yr./linear ft.,
respectively) to the actual number of linear feet revegetated.

Prescribed Grazing. Pollutant load reductions were derived assuming that the targeted
heavily overgrazed pasture would be improved to fair status (3.4 acres in the Lewis Creek
sub-watershed and 7.7 acres in the other Clear Creek sub-watersheds). Load reductions were
calculated using the same method described above for calculating existing loads (Section
4.2), except that the soil loss factor for fair pasture rather than heavily overgrazed pasture
was used for the targeted acres.

Expected sediment reductions associated with implementing riparian vegetation along
streams adjacent to pasture lands are shown in Table 13. Reductions for phosphorus and
nitrogen associated with riparian vegetation are shown in Tables 14 and 15 respectively.
Expected sediment reductions associated with implementing prescribed grazing are shown in
Table 16. Reductions for phosphorus and nitrogen associated with prescribed grazing are
shown in Tables 17 and 18 respectively.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 114Table 13 Reduction in Pasture Land Sediment Loads Expected from Riparian Buffer Establishment Current Sediment Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Proposed Streambank Revegetation (linear feet) Annual Load Reduction (tons/lf/year) Sediment Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 169 1,140 0.014 16 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 1,122 4,560 0.014 65 Total 1,291 5,700 0.014 81 Table 14 Reduction in Pasture Land Total Phosphorus Loads Expected from Riparian Buffer Establishment Current Phosphorus Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Proposed Streambank Revegetation (linear feet) Annual Load Reduction (tons/lf/year) Phosphorus Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 0.004 1,140 0.0000002 0.0003 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 0.021 4,560 0.0000002 0.0010 Total 0.025 5,700 0.0000002 0.0013 Table 15 Reduction in Pasture Total Nitrogen Loads Expected from Riparian Buffer Establishment Current Nitrogen Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Proposed Stream Bank Revegetation (linear feet) Annual Load Reduction (tons/lf/year) Nitrogen Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 0.046 1,140 0.000004 0.005 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 0.304 4,560 0.000004 0.021 Total 0.350 5,700 0.000004 0.026
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 115Table 16 Reduction in Pasture Sediment Loads Expected from Prescribed Grazing Practice Current Sediment Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Land Use Area within 280 Foot Zone (acres) Proposed Prescribed Grazing (acres) Sediment Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 169 86 3.4 31 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 1,122 571 7.7 71 Total 1,291 657 11.1 102 Table 17 Reduction in Pasture Total Phosphorus Loads Expected from Prescribed Grazing Practice Current Phosphorus Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Land Use Area within 280 Foot Zone (acres) Proposed Prescribed Grazing (acres) Phosphorus Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 0.004 86 3.4 0.002 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 0.021 571 7.7 0.006 Total 0.025 657 11.1 0.008 Table 18 Reduction in Pasture Total Nitrogen Loads Expected from Prescribed Grazing Practice Current Nitrogen Load from 280 Foot Zone (Tons/Year) Land Use Area within 280 Foot Zone (acres) Proposed Prescribed Grazing (acres) Nitrogen Reduction (Tons/Year) Lewis Creek Sub-Watershed 0.046 86 3.4 0.034 Other Clear Creek Sub-Watersheds 0.304 571 7.7 0.078 Total 0.350 657 11.1 0.112
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
116
5 Application of Management Practices to Livestock Access to
Streams

Direct pollutant inputs associated with livestock are not a significant source of sediment and
nutrients according to the IPSI pollutant loading model. However programs currently exist to
address this issue, and information is available to estimate sediment loading reductions,
though not nutrients. Loading reductions were estimated based on implementing livestock
exclusion practices.

5.1 Approach to Load Reduction Estimation

For the purpose of this report, sediment loads to streams associated with livestock access was
assessed only for areas documented by the IPSI analysis confirming direct livestock access.
Additional classification assigned in the IPSI included probable and potential livestock access,
however no reduction estimates were established based on these other classifications.
Sediment load reduction estimates for livestock exclusion were based on the existing IPSI
calculations pertaining to direct livestock stream access.

5.2 Existing Sediment Loads

Estimates of existing sediment loads were based on the IPSI model, in which the total
sediment load from direct livestock access (expressed as tons per acre per year) is calculated
by multiplying three factors: the length of direct livestock access (from photointerpretation);
an assumed width of 30 feet for the impacted area; and an erosion rate of 100
tons/acre/year. The existing sediment loads from direct livestock access to streams
calculated in this manner are :
• 0.63 tons/acre/year for the Lewis Creek sub-watershed (based on 9 linear feet of
direct access); and
• 30.72 tons/acre/year for the other Clear Creek sub-watersheds (based on 446 linear
feet of access).

5.3 Extent of Targeted Areas

The specific location of livestock exclusion implementation will be selected based on
landowner willingness, funding availability, and a variety of site specific factors that will
determine the overall effectiveness.

Short term (current 319 project). Sediment reduction from livestock exclusion projects is not
targeted in this grant.

Long term (10 year period). Over the 10 year planning period, livestock exclusion is proposed
for all 9 linear feet of confirmed livestock access within the Lewis Creek watershed, and an
additional 134 linear feet in the other Clear Creek sub-watersheds.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
117
5.4 Derivation of Expected Sediment Load Reductions

The existing sediment loads were based on the IPSI model, in which the total sediment load
associated with direct livestock access was based on the three factors listed in Section 5.2.
When access is eliminated for the targeted area, the load from this activity falls to zero.
Estimated load reductions from livestock exclusion thus accounts only for the sediment
generated directly by livestock disturbance. It does not account for sediment loading
reductions from other practices (e.g. riparian revegetation or bank stabilization) that may be
implemented following livestock exclusion. Expected sediment reductions associated with
implementing livestock exclusion practices are shown in Table 19.

Table 19 Reduction in Direct Livestock Sediment Loads Expected from Exclusion Practices
Current
Sediment Load
(Tons/Year)
Length of
Livestock
Access
(linear feet)
Proposed
Livestock
Exclusion
(linear feet)
Sediment
Reduction
(Tons/Year)
Percent
Reduction from
Current Load
Lewis Creek
Sub-Watershed 0.634 9 9 0.634 100%
Other Clear
Creek Sub-
Watersheds
30.722 446 134 9.25 30%
Total 31.356 143 31.356 100%

6 Application of Management Practices to Eroding
Streambanks

Eroding streambanks are extensive throughout the Clear Creek watershed. The existing IPSI
data on eroding streambanks provides adequate information to identify target areas and to
estimate loading reductions. The IPSI model provides separate estimates of sediment loading
from streambanks for each stream order. For the purpose of this report, loading reductions
were estimated based on the implementation of stream restoration projects along eroding
streambank areas associated with 3rd order perennial streams.

6.1 Approach to Load Reduction Estimation

Sediment from eroding streambanks can be reduced by implementing a variety of practices,
including stream restoration to restore the natural morphology of the stream channel, and a
variety of bank stabilization approaches which do not substantially modify existing
morphology. Since the IPSI data indicate that many of the areas with notable bank erosion
have also been channelized, it is assumed here that stream restoration is generally the most
appropriate practice for these reaches.

The IPSI model calculations were used to estimate existing sediment loads from all eroding
streambanks and to derive sediment load reduction estimates.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
118
6.2 Existing Sediment Loads

Existing sediment loads associated with eroding streambanks were derived from the IPSI
analysis. Annual erosion rates (tons/year) were based on the length of eroding bank, depth of
stream, and the erosion rate (expressed as tons per acre per year). The stream depth was
classified based on stream order (3 feet for 1st and 2nd order streams; 5 feet for 3rd order; and
4 feet for 4th order). An erosion rate of 200 tons/acre/year was applied to all perennial
streams, while a rate of 50 tons/acre/year for all intermittent and ephemeral streams.

The length of eroding streambanks and existing sediment loads for all eroding streams in the
Lewis Creek sub-watershed and the other Clear Creek sub-watersheds are shown in Table 20.

Table 20 Calculations of Existing Sediment Loads for Eroding Streambanks
Length of Eroding Streambank
(linear feet)
Current Sediment Load*
(Tons/Year)
Lewis Creek 14,494 258
Other Clear Creek
Sub-Watersheds 66,903 1352
* Includes IPSI model estimates for sediment inputs from eroding streambanks and channelized streams.
The total load of 1610 tons/year differs from the total of 1608 shown in Tables C1 and C5 of the main
text because of rounding in the sub-watershed calculations.

6.3 Extent of Targeted Areas

The specific location of stream restoration implementation will be selected based upon
landowner willingness, funding availability, and a variety of site specific factors that will
determine the overall effectiveness.

Short term (current 319 project). The current project proposes 1,500 linear feet stream
restoration in the Lewis Creek watershed.

Long term (10 year period). Over the 10 year planning period, an additional 1,500 linear feet
of stream restoration is recommended for the Lewis Creek watershed with 8,500 additional
feet recommended for the other Clear Creek watersheds.

6.4 Derivations of Expected Sediment Load Reductions

Implementing stream restoration projects to restore the pattern, profile, and dimension of
these degraded systems can significantly reduce sediment inputs from stream erosion, as well
as sediment inputs from adjacent land areas. For purposes of calculating erosion reduction in
this report, it was assumed that bank erosion from those reaches targeted for restoration
would be reduced to zero. While stable natural channels do normally experience low rates of
erosion, the IPSI model assumes an erosion rate of zero for streams not identified as eroding.

The IPSI model calculates bank erosion separately for each stream order. The stream orders
of the specific streams to be restored during the planning period are unknown, since those
reaches have not yet been selected. For purposes of the sediment reduction calculations it
was assumed that all restored reaches will be third order streams.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
119

The expected sediment reductions associated with stream restoration projects are
summarized in Table 21. Note that these estimates include only reductions in bank erosion,
as described above. While stream restoration projects typically involve the reestablishment
of riparian vegetation, the reduction estimates in Table 21 do not account for the ability of
riparian zones to reduce sediment transport from adjacent upland areas.

As discussed earlier in this Appendix, sediment reductions resulting from riparian revegetation
vary with the adjacent land use. Since the specific locations at which stream restoration will
be conducted have not yet been established, the adjacent land uses are unknown. Assuming
a mid range annual sediment reduction estimate of 12 tons/1000 linear feet of revegetation
for a single steam bank (see Section H5 of the main text), and given that stream restoration
projects typically involve the revegetation of riparian zones on both sides of a stream,
riparian revegetation occurring as part of stream restoration projects is likely to result in
annual sediment reductions of approximately 24 tons/1000 linear feet. This is approximately
equal to the reduction in sediment loading from streambank anticipated from stream
restoration projects (see Section H5 of the main text).

For the 11,500 feet of stream restoration proposed for the planning period (3,000 feet in
Lewis Creek, and 8,500 linear feet elsewhere in the watershed), this amounts to a sediment
reduction of approximately 276 tons/year, roughly equivalent to the magnitude of reduced
bank erosion. This reduction cannot be readily allocated to any of the source categories used
in this plan (e.g. see Tables C1 and C5 in the main text).

Table 21 Reduction in Sediment Loads Expected from Stream Restoration
Current Sediment
Load*
(Tons/Year)
Proposed Stream
Restoration
(linear feet)
Sediment
Reduction
(tons/year)
Percent Reduction
from Current Load
Lewis Creek 258 3,000 69 27%
Other Clear Creek
Sub-Watersheds 1352 8,500 195 14%
* Includes IPSI model estimates for sediment inputs from eroding streambanks and channelized streams.
The total load of 1610 tons/year differs from the total of 1608 shown in Tables C1 and C5 of the main
text because of rounding in the sub-watershed calculations.

References

Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. 1989. Vegetative Filterstrips for
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. Transaction of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 32:513-519.

Osmond, D.L., J.W. Gilliam and R.O. Evans. 2002. Riparian Buffers and Controlled Drainage
to Reduce Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution. NC Agricultural Research Service Technical
Bulletin 318, North Carolina State University.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
120
Palone R.S. and A. H. Todd (eds). 1998. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for
Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers. USDA. USFS Northeastern Area. Report
No. NA-TP-02-97. June.

Lowrance, R., L.S. Altier, J.D. Newbold, R.R. Schnabel, P.M. Groffman, J.M. Denver, D.L.
Correll, J.W. Gilliam, J.L. Robinson, R.B. Brinsfield, K.W. Staver, W. Lucas, and A.H. Todd.
1995. Water Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffer Systems in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. USEPA Report 903-R-95-004/CBP/TRS 134/95.

Schueler, T. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments. Environmental Land Planning Document Series. December.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 2001. Mud Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Inventory
and Pollution Load Estimates. Report Prepared for the NC Wetlands Restoration Program.

USDA. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Soil Conservation Service. Technical
Release 55. June.

USEPA. 2005. National Management Measures to Protect and Restore Wetland and Riparian
Areas for the Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution. Report 841-B-05-03. USEPA Nonpoint
Source Control Branch.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
121

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
122

Appendix C

Pesticide Use and Reduction Estimates

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
123

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
124
Appendix C Pesticide Use and Reduction Estimates

This appendix discusses the derivation of use estimates for selected apple orchard and crop
land pesticides, as well as the derivation of estimated pesticide use reductions from planned
management activities

1 Apples

1.1 Current Pesticide Use

As discussed in the main body of this report, a wide variety of chemicals are used in apple
production, though no data on actual apple orchard pesticide use in the Clear Creek drainage
exist. Further, while the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is concerned about the
potential impact of orchard pesticides on aquatic organisms, neither specific pesticides of
concern nor the most likely delivery pathways have been identified. The approach used here
was to select a small number of commonly used insecticides to illustrate usage patterns and
likely reductions in use from management practices.

Five insecticides commonly used by local growers were selected (Table 1) after a review of
pertinent pesticide guidance (e.g. NCSU, 2005) and discussion with faculty at the Mountain
Horticultural Crops Research and Extension Center (MHCREC) familiar with apple operations in
the Clear Creek drainage. Organophosphate insecticides have been commonly used in the
area for several decades. Some growers continue to rely on organophosphates, while others
have switched to insecticides considered to be ‘reduced risk’, such as neonicotinoids.
Pesticides from both groups are included in those selected.

Table 1 Pesticides Selected for Analysis
Trade Name
Chemical Name
of Active
Ingredient
Type
Imidan phosmet Organophosphate Insecticide
Guthion azinphos-methyl Organophosphate Insecticide
Asana esfenvalerate Pyrethroid Insecticide
Danitol fenpropathrin Pyrethroid Insecticide
Assail acetamiprid Neonicotinoid Insecticide

The amount of active ingredient typically applied annually per acre of orchard was estimated
as follows for each insecticide:
• Per acre product application rates (amount of product used per acre per application)
and the number of typical applications per year were determined from label
instructions and professional knowledge of typical local usage patterns (Dr. Jim
Walgenbach, MHCREC, personal communication).
• Where a range of product application rates is given in the label instructions, or
recommended rates vary by target organism, the approximate midpoint of the rates
was used. Seasonal product application limits were also considered in determining the
number of applications.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
125
• Product application rates were converted to application rates for active ingredient
using information on product formulation (Tables 2 and 3).
• The amount of active ingredient typically applied annually per acre of orchard was
calculated by multiplying the rate of active ingredient used per application by the
typical number of applications.
• The number of typical pesticide applications is lower for the acreage currently using
pest scouts than for acreage where pest scouts are not currently used, so application
rates are estimated separately for each group (Tables 2 and 3).

Using scouting/no-scouting acreage estimates for the Clear Creek watershed and for Lewis
Creek (Table 4), total current pesticide use was calculated by multiplying the annual
application rate by the number of acres of active orchard. Pesticide use for scouting/no-
scouting acreage was calculated separately, and these estimates summed to derive total
estimated use of the selected pesticides (Table 5).
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 126Table 2 Acreage Currently Using Pest Scouts--Derivation of Annual Application Rates per Acre for Selected Apple Orchard Insecticides Application Period Product Information Active Ingredient Information Prebloom- Single Applic. Petal Fall-Single Applic. First Cover Spray-Single Applic. Second and Later Covers Total No. Applic. per Year Typical Overall Product Applic. Rate Product Formulation Typical Active Ingredient Applic. Rate Total Active Ingredient Applied Per Year Product Name rate/ac. rate/ac. rate/ac. rate/ac. No. applic. rate/ac. per applic. rate/ac. per applic. (lbs) rate/ac. (lbs) Imidan 3 lbs 3 lbs 3 lbs 1 3 3 lbs 70WP 2.1 6.30 Guthion 2lbs 2 lbs 2lbs 2 3 2 lbs 50WP 1 3.00 Asana 4.9-14.2 fl oz 1 10 fl oz 0.66EC 0.05 0.05 Danitol 10.6-21.33 fl oz 16-21.33 fl oz 10.6-21.33 fl oz 1 2 14 fl oz 2.4EC 0.26 0.53 Assail 4-8 oz 4-8 oz 4-8 oz 2 4 6 oz 30SG 0.11 0.45 Formulation Key: WP=wettable powder; EC=emulsifiable concentrate; SG=soluble granule. Numbers preceding WP and SG indicate % active ingredient by weight. Number preceding EC indicates pounds of active ingredient per gallon. Notes: --Actual number of applications and application rates depend on grower decisions based on specific orchard conditions and may vary. --Where a range of possible application rates is given, midpoint of range was used as the Typical Overall Product Application Rate. --Seasonal product application limits include: Guthion (8lbs/acre), Assail (4 applics. or 32 oz/acre), Asana (101 oz/acre), Danitol (42.6 oz/acre).
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 127Table 3 Acreage Currently Not Using Pest Scouts--Derivation of Annual Application Rates per Acre for Selected Apple Orchard Insecticides Application Period Product Information Active Ingredient Information Prebloom- Single Applic. Petal Fall-Single Applic. First Cover Spray-Single Applic. Second and Later Covers Total No. Applic. per Year Typical Overall Product Applic. Rate Product Formulation Typical Active Ingredient Applic. Rate Total Active Ingredient Applied Per Year Product Name Rate/ac. rate/ac. rate/ac. rate/ac. No. applic. rate/ac. per applic. rate/ac. per applic. (lbs) rate/ac. (lbs) Imidan 3 lbs 3 lbs 3 lbs 2 4 3 lbs 70WP 2.1 8.40 Guthion 2lbs 2 lbs 2lbs 2 3 2 lbs 50WP 1 3.00 Asana 4.9-14.2 fl oz 1 10 fl oz 0.66EC 0.05 0.05 Danitol 10.6-21.33 fl oz 16-21.33 fl oz 10.6-21.33 fl oz 2 3 14 fl oz 2.4EC 0.26 0.79 Assail 4-8 oz 4-8 oz 4-8 oz 2 4 6 oz 30SG 0.11 0.45 Formulation Key: WP=wettable powder; EC=emulsifiable concentrate; SG=soluble granule. Numbers preceding WP and SG indicate % active ingredient by weight. Number preceding EC indicates pounds of active ingredient per gallon. See Notes to Table 2
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
128

Table 4 Active Orchard Acreage, by Current Use of Pest Scouts

%*
Total Clear Ck
Watershed
(acres)
Lewis Ck
Sub-watershed (acres)
Pest scouts
used
75 2664 815
Scouts not
used
25 888 272
Total 100 3552** 1087**
*Current pest scout use is estimated to be approximately 75% (Mr. Marvin Owings,
Henderson County Cooperative Extension Service, personal communication). The
same rate was assumed for Lewis Creek as for the watershed as whole.
**From Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, 2001).

Table 5 Calculation of Current Usage for Selected Apple Orchard Insecticides

Current Usage of Active Ingredient

Chemical Name
Active Ingredient-
Typical Usage
lbs per acre/year*
Total Clear Ck
Watershed
(lbs/yr)
Lewis Ck
Sub-watershed
(lbs/yr)
Acreage Using Pest Scouts
phosmet (Imidan) 6.30 16,783 5,135
azinphos-methyl (Guthion) 3.00 7,992 2,445
esfenvalerate (Asana) 0.05 137 42
fenpropathrin (Danitol) 0.53 1,399 428
acetamiprid (Assail) 0.45 1,199 367
Acreage Not Using Pest Scouts
phosmet (Imidan) 8.40 7,459 2,285
azinphos-methyl (Guthion) 3.00 2,664 816
esfenvalerate (Asana) 0.05 46 14
fenpropathrin (Danitol) 0.79 702 215
acetamiprid (Assail) 0.45 400 122
Total Acreage
phosmet (Imidan) -- 24,242 7,419
azinphos-methyl (Guthion) -- 10,656 3,261
esfenvalerate (Asana) -- 183 56
fenpropathrin (Danitol) -- 2,100 643
acetamiprid (Assail) -- 1,598 489
* See Tables 2 and 3 for derivation

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
129

1.2 Effectiveness of Planned Management Practices

As discussed in the body of this report, management practices recommended to reduce apple
orchard pesticide use include:
• Use of improved efficiency sprayers;
• Removal of abandoned apple orchards;
• Use of pest scouts; and
• Use of insect pheromones for mating disruption.

The actual effectiveness of any of these practices in reducing pesticide use can vary
depending upon a variety of factors, many of them site specific. The use reduction rates
calculated here are intended to approximate typical overall rates expected under a range of
conditions, based upon the information and assumptions described below.

Pest Scouts. Spraying is reduced because pesticides are only applied to fields where specific
pests have been identified as occurring above threshold levels. Pest scouting covers
numerous pests, but is most likely to affect spraying during the summer period. For acreage
where pest scouting in implemented, a reduction of one application per year was assumed for
Imidan and Danitol, though it is possible that Guthion could be reduced as an alternative,
depending upon grower preferences.

Improved Efficiency Sprayers. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) indicates
that improved efficiency sprayers may reduce pesticide use by 10-40% (NRCS, 2004).
Information from the Henderson County Soil and Water Conservation District (HRCWCD)
indicates that growers currently using SmartSpray equipment report reductions from 20-30% in
spray material used (HCSWCD, 2005). Durand Wayland, manufacturer of the SmartSpray
system, claims a chemical reduction of 25-30% is common, with a minimum reduction of 20%
(http://www.durand-wayland.com). An expected reduction rate of 25% for all pesticides will
be used for this analysis.

Insect Pheromones. Insect pheromones can be used to disrupt mating of a number of pests,
but is currently most effective for oriental fruit moths (Toth, 2004). Guthion or Imidan are
most commonly used to control this pest, although Danitol or Asana can also be used (Toth,
2004). For purposes of calculations in this plan, a reduction of one Imidan application per
year was assumed for growers using organophosphates, and a reduction of one Assail
application per year for other operations. It is assumed that the more widely established pest
scouting practice is implemented prior to use of mating disruption.

Abandoned Orchard Removal. Since abandoned orchards harbor pest populations which may
invade neighboring orchard operations, it is logical that removing abandoned orchards would
have the potential for reducing the frequency of pesticide applications. There appear to be
no available studies of the extent of such reductions. The estimates used here were derived
as follows.
• Abandoned orchards are most likely to impact active orchards that are adjacent or in
their immediate proximity. Apple maggots, the major insect pest harbored by
abandoned orchard areas, will generally travel a maximum of 1/4 mile (Dr. Jim
Walgenbach, MHCREC, personal communication). Since this is a maximum distance
attained only under some circumstances, a more conservative distance of 1/8 mile was
used to define the zone of impact from abandoned orchards for this plan.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
130
• GIS analysis of the IPSI land cover data was conducted to identify the location of
potential impact zones. A one eighth mile buffer was created around each polygon
classified as abandoned (transitional) orchard.
• Of the approximately 160 such polygons, 30 were randomly selected for review.
Where active orchard polygons fell within the 1/8 mile buffered area, it was presumed
that the active orchard is currently negatively impacted by the presence of the
abandoned orchard, and would be positively impacted by its removal. It was assumed
that if part of an active orchard polygon was affected, spraying decisions would apply
to the entire polygon. Where only a small portion of active orchard polygon area fell
near the perimeter of the buffer, it was assumed not to be affected.
• Of the 30 abandoned orchard polygons examined, impacted areas averaged 88 acres in
size. For purposes of estimating pesticide use reductions, it was assumed that
removing an abandoned orchard polygon, regardless of size, would impact spraying in
88 acres of active orchard.
• Spraying for apple maggots generally occurs during the summer, so pesticides sprayed
only in the spring may not be affected by orchard removal. For purposes of these
estimates it was assumed that abandoned orchard removal would eliminate one spray
application targeting apple maggots. This would likely be either Guthion or Imidan for
growers still using organophosphates, or Assail, for growers who do not (see Tables 2
and 3). Reductions were calculated for Guthion and Assail.

The expected percentage reductions in annual per acre insecticide use are shown in Table 6.
These estimates were calculated using the data in Tables 2 and 3 while applying the
assumptions listed above. Reductions from pest scouting were calculated based upon the
current use estimates for areas not using scouting. Reductions from other practices were
calculated assuming that pest scouting was already in use.

Practices Impacting Pesticide Transport. No estimates of reductions in pesticide transport
were made. Riparian area enhancement and stabilization of eroding streambanks were
discussed in Section C and estimates of reduced sediment loading from these practices were
presented there. Data are not available to derive meaningful estimates of the reduction in
pesticide transport that may also result from these practices. Upgrading of chemical handling
facilities is also not expected to impact pesticide use, but do have the potential to reduce
pesticide transport to streams. Pesticide loading from chemical handling is likely to be very
episodic and difficult to predict. No loading estimates have been made.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 131Table 6 Estimated Reductions in Annual per Acre Use of Selected Insecticides from Practices Targeting Orchard Pesticide Use Predicted Use Following Practice Implementation (1) Current Use Pest Scouts Increased Efficiency Sprayers Mating Disruption Abandoned Orchard Removal Insecticide Annual Use - lbs per acre Annual Use - lbs per acre % Reduction Annual Use - lbs per acre % Reduction Annual Use - lbs per acre % Reduction Annual Use - lbs per acre % Reduction Pest Scouts Currently Used phosmet (Imidan) 6.30 NA* NA* 4.73 25 4.20 33 6.30 0 azinphos-methyl (Guthion) 3.00 NA* NA* 2.25 25 3.00 0 2.00 33 esfenvalerate (Asana) 0.05 NA* NA* 0.04 25 0.05 0 0.05 0 fenpropathrin (Danitol) 0.53 NA* NA* 0.39 25 0.53 0 0.53 0 acetamiprid (Assail) 0.45 NA* NA* 0.34 25 0.34 25 0.34 25 Pest Scouts Currently Not Used phosmet (Imidan) 8.40 6.30 25 NA** NA** NA** NA** NA** NA** azinphos-methyl (Guthion) 3.00 3.00 0 NA** NA** NA** NA** NA** NA** esfenvalerate (Asana) 0.05 0.05 0 NA** NA** NA** NA** NA** NA** fenpropathrin (Danitol) 0.79 0.53 33 NA** NA** NA** NA** NA** NA** acetamiprid (Assail) 0.45 0.45 0 NA** NA** NA** NA** NA** NA** (1) Calculated from the data in Tables 2 and 3 utilizing the reduction assumptions discussed in the text. NA*= not applicable. By definition, pest scouts will not be implemented in areas where they are already used. NA**= not applicable. For purposes of these estimates, it was assumed that the other practices (improved efficiency sprayers, mating disruption and abandoned orchard removal) would occur only for acreage with pest scouting.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
132

1.3 Extent of Targeted Areas

A map showing the location and extent of active and abandoned orchards was shown in the
main body of this report (Figure E1 in Section E). The specific orchards on which practices
will be implemented will be selected based upon voluntary grower participation, funding
availability and a variety of site specific factors, including orchard size and location.

The orchard acreage on which it may be beneficial to implement the recommended practices
is large. The rate of practice implementation proposed below is based upon current and
anticipated Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council (MCWRC) staff capabilities and
funding. Both short-term (current 319 grant) and long-term (seven years beyond the grant, or
a total of ten years) implementation targets are presented.

Additional implementation needs beyond the ten year period are likely. The need for
additional implementation will be assessed at a future date, considering current water quality
conditions, trends in orchard condition and practices and other factors. Lessons learned from
the implementation of management practices in the Lewis Creek sub-watershed will be an
important part of this process.

The development of implementation target levels for Clear Creek is summarized below. See
Table 7 for additional details, including target levels for Lewis Creek. Implementation targets
for Lewis Creek were based on the assumption that work in Lewis Creek would continue for an
additional 3 years beyond the current 319 grant.

Pest Scouts. This is a critical IPM practice, currently used on approximately 75% of orchard
acres. Target: Implement pest scouting on 35 acres during the 319 project (Lewis Creek
only) and an additional 35 acres per year for seven years thereafter, for a ten-year total of
280 acres.

Mating Disruption for Oriental Fruit Moth. Current use of this practice has not been
quantified, although it is a relatively new practice and probably not commonly used. A
current implementation rate of 20% was assumed. Target: Implement mating disruption on
20 acres during the 319 project (Lewis Creek only) and an additional 30 acres per year for
seven years thereafter, for a ten-year total of 230 acres.

Improved Efficiency Sprayers. Target: Provide improved efficiency sprayer technology to 4
growers during the 319 project (Lewis Creek only) and to an additional 4 growers per year
for seven years thereafter, for a ten-year total of 32 growers.

Abandoned Orchards Removal. IPSI data show 163 abandoned orchard polygons, averaging
about 4.8 acres in size (779 total acres). Target: Remove 10 acres of abandoned orchard
during the 319 project (Lewis Creek only) and remove an additional 20 acres per year for
seven years thereafter, for a ten-year total of 150 acres.

Information is insufficient to establish specific goals for chemical mixing and handling
facilities. Goals for riparian zone enhancement and streambank stabilization were discussed
in the section on sediment impacts (Section C).

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006 133Table 7 Target Implementation Levels for Practices Targeting Orchard Pesticide Use, Clear Creek and Lewis Creek (1) Clear Creek Lewis Creek Practice Current Areas in Need of Implementation (2) Implementation Targets Current Areas in Need of Implementation (2) Implementation Targets Pest Scouts 888 acres 319 Grant: 35 acres Next 7 Yrs: 35 acres per yr. Ten-Yr Total: 280 acres (32% of need) 272 acres 319 Grant: 35 acres Next 7 Yrs: 35 acres per yr for 3 yrs. Ten-Yr Total: 140 acres (51% of need) Mating Disruption 2842 acres 319 Grant: 20 acres Next 7 Yrs: 30 acres per yr. Ten-Yr Total: 230 acres (8% of need) 217 acres 319 Grant: 20 acres Next 7 Yrs: 30 acres per yr for 3 yrs. Ten-Yr Total: 110 acres (51% of need) Improved Efficiency Sprayers 147 orchards 319 Grant: 4 orchards Next 7 Yrs: 4 orchards per yr. Ten-Yr Total: 32 orchards (22% of need) 45 orchards 319 Grant: 4 orchards Next 7 Yrs: 4 orchards per yr for 3 yrs. Ten-Yr Total: 16 orchards (35% of need) Abandoned Orchard Removal 779 acres of abandoned orchard 319 Grant: 10 acres Next 7 Yrs: 20 acres per yr. Ten-Yr Total: 150 (19% of need) 233 acres of abandoned orchard 319 Grant: 10 acres Next 7 Yrs: 20 acres per yr. for 3 yrs. Ten-Yr Total: 70 (30% of need) (1) The rate of practice implementation proposed is based upon current and anticipated Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council (MCWRC) staff capabilities and funding (2) ‘Areas in need of implementation’ were defined as estimated orchard area (active or abandoned, as appropriate) for which the practice in question has not yet been implemented. See text for discussion.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
134

1.4 Derivation of Expected Use Reductions

Anticipated reductions in pesticide usage were estimated by applying the reduced per acre
application rates anticipated from planned management practices (Table 6) to the estimated
targeted acreage to which those practices will be applied (Table 7.) Estimated reductions
from individual practices are shown in Tables 9 and 10 for the current 319 project and for all
activities planned over the next ten years, respectively. The cumulative impact of these
practices was summarized in Section E of the main text.

The impact of some practices may or may not be cumulative, since some of the same pests
will be affected. These include orchard removal, pest scouts and mating disruption. How
these practices will interact in practice is not clear. For purposes of these calculations,
however, it was assumed that the effects of these three practices are additive. This may
overstate reductions to some degree.

Estimates of current pesticide use (Table 5) were calculated separately for orchards that
currently use pest scouts and orchards that do not. Reductions from pest scout use
implemented under this plan were applied only to acres initially classified as ‘non scouting’.
It was assumed that all other practices would be applied to scouting acres.

Where improved efficiency sprayers are used in addition to any of the above practices,
additional spray reductions can be expected. The other practices will impact the frequency
of spray application on particular orchards, while the sprayers will reduce the amount applied
during individual applications, whatever their frequency.

There is no way to anticipate, however, what combination of practices will be implemented
in a particular orchard, or in what order, as watershed efforts proceed in the upcoming years.
For this reason, the use reduction from increased efficiency sprayers was treated simply as an
additional additive impact when deriving reduction estimates. This may understate
reductions to some degree.

It was assumed that sprayers purchased under the 319 grant will go to larger growers,
averaging 80 acres, while subsequent sprayers purchased for Lewis Creek would go to smaller
operations averaging 40 acres. For sprayers purchased for other areas of the watershed, an
average size of 60 acres was assumed.

The average area of active orchard likely to be impacted by an abandoned orchard polygon
was calculated earlier as approximately 88 acres. However, it is not uncommon for an active
orchard to lie in close proximity (1/8 mile or less) to several abandoned orchard polygons, so
that it may often be necessary to remove several abandoned orchard areas in order to reduce
spraying on an active orchard. It was assumed that an average of 44 acres of active orchard
would be impacted for the removal of every 10 acres of abandoned orchard.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
135
Table 8 Estimated Reduction in Orchard Pesticide Use Anticipated from Current 319 Project

Improved Efficiency Sprayers
Pesticide Information Use Lewis Creek Clear Creek
Reduction
Active in target
trade Ingredient- area Targeted Expected Targeted Expected
chemical name name Typical (%) Area Use Area Use
Usage / acre Reduction Reduction
/ year (acres) (lbs AI/yr) (acres) (lbs AI/yr)
phosmet Imidan 6.30 25 320 504 320 504
azinphos-methyl Guthion 3.00 25 320 240 320 240
esfenvalerate Asana 0.05 25 320 4.1 320 4.1
fenpropathrin Danitol 0.53 25 320 42 320 42
acetamiprid Assail 0.45 25 320 36 320 36
Pest Scouts
Pesticide Information Use Lewis Creek Clear Creek
Reduction
Active in target
trade Ingredient- area Targeted Expected Targeted Expected
chemical name name Typical (%) Area Use Area Use
Usage / acre Reduction Reduction
/ year (acres) (lbs AI/yr) (acres) (lbs AI/yr)
phosmet Imidan 8.40 25 35 73.5 35 73.5
azinphos-methyl Guthion 3.00 0 35 0 35 0
esfenvalerate Asana 0.05 0 35 0 35 0
fenpropathrin Danitol 0.79 33 35 9.1 35 9.1
acetamiprid Assail 0.45 0 35 0 35 0
Mating Disruption
Pesticide Information Use Lewis Creek Clear Creek
Reduction
Active in target
trade Ingredient- area Targeted Expected Targeted Expected
chemical name name Typical (%) Area Use Area Use
Usage / acre Reduction Reduction
/ year (acres) (lbs AI/yr) (acres) (lbs AI/yr)
phosmet Imidan 6.30 33 20 41.6 20 41.6
azinphos-methyl Guthion 3.00 0 20 0 20 0
esfenvalerate Asana 0.05 0 20 0 20 0
fenpropathrin Danitol 0.53 0 20 0 20 0
acetamiprid Assail 0.45 25 20 2.3 20 2.3
Abandoned Orchard Removal
Pesticide Information Use Lewis Creek Clear Creek
Reduction
Active in target
trade Ingredient- area Targeted Expected Targeted Expected
chemical name name Typical (%) Area Use Area Use
Usage / acre Reduction Reduction
/ year (acres) (lbs AI/yr) (acres) (lbs AI/yr)
phosmet Imidan 6.30 0 44 0 44 0
azinphos-methyl Guthion 3.00 33 44 43.6 44 43.6
esfenvalerate Asana 0.05 0 44 0 44 0
fenpropathrin Danitol 0.53 0 44 0 44 0
acetamiprid Assail 0.45 25 44 4.95 44 4.95
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
136
Table 9 Estimated Reduction in Orchard Pesticide Use Anticipated Over Ten Year Period

Improved Efficiency Sprayers
Pesticide Information Use Lewis Creek Clear Creek
Reduction
Active in target
trade Ingredient- area Targeted Expected Targeted Expected
chemical name name Typical (%) Area Use Area Use
Usage / acre Reduction Reduction
/ year (acres) (lbs AI/yr) (acres) (lbs AI/yr)
phosmet Imidan 6.30 25 800 1260 960 1512
azinphos-methyl Guthion 3.00 25 800 600 960 720
esfenvalerate Asana 0.05 25 800 10.3 960 12.4
fenpropathrin Danitol 0.53 25 800 105 960 126
acetamiprid Assail 0.45 25 800 90 960 108
Pest Scouts
Pesticide Information Use Lewis Creek Clear Creek
Reduction
Active in target
trade Ingredient- area Targeted Expected Targeted Expected
chemical name name Typical (%) Area Use Area Use
Usage / acre Reduction Reduction
/ year (acres) (lbs AI/yr) (acres) (lbs AI/yr)
phosmet Imidan 8.40 25 140 294 280 588
azinphos-methyl Guthion 3.00 0 140 0 280 0
esfenvalerate Asana 0.05 0 140 0 280 0
fenpropathrin Danitol 0.79 33 140 36.5 280 73.0
acetamiprid Assail 0.45 0 140 0 280 0
Mating Disruption
Pesticide Information Use Lewis Creek Clear Creek
Reduction
Active in target
trade Ingredient- area Targeted Expected Targeted Expected
chemical name name Typical (%) Area Use Area Use
Usage / acre Reduction Reduction
/ year (acres) (lbs AI/yr) (acres) (lbs AI/yr)
phosmet Imidan 6.30 33 110 228.7 230 478.2
azinphos-methyl Guthion 3.00 0 110 0 230 0
esfenvalerate Asana 0.05 0 110 0 230 0
fenpropathrin Danitol 0.53 0 110 0 230 0
acetamiprid Assail 0.45 25 110 12.4 230 25.9
Abandoned Orchard Removal
Pesticide Information Use Lewis Creek Clear Creek
Reduction
Active in target
trade Ingredient- area Targeted Expected Targeted Expected
chemical name name Typical (%) Area Use Area Use
Usage / acre Reduction Reduction
/ year (acres) (lbs AI/yr) (acres) (lbs AI/yr)
phosmet Imidan 6.30 0 308 0 660 0
azinphos-methyl Guthion 3.00 33 308 304.9 660 653.4
esfenvalerate Asana 0.05 0 308 0 660 0
fenpropathrin Danitol 0.53 0 308 0 660 0
acetamiprid Assail 0.45 25 308 34.65 660 74.25
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
137
2 Crop Land

2.1 Crop Production

As discussed in the main text, while the IPSI data indicate approximately 860 acres of crop
land in 2001, reliable information on the acreage of specific crops in the Clear Creek
watershed currently does not exist. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) land use data identifies
cropped areas (as of 2001), but not the specific crops grown. US Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) data on harvested crop land do not track
below the county level.

Farms located in the specific areas denoted by the IPSI GIS database as crop land were
identified from USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) records, and 2005 registration information
examined. An examination of records for 30 operations found 293 acres of sod reported,
generally located along Clear Creek within an area from approximately 1.25 miles below
Henderson Creek to approximately 0.5 miles upstream of Henderson Creek. Additionally, 97
acres of field corn were reported, but no vegetable crops. Eight of the 30 operations did not
report any acreage in 2005. As discussed in the body of the report, these may be growers
who do not participate in USDA programs. Additionally, a number of operations reported
fallow land. FSA staff indicated that some land reported as fallow early in the season is
eventually planted.

For planning purposes, it is assumed that 300 of the 860 acres of crop land identified in the
IPSI is sod. Most if the remainder is likely to be field corn, with the most probable location of
vegetables in bottomland fields lacking residue. The IPSI land cover data indicate that there
are 307 acres of crop land in the watershed lacking residue (i.e. classified as residue < 10%).
GIS analysis of these data indicates about 206 acres of the 307 are located adjacent to
streams (defined as edge of field within 50 feet of stream).

Based upon the above information, the distribution or crop land in the watershed can be
roughly approximated as follows for planning purposes:
• 300 acres in sod;
• 220 acres in vegetables; and
• the remaining 340 acres in corn.

As shown in the main text, Lewis Creek has a total of 209 acres of crop land (based on the
IPSI), 24% of the crop land in the Clear Creek watershed. However, only 51 of these acres are
without field residue (17% of the low residue land in the watershed), not all of them located
along streams. For this analysis it is assumed that 20% of the 220 acres of vegetables in the
watershed (44 acres) are in Lewis Creek.

2.2 Current Pesticide Use

Since pesticide use is more intensive on vegetables than on the other crops grown in the
watershed, pesticide use estimates for this plan are limited to vegetable crops.

A wide variety of chemicals are used in vegetable production, though no data on actual
pesticide use in the Clear Creek drainage exist. Further, while the NC Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) is concerned about the potential impact of crop land pesticides on aquatic
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
138
organisms, neither specific pesticides of concern nor the most likely delivery pathways have
been identified. As was the case with orchard pesticides, the approach used here was to
select a small number of commonly used insecticides to illustrate usage patterns and likely
reductions in use from management practices.

A large number of pesticides are recommended for use on vegetable in North Carolina
(Sanders, 2005). Based on information from local resource professionals, the NCDWQ WARP
report (NCDWQ, 2003) listed a number of insecticides believed to be commonly used on
vegetables in the Mud Creek watershed (trade names are shown in parenthesis):
• carbaryl (Sevin)
• cyfluthrin (Baythroid)
• dimethoate (Cygon)
• endosulfan (Thiodan)
• esfenvalerate (Asana)
• imidicloprid (Provado)
• methomyl (Lannate)
• methamidophos (Monitor)
• oxamyl (Vydate)

Quantitative information on local usage of these substances is not available. Statewide data
on pesticide usage for specific crops is available from a state level survey of 2004 agricultural
pesticide use conducted by USDA (USDA, 2005). Insecticide data from this study are shown in
Table 10 for selected vegetables. How well these data represent usage in the Clear Creek
watershed is unknown, but these statistics appear to be the only information available.

Three insecticides listed in the WARP study were selected to represent pesticide use on
vegetables (Table 11). These were selected because they have recommended uses on
numerous vegetable crops, and represent different classes of insecticides.

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
139
Table 10 NC Insecticide Usage for Selected Crops, 2004,

Active Area No. Rate per Rate per
Ingredient Applied Applic. Applic.n Yr
(% acres) per Yr. (lb/acre) (lb/acre)

>>>Sweet Corn, Fresh:
Carbaryl 8 2.3 0.9 2.1
Cyfluthrin 45 3.0 0.0 0.1
Esfenvalerate 41 3.8 0.0 0.1
Lambda-cyhalothrin 44 3.3 0.0 0.1
Permethrin 4 7.5 0.2 1.24
Terbufos 52 1.0 1.3 1.3
Thiodicarb 59 4.9 0.5 2.6

>>>Field Corn:
Chlorpyrifos 8 1.0 1.06 1.06
Terbufos 18 1.0 1.01 1.01

>>>Cucumbers, Fresh:
Carbaryl 46 1.0 0.87 0.91
Endosulfan 6 9.8 0.50 4.90
Esfenvalerate 8 7.2 0.03 0.20

>>>Bell Peppers:
Acephate 17 2.7 0.74 1.97
Bt (Bacillus thur.) 10 3.5
Dimethoate 61 1.2 0.30 0.37
Methomyl 6 2.9 0.30 0.88
Spinosad 37 2.2 0.02 0.04

>>>Tomatoes, Fresh:
Abamectin 50 1.3 0.0 0.0
Bt (Bacillus thur.) 6 1.9
Carbaryl 2 5.0 0.4 2.1
Cyfluthrin 11 14.1 0.1 0.7
Dimethoate 15 2.7 0.3 0.9
Endosulfan 9 7.3 0.5 3.6
Esfenvalerate 23 4.2 0.0 0.1
Indoxacarb 44 1.9 0.1 0.2
Methomyl 6 7.4 0.3 2.5
Spinosad 25 5.7 0.1 0.4

>>>Snap Beans, Fresh:
Acephate 68 1.0 0.7 0.7
Carbaryl 2 1.8 0.8 1.5
Endosulfan 9 6.4 0.5 3.3
Esfenvalerate 25 2.3 0.0 0.1
Lambda-cyhalothri 5 6.5 0.0 0.1
Methomyl 13 12.6 0.3 3.8
Source: Agricultural Chemical Usage 2004 Vegetable Summary (USDA, 2005)

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
140

Table 11 Vegetable Pesticides Selected for Analysis
Trade Name
Chemical Name
of Active
Ingredient
Insecticide Type
Selected Vegetable Crops for Which
Usage is Recommended*
Cygon dimethoate Organophosphate beans, peppers, tomatoes
Lannate methomyl Carbamate
beans, cucumbers, peppers, squash,
sweet corn, tomatoes
Asana esfenvalerate Pyrethroid
beans, cucumbers, peppers, squash,
sweet corn, tomatoes
*Sanders (2005)

The USDA pesticide use data (Table 10) includes application data for all three insecticides.
The annual rate of application of active ingredient from this study was used, taking the
median of the annual values for the specific vegetable crops listed (Table 12).

Table 12 Annual Per Acre Application Rates, Selected Pesticides Used on Vegetables
Chemical
Name
Application
Rate per Year
(lbs/acre)*
Application Rate Source*
dimethoate 0.1 median of values for peppers
and tomatoes
methomyl 2.5 median of values for
peppers, beans and tomatoes
esfenvalerate 0.1 median of values for sweet
corn, cucumber, beans and
tomatoes
*derived from Table 10

Total estimated usage of these pesticides on vegetable crops in the Clear Creek watershed
and Lewis Creek sub-watershed was calculated by multiplying the per acre application rate by
the number of acres in vegetables (Table 13). It is assumed that these pesticides are applied
to all vegetable acres in the watershed. Since pesticide use will vary by crop and there are
alternative pesticides which can control the same pests as the three insecticides selected for
analysis, this likely results in an overestimate of the use of these particular chemicals.

Table 13 Total Annual Use, Selected Pesticides Used on Vegetables
Estimated
Vegetable Acreage Current Usage
Chemical
Name Clear
Creek
Lewis
Creek
Clear Ck
Watershed
(lbs/yr)
Lewis Ck
Sub-watershed
(lbs/yr)
dimethoate 220 44 22 4.4
methomyl 220 44 550 110
esfenvalerate 220 44 22 4.4

Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
141
2.3 Effectiveness of Planned Management Practices

The specific management practices to be implemented to address crop pesticide issues
include:
• use of pest scouts;
• upgrading of chemical mixing and handling facilities;
• riparian area enhancement;
• stabilization of eroding streambanks; and
• planting of vegetative strips between crop rows.

Of these, only pest scouts impact pesticide use and will be discussed here. The other
practices may impact pesticide transport and loading, which is not calculated for this plan.
Sediment reduction estimates for most of these practices were presented in Section C.

There is little experience with the use of pest scouts on small vegetable operations, and the
extent to which the practice may reduce pesticide application is not clear. However,
because of the constant pest pressure and high risk of damage for these crops, there is reason
to believe that the reduction in pesticide application may not be large (Dr. Jim Walgenbach,
MHCREC, personal communication). Reductions in annual per acre pesticide use on apple
orchards from pest scouting were previously estimated at 25 to 33% (Table 6). It was assumed
that the reduction in pesticide use on vegetables from pest scouts is 15%, or about half this
amount (Table 14).

Table 14 Estimated Reductions in Annual per Acre Use of Selected
Insecticides from Use of Pest Scouts for Vegetables
Current Use Use With Pest Scouts
Insecticide Application
Rate per
Year
(lbs/acre)*
Application
Rate per
Year
(lbs/acre)*
%
Reduction
dimethoate 0.1 0.085 15%
methomyl 2.5 2.1 15%
esfenvalerate 0.1 0.085 15%

2.4 Extent of Target Areas

A map showing the location and extent of crop land was shown in the main body of this report
(Figure E1 in Section E). The specific location of vegetable fields has not been determined,
although most of the vegetable acreage is believed to be located in bottomland areas. The
fields on which specific practices will be implemented will be selected based upon voluntary
grower participation, funding availability and a variety of site specific factors.

The vegetable acreage (estimated at 220 acres for Clear Creek as a whole and 44 acres for
Lewis Creek) is not large, and obtaining grower cooperation may be the greatest challenge.
No pest scout implementation for vegetables is included in the current 319 grant. Long-term
(seven years beyond the grant, or a total of ten years) implementation targets are as follows.
Long-term Target: provide pest scouting on 8 acres of vegetables in Lewis Creek for each of
the first three years following the 319 grant; provide pest scouting on 12 acres per year in
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
142
areas outside of the Lewis Creek sub-watershed during the final four years of the ten-year
planning period (see Table 15).

Table 15 Implementation Target Levels for Use of Pest Scouts on Vegetable Crops
Location
Current Areas in
Need of
Implementation
Implementation Targets
Clear Creel 220 acres
319 Grant: no acres
Next 7 Yrs: 8 acres per yr for 3 years
12 acres per yr for 4 years
Ten-Yr Total: 72 acres (33% of need)
Lewis Creek 44 acres
319 Grant: no acres
Next 7 Yrs: 8 acres per yr for 3 years
Ten-Yr Total: 24 acres (55% of need)

Information is insufficient to establish specific goals for chemical mixing and handling
facilities. Goals for riparian zone enhancement and streambank stabilization were discussed
in the section on sediment impacts (Section C).

2.5 Derivation of Expected Use Reductions

Anticipated reductions in pesticide usage from pest scouting were estimated by applying the
reduced per acre application rates anticipated from this practice (Table 14) to the estimated
targeted acreage to which those practices will be applied (Table 15). Results were presented
in Section F of the main body of this report.

References

HCSWRD, 2005. Annual Report Fiscal Year 2005.

NCSU, 2005. 2005 Integrated Orchard Management Guide for Commercial Apples in the
Southeast. NC Cooperative Extension Service. Publication AG-572.

NCDWQ, 2003. Biological Impairment in the Mud Creek Watershed. Planning Branch. June.

NRCS, 2004. Conservation Programs Manual. Environmental Quality Incentives Program. NC
Supplement CPM-NC-515-05-31. New Components for Pest Management/Scouting. November
4.

Sanders, D.C. (ed). 2005. Vegetable Crop Guidelines for the Southeastern US. North
Carolina Vegetable Growers Association.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 2001. Mud Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Inventory
and Pollution Load Estimates. Report Prepared for the NC Wetlands Restoration Program.

Toth, S. 2004. Crop Profile for Apples in North Carolina. USDA Southern Regional IPM
Center. February. Online at http://www.impcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/ncapples.html.
Clear Creek Watershed Restoration Implementation Plan June 2006
143

USDA, 2005. Agricultural Chemical Usage - 2004 Vegetables Summary. Released July 27,
2005,National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board.