Nolichucky River Watershed (HUC 06010108) Cocke, Greene, Hamblen, Hawkins, Unicoi, and Washington Counties, Tennessee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) for E. Coli in the Nolichucky River Watershed (HUC 06010108) Cocke, Greene, Hamblen, Hawkins, Unicoi, and Washington Counties, Tennessee FINAL Prepared by: Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control 6th Floor L C Tower 401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243-1534 Submitted February 14, 2007 Approved by EPA Region 4 – March 5, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF DOCUMENT ......................................................................................................... 1 3.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 1 4.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION .......................................................................................................... 7 5.0 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA TMDL TARGET..................................................................... 8 6.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND DEVIATION FROM TARGET .................................. 13 7.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................... 24 7.1 Point Sources ........................................................................................................................ 24 7.2 Nonpoint Sources .................................................................................................................. 28 8.0 DEVELOPMENT OF TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS........................................................ 36 8.1 Expression of TMDLs, WLAs, LAs ...................................................................................... 36 8.2 Area Basis for TMDL Analysis................................................................................................ 36 8.3 TMDL Analysis Methodology .................................................................................................. 37 8.4 Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation ............................................................................. 38 8.5 Margin of Safety..................................................................................................................... 38 8.6 Determination of TMDLs ........................................................................................................ 38 8.7 Determination of WLAs LAs................................................................................................ 39 9.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN..................................................................................................... 42 9.1 Point Sources ........................................................................................................................ 42 9.2 Nonpoint Sources .................................................................................................................. 44 9.3 Application of Load Duration Curves for Implementation Planning .......................................... 46 9.4 Additional Monitoring.............................................................................................................. 47 9.5 Source Identification .............................................................................................................. 48 9.6 Evaluation of TMDL Implementation Effectiveness................................................................. 49 10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION...................................................................................................... 49 11.0 FURTHER INFORMATION .................................................................................................... 50 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 51 ii APPENDICES Appendix Page A Land Use Distribution in the Nolichucky River Watershed A-1 B Water Quality Monitoring Data B-1 C Load Duration Curve Development and Determination of Dailiy Loading Functions and Required Load Reductions C-1 D Hydrodynamic Modeling Methodology D-1 E Public Notice E-1 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Location of the Nolichucky River Watershed 4 2 Level IV Ecoregions in the Nolichucky River Watershed 5 3 Land Use Characteristics of the Nolichucky River Watershed 6 4 Waterbodies Impaired by Pathogens (as documented on the Final 2006 303(d) List) 12 5 Overview of Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Nolichucky River Watershed 17 6 Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Big and Little Limestone Creek Subwatersheds (HUC12s 0206, 0401, 0402) 18 7 Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Sinking, Meadow, Pigeon, and Richland Creek Subwatersheds (HUC12s 0501 – 0506) 19 8 Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Bent, Flat, and Long Creek Subwatersheds (HUC12s 0601, 0603 – 0605) 20 9 Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Lick Creek Subwatershed (HUC12s 0701 – 0705) 21 10 NPDES Regulated Point Sources in and near Impaired Subwatersheds and Drainage Areas of the Nolichucky River Watershed 26 11 Class I and II CAFOs in and near Impaired Subwatersheds and Drainage Areas of the Nolichucky River Watershed 29 12 Land Use Area of Nolichucky E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds -- Drainage Areas Greater Than 30,000 Acres 33 13 Land Use Percent of Nolichucky E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds – Drainage Areas Greater Than 30,000 Acres 33 14 Land Use Area of Nolichucky E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds -- Drainage Areas Between 15,000 and 30,000 Acres 34 15 Land Use Percent of Nolichucky E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds – Drainage Areas Between 15,000 and 30,000 Acres 34 16 Land Use Area of Nolichucky E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds -- Drainage Areas Less Than 15,000 Acres 35 17 Land Use Percent of Nolichucky E. coli-Impaired Subwatersheds – Drainage Areas Less Than 15,000 Acres 35 18 Tennessee Department of Agriculture Best Management Practices located in the Nolichucky River Watershed 45 19 Sample E. Coli Load Duration Curve 46 iv LIST OF FIGURES (cont’d) Figure Page C-1 Flow Duration Curve for Big Limestone Creek at Mile 0.5 C-8 C-2 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Little Limestone Creek at Mile 7.0 C-8 C-3 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Muddy Fork at Mile 0.4 C-9 C-4 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Muddy Fork at Mile 7.1 C-9 C-5 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Big Limestone Creek at Mile 0.5 C-10 C-6 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Big Limestone Creek at Mile 7.7 C-10 C-7 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Carson Creek at Mile 0.1 C-11 C-8 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Jockey Creek at Mile 3.2 C-11 C-9 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Sinking Creek at Mile 3.0 C-12 C-10 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Sinking Creek at Mile 4.5 C-12 C-11 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Richland Creek at Mile 1.3 C-13 C-12 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Meadow Creek at Mile 0.4 C-13 C-13 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Meadow Creek at Mile 2.7 C-14 C-14 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Pigeon Creek at Mile 0.9 C-14 C-15 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Pigeon Creek at Mile 2.8 C-15 C-16 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Lick Creek at Mile 52.3 C-15 C-17 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Lick Creek at Mile 61.0 C-16 C-18 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Pyborn Creek at Mile 0.1 C-16 C-19 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Lick Creek at Mile 33.6 C-17 C-20 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Lick Creek at Mile 1.0 C-17 C-21 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Lick Creek at Mile 11.9 C-18 C-22 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Lick Creek at Mile 20.5 C-18 C-23 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Mink Creek at Mile 1.0 C-19 C-24 E. Coli Load Duration Curve for Potter Creek at Mile 0.3 C-19 v LIST OF FIGURES (cont’d) Figure Page D-1 Hydrologic Calibration: Sinking Creek at Afton, USGS 03466228 (WYs 1991-2000) D-4 D-2 10-Year Hydrologic Comparison: Sinking Creek at Afton, USGS 03466228 D-4 D-3 Hydrologic Calibration: Little Pigeon River, USGS 03470000 (WYs 1972-1981) D-6 D-4 10-Year Hydrologic Comparison: Little Pigeon River, USGS 03470000 D-6 D-5 Hydrologic Calibration: Nolichucky River at Embreeville, USGS 03465500 (WYs 1995-2004) D-8 D-6 10-Year Hydrologic Comparison: Nolichucky River at Embreeville, USGS 03465500 D-8 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 MRLC Land Use Distribution – Nolichucky River Watershed 7 2 2006 Final 303(d) List for E. coli – Nolichucky River Watershed 9 3 Summary of TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data 22 4 NPDES Permitted WWTFs in Impaired Subwatersheds or Drainage Areas 25 5 Class I and II CAFOs in Impaired Subwatersheds or Drainage Areas 28 6 Livestock Distribution in the Nolichucky River Watershed 31 7 Population on Septic Systems in the Nolichucky River Watershed 32 8 Determination of Analysis Areas for TMDL Development 37 9 TMDLs, WLAs Las for Impaired Subwatersheds and Drainage Areas in the Nolichucky River Watershed 40 10 Sample Load Duration Curve Summary 47 11 Example Implementation Strategies 47 A-1 MRLC Land Use Distribution of Nolichucky River Subwatersheds A-2 B-1 TDEC Water Quality Monitoring Data – Nolichucky River Subwatersheds B-2 C-1 Required Reduction for Hominy Branch – Mile 0.2 C-20 C-2 Required Reduction for Little Limestone Creek – Mile 7.0 C-20 C-3 Required Reduction for Little Limestone Creek – Mile 7.7 C-21 C-4 Required Reduction for Muddy Fork – Mile 0.4 C-21 C-5 Required Reduction for Muddy Fork – Mile 7.1 C-22 C-6 Required Reduction for Big Limestone Creek – Mile 0.5 C-23 C-7 Required Reduction for Big Limestone Creek – Mile 7.7 C-24 C-8 Required Reduction