DOCSLIB.ORG

Tuscumbia River Canal North Independent Basin, Alcorn and Prentiss Counties, Mississippi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tuscumbia River Canal North Independent Basin, Alcorn and Prentiss Counties, Mississippi Fecal Coliform TMDL For Tuscumbia River Canal North Independent Basin, Alcorn and Prentiss Counties, Mississippi May 19, 2000 Prepared By Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Office of Pollution Control TMDL/WLA Section/Water Quality Assessment Branch MDEQ PO Box 10385 Jackson, MS 39289-0385 (601) 961-5171 ___________________________________________Fecal Coliform TMDL for Tuscumbia River Canal FOREWORD This report has been prepared in accordance with the schedule contained within the federal consent decree dated December 22, 1998. The report contains one or more Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for waterbody segments found on Mississippi’s 1996 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies. Because of the accelerated schedule required by the consent decree, many of these TMDLs have been prepared out of sequence with the State’s rotating basin approach. The segments addressed are comprised of monitored segments that have data indicating impairment. The implementation of the TMDLs contained herein will be prioritized within Mississippi’s rotating basin approach. The amount and quality of the data on which this report is based are limited. As additional information becomes available, the TMDLs may be updated. Such additional information may include water quality and quantity data, changes in pollutant loadings, or changes in landuse within the watershed. In some cases, additional water quality data may indicate that no impairment exists. ___________________________________________________________________________ii ___________________________________________Fecal Coliform TMDL for Tuscumbia River Canal CONTENTS Page FOREWORD.............................................................................................................................. ii MONITORED SEGMENT IDENTIFICATION ......................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background...........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Applicable Waterbody Segment Use ......................................................................1-3 1.3 Applicable Waterbody Segment Standard...............................................................1-4 2.0 TMDL ENDPOINT AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT.......................................2-1 2.1 Selection of a TMDL Endpoint and Critical Condition ...........................................2-1 2.2 Discussion of Instream Water Quality ....................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Inventory of Available Water Quality Monitoring Data............................2-1 2.2.2 Analysis of Instream Water Quality Monitoring Data...............................2-2 3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Assessment of Point Sources .................................................................................3-1 3.2 Assessment of Nonpoint Sources ...........................................................................3-2 3.2.1 Failing Septic Systems..............................................................................3-4 3.2.2 Wildlife ....................................................................................................3-4 3.2.3 Land Application of Hog and Cattle Manure.............................................3-4 3.2.4 Grazing Beef and Dairy Cattle..................................................................3-5 3.2.5 Land Application of Poultry Litter............................................................3-5 3.2.6 Cattle Contributions Deposited Directly Instream .....................................3-5 3.2.7 Urban Development .................................................................................3-5 4.0 MODELING PROCEDURE: LINKING THE SOURCES TO THE ENDPOINT .............4-1 4.1 Modeling Framework Selection .............................................................................4-1 4.2 Model Setup..........................................................................................................4-1 4.3 Source Representation ...........................................................................................4-1 4.3.1 Failing Septic Systems..............................................................................4-2 4.3.2 Wildlife ....................................................................................................4-2 4.3.3 Land Application of Hog and Cattle Manure.............................................4-2 4.3.4 Grazing Beef and Dairy Cattle..................................................................4-3 4.3.5 Land Application of Poultry Litter............................................................4-3 4.3.6 Cattle Contributions Deposited Directly Instream .....................................4-3 4.3.7 Urban Development .................................................................................4-3 4.4 Stream Characteristics ...........................................................................................4-4 4.5 Selection of Representative Modeling Period .........................................................4-4 4.6 Model Calibration Process .....................................................................................4-5 4.7 Existing Loading....................................................................................................4-5 ___________________________________________________________________________iii ___________________________________________Fecal Coliform TMDL for Tuscumbia River Canal 5.0 ALLOCATION.................................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Wasteload Allocations ...........................................................................................5-1 5.2 Load Allocations....................................................................................................5-1 5.3 Incorporation of a Margin of Safety .......................................................................5-3 5.4 Calculation of the TMDL.......................................................................................5-3 5.5 Seasonality ............................................................................................................5-4 6.0 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Future Monitoring ................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Public Participation................................................................................................6-1 DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................D-1 ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................A-1 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... R-1 APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................................... AA-1 FIGURES Page 1.1a.... Tuscumbia River Canal Impaired Segment....................................................................1-2 1.1b ... Tuscumbia River Canal Subwatersheds.........................................................................1-3 3.2 ..... Landuse Distribution.....................................................................................................3-3 TABLES Page 1.1 ..... Land Distribution in Acres for the Tuscumbia River Canal Watershed...........................1-1 2.2a.... Fecal Coliform Data reported in the Tuscumbia River Canal, Station 07029310 ............2-2 2.2b ... Statistical Summaries for Station 07029310 ..................................................................2-2 3.1 ..... Inventory of Point Source Dischargers..........................................................................3-1 3.2 ..... Landuse Distribution in Number of Acres .....................................................................3-3 4.3 ..... Urban Landuse Distribution ..........................................................................................4-4 5.1 ..... Wasteload Allocations ..................................................................................................5-1 5.2a.... Fecal Coliform Loading Rates for Nonpoint Source Cattle Access to Streams...............5-2 5.2b ... Fecal Coliform Loading Rates for Failing Septic Tanks (50% WLA and 50% LA) ........5-2 5.4 ..... TMDL for Monitored Segment (counts/30 days) ..........................................................5-4 CHARTS Page A-1 .... Flow Comparison between Station 07029310 and Reach 08010207018 .................... AA-2 A-2 .... Model Output Under Existing Conditions for Reach 08010207021 ........................... AA-3 A-3 .... Model Output After Application of Reduction Scenario for Reach 08010207021...... AA-4 A-4 .... Model Output Under Existing Conditions for Reach 08010207018 ........................... AA-5 A-5 .... Model Output After Application of Reduction Scenario for Reach 08010207018...... AA-6 ___________________________________________________________________________iv
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shoals and Valley Plugs in the Hatchie River Watershed
    In cooperation with the West Tennessee River Basin Authority Shoals and Valley Plugs in the Hatchie River Watershed By Timothy H. Diehl SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS • Some incised, human-modified tributaries deliver excess sand that forms shoals in the Hatchie River. • Shoals are associated with meander cutoffs and may mark locations at which valley plugs could block the Hatchie River. • Tributaries blocked by valley plugs do not contribute excess sand, whereas channels restored through valley plugs contribute the most excess sand. A tributary in natural condition, Lagoon Creek near Brownsville, Tennessee. INTRODUCTION the tributary flood plains. This problem motivated channel- ization projects (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1970). By Agricultural land use and gully erosion have historically the mid-1980's, concern had shifted to sedimentation in the contributed more sediment to the streams of the Hatchie Hatchie River itself where channelized tributaries were River watershed than those streams can carry. In 1970, the understood to contribute much of the sediment. The Soil main sedimentation problem in the watershed occurred in Conservation Service [Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) since 1996] estimated that 640,000 tons of bedload (sand) accumulates in the Hatchie River each year and identified roughly the eastern two-thirds of the water- shed, where loess is thin or absent, as the main source of sand (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986a). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the West Tennessee River Basin Authority (WTRBA), conducted a study of sediment accumulation in the Hatchie River and its tributaries. This report identifies the types of tributaries and evaluates sediment, shoal formation, and valley-plug problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Fauna of the Hatchie River System
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 6-1973 Fish Fauna of the Hatchie River System Wayne Calvin Starnes University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Starnes, Wayne Calvin, "Fish Fauna of the Hatchie River System. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1973. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3544 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Wayne Calvin Starnes entitled "Fish Fauna of the Hatchie River System." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Wildlife and Fisheries Science. David A. Etnier, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Melbourne C. Whiteside, Dewey L. Bunting Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) May 15, 1973 To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith· a·thesis·written by Wayne Calvin Starnes entitled "Fish Fauna of ther·Hatchie ·River System." I recommend that it be accepted· for nine quarter hours of credit in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Zoology .
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Hatchie River Watershed (08010207) of the Mississippi River Basin
    UPPER HATCHIE RIVER WATERSHED (08010207) OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SECTION Presented to the people of the Upper Hatchie River Watershed by the Division of Water Pollution Control October 11, 2007. Prepared by the Jackson Environmental Field Office: And the Nashville Central Office, Watershed Management Section: Richard Cochran David Duhl Regan McGahen Josh Upham Jennifer Watson Sherry Wang, Manager UPPER HATCHIE RIVER WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary Summary Chapter 1. Watershed Approach to Water Quality Chapter 2. Description of the Upper Hatchie River Watershed Chapter 3. Water Quality Assessment of the Upper Hatchie River Watershed Chapter 4. Point and Nonpoint Source Characterization of the Upper Hatchie River Watershed Chapter 5. Water Quality Partnerships in the Upper Hatchie River Watershed Chapter 6. Restoration Strategies Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Glossary GLOSSARY 1Q20. The lowest average 1 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 20 years. 30Q2. The lowest average 3 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 2 years. 7Q10. The lowest average 7 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 10 years. 303(d). The section of the federal Clean Water Act that requires a listing by states, territories, and authorized tribes of impaired waters, which do not meet the water quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set for them, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Work Plan; Mcnairy-Cypress Creek Watershed, Mcnairy
    Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. aGB906 • U5 WATERSHED WORK PLAN Mcnairy-cypress CREEK WATERSHED Mcnairy county,Tennessee r McNAIRY-CYPRESS CREEK WATERSHED I HARDEMAN TENNESSEE j MISSISSIPPI Pickwick Lake U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE AND FOREST SERVICE 4-29013 2-70 USOA-SCS-EORT WORTH, TEX. I»70 LIBRARY < a PS m O & h3 H fc> « X) A Bookplate NATIONAL AI>-83 (*-*) WATERSHED WORK PLAN McNAIRY-CYPRESS CREEK WATERSHED McNairy County, Tennessee Prepared under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566, 83d Congress, 68 Stat. 666), as amended. Prepared by: McNairy-Cypress Creek Watershed District McNairy County Soil Conservation District City of Seiner City of Ramer With assistance by: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service November 1972 S. 4-29013 408027 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pagi SUMMARY OF PLAN x WATERSHED RESOURCES - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 5 Historical Data 5 Physical Data 6 Economic Data 10 Fish and Wildlife Resource Data 17 Archeological and Historic Values 18 Soil, Water, and Plant Management Status 18 WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCE PROBLEMS 20 Floodwater Damage 20 Indirect Damage 23 Erosion Damage 23 Sediment Damage 24 Drainage 34 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 34 Recreation 34 Fish and Wildlife 35 PROJECTS OF OTHER AGENCIES 36 PROJECT FORMULATION 37 WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT TO BE INSTALLED 42 Land Treatment Measures 42 Structural
    [Show full text]
  • Firm Map Index
    NOTE TO USER LISTING OF COMMUNITIES Future revisions to this FIRM Index will only be issued to communities that are located on FIRM panels being revised. COMMUNITY MOST RECENT FIRM This FIRM Index therefore remains valid for FIRM panels dated COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER LOCATED ON PANEL(S) INITIAL NFIP MAP DATE INITIAL FIRM DATE PANEL DATE [mm/dd/yyyy] or earlier. Please refer to the "MOST RECENT ALCORN COUNTY 25, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 76, 78, 80, 86, 87, 280267 APRIL 7, 1978 JANUARY 17, 1991 FIRM PANEL DATE" column in the Listing of Communities (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 88, 89, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, 250 table to determine the most recent FIRM index date for each CORINTH, CITY OF 280002 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 76, 78, 86, 88, 89 JANUARY 23, 1974 MARCH 16, 1981 1 community. FARMINGTON, TOWN OF 280170 80, 87, 100 GLEN, TOWN OF 280137 89, 100, 225 JUNE 4, 1974 KOSSUTH, VILLAGE OF 280062 50, 175 NOTE TO USERS RIENZI, TOWN OF 280322 200 NOVEMBER 17, 1978 1Non-floodprone community FEMA maintains information about map features, such as street locations and names, in or near designated flood hazard areas. Requests to revise information in or near designated flood hazard areas may be provided to FEMA during the community review period, at the final Consultation Coordination Officer's meeting, or during the statutory 90-day appeal period. Approved requests for changes will be shown on the final printed FIRM. Sevenmile Creek Drainage Canal Pitman Branch Wardlow Creek HARDEMAN COUNTY HARDIN COUNTY TENNESSEE
    [Show full text]