FY 2017 Annual Report of Tennessee’s 319 Nonpoint Source Grant Program

Tennessee Department of Agriculture Land & Water Stewardship Section

Restoring…

Protecting…

Tennessee’s Water Resources

Submitted to US EPA, Region IV - December 27, 2017

2

This report prepared by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture

Ellington Agricultural Center 424 Hogan Road

Nashville, TN 37220-9029

Contact: Dr. Sam Marshall Phone: (615) 837-5306 Sam.Marshall@tn.gov Fax: (615) 837-5025

3

Table of Contents

Topic Page

List of Acronyms 4 Executive Summary 5 Overview 6 Program Highlights 7-12 Guiding Principles 13 Status of Active Projects 14-15 Individual Active Projects (In alphabetical order by grantee) 16-43 List of Appendices Appendix A: Long Term Goals—Current Progress Summary Appendix B: Measures of Success Checklists Appendix C: Section 319(h) Grant Participant Annual Survey Appendix D: FFY2017 Success Story Appendix E: Streambank Symposium Meeting Summary Appendix F: National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) Status Up- date

4

Acronyms

Ac Acre

ARAP Aquatic Resources Alteration Permit

ARCF Agricultural Resources Conservation Fund

BFEC Brushy Fork Environmental Consulting

BMP Best Management Practice

CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

CRC Cumberland River Compact

CWA Clean Water Act

E. coli Escherichia coli

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program

FFY Federal Fiscal Year

GIS Geographic Information System

GRTS Grants Reporting and Tracking System

MNWA Middle Nolichucky Watershed Association

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MTSU Middle Tennessee State University

NPS Nonpoint Source

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

OWCA Obed Watershed Community Association

RC&D Resource Conservation and Development Council

SCD Soil Conservation District

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

TDA Tennessee Department of Agriculture

TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

TEC Tennessee Environmental Council

TN Tennessee

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TN-NPS Tennessee Nonpoint Source Program

TSU Tennessee State University

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UT University of Tennessee

UTM University of Tennessee—Martin

WTRBA West Tennessee River Basin Authority

5

Executive Summary Introduction The Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) manages the Nonpoint Source Program (aka, 319 Program) in Tennessee with approval and oversight of the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This federal program provides funds to states, territories and Indian tribes for installing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to stop NPS pollution; providing training, educa-tion, and demonstrations; and monitoring water quality. The Tennessee Nonpoint Source Program (TN-NPS) is non-regulatory and promotes voluntary, incentive-based solutions. The program is a cost-share program, meaning that it pays for 60% of the cost of a project. It is the responsibility of the grantee to provide the remaining 40%, usually in cash and “in-kind” services. While the 319 Grant is the primary focus of this Annual Report, it is important to note that the TN-NPS extends beyond the USEPA grant; Tennessee funds additional projects under State-funded programs such as the Agricultural Resources Conservation Fund (ARCF). Together, the goal of the TN-NPS program is restore impaired waterbodies, prevent de-cline of high-quality waterbodies, and promote education of non-point source issues. Notable Accomplishments In FFY2017, the TN-NPS continued implementation of the Program Management Document. The tracking of BMPs by sector, as proposed under the Program Management Document, was fully implemented for FFY2017. Measures of Success within the program are evaluated annually, and the results can be found in Appendices A and B. Staff with TN-NPS is currently working to streamline the logging of site visits, by sector, through an online application, with the tentative goal of having the application in use in FFY2018. The TN-NPS continues to improve communication with grantees and cooperators in accordance with the adaptive management strategy laid-out in the Program Management Document. The second annual participant survey was released on October 17, 2017. A list of survey questions, key findings, and survey results, can be found in Appendix C. After continued evaluation of the 2014 Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list, one Success Story was developed and submitted to USEPA in FFY2017. A 23.1-mile segment of the Sequat-chie River in Bledsoe was approved by USEPA during FFY2017 (please see Appendix D). A draft Success Story for Hedden Branch and an unnamed tributary of Little Fiery Gizzard Creek was submitted on October 5, 2017. A draft Success Story for Skillern Creek was submitted October 17, 2017. It is anticipated that the stories will be accepted during FFY2018. In FFY2017, $1,281,000 was awarded to watershed projects, and $166,656 was awarded to statewide/education/outreach projects. Approximately 180 BMPs were implemented in FFY2017, including a variety of projects such as rain gardens, alternative livestock watering facilities, and exclusion fencing. Early in FFY2017, the State of Tennessee assisted with beta-testing the newest version of USEPA’s Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) online software. On March 3, 2017, TDA hosted a Streambank Restoration Symposium which brought together agencies and academia to discuss appropriate streambank stabilization techniques and permit-ting requirements (please see Appendix E for additional information). Areas for Improvement The TN-NPS continues to face challenges engaging applicants from mining and forestry. In addi-tion, the western portion of the State appears to be less engaged with the 319 Grant program. Conclusion In FFY2017, the TN-NPS continued to promote water quality issues awareness throughout Ten-nessee. Moving forward, the program will attempt to diversify both in the types of BMPs promot-ed, and the cooperators engaged.

FFY2017 Program

Highlights

Continued Pro-gram Manage-ment Docu-ment imple-mentation.

A Success Sto-

ry for Sequat-chie River was submitted and approved by USEPA.

Tennessee as-

sisted with be-ta-testing the USEPA’s Grants Report-ing and Track-ing System

A Streambank

Restoration Symposium was hosted to discuss stabili-zation tech-niques and permitting.

Funded

$1,281,000 in watershed pro-jects and $166,656 in statewide/education/outreach pro-jects for FFY2017.

180 BMPs were

implemented in FFY2017.

6

Overview The Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) manages the 319 Nonpoint Source Program with approval and oversight of the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The TN-NPS applies for and is awarded a grant from the USEPA each year in order to implement this program. This Annual Report is required under a provision of each year’s grant award. Specifically, the report fulfills the requirements of Section 319(h)(11) of the federal Clean Water Act. This report is written each year to inform the public, the USEPA, and ultimately the U.S. Congress of the state’s progress in the area of reducing nonpoint source pollution in Tennessee. While this report should not be con-strued to be a complete description of all TN-NPS program activities, it does describe the most important features of the program within the federal fiscal year 2016 (i.e., October 1, 2016– September 30, 2017). Today, nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is the nation’s largest source of water quality problems. It’s the main reason that approximately 40 percent of our surveyed rivers, lakes, and estuaries are not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fishing or swimming. NPS pollution occurs when water runs over land or through the ground, picks up pollu-tants, and deposits them into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters or introduces them into ground water. NPS pollution is widespread because it can occur any time activities disturb the land or water. To address this diffuse type of pollution, congress established the Nonpoint Source Program, funded by the USEPA through Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The Tennessee Department of Agriculture administers the Nonpoint Source Program in Tennessee on behalf of USEPA. This program provides funds to states, territories and Indian tribes for installing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to stop NPS pollution; providing training, education, and demonstrations; and monitoring water quality. The TN-NPS is non-regulatory and promotes voluntary, incentive-based solutions. The program is a cost-share pro-gram, meaning that it pays for 60% of the cost of a project. It is the responsibility of the grantee to provide the re-maining 40%, usually in cash and “in-kind” services. It primarily funds two types of projects: 1. BMP Implementation Projects improve an impaired waterbody, or prevent a non-impaired water from becoming placed on the 303(d) List. Projects of this type receive highest priority for funding. All projects involving BMPs must be based on an approved “Watershed Based Plan”. 2. Educational Projects funded through TN-NPS raise awareness of practical steps that can be taken to eliminate NPS pollution. Projects funded can either have a statewide, general public aim or can focus in on local, targeted au-diences with specific messages.

No funds from the TN-NPS are given directly to individual landowners. All grant money is awarded to organizations/entities that administer and oversee the local project. Eligible applicants include non-profit organizations, local gov-ernments, state agencies, soil conservation districts, and universities. These organizations then can enter into work agreements with individual landowners to reimburse them for work done on their land. All payments made with grant funds are on a reimbursement basis.

Below: TDA-NPS and USEPA site visit of Renais-sance Park in Chattanooga, June, 2017

Below: Riparian area restored by the Obed Water-shed Community Association in August, 2017.

7

Program Highlights from FY2017 The Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) relies on the cooperation of stakeholders, partnerships, and local land-owner support to implement many components of the Tennessee Nonpoint Source Program (TN-NPS) statewide. The information contained in this Annual Report highlights many of the accomplishment that have been collectively achieved by these collaborative efforts during FFY2017. SIGNIFICANT GRANT MILESTONES IN FISCAL YEAR 2017: TN-NPS Management Program Document Implementation In FFY2017, the TN-NPS continued the implementation of the Management Program Document. Measures of Success are tracked and evaluated annually. The interim measures of success of long-term goals, as well as annual milestones, are reported in Appendices A and B. In addition, the tracking of best management practices (BMPs) by sector has been fully implemented. An online application for more efficiently tracking site visits is currently being developed. Adaptive management-based changes to the program made in FFY2017 included additional educational outreach by the TDA-NPS program.

319 Applicant Survey The TN-NPS again surveyed Section 319(h) Grant applicants from the previous five years to obtain input on the pro-gram. Approximately, 64 individuals and institutions were sent a request to complete the survey, with a total of 22 re-sponses received. A summary of the survey methodology, questions, and responses is included in Appendix C. Two trends were identified in the survey results. First, applicants stated in comment sections that the presence of TDA-NPS staff at regional meetings, field days, etc. to promote the 319 Grant program would be beneficial. Survey respons-es also indicated that a majority of individuals that completed the survey felt that additional assistance with writing Wa-tershed Based Plans would be helpful to their organization. Success Stories / Impaired Waters Delistings In FFY2017, the TN-NPS developed a Success Stories for a 23.1-mile segment of the Sequatchie River. The Success Story was accepting in September of 2017, and published on the USEPA website. To read the newest Success Story, and see a complete list of all Tennessee Success Stories, please see Appendix D.

Above: Sequatchie River, July, 2017

8

Streambank Restoration Symposium On March 3, 2017, TDA hosted a symposium including vari-ous local, state, and federal agencies, and representatives of the academic community, for the purpose of strategizing on the best streambank stabilization practices. The Symposium included presentations by researchers and consultants with experience in streambank restoration. Additional information about the topics discussed can be found in the Meeting Summary in Appendix E. Beta-Testing for the USEPA’s Grants Reporting and Tracking System In the Fall, 2016, TDA-NPS assisted with beta-testing the newest version of the software used by USEPA to track the 319 Grants nation-wide (Grants Reporting and Tracking System or GRTS). The beta-testing included exploring the pro-gram, attempting various applications with the software, and creating test records. All findings were recorded and provid-ed to USEPA staff for de-bugging the software, as well as improving operability.

Grant Awards Recipients for FFY2017 In FFY2017, the TN-NPS received a total of 16 proposals. Of the proposals received, nine were wholly or partially fund-ed with 319 grant dollars, as well as providing support to the Tennessee Department on Environment and Conservation (TDEC) for water quality monitoring. The total amount awarded was $1,281,000 for watershed projects, and $166,656 in statewide education and outreach projects.

Best Management Practices Installation for FFY2017 Grant recipients used grant funds (from all open grants) to install 180 BMPs in FFY2017. The top five BMPs installed in FYY2017 were (in descending order of frequency): watering facilities, heavy use area protection, fencing (all types), pipelines, and septic system replacements/repairs.

Other Program Highlights for FFY2017:

Attendance at National and Regional Nonpoint Source Meetings In the past year TN-NPS staff have attended several regional and national meetings:

Sarah Hovis attended the Tennessee Stormwater Association Annual Meeting in at Fall Creek Falls State Park, Spencer, TN—October 18 - 20, 2016.

Sarah Hovis attended the National Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Roundtable at the Hotel Albuquerque in Albuquerque, NM—November 15 - 17, 2016.

Heidi McIntyre-Wilkinson attended the Middle Tennessee Geographic Information Council at Montgomery Bell State Park, Burns, TN—November 29 - 30, 2016.

Heidi McIntyre-Wilkinson attended the Tennessee Water Resources Symposium at Montgomery Bell State Park, Burns, TN—April 5 - 6, 2017.

Sam Marshall attended the National Nonpoint Source Managers Meeting in Boston, MA—October 31—November 3, 2016.

Sam Marshall attended the West Tennessee Water Resources Symposium at the West Tennessee AgResearch and Education Center, Jackson, TN—April 18, 2017.

Sam Marshall presented at the annual Clinch/Powell Clean Rivers Initiative in Abingdon, VA—September 27-28, 2017

John McClurkan attended the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force Coordinating Committee meeting in Biloxi, MS on September 26—28, 2017.

FFY2013 Grant Closeout

The FFY2013 grant expired on September 30, 2017. The Closeout Report for FFY2013 was submitted to USEPA on December 13, 2017.

Above: Streambank Restoration Symposium March 3, 2017.

9

FFY2017 Grant Awarded The TN-NPS released a Request for Proposals on September 13, 2016 in anticipation of the 319 Grant award ex-pected for FFY2017. Proposals were due by December 1, 2016 and a total of 16 proposals were received. All togeth-er, these proposals requested a total of $3,014,908 in grant funding. Funding for Tennessee in FY2017 was $2,562,000 with $1,447,656 available for projects. The TN-NPS strives to fund as many eligible projects as possible; however, sufficient funding was available to provide a grant to only 10 of the 16 project proposals submitted in FFY2017. Furthermore, many of the projects that received funding were not awarded the requested amount, due to budget limitations. The FFY2017 grant of $2,562,000 was awarded on September 7, 2017. All funds have been obligated and contracts are currently being written and signed. The following table provides a list of projects funded from the FY2017 grant and how much grant funding each received.

Name of Applicant Name of Project 319 Grant Money

Allocated Funding

Type

Boone Watershed Partner-ship

Outdoor Classroom with Living Roof for Jacob’s Nature Park

$25,000 Program

Cumberland River Compact Brown’s Creek Restoration, Phase I $103,000 Watershed

Harpeth Conservancy (formerly known as the Har-peth River Watershed As-

sociation

Harpeth River Headwaters Restoration Project, Phase IV

$28,000 Watershed

Lauderdale County Soil Conservation District

Cold Creek Restoration Project, Phase II $345,000 Watershed

Southeast Tennessee Re-source Conservation and

Development Council

Conasauga River Pathogen TMDL Imple-mentation, Phase II

$275,000 Watershed

TenneSEA Reducing NPS Pollution in Mountain

Creek Watershed, Phase II $200,000 Watershed

Tennessee Department on Environment and Conser-

vation

Water Quality Monitoring of NPS-Impaired Streams

$155,000 Program and Watershed

Tennessee Resource Con-servation and Development

Council Tennessee Envirothon $20,000 Program

University of Tennessee—Institute of Agriculture

Getting the Job Done Right: Landscape Contractor Training

$66,656 Program

West Tennessee River Ba-sin Authority

Improving Biological Integrity and Physical Habitat of Turkey Creek

$230,000 Watershed

TOTAL $1,447,656

Table 1: FFY2017 Grant Awards

10

The total spent in FFY2017 is significantly less than the amount spent in FFY2016 ($3,209,190.22). The reduction in expended funds is largely due to the fact that only five grants are now active in any given year. (Until FFY2016, a total of seven grants would be active each year.) Program Management costs consist of salaries and benefits for 13.33 FTEs, travel, supplies, and indirect costs; all stemming from the TN-NPS. The following two figures illustrate the spending from FFY2017. Figure 1 is a geographical representation of where 319 money was spent in FFY2017 across the state on best management practices from watershed restoration pro-jects. Please note that each marker may represent more than one BMP on a particular site.

Total NPS Spending in FFY2017 In FFY2017, the TN-NPS again demonstrated the ability to put federal 319 grant money on the ground in an effective way. During FFY2017, 319 money was spent from federal grants received in every year from FFY2013 through FFY2016. From across all of the open grant years, a total of approximately $2,343,924.60 was spent in FFY2017. The following table breaks down how the money was spent.

Table 2: 319 Program Spending in Tennessee – FFY2017

Nature of Expense Amount of 319 Dollars Spent NPS Program Management $1,213,362.49

Watershed Restoration Projects $782,361.79

Educational Projects $348,200.32

TOTAL: $2,343,924.60

11

Figure 2 shows a number of things related to 319 spending. The brown bars show the amount of grant money spent in FFY2017 from each of our active grants. The green bars show the cumulative amount spent or drawn-down from each of our active grants. We have recently closed out the FFY2013 grant, with a $0 balance. Each subsequent grant year has less and less money spent as each year is more and more recent, but the TN-NPS program has a strong history of spending all of the money from each grant before it is closed out.

12

Figure 3 shows our estimated load reductions for N, P, and sediment from all projects with BMPs for FFY2017. Estimates were derived using the STEPL Model. Approximately 180 BMPs were installed throughout the state in FFY2017. Load reduction estimates are indi-cated in the chart below. Pollutant load reductions are key to removing stream reaches and bodies of water from the 303(d) List. Since delisting streams from the 303(d) list is the #1 priority of the Tennessee NPS pro-gram, these estimates represent significant progress towards that goal, even if it does normally take several years for these reductions to manifest themselves in actual monitoring results. Data derived from GRTS entries and database query dating from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. NOTE: Data units for sediment are in tons/yr.

13

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The successful administration of any program requires some level of planning and the establishment of goals. The TN-NPS’s new Management Program Document is part of that process, and one significant aspect of that plan is the goals that have been set. Both long term goals and annual goals have been identified, all of which correspond to the four elements of TN-NPSs overriding mission statement.

TN-NPS Program Mission Statement

The mission of the TN-NPS is to: measurably reduce nonpoint source pollution in Tennessee, measurably improve Tennessee's water quality, continuously strengthen and expand partnerships, and increase the water resources stewardship of Tennes-

see's citizens.

The specific long and short term goals will be the basis of all future NPS program projects in Tennessee. The TN-NPS will tie each future project to specific long term goals and annual milestones. These goals are fully described in Section 3 (Strategy for Addressing Nonpoint Source Pollution Issues) of the new Management Program Document.

2015 - 2019 TN-NPS Long Term Goals

Long Term Goal No. 1: Restore impaired water bodies (i.e., those on the 303(d) list) by implementing best management practices (BMPs) that address nonpoint source pollution. Long Term Goal No. 2: Build citizen awareness of problems and solutions related to nonpoint source pollution through local and statewide ed-ucation efforts targeting various audiences. Long Term Goal No. 3: Build capacity for future TN-NPS projects in local watersheds by engaging stakeholders and potential partners through outreach and personal contact. Long Term Goal No. 4: Track interim progress towards restoration of impaired water bodies. Long Term Goal No. 5: Protect unimpaired/high quality waters (i.e., those not on the 303(d) list) by implementing appropriate BMPs where warranted. Long Term Goal No. 6 Fulfill all obligations under grant award agreement with USEPA annually.

14

Grantee Name—Project Name Amount Awarded

($) Balance ($) Expiration

Date Anderson County SCD—Bullrun Creek Restoration Initiative Phase III $300,000.00 $0.00 01/31/2017

Anderson County SCD—Hinds Creek $75,000.00 $65,128.00 01/31/2019

Appalachian RC&D—Roan Creek Restoration $230,000.00 $165,638.10 01/15/2019

Austin Peay State University—Project WET TN 2.0 $120,000.00 $29,601.52 12/31/2017

Blount County SCD—Baker & Centenary Creeks Restoration $120,000.00 $20,688.27 12/31/2018

Boone Watershed Partnership—Gap Branch Restoration Project $67,444.97 $0.00 04/30/2017

Boone Watershed Partnership—Sinking Creek Educational Park $20,600.00 $0.00 12/15/2017

City of Athens—Denso Eco Park/North Mouse Creek $145,000.00 $145,000.00 07/31/2020

Claiborne County SCD—Little Sycamore Creek $165,200.00 $77,935.00 01/31/2019

Clinch-Powell RC&D—Expanded East TN Grazing Lands $99,524.00 $19,280.05 12/31/2017

Clinch-Powell RC&D—Lower Clinch River Restoration $190,000.00 $180,539.12 02/29/2020

Cumberland River Compact—Bank Stabilization at Moss Wright Park and Mansker Creek Watershed Restoration Project: Phase I $174,000.00 $160,315.00 07/31/2020

Cumberland River Compact—Sustainable Farming Education $34,371.00 $21,952.21 12/15/2018

Giles County SCD—Richland Creek/Blue Creek $235,000.00 $194,792.30 02/28/2019

Hamblen County SCD—Nolichucky Sediment Reduction Project $165,000.00 $165,000.00 07/31/2020

Harpeth River Watershed Association—Harpeth River Headwaters Restora-tion-Phase III $55,000.00 $9,233.62 01/31/2018

Knox County—Beaver Creek Phase II $167,160.00 $27,115.41 02/28/2018

Knox County—Roseberry Creek $144,000.00 $144,000.00 03/14/2020

Knox County SCD—Flat Creek Restoration $195,000.00 $42,719.73 02/28/2019

Middle Nolichucky WS Alliance—Holley Creek Restoration $122,500.00 $27,132.12 02/14/2018

Morgan County SCD—Crooked Fork Restoration Project $224,000.00 $210,879.89 07/31/2020

Robertson County SCD—Valley Branch Restoration Project $190,728.97 $0.00 07/31/2017

TN Dept of Environment & Conservation/Water Resources - Water Quality Monitoring of NPS Impaired Streams 2013 $150,000.00 $0.00 12/31/2016

TN Dept of Environment & Conservation/Water Resources— Water Quality Monitoring of NPS Impaired Streams 2014 $234,000.00 $0.00 03/15/2018

TN Dept of Environment & Conservation/Water Resources— Water Quality Monitoring of NPS Impaired Streams 2015 $150,000.00 $0.00 03/15/2019

TN Dept of Environment & Conservation/Water Resources— Water Quality Monitoring of NPS Impaired Streams 2016 $15,000.00 $117,044.40 03/31/2020

TN Dept of Environment & Conservation/Water Resources, West TN River Basin Authority—Reducing NPS Pollution in the Forked Deer River 2013 $195,000.00 $0.00 05/15/2017

TN Dept of Environment & Conservation/Water Resources, West TN River Basin Authority—Moize Creek $193,675.00 $50,450.00 2/28/2018

Status of All Projects Active in FFY2017—as of 12/13/17 (balance)

15

Grantee Name—Project Name—Grant Year Amount Awarded

($) Balance ($) Expiration

Date Tennessee Environmental Council—Lytle Creek Phase I $115,000.00 $88,113.47 7/31/2019

Tennessee Environmental Council - Rutherford Creek Restora-tion—Phase III $105,000.00 $0.00 10/31/2016

Tennessee Aquarium—Watershed Wisdom $75,483.00 $71,340.36 01/30/2020

Tennessee RC&D—Tennessee Envirothon $18,000.00 $222.04 02/28/2018

Town of Mountain City—Furnace Creek 2014 Watershed Imple-mentation Project $335,000 $1,177.99 1/15/2018

The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service—BMP’s Row Crop Production—Obion River WS $96,480.00 $0.00 12/15/2016

The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service— Welcome Wagon $23,000.00 $9,228.71 1/31/2019

Urban Green Lab—Mobile Lab: Sustainable Practices Education $15,000.00 $15,000.00 07/31/2020

Continuation of Status of All Projects Active in FYY2017

16

GRANTEE: Anderson County Soil Conservation District

PROJECT NAME: Hinds Creek Watershed Restoration

GRANT YEAR: FY2015

WEBSITE: https://www.tn.gov/agriculture/article/ag-scd-anderson

Project Summaries for FY2017 (In alphabetical order, by grantee)

As the Anderson County Soil Conservation District (SCD) completed the third year of the Section 319 grant for the restoration of Hinds Creek, two projects were installed. The first project benefitted a livestock operation with the addition of a watering facility, livestock heavy use area protection, and a livestock pipeline. The second project in-volved the installation of grade stabilization structure. Together, the two project improved an estimated 200 acres of farmland in Anderson County. The best management practices will help the landowners manage their farming oper-ations more efficiently with less time involved, while improving water quality in the Hinds Creek watershed.

Above: Grade stabilization structure installed in the Hinds Creek watershed in Anderson County.

17

GRANTEE: Appalachian Resource Conservation & Development District

PROJECT NAME: Roan Creek Restoration

GRANT YEAR: FY2015

WEBSITE: http://arcd.org/

After completing the Jay Jackson project which is detailed in the 2016 annual report, Brushy Fork Environmental Consulting (BFEC) entered into a cost-share agreement for a Goose Creek Stabilization project. Construction be-gan in the winter of 2016, and the project was completed in February of 2017. Approximately 500 linear feet of work was performed including the installation of multiple j-hooks, toe-wood (root wad) structures, floodplain benching, and the planting of native riparian vegetation. The riparian buffer was marked with "No Mow" signs every thirty to fifty feet to discourage mowing the woody vegetation. In February of 2017, BFEC began working with the Town of Mountain City on a stormwater restoration project along Adams Road and Collins Drive to address stormwater management concerns in the surrounding residential neigh-borhood. Stormwater was not draining properly and was backing up in yards and ditchlines throughout the area. The plan was to implement approximately one (1) mile of stormwater routing to a wetland detention system. Staff from BFEC attended multiple on-site meetings and Town council meetings to help the project move forward; as well as performed site drainage/elevation surveys. Unfortunately the Town was unable to enter into an agreement with area landowners in order to implement the project and, as of now, the plan is on hold. Currently, BFEC is negotiat-ing a stream restoration project, in a headwater section of the Goose Creek drainage, with Mr. Tommy Jack Shoun of Rush Oil Company Inc. at the company headquarters located off of Highway 67 in Mountain City. Mr. Shoun's property includes approximately 4,000 linear feet of streams, all of which are in need of restoration due to cattle trampling and lack of littoral vegetation. Recently, BFEC began working on a cost-share agreement with Mr. Shoun which will include natural channel structures and stream stabilization measures, cattle exclusion, and installing cat-tle troughs. In addition, BFEC is working to negotiate an alternative cost-share for this project, as it has proved diffi-cult to get landowners to participate in the program with the original 60%-40% cost-share. It is hoped that a cost-share agreement will be executed by the end of 2017.

Left: Installation of root wads along Goose Creek to reduce bank erosion. Below: Goose Creek restoration project, post-construction.

18

GRANTEE: Austin Peay State University PROJECT NAME: Project WET TN 2.0 GRANT YEAR: FY2014 WEBSITE: http://www.apsu.edu/wet

During the last year, 28 Project WET teacher training events were held, for a total of 68 since the beginning of the grant term. An additional 615 Kindergarten through 12th grade teachers and preservice teachers participated in the workshops (for a total of 1,625), learning about nonpoint source water quality issues in Tennessee. The teachers leave the workshops with classroom-ready activities to teach their students how they can impact water quality. One of the workshops involved a new partnership with the University of Tennessee Martin’s (UTM) Science, Technolo-gy, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Center, which was able to provide support, a workshop location, adver-tisement, and stipends to participating teachers. The UTM STEM Center has requested that we partner again in the coming year. At the Tennessee Environmental Education Association’s 2016 State Conference, the Project WET State Coordina-tor presented an educational session and took a group on an in-stream field trip to learn about biomonitoring. Also new this year, The Project WET Foundation (national level) produced an early childhood guide for the professional development of early childhood educators.

Upper left: Clarksville Academy second-graders pose with their “Discover the Waters of Tennessee” booklets and their pond study. Bottom left: Teachers at a Project WET workshop at Long Hunter State Park, January 21, 2017. Right: St. Matthew Catholic School, Franklin, TN, invited Project WET to hold a workshop for their teachers and local public school teachers.

19

GRANTEE: Blount County Soil Conservation District PROJECT NAME: Baker and Centenary Creek Restoration Initiative—Phase II GRANT YEAR: FY2015 WEBSITE: https://www.blounttn.org/soil/

The following tasks were completed during FFY2017: I. Implementation of Agricultural Best Management Practices: Six individual operators have completed their planned practices. All the practices were part of a whole-farm con-servation plan designed to improve natural resource conditions. Additional operators have been approved for cost-share assistance and these clients have been encouraged to complete their practices in a timely manner. Implemented practices included: II. Septic System Repair and Restoration for Low-income Households: One septic system was repaired for this reporting period. The Blount County Environmental Health Department is marketing this aspect of grant programming through approved contractors that install septic-related systems. III. Develop Plan of Action to Address Steep Bank Erosion along Highway 411 South: Multiple planning meetings have been conducted in regard to this aspect of grant programming. This plan is cur-rently under development and will contain vegetative options to restore and maintain eroded areas, improve infil-tration, and reduce sediment loading. No 319 funding to be utilized in the development of the proposal. IV. Conduct Agricultural Conservation Tour: Grant partners have discussed the parameters of a conservation tour which may occur spring 2018. V. Conduct Homeowner Outreach Workshop in Loudon County. This 4-hour workshop was conducted April 29, 2017 at the Greenback Community Center located in Loudon County, TN. 15 were in attendance. Workshop topics included: Watershed Impacts & Solutions; Turf grass Management; Soil Stewardship; Pesticide Management; and, Fertilizer Management

Participants were directed to The University of Tennessee “Smart Yards” website for additional learning content and to schedule subsequent workshops.

Practice: NRCS Practice Code #:

Quantity Installed:

Alternative Watering System 614 5 Tanks

Pipeline 516 1865 Feet

Heavy Use Area Protection 561 2920 square feet

Cross-fencing 382(d) 2712 Linear Feet

Access Control Fence (Waterbody) 382(a) 915 Linear Feet

Water Well 642 1

Pumping Plant 533 2

Grassed Waterway 412 551 Linear Feet

Critical Area Treatment 342 1 Acre

20

Blount County Soil Conservation District: Baker and Centenary Creek Restoration Initiative, Phase II………………..……continued

VI. Implement Water Quality Environmental Features at Carpenters Elementary—“Outdoor Environmen-tal Learning Area”: Survey work for the planned practices has been completed, and the planned practices are anticipated to be im-plemented by spring 2018. VII. Water Quality Monitoring: Monitoring efforts shall be conducted via the Watershed Association of the Tellico Reservoir and the Tennessee Department of Environments and Conservation (TDEC). No (319) funding to be utilized for this aspect of grant programming. VIII. Grant Management: All aspects of grant programming are reviewed on a monthly basis by the Board of Supervisors of the Blount County Soil Conservation District as part of an adaptive management policy to ensure project integrity.

Left: Installation of a freeze-proof tank and heavy use area. Below: Drilling a water well in conjunction with a pump-ing plant, pipeline, and alternative watering facility.

Above: Cross fencing installed per a whole-farm con-servation plan, showing “rested and recovered” pasture. Right: Turf-grass management presentation presented by University of Tennessee Extension—Blount County.

21

GRANTEE: Boone Watershed Partnership, Inc. (BWP) PROJECT NAME: Sinking Creek Wetlands Educational Park GRANT YEAR: FY2014 WEBSITE: http://boonewatershed.com/

Through the winter and spring of 2017, the Johnson City Parks & Recreation Nature Program Coordinator revised drafted designs of three new environmental education signs to be placed along hiking trails within Jacob’s Nature Park at Sinking Creek. Themes of salamanders, pollinators, and box turtles were combined with the park logo that was previously created for the park entrance sign by Essyx Design & Fabrication. Mr. Kim Guinn, who is the owner of Essyx, shared that design, fabrication, and placement of the signs would be roughly estimated to cost $3,000.00 per sign. Because of the company’s attachment to the project, Essyx designed and fabricated the three signs for the price of two. Their work was completed and the maintenance staff for the Johnson City Department of Parks & Rec-reation placed the signs in July. The Boone Watershed Partnership (BWP) initially submitted this grant application with development of appropriate educational access through the wetlands and across the creek as it primary vision. The proposal intended for educa-tional signs to be placed along that infrastructure. The BWP moved forward with this grant award realizing that suffi-cient funds and construction of the intended infrastructure would not be completed sufficiently to carry out the intend-ed sign placement. This grant award for educational signage was accepted with a required change in vision for placement of educational signs in the park. Planning, engineering, and building the bridge and some boardwalk along with other trail development within this environmental education park continued throughout this grant contract period; in accordance with its initial proposal, BWP reported this work as match for this grant contract. This last an-nual report for the grant emphasizes BWP’s and Johnson City’s gratitude for an aesthetically powerful, yet playful public health and environmental education regarding the importance of water quality.

Above: Signage installed at Jacob’s Nature Park at Sinking Creek

22

GRANTEE: City of Athens PROJECT NAME: Denso Eco Park/North Mouse Creek Restoration GRANT YEAR: FY2016 WEBSITE: http://www.cityofathenstn.com/trails/ecopark/

In Fiscal Year (FY) 17, work began on the rain garden surrounding the pavilion located at the Denso Eco Park in order to minimize roof runoff. On August 19, 2017, 26 volunteers from Cleveland State Community College, in coor-dination with Keep McMinn Beautiful, assisted with trail maintenance and the installation of a drainage pipe across the walking trail. Trash removal and weed control activities were also performed. On September 26, 2017, the City of Athens had 15 students and 2 teachers from Athens City Middle School help with planting the rain garden. The City of Athens is continuing coordination efforts with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conserva-tion to have an Aquatic Resources Alteration Permit (ARAP) approved. Upon approval, work can begin on:

Two wetland observation structures; Daylighting the tile drain; Bank stabilization; Removal of invasive species along the existing pond; and, Building the pedestrian bridge.

Bill Phillips of Envision Ecology, the project consultant, is currently working to obtain suitable wetland plants, as well as designing the vegetation layout. Wetland planting is tentatively scheduled for late winter/early spring of 2018 with the assistance of volunteers from Tennessee Wesleyan University.

Above: Athens City Middle School volunteers planting the rain garden. Above: Volunteers assist with trail

23

GRANTEE: Claiborne County Soil Conservation District PROJECT NAME: Little Sycamore Creek Watershed Initiative GRANT YEAR: FY2015 WEBSITE: http://tnacd.org/

The Li le Sycamore Creek Watershed Ini a ve currently has obligated all the remaining grant funds, with 12 cost‐share applica ons (totaling $89943.00) pending. Since the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 report, ap‐proximately 7,989 feet of fencing and 1,960 square feet of heavy use area protec on has been installed. The following prac ces are currently under construc on:

8,010 square feet of animal trails; 6,876 square feet of heavy use area protec on; 5 watering facili es; 6,600 linear feet of fencing; 700 square feet of stream crossing; 1 spring development; 1 pumping plant; and, 3,400 linear feet of livestock pipeline.

Above: Example of fencing project installed in the Little Sycamore Creek watershed.

Left: Example of heavy use area protection installed.

24

GRANTEE: Clinch-Powell Resource Conservation and Develop-ment Council

PROJECT NAME: Expanded East Tennessee Grazing Lands Conservation GRANT YEAR: FY2014 WEBSITE: http://www.clinchpowell.net/

Over the past year the Expanded East Tennessee Grazing Lands Conservation Project has concentrated on providing grazing management assistance to individual landowners and training of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Soil Conservation District field office staff. Table 1 summarizes the number of activities completed in 13 counties of the region. The emphasis has been on helping producers to better understand that plant grazing heights have tremendous impact on survival of pas-tures, and that strategic placement of drinking water and fencing are the tools which allow them to manage the grazing and lounging behavior of animals. Many landowners who receive Environmental Quality Incentives Pro-gram (EQIP) funds from USDA NRCS do not have a full understand-ing of plant growth or the use of fencing to control animal behavior. One-on-one discussions and group meetings were effective in helping landowners appreciate the fact that they have control of how animals use the plants and what it takes for plants to recover following grazing. It was discovered that many farms appear to be “overgrazed”, but once the producer learns about plant biol-ogy and growth, the farm can be more productive; this tends to change the availability of forage which changes the rainfall infiltration, runoff, animal performance and over-all farm efficiency.

A second limitation on many farms is the expense and resource deg-radation related to the feeding of stored forage for many months per year. Through consultations, em-phasis was placed on the cost ad-vantage of grazing as many days per year as possible, and what that means to nutrient redistribu-tion on the farm, vegetative cover, rainfall infiltration and animal health. In many cases, resources concerns can be positively ad-dressed with simple change in how close animals are allowed to graze and how long the pasture is “rested” before grazing again.

Above: Producer meeting in Cocke County livestock market.

Number of counties hosting activities on grazing issues 13

Number of farms visited for developing grazing plans or discussing grazing techniques

39

Public meetings/conferences 5

Number of participants at meetings/conferences 240

Classroom/field training sessions for NRCS staff 1

Farm tours and field days 3

Publications/documents edited or reviewed 4

Newsletter contributions 4

Figure 1: Summary of Activities for October 1, 2016—September 30, 2017

On-farm training sessions for field office staff 8

25

GRANTEE: Clinch-Powell Resource Conservation and Develop-ment Council

PROJECT NAME: Lower Clinch River Watershed Restoration GRANT YEAR: FY2016 WEBSITE: http://www.clinchpowell.net/

It has been a very productive first year for this award. As in years past, it is recognized that farmers are often aware of their nonpoint source pollution problems, but their time and financial limitations are tied to their ability to pay the bills not keep the water clean. In negotiating projects, it is important to show the benefits to their operations, not just the environment. Landowners might not care about the threatened or endangered mussels in the stream, but they do care about the fact that clean water results in better livestock health and production. Landowners do not need another lecture from an agency, but rather a program offering assistance in making their operation more productive and if it benefits the environment, then that is good, too. Without programs such as this one, landowners would not have the financial means or technical ability to implement agricultural best management practices (BMPs). The Tennessee Department of Agriculture cost-share programs are benefitting more than just the environment, they are helping farmers become better stewards of the land. Initially, the Clinch-Powell Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D) knew they wanted to draw on the findings of the BMP Implementation Priority Ranking System, which uses a geographic information system (GIS) based model developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). This model uses the best available science and spatial analyses techniques, to identify Priority Aquatic Habitat Zones and Priority Agricultural Restoration Areas in the Upper Clinch-Powell project area. These zones/areas are incorporated with other identified parameters into a BMP Implementation Priority Ranking System, to strategically direct project funding to those lands with greatest restoration needs and/or greatest potential ecological benefits. Working with key partners, Clinch-Powell RC&D will identify the best parameters and ranking system. TNC has developed the GIS model for the entire Clinch-Powell Watershed, but they have not extracted the data exclusively for the Lower Clinch River Watershed. Clinch-Powell RC&D is working with TNC to refine the parameters to include only those streams within the Lower Clinch River Watershed Restoration primary project area, and identify those parcels with the greatest conservation need/how they match up with the aquatic protection priorities.

Above: Recently complete exclusion fencing project to prevent livestock access to the stream.

26

GRANTEE: Cumberland River Compact PROJECT NAME: Bank Stabilization at Moss Wright Park & Mansker Creek Restoration Project,

Phase I GRANT YEAR: FY2016 WEBSITE: http://cumberlandrivercompact.org/

The Cumberland River Compact (CRC or the Compact) has gotten off to a good start on this project in the first nine months. The primary bank stabilization project is progressing nicely, and is scheduled for completion in the next few months. At the City of Goodlettsville’s request, the Compact secured permission for a no-bid contract with KCI Tech-nologies for a design-build project. Over the spring the Compact signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City detailing goals of the project and discussed the bank stabilization plans with KCI Technologies. In late spring, KCI Technologies began survey and permitting work, and began the design process. The design work was completed by mid-summer, and permitting is expected to be finalized by early October 2017. Construction is slated to begin in early to mid-November of 2017, and it is expected to take approximately three weeks. The newly constructed bank will consist of a stone toe with boulder vanes to dissipate stream energy and redirect the stream away from the undercut banks, topped with vegetated soil “live lifts” and, on the upper slopes, a new riparian buffer.

Right: Volunteer removes trash during a clean-up day hosted by the Goodlettsville Stormwater Department.

Left: KCI Technologies performs survey work along Mansker Creek in preparation for bank stabilization design.

27

Cumberland River Compact: Bank Stabilization at Moss Wright Park & Mansker Creek Restoration Project, Phase I……continued

The secondary projects have been proceeding as well – the Compact has been scouting sites for smaller bank stabi-lization projects to supplement our main project, as well as sites for rain gardens and riparian buffer plantings. Rep-resentatives of CRC have finalized a site location immediately downstream of the main stabilization work where the Compact will be reforesting approximately half an acre of the park, in a location that currently has a steep bank and only a single row of trees (which will likely eventually be lost to future bank erosion as well). The Compact has been exploring locations for pet waste bag dispensers and pet waste bag suppliers and will be providing these to the City. The City of Goodlettsville hosted an annual cleanup, part of which was along several drainages and storm drains along Interstate 65 that lead directly to Mansker Creek, and removed more than a pickup-truck full of trash that would otherwise have ended up in the creek. Compact staff have scouted areas of the stream in need of cleanup and will be hosting additional cleanups in the upcoming year.

The educational component of this project con-sists of a pair of summer festivals and a pair of educational talks. The first festival, “Waterfest!” grew out of an existing program the Compact hosts each year in downtown Nashville. he first Goodlettsville Waterfest! was held on July 21, 2017, in Moss Wright Park, it is estimated that the event attracted at least 200 kids and 300+ total attendees. The event featured eight educa-tional booths, and attendees were required to visit a minimum of six of the booths in order to gain entry into a prize drawing. Educational booths were staffed by the Compact, Tennessee Department of Agriculture, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Sumner County Stormwater,

and the Goodlettsville Parks and Stormwater De-partments. The topics covered included litter,

aquatic macroinvertebrates, watersheds, urban runoff, headwater streams, soil health, and more. For River Talks, CRC’s educational lecture series, a pair of talks relating to the watershed were scheduled: at the request of the City Parks Department, a talk was scheduled for October 13, 2017 detailing the history of Mansker’s Station, a historic site, and the colonization/growth of the watershed. In November KCI Technologies presented an educational talk on the main bank stabilization project.

Above: Children attending Waterfest! learning about freshwater mussels.

Above: Attendees enjoying educational booths at the Goodlettsville Waterfest! in July, 2017.

28

GRANTEE: Cumberland River Compact PROJECT NAME: Sustainable Farming Education for the

Cumberland River Basin GRANT YEAR: FY2015 WEBSITE: http://cumberlandrivercompact.org/

In addition to promoting best management practices, much of the Cumberland River Compact’s (CRC or the Com-pact) outreach this past year has focused on building relationships for future collaboration. To fulfill the goal of meet-ing with 15 soil conservation districts or other agricultural groups, in the past year CRC representatives have met with 10 soil conservation district boards (SCD) —Cheatham, Davidson, Montgomery, Overton, Putnam, Robertson, Smith, Sumner, Warren, and Williamson Counties—and also attended the Mid-TN Growers Association annual meeting and the annual Nashville Urban Garden Festival. Representatives of CRC have scheduled meetings with the SCD boards of Dickson, Wilson, and Rutherford, to be completed by the end of October, 2017. Additionally, CRC tabled at 5 farm field days, including 4 University of Tennessee (UT) Extension Field Days and Tennessee State University’s (TSU) Small Farm Expo on July 20th in Nashville. Staff also tabled at the Green Door Gourmet Fall Fest 2017, an annual farm day hosted at the Green Door Gourmet farm on the outskirts of Nashville, on October 1st. At these meetings and events CRC promoted water quality best management practices (BMPs), passed out literature (including hundreds of stream impairment maps and other items detailing ways to help reduce impacts) and solicited feedback from the agri-cultural sector, addressing the defined outreach goals of this grant. Additionally, these events have been integral to the development of new programs: the Compact is currently engaged in developing an in-lieu fee program as part of the state’s Compensatory Mitigation Program for Streams and Wetlands, and the networking allowed by visits to SCD’s and field days has allowed CRC to solicit potential restoration sites. Thanks to these visits, CRC has not only helped spread the word about the water quality improvement activities the Compact promotes and what the agricul-tural community can do to help our rivers and streams, but they have also been able to identify future restoration sites that they can fund, helping bridge the gap from outreach and education to tangible projects. Following the conclusion of this grant, the Compact looks forward to using the contacts made through this outreach to conduct large scale res-toration projects that measurably impact Tennessee rivers and streams.

The Compact is also engaged in translating their online guide to BMPs and funding sources for non-point source re-duction, “River-Friendly Landscapes for Tennessee,” to a hard copy document for future distribution, and are adding stream impairment maps (for the Harpeth and Red River watersheds) to the project. These maps have been complet-ed and are awaiting printing. Additionally, CRC continued to promote educational outreach on agricultural issues to the local Nashville community as well through the River Talks program. In the past year, the Compact has hosted 6 talks on agricultural issues, ranging from the farm to table movement to targeted grazing, and also hosted a documentary film on is-sues face by contract poultry producers. Among these talks was a presentation by Jenny Adkins and Adam Daugherty from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), entitled “Soil Health: How Tennes-see is Leading the Nation,” that focused on advances in cover cropping in Coffee Coun-ty. That particular talk (as well as a few oth-ers) was also hosted live on Facebook, and it has since received over 300 views online, making it one of the most successful talks!

Above: Attendees at a River Talk focused on cover crop advances.

29

GRANTEE: Giles County Soil Conservation District PROJECT NAME: Richland Creek—Blue Creek

Watershed Project GRANT YEAR: FY2016 WEBSITE: http://www.gcscd.com/

Since the beginning of the Richland Creek—Blue Creek Watershed Project, 15,230 feet of fencing has been installed, and another 25,895 feet has been committed with signed and approved contracts. Other completed best management practices (BMPs) are:

4 heavy use areas (HUA); 2,070 feet of livestock pipeline; and, 4 watering facilities.

In addition, eight people have signed contracts to install practices such as watering facilities, pipelines, spring devel-opment, and heavy use areas and cover crops. This grant is currently over 95% obligated. This spring, the Giles County Soil Conservation District (SCD) sent out letters to more than 260 clients in the Richland Creek—Blue Creek Watershed informing them of the availability of cost share on pipelines and water tanks. The SCD also attracted atten-tion with their display at the Giles County Fair held in August of 2017. The display highlighted information that was announced in the Richland Creek—Blue Creek Watershed letter and the many benefits of improving agricultural pro-duction through implementation of BMPs. The Giles County SCD will continually promote this grant through adver-tisement on it’s website at www.gcscd.com. The continued objective of the Richland Creek—Blue Creek Project is to improve water quality, educate landowners, and remove the impaired stream from the State of Tennessee’s 303d list.

Above: Tanner Barksdale and Neil Newton set up a display for the Annual Giles County Fair. Right: Example of fencing installed by cooperators.

30

GRANTEE: Hamblen County Soil Conservation District PROJECT NAME: Nolichucky Sediment Reduction Project GRANT YEAR: FY2016 WEBSITE: https://www.tn.gov/agriculture/article/ag-scd-hamblen

Through the Nolichucky Sediment Reduction Project, managed by the Hamblen Soil Conservation District (SCD), water quality of the Nolichucky River continues to improve. While nonpoint source pollution remains the nation’s larg-est cause of water quality problems, a continued effort to implement best management practices along 86 miles of the Nolichucky River in Hamblen, Cocke, Washington and Greene Counties has made a significant impact in the early stages of this 319 grant contract.

Outreach efforts, utilizing program publications de-veloped through the Hamblen SCD continue to improve participation throughout the counties, with over 1,450 acres of cover crop currently under con-tract in both Hamblen, Washington and Green Counties. The cover crop practice will be used pri-marily to manage soil erosion and improve soil and water quality of the agroecosystem in sections of the Nolichucky River. Other program obligations are utilizing technical assistance through the Natu-ral Resources Conservation Service and adminis-trative assistance through the local Soil Conserva-tion Districts.

Above: Publication distributed in Hamblen, Cocke, Washington, and Greene Counties to advertise incentive payments for agricultural best management practices. Top Right: Example of an ephemeral gully at a farm in Greene Coun-ty. Bottom Right: Examples of sheet and rill erosion on a farm in Ham-blen County.

31

GRANTEE: Harpeth Conservancy (formerly Harpeth River Watershed Association) PROJECT NAME: Harpeth River Head-

waters Restoration Project—Phase III

GRANT YEAR: FY2014 WEBSITE: http://www.harpethconservancy.org/

The purpose of Harpeth River Headwaters Restoration Project—Phase III was to address sediment and nutrient pol-lution from both agricultural lands in Eagleville, as well as other private, commercial, or public properties. During this period, Harpeth Conservancy (formerly Harpeth River Watershed Association) completed one agricultural best man-agement practice (BMP) design and installation project on a farm owned by Horace Jackson, which included two heavy use area protections, livestock pipeline, watering facility, exclusion fencing, and a stream crossing. Harpeth Conservancy and the landowner worked with Tennessee Department of Agriculture Watershed Coordinator to com-plete the Cost-Share Assistance Agreement and local contractors were used to perform the installation work. In De-cember 2016, Harpeth Conservancy updated the Headwaters Watershed Management Plan and performed a site inspection to document and photograph installation progress and final results. Harpeth Conservancy also recruited Joshua Moore, a Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) graduate student and our geographic information sys-tem (GIS) intern, to develop a map of problematic drainage locations and restoration needs to aid city planners with stormwater management decisions. In addition to the installation work, Harpeth Conservancy visited two farms that benefitted from previous 319 grants to assess project success and identify additional opportunities. Harpeth Conservancy also met with Andrew Ellard, the City Manager of Eagleville, on two separate occasions to discuss stormwater BMPs for the new City of Eagleville public safety building. This work will be the primary focus for Phase IV of the Harpeth River Headwaters Restoration Project. Harpeth Conservancy also performed outreach and education events at two schools, as well as created pages on the Harpeth Conservancy website focused on nutrient pollution and our headwaters restoration projects. Finally, Harpeth Conservancy met twice with Forbes Walker from University of Tennessee extension to develop a new partnership focused on community outreach to suburban/urban landowners and agricultural producers on soil testing and fertilizer application. Harpeth Conservancy plans to focus on this fertilizer outreach campaign in fall 2017 and spring 2018.

Left: Completed stream crossing on Horace Jackson’s property. Top Right: Alternative livestock watering facility and heavy use area installed on Horace Jackson’s property. Bottom Right: Installation of livestock exclusion fencing on Horace Jackson’s property.

32

GRANTEE: Knox County PROJECT NAME: Beaver Creek Restoration Phase II GRANT YEAR: FY2014 WEBSITE: http://www.knoxcounty.org/

The focus of the Beaver Creek Restoration Initiative the past fiscal year was on education/outreach and agriculture. Five Education Outreach events involving 557 people were conducted including two major events; the Beaver Creek Environmental Stewardship Roundup and the 10th Annual Halls Outdoor Classroom Celebration. Six signs were created for the Harrell Road. The Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Demonstration Park had a ribbon cutting to open the park that was conducted in May. A Farmer’s Breakfast in July of 2016 netted cooperators for four agricultural BMP projects in the headwater area of Beaver Creek, the focus area for the Beaver Creek Phase II initiative. These projects included exclusion fencing, cross fencing for pasture management, water systems, and heavy use area protection.

Above: Beaver Creek Environmental Stewardship Roundup. Right: Alternative livestock waterer and heavy use area protection installed on Nelson Farm.

Left: Rain Garden informational sign installed in the Harrell Road Park. Below: 10th Annual Halls Outdoor Classroom Celebration held at Halls High School.

33

GRANTEE: Knox County PROJECT NAME: Roseberry Creek Watershed Initiative GRANT YEAR: FY2016 WEBSITE: http://www.knoxcounty.org/

The focus of the Roseberry Creek Watershed Initiative the past fiscal year was on education/outreach and septic system repair. Watershed and creek crossing signs are being made and will be installed soon. The watershed group went on a windshield tour and identified several venues for education/outreach events including sites for Farmers’ Breakfasts and public meetings and events. Initial contact was made with the local elementary school for education-al opportunities. A press release and an article in the local newspaper were published informing citizens about Rose-berry Creek grant opportunities. A meeting was held with the Knox County Health Department and a protocol was established for septic system re-pairs. One septic system was completed, and three more are in process at this time.

Right: Portion of the Roseberry Creek Upper watershed.

Right: Portion of the Roseberry Creek Lower watershed.

34

GRANTEE: Knox County Soil Conservation District PROJECT NAME: Flat Creek Watershed Restoration Plan GRANT YEAR: FY2015 WEBSITE: http://www.knoxcounty.org/epw/soilconservation.php

The Knox County Soil Conservation District (SCD) held a Farm Field Day where they showcased best management practices (BMPs). Landowners from Knox, Union, and Grainger Counties were sent invitations, and over 125 people attended the event. The field day was held on the Breeding Farm where farm managers, Bill and Drew Benziger, were recipients of a Section 319 Grant that cost-shared on the installation of 3,675 feet of permanent fencing, four reels of temporary polywire fencing, four watering systems, and 1920 feet of pipeline. At the field day the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) grazing specialist Greg Brann spoke about pasture management tactics including managing for high production coupled with healthy soils that infiltrate water at high rates. The Knox County SCD also conducted soil health demonstration plantings where they showcased the benefits of planting multiple spe-cies in a pasture. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 the Knox County SCD cost-shared on nine farms in the Flat Creek Watershed, and distrib-uted over $130,000. These funds were used to cost share on over 26,000 feet of fence and 15 alternative watering facilities, as well as some additional practices. These funds were matched by the landowners, Knox County SCD, the NRCS and the State of Tennessee’s Agricultural Resource Conservation Fund (ARCF), thereby increasing the impact of the grant funding. In addition to the infrastructure funding, the District worked with the producers on advis-ing them regarding waterway protection, grazing management and other best management practices. Although the Knox County SCD did discuss septic system repairs with landowners no repairs were conducted in FY17. Further-more the District conducted in-depth grazing advice meetings with the NRCS grazing specialists, and with four land-owners who manage approximately 600 acres in the Flat Creek Watershed.

Top left: Temporary polywire being used to manage a Sudan pasture. Top right: Exclusion fencing pro-tecting Flat Creek. Bottom: No-till drill instruction being provided at a Farm Field Day.

35

GRANTEE: Middle Nolichucky Watershed Alliance PROJECT NAME: Holley Creek Restoration Project GRANT YEAR: FY2014 WEBSITE: http://www.mnwa-tn.org/

During the 3rd year of the contract, the Middle Nolichucky Watershed Alliance (MNWA) Holley Creek Restoration Project completed the following activities as part of the overall streambank restoration and stormwater treatment wetland project:

1) Property Owner Coordination. Continued coordination was conducted with the property owner, Mr. Scott Niswonger and Niswonger Foundation and conducted pre-construction meeting property owner and repre-sentatives.

2) Engineering and Design. The construction drawing plan set, construction specifications, construction material quantities were finalized, and recom-mendations for construction sequencing for the contractor were provided.

3) Construction Staking. Construction staking for the stream restoration and stormwater wet-land were provided, denoting the project grad-ing limits and cut depths for the wetland.

4) Native Plant Coordination. The MNWA pro-vided coordination for plant and seed materials with the plant nursery and seed vendors for the contractor.

5) Stream Restoration Construction. The con-tractor constructed stream restoration grading, matting, riparian plantings, seeding and instal-lation of three log vane structures per the con-struction plans. The engineer conducted con-tractor coordination and construction observa-tion site visits throughout project construction period.

6) Stormwater Wetland Construction. The con-tractor constructed grading for a 500-linear foot step pool stormwater wetland including fore-bay, five deep pools, shallow conveyance zones, flow control structures, and cover crop and native wetland seeding per construction plans and specifications. The engineer con-ducted contractor coordination and construc-tion observation site visits throughout the con-struction period.

7) Invasive Species Removal. Construction of both elements of the project have been com-pleted and native vegetation establishment is currently being monitored.

The MNWA has continued to keep its membership and the larger community informed about the Holley Creek Restoration Project through regular meetings and through outreach to the larger watershed community.

Above: Completed step pool stormwater wetland with early cover crop vegetation.

Above: Streambank restoration along Holley Creek, including coir matting, riparian tree plantings, and log vane structures.

36

GRANTEE: Morgan County Soil Conservation District (SCD) PROJECT NAME: Crooked Fork Restoration Project GRANT YEAR: FY2013 WEBSITE: https://www.tn.gov/agriculture/article/ag-scd-morgan

During the period of October 1st 2016 to September 30th 2017 there were seven septic best management practices (BMPs) completed, impacting seven acres. The total cost share for the seven septic repairs was $22,453.00 In ad-dition, four seeding BMPs were completed impacting 83 acres, with a total cost share of $8,696.00. $9,147.60 was requested for the administrative work for the grant completed by the District Secretary. Currently, the remaining bal-ance is approximately $55,392.69 of the original $260,000 grant, which ended on July 31st 2017. Presently, the Morgan County SCD has five applications for septic repair/replacement and two application for pasture/hay land seeding. The Morgan County SCD has been committed to reaching out as much as possible to the communities within the Crooked Fork Creek Watershed. Education on water resource conservation and information on the 319 Grant has been made available through posters, flyers, news articles and advertisements, an outdoor show. Over 5,000 peo-ple attended the Outdoor Show and brochures with grant information were handed out. The Morgan County SCD has an Awards picnic every year where educational information is delivered to landowners. The Morgan County SCD and Earth Team Volunteers do a lot of outreach with the students throughout the county including farm day, kindergarten day, Ag in the classroom, poster contest, etc. The Soil Conservation District really appreciates the work completed in Morgan County from this project and the support that TDA provided.

Above: Completed septic repair along Crooked Fork Creek. Left: Presenting the educational Soil Train Trailer to kindergartners.

Left: Reseeding project along Crooked Fork Creek.

37

GRANTEE: Obed Watershed Community Association PROJECT NAME: Crossville Headwaters Restoration Project, Phase IV GRANT YEAR: FY2016 WEBSITE: http://www.obedwatershed.org/

There were two projects completed in this first year of this contract. The first was a stream and riparian wetland restoration project on Glade Branch and the second was a project to address erosion on a horse trail that was causing sediment to end up in Daddys Creek. The Glade Branch project involved 375 feet of stream with a 30-foot buffer on both sides, and two adjacent riparian areas covering an additional 1/4 acre. Both of these riparian wet-lands were fed by tributary streams and were located within or above the normal floodplain of the incised stream. The first step was to remove invasive plants from both the stream corridor and the wetlands, using “cut and paint” techniques to prevent re-growth. Next two debris dams were removed which were causing significant bank erosion and undercutting trees. After that, cedar revetments and rock toes were installed along 226 feet of bank, and the banks re-shaped to return slope to vertical and/or undercut banks. Next, rock structures were installed to stop fur-ther erosion of one drainageway. Finally, the banks, buffer areas, and wetland areas were planted (or overplant-ed) with native riparian plants. This project was unique to our experience as the work was done in early winter and spring and completed and planted at the same time so that there was full growth immediately. The project has done exceedingly well even with some heavy rain events.

Above: Cedar revetments installed on Glade Branch with bank reshaping.

38

Obed Watershed Community Association: Crossville Headwaters Restoration Project, Phase IV………………..………..continued

The second project involved addressing significant erosion on a horse trail on an old logging road with a straight, steep descent. Between the normal erosion with a sunken road, the horse traffic kept the soil loosened which accel-erated the erosion The project consisted of a series of actions to address these problems along a 560 feet section of trail. The first step was re-establishing water turn-outs in the places where the road was not confined between two high banks. This was critical to reduce the amount of water flowing down the trail. Ten turn-outs were installed. The second effort was to re-route the worst sections that were confined by the banks to a new trail on the downhill side where the trail was naturally drain across rather than down the trail. Some clearing of small trees and grading was done and large sized gravel was used to create a solid base for travel. This re-routing happened in two sections and in the lower section, the re-routed trail crossed an abandoned road that was heavily eroded. A hardened crossing using blocks filled with gravel and a culvert was used to provide a stable, erosion-resistant path here. A larger culvert was used just below here to carry water from a large turn-out under the new trail. At the bottom of the trail an area where water pooled was filled with stone to provide a transition to the normal trail. The other technique that was used on the upper section of the trail was to use logs, with their ends set into notches in the bedrock, to hold back large gravel and create a stable, gradual series of small steps that water could flow through rather than the larger drops in the bedrock that were a hazard to animals and riders. In addition to the hands on-activities, education of the community continued through the Obed Watershed Communi-ty Association’s (OWCA) website, newsletter, fact sheets, booths at the Garden Show, Fall Garden Festival, Fairfield Glade Hiking Festival, as well as presentations to various organizations. The OWCA also continues to sponsor both workshops and field trips to raise awareness of clean water issues and the importance of good stewardship. The OWCA’s WaterFest, now in its sixth year, drew over 2,000 visitors who were introduced to both human powered wa-tercraft as well as educational booths featuring conservation themes.

Above: Upper section of re-routed trail showing the cross logs and rock steps.

39

GRANTEE: Robertson County Soil Conservation District PROJECT NAME: Valley Branch Restoration Project GRANT YEAR: FY2013 WEBSITE: http://robertsonscd.wordpress.com/

The 2017 FY has been a busy one in Robertson County for the Section 319 Project! In FY 2017 the Robertson Coun-ty Soil Conservation District (SCD) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Con-servation Service (NRCS) cooperated with seven participants to install conservation practices for a total of $111,381.83 being granted to landowners. To date the local program has reimbursed 21 landowners for completed conservation projects. During the reporting period, seven projects have been completed and include: Repair of failed septic systems on the Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ, Jerry Criswell, Matthew Crabtree, Kenneth Dickerson and Steve Wisenor proper-ties. Jack Nixon performed additional critical area plantings to reduce erosion. Lastly, 24 Water and Sediment Control Basins, 1 grassed waterway and critical area planting were installed on DL Robey Farms to reduce soil erosion and improve water quality resource concerns into Valley Branch.

Top Left: Water and sediment control ba-sin installed at D. L Robey Farms. Top Right: Septic system replacement project at Jerry Criswell’s property. Bottom Left: Grassed waterway installed at D. L Robey Farms.

40

GRANTEE: Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute PROJECT NAME: Watershed Wisdom: A Stormwater Mitigation and Best Practice Demonstration Site at the Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute GRANT YEAR: FY2016 WEBSITE: http://www.tnaqua.org/protect-freshwater

Objective 1: Develop a public demonstration site that models creative smart water design. The majority of Objective 1—Activity 1, Physical Site Preparation, has been completed thanks in part to the funding from this grant. The Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute has converted a degraded mown field to a more natural meadow, enhanced and expanded existing wetlands, and increased the number of native plants around the building. Along with water-wise design of the new Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute building and parking area, these actions have resulted in best-in-class water management for stormwater on the property. Objective 1—Activity 2, Interpretation, is also well underway with a dashboard system installed onsite at the Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute. Additional interpretive signage will be installed in November of 2017 around the demonstration site to educate visitors about the history of the area as well as the importance of water-wise design.

Objective 2: Integrate nonpoint source pollution messaging into the Aquarium’s exhibit path. A lot of exciting work has gone into Objective 2—Activities 1-4, including a refresh of the Aquarium’s Barrens Topmin-now Lab in the Aquarium’s River Journey building, and educational films to be incorporated both in the exhibit and in classroom settings. The exhibit launch is the next large item in the project’s timeline, with a projected open date of No-vember 17, 2017. Funds from this grant have allowed the Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute to expand their initial goals of exhibit signage to add in an interactive element and new hologram depicting the effects of nonpoint source pollution to habitat for small fish. The innovative design of one of the graphics includes ways Tennessee Aquar-ium guests can help prevent nonpoint source pollution themselves. The films produced for this exhibit will then be in-corporated in the classroom programs beginning in 2018. The project is on schedule for the other activities in this ob-jective to fully launch in 2018.

Above: The front of the Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute in October of 2016 (left) and April 2017 (right) showing the growth of reclaimed meadow with native plants.

41

Below: Volunteers and Council staff plant shrubs for a rain garden at Town Creek. Below right: Completed rain garden at Town Creek.

GRANTEE: Tennessee Environmental Council PROJECT NAME: Lytle Creek Phase I Restoration Plan Implementation GRANT YEAR: 2015 WEBSITE: http://tectn.org/

The Tennessee Environmental Council (TEC or the Council) is in the process of implementing Lytle Creek restoration objectives, building key community relationships, and educating the public on the Lytle Creek Restoration Project. Key sites have been assessed and best management practice (BMP) installation initiated at three sites, with planning for installation for additional sites. Outreach to community and property owners along Lytle Creek continues, and there is expectation for further project development. The Council established Site #1 and #2, including a 360 square foot rain garden and a 250 linear foot riparian zone along Town Creek, a tributary to Lytle Creek, in a public greenway area. Approximately 1,540 linear feet of riparian zone along Lytle Creek was planted and establishment underway at Site #3 private residence. Site #3 has additional BMPs planned: 1,500 feet of riparian zone, 900 feet cattle exclusion, culvert crossing, and bank stabilization techniques along approxi-mately 500 feet. Site #4, a private residence, has agreed to install a 600 square foot rain garden, as well as 500 linear feet of cattle fencing. Site #5 is a private business location in Murfreesboro, and they have agreed to ap-proximately 1,000 linear feet of riparian zone, with installation tentatively scheduled for No-vember, 2017. The Council resumes partner-ships in both private and public sectors --- City of Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Murfreesboro Rotary Club, Middle Tennessee State University---in fulfilling restoration goals. The Council has worked within the Lytle Creek watershed, participating in and leading water-shed educational activities, workshops, and presented at public festivals --- expanding ca-pacity, impact, and knowledge.

Above: Volunteers and Council staff plant native seedlings for 825 linear feet of riparian zone.

42

GRANTEE: Town of Mountain City PROJECT NAME: Furnace Creek Watershed, Phase II GRANT YEAR: FY2014 WEBSITE: http://mountaincityonline.com/

In late 2016, work began along one of the most visible sites on the project reach, Lower Furnace Creek, which is ap-proximately 1,200 linear feet in length. Natural wood and rock structures were constructed along the reach, along with floodplain benching and invasive plants removal. This site exists along a commercial area of Town of Mountain City, behind the carwash, Rush Gas Station, and Church Street. In spring of 2017, Brushy Fork Environmental Consulting (BFEC) returned to the reach to plant the riparian zone with native vegetation/livestakes. In April of 2017, BFEC began working with the Town of Mountain City on Lower Furnace Creek (Phase 2), near the Welcome Center. This project involved stream enhancement along three properties at the most visible section of the entire project reach—at the intersection of Highway 421 and Church Street. Being that this section exists between two bridges/culverts, only rock structures were used. J-ooks and cross-vanes were installed to stabilize erosive streambanks, divert near bank stress, and enhance riffle pool sequencing. Floodplain benches were excavated and the material hauled off-site. Following construction, all disturbed areas were seeded with cool season grasses and native livestakes were installed to secure the toe of slopes and coconut matting. Native woody riparian planting oc-curred along the 600 linear foot project reach. Staff from BFEC will continue mechanical and herbicide removal of Japanese Knotweed over the next year into 2018, with the remaining project funding, in an attempt to prevent further infestation into the project reaches.

Left: Creek enhancement along Lower Furnace Creek.

Right: Creek enhancement along Lower Furnace Creek near the Welcome Cen-ter.

43

GRANTEE: The University of Tennessee PROJECT NAME: Welcome Wagon

GRANT YEAR: FY2015 WEBSITE: http://www.tnforestry.com/

During 2017, two bulk “Welcome to Your Woods” mailings were conducted. These correspondences targeted land-owners whom had purchased forested properties during 2016 and 2017. The first mailing occurred in late winter and reached 506 new landowners. The second mailing occurred in later summer and reached 518 new landowners. The implementation team consisting of representatives from the Tennessee Division of Forestry and the Tennessee Forestry Association met to evaluate the material that was being sent and to continue progress. The mailed material consisted of: Cover letter signed by the State Forester, the Head of the University of Tennessee Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, and the Executive Director of the Tennessee Forestry Association,

Forest*A*Syst and Marketing Timber in Tennessee publications; Summary sheet with links to helpful forestry websites; Tennessee Division of Forestry core business brochure; Information on forest pests and the Tennessee State Nursery; and, An invitation to join both the Tennessee Forestry Association and County Forestry Associations.

Landowners were exposed to best management practices and water quality issues via the publications and through contacting the professional foresters that are referenced in the mailing material. The cover letter provided to the re-cipients recognized the Nonpoint Source Program as the funding partner.

Above: Tennessee hardwood forest.

APPENDIX A

LONG TERM GOALS— CURRENT PROGRESS SUMMARY

LONG TERM GOALS ‐ CURRENT PROGRESS SUMMARY 

Introduction 

The table below summarizes the long term goals set for the Tennessee Nonpoint Source Program (TN‐NPS).  The table was adapted from the Tennessee Department of Agriculture Nonpoint Source Program Management Document as approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2014. The intent of the table below is to be evaluated and populated annually during the preparation of the Annual Report, in order to determine if the long term goals set forth in 2014 are on‐track to be completed by the end of the 5‐year Planning Period.  The overall progress of the program, as well as the sector‐specific goals, will be monitored; and, management of the program and/or specific sectors will be adapted as needed if adequate progress is not being made.  The annual evaluation will assist with making necessary changes to the program as soon as issues are identified, as opposed to only discovering challenges towards the end of the Planning Period (when too little time remains to correct the program's path).  The progress for each aggregate and sector‐specific goal is provided as: 

On track to achieve outcomes ‐ adequate progress has been made towards the long term goal such that there is a high likelihood of being reached by the end of the Planning Period.

Exceeded expectations ‐ exceptional progress has been made towards reaching the long term goal such that there is a high likelihood of being reached prior ahead of schedule.

Insufficient progress ‐ the pace of output achieved must improve in order to ensure that the long term goal can be reached by the end of the 5‐year Planning Period.

While many of the annual goals are quantitative in nature, the outcomes are somewhat qualitative.  TN‐NPS staff used their best judgment while populating the table in order to gauge the overall progress of the program. Additional, detailed information about the Measures of Success used (in part) to determine the annual progress of the long term goals can be found on the Measures of Success Checklists in Appendix B. 

LONG TERM GOALS, ANNUAL GOALS, and OUTCOMES 

Long Term Goal (5 year)  Sector  Annual Goals (outputs; Annual Goal x 5 = Long Term Goal measure)  Outcomes 

Progress Made in Year 1 (FFY2015) 

Progress Made in Year 2 (FFY2016) 

Progress Made in Year 3 (FFY2017) 

Progress Made in Year 4 (FFY2018) 

Progress Made in Year 5 (FFY2019) 

Long Term Goal No. 1: Restore impaired water bodies (i.e., those on the 303(d) list) by implementing best management practices (BMPs) that address nonpoint source pollution. 

Aggregate  Restore 2 water bodies per year, onaverage.

Reduce N load by 5,000 lbs/year; P2O5load by 5,000 lbs/year; and sedimentload by 100 ton/year (minimumreductions)

Improve water quality byreducing water qualityimpacts from nonpointsources.

Exceeded expectations. Modeled load reductions exceeded annual goals. 

Exceeded expectations. Load reductions exceeded goals; two Success Stories accepted. 

On track to achieve outcomes. Estimated load reductions exceeded the stated goals. One Success Story for FFY2017; however, two draft stories have been submitted for FFY2018. 

Agriculture  Fund no less than 3 projects each year that address agricultural sources of NPS pollution, depending on the number and quality of proposals received. 

Fund the implementation of no less than65 agricultural BMPs per year. 

Staff Watershed Coordinators willperform no less than 200 site visits each year to inspect BMPs pre‐, during‐, and post‐construction. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

LONG TERM GOALS, ANNUAL GOALS, and OUTCOMES 

Long Term Goal (5 year)  Sector  Annual Goals (outputs; Annual Goal x 5 = Long Term Goal measure)  Outcomes 

Progress Made in Year 1 (FFY2015) 

Progress Made in Year 2 (FFY2016) 

Progress Made in Year 3 (FFY2017) 

Progress Made in Year 4 (FFY2018) 

Progress Made in Year 5 (FFY2019) 

Forestry  Fund no less than 1 forestry‐based project each year, depending on the number and quality of proposals received. 

Fund the implementation of no less than 5 forestry BMPs each year, depending on the number of active forestry restoration projects. 

Insufficient progress. No BMP‐related forestry proposals were received; additional outreach needed. 

Insufficient progress. No BMP‐related forestry proposals were received; additional outreach needed. 

On track to achieve outcomes. No BMP‐related forestry proposals were received; however, outreach has been increased, and an adequate number of forestry BMPs were installed. 

   

Urban   Fund no less than 2 projects focused on stormwater issues in developed areas each year, depending on the number and quality proposals received. 

Fund no less than 12 stormwater BMPs each year, depending on the number of active urban/suburban restoration projects. 

Staff Watershed Coordinators will perform no less than 15 site visits each year to inspect various stormwater BMPs pre‐, during‐, and post‐construction. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met; a majority of goals were exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

   

Failing Septic 

Fund the repair/replacement of no less than 20 failing septic systems each year, depending on the number of active projects that address failing septic systems. 

Staff Watershed Coordinators will perform no less than 20 site visits each year to inspect work on repair/replacement of failing septic systems. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

On track to achieve outcomes. Strong effort for outreach was made in FFY2018; however, the number of septic repairs fell short of the goal. 

   

Legacy Mining 

Fund no less than 1 project addressing legacy mining concerns each year, depending on the number and quality of proposals received. 

Fund no less than 5 BMPs addressing legacy mining concerns each year, depending on the number of active legacy mining projects. 

Staff Watershed Coordinators will 

Insufficient progress. No legacy mining‐related proposals were received; additional outreach needed. 

On track to achieve outcomes.   One project addressing legacy mining was funded in FFY2016; site visits for legacy 

Insufficient progress. No legacy mining‐related proposals were received; additional outreach needed. 

   

LONG TERM GOALS, ANNUAL GOALS, and OUTCOMES 

Long Term Goal (5 year)  Sector  Annual Goals (outputs; Annual Goal x 5 = Long Term Goal measure)  Outcomes 

Progress Made in Year 1 (FFY2015) 

Progress Made in Year 2 (FFY2016) 

Progress Made in Year 3 (FFY2017) 

Progress Made in Year 4 (FFY2018) 

Progress Made in Year 5 (FFY2019) 

perform no less than 5 site visits each year to inspect legacy mining BMPs pre‐, during‐, and post‐construction, depending on the number of active legacy mining projects. 

mining were exceeded. 

Long Term Goal No. 2: Build citizen awareness of problems and solutions related to nonpoint source pollution through local and statewide education efforts targeting various audiences. 

Aggregate  TN‐NPS staff will attend/participate in atleast 10 educational events each year. 

Fund at least 20 educational events eachyear, depending on the number of active NPS pollution educational projects funded. 

Document at least 2,000 citizenspresented with messages addressing NPS pollution sources, problems, and solutions each year. 

Develop a general evaluation form to becompleted by all participants at the conclusion of each educational event. 

Improve relations withstakeholders, potentialapplicants, and partners.

Increase awareness ofnonpoint source impacts.

On track to achieve outcomes.  Most goals exceeded; evaluation form development needed. 

On track to achieve outcomes.  Most goals exceeded; evaluation form provided to grantees and posted online. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

Agriculture  TN‐NPS staff will attend/participate in at least 4 educational events each year targeting an agricultural audience. 

Fund at least 5 educational eventstargeting an agricultural audience. 

Document at least 600 citizens presentedwith messages addressing  NPS pollution sources, problems, and solutions. 

Respond to 100% of Animal FeedingOperations complaints . 

Direct AFO owner/operators to NRCS formitigation, as necessary. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

Forestry  TN‐NPS staff will attend/participate in atleast 1 educational event each year targeting a forestry audience. 

Fund at least 3 educational events eachyear targeting a forestry audience, depending on the number of active projects aimed at forestry issues. 

Document at least 200 citizens presentedwith messages addressing NPS pollution concerns stemming from forestry‐related activities. 

Insufficient progress. No BMP‐related forestry proposals were received; additional outreach needed.  Education goals on track. 

Insufficient progress. No BMP‐related forestry proposals were received; additional outreach needed.  Education goals on track. 

On track to achieve outcomes. No BMP‐related forestry proposals were received; however, outreach to the forestry sector was strong in FFY2017 

LONG TERM GOALS, ANNUAL GOALS, and OUTCOMES 

Long Term Goal (5 year)  Sector  Annual Goals (outputs; Annual Goal x 5 = Long Term Goal measure)  Outcomes 

Progress Made in Year 1 (FFY2015) 

Progress Made in Year 2 (FFY2016) 

Progress Made in Year 3 (FFY2017) 

Progress Made in Year 4 (FFY2018) 

Progress Made in Year 5 (FFY2019) 

Urban   TN‐NPS staff will attend/participate in at least 3 educational events each year targeting an urban/suburban audience. 

Fund at least 10 educational events each year targeting an urban/suburban audience, depending on the number of active projects aimed at urban/suburban issues. 

Document at least 1,000 citizens presented with messages addressing NPS pollution concerns stemming from stormwater in urban/suburban areas. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

   

Failing Septic 

TN‐NPS staff will attend/participate in at least 1 educational event each year targeting an audience with failing septic concerns. 

Fund at least 1 educational event each year targeting an audience concerned with NPS pollution from failing septic systems. 

Document at least 100 citizens presented with messages addressing NPS pollution concerns stemming from failing septic systems. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

   

Legacy Mining 

TN‐NPS staff will attend/participate in at least 1 educational event each year targeting an audience dealing with legacy mining concerns. 

Fund at least 1 educational event each year targeting an audience concerned with NPS pollution from legacy mining activities. 

Document at least 100 citizens presented with messages addressing NPS pollution concerns stemming from legacy mining activities. 

Insufficient progress. No legacy mining‐related proposals were received or are currently funded; additional outreach needed. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

   

Long Term Goal No. 3: Build capacity for future TN‐NPS projects in local watersheds by engaging stakeholders and potential partners through outreach and 

Aggregate  TN‐NPS staff will attend at least 8 stakeholder meetings each year to promote the TN‐NPS program and recruit and cultivate new partners for future projects. 

TN‐NPS program will conduct an annual survey of partners, seeking their input for 

Improve relations with stakeholders, potential applicants, and partners. 

  Increase awareness of 

nonpoint source impacts.  

On track to achieve goals.  All goals met for this sector. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

   

LONG TERM GOALS, ANNUAL GOALS, and OUTCOMES 

Long Term Goal (5 year)  Sector  Annual Goals (outputs; Annual Goal x 5 = Long Term Goal measure)  Outcomes 

Progress Made in Year 1 (FFY2015) 

Progress Made in Year 2 (FFY2016) 

Progress Made in Year 3 (FFY2017) 

Progress Made in Year 4 (FFY2018) 

Progress Made in Year 5 (FFY2019) 

personal contact.  ways our program can improve and better meet existing needs. 

TN‐NPS staff will provide assistance (asrequested) in writing Watershed Based Plans; particularly map‐making and load reduction estimates. 

TN‐NPS program will improveinformation and tools available on our website to aid in the writing of Watershed Based Plans. 

TN‐NPS staff will attend at least 3stakeholder meetings or workshops to promote the 319 program each year. 

Educate citizens regardingmanagement practices toprevent or minimizenonpoint source pollution.

Agriculture  TN‐NPS staff will attend at least 3 stakeholder meetings or workshops to promote the 319 program each year. 

On track to achieve goals.  All goals met or exceeded for this sector. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

Forestry  TN‐NPS staff will attend at least 1stakeholder meeting (e.g., TN ForestryAssociation or the TN Urban ForestryCouncil) each year to promote the TN‐NPS program.

On track to achieve goals.  All goals met for this sector. 

On track to achieve goals.  All goals met for this sector. 

On track to achieve goals.  All goals met for this sector. 

Urban   TDA‐NPS staff will attend at least2stakeholder meetings each year topromote the TN‐NPS program.

TN‐NPS staff will attend the annualmeeting of the Tennessee StormwaterAssociation (TNSA) each year.

On track to achieve goals.  All goals met for this sector. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were met or exceeded. 

Failing Septic 

TN‐NPS staff will attend at least 1stakeholder meeting each year topromote the TN‐NPS program.

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

On track to achieve goals.  All goals met for this sector. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

Legacy Mining 

TN‐NPS staff will attend at least 1stakeholder meeting each year topromote the TN‐NPS program.

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

On track to achieve goals.  All goals met for this sector. 

Exceeded expectations. All short term goals for this segment were exceeded. 

LONG TERM GOALS, ANNUAL GOALS, and OUTCOMES 

Long Term Goal (5 year)  Sector  Annual Goals (outputs; Annual Goal x 5 = Long Term Goal measure)  Outcomes 

Progress Made in Year 1 (FFY2015) 

Progress Made in Year 2 (FFY2016) 

Progress Made in Year 3 (FFY2017) 

Progress Made in Year 4 (FFY2018) 

Progress Made in Year 5 (FFY2019) 

Long Term Goal No. 4: Track interim progress towards restoration of impaired water bodies. 

Aggregate  Develop a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Implement a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Increase knowledge of effective and efficient sector‐specific BMPs and improve measures of success tracking. 

Insufficient progress. Although the tracking system has been developed, it has not yet been fully implemented.  Implementation will occur in FFY2016. 

On track to achieve goals.  All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented internally; work with grantees is needed.  

On track to achieve goals.  All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented for BMPs; additional work is needed for education and outreach tracking. 

   

Agriculture  Develop a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Implement a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Insufficient progress. Although the tracking system has been developed, it has not yet been fully implemented.  Implementation will occur in FFY2016. 

On track to achieve goals.  All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented internally; work with grantees is needed. 

On track to achieve goals. All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented for BMPs; additional work is needed for education and outreach tracking. 

   

Forestry  Develop a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Implement a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Insufficient progress. Although the tracking system has been developed, it has not yet been fully implemented.  Implementation will occur in FFY2016. 

On track to achieve goals.  All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented internally; work with grantees is needed. 

On track to achieve goals. All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented for BMPs; additional work is needed for education and outreach tracking.  

   

LONG TERM GOALS, ANNUAL GOALS, and OUTCOMES 

Long Term Goal (5 year)  Sector  Annual Goals (outputs; Annual Goal x 5 = Long Term Goal measure)  Outcomes 

Progress Made in Year 1 (FFY2015) 

Progress Made in Year 2 (FFY2016) 

Progress Made in Year 3 (FFY2017) 

Progress Made in Year 4 (FFY2018) 

Progress Made in Year 5 (FFY2019) 

Urban   Develop a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Implement a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Insufficient progress. Although the tracking system has been developed, it has not yet been fully implemented.  Implementation will occur in FFY2016. 

On track to achieve goals.  All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented internally; work with grantees is needed. 

On track to achieve goals. All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented for BMPs; additional work is needed for education and outreach tracking. 

   

Failing Septic 

Develop a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Implement a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Insufficient progress. Although the tracking system has been developed, it has not yet been fully implemented.  Implementation will occur in FFY2016. 

On track to achieve goals.  All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented internally; work with grantees is needed. 

On track to achieve goals. All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented for BMPs; additional work is needed for education and outreach tracking. 

   

Legacy Mining 

Develop a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Implement a sector‐based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts. 

Insufficient progress. Although the tracking system has been developed, it has not yet been fully implemented.  Implementation will occur in FFY2016. 

On track to achieve goals.  All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented internally; work with grantees is needed. 

On track to achieve goals. All applicable goals met for this sector. Sector‐based tracking was developed and implemented for BMPs; additional work is needed for education and outreach tracking.  

   

LONG TERM GOALS, ANNUAL GOALS, and OUTCOMES 

Long Term Goal (5 year)  Sector  Annual Goals (outputs; Annual Goal x 5 = Long Term Goal measure)  Outcomes 

Progress Made in Year 1 (FFY2015) 

Progress Made in Year 2 (FFY2016) 

Progress Made in Year 3 (FFY2017) 

Progress Made in Year 4 (FFY2018) 

Progress Made in Year 5 (FFY2019) 

Long Term Goal No. 5: Protect unimpaired/high quality waters (i.e., those not on the 303(d) list) by implementing appropriate BMPs where warranted. 

Aggregate  Consider funding at least 1 projectproposal aimed at protection ofunimpaired water body each year,dependent upon nature of proposalsreceived.

Consider changes to TN‐NPS proposalevaluation scoresheet to impact thelikelihood of water body protectionprojects receiving funding.

Research possible avenuesto increase the funding ofprotective projects.

On track to achieve goals.  All goals met for this sector. 

On track to achieve goals.  All goals met for this sector. Out‐ reach is on‐going with groups interested in protection work. 

On track to achieve goals.  All goals met for this sector. 

Agriculture  Not applicable ‐ projects to protect unimpaired waters by definition will notbe assigned to any pollutant source.

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Forestry  Not applicable ‐ projects to protectunimpaired waters by definition will notbe assigned to any pollutant source.

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Urban   Not applicable ‐ projects to protectunimpaired waters by definition will notbe assigned to any pollutant source.

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Failing Septic 

Not applicable ‐ projects to protectunimpaired waters by definition will notbe assigned to any pollutant source.

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Legacy Mining 

Not applicable ‐ projects to protectunimpaired waters by definition will notbe assigned to any pollutant source.

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Long Term Goal No. 6: Fulfill all obligations under grant award agreement with USEPA annually. 

Aggregate  TN‐NPS program will do everythingnecessary to achieve "SatisfactoryProgress" determination by USEPA eachyear.

TN‐NPS program will submit an AnnualReport by December 31 each year.

TN‐NPS program will submit a GrantApplication by September 30 each year.

TN‐NPS program will submit an AnnualWorkplan by May 31 each year.

All grant data will be entered in theGrants Reporting and Tracking System(GRTS) by the various deadlines giveneach year.

All grant funds received will be obligatedwithin one year of the date the grant isreceived.

Each grant received from USEPA will be

Continue to receive 319grant funds for statewidedisbursement.

On track to achieve goals.  With the exception of the Annual Workplan submittal, all goals were met or exceeded. 

On track to achieve goals.  With the exception of the Annual Workplan submittal, all goals were met. 

On track to achieve goals.  With the exception of the Annual Workplan submittal, all applicable goals were met or exceeded. 

LONG TERM GOALS, ANNUAL GOALS, and OUTCOMES 

Long Term Goal (5 year)  Sector  Annual Goals (outputs; Annual Goal x 5 = Long Term Goal measure)  Outcomes 

Progress Made in Year 1 (FFY2015) 

Progress Made in Year 2 (FFY2016) 

Progress Made in Year 3 (FFY2017) 

Progress Made in Year 4 (FFY2018) 

Progress Made in Year 5 (FFY2019) 

matched my no less than 40% by a combination of state and local funds. 

TN‐NPS staff will attend the annualGRTS users meeting each year. 

TN‐NPS staff will attend the NationalNonpoint Source Managers meeting as often as it is held. 

TN‐NPS staff will attend the RegionalNonoint Source Managers meeting as often as it is held. 

TN‐NPS program will revise theManagement Program Document every 5 years, or as required by USEPA. 

Agriculture  Not Applicable ‐ grant award obligations are not defined by pollutant sector. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Forestry  Not Applicable ‐ grant award obligationsare not defined by pollutant sector.

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Urban   Not Applicable ‐ grant award obligationsare not defined by pollutant sector.

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Failing Septic 

Not Applicable ‐ grant award obligationsare not defined by pollutant sector.

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Legacy Mining 

Not Applicable ‐ grant award obligationsare not defined by pollutant sector.

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Not applicable. This goal does not apply. 

Conclusion 

The TN‐NPS program has been very successful in Year 3 of the Program Management Document implementation. Challenges with soliciting proposals from the forestry and legacy mining sectors continue, despite increased outreach efforts. The drought experienced in Tennessee in 2016 had drastic impacts to the TN‐NPS program in FFY2017 with a focus on agricultural practices to assist recovering farmers. Many of the goals for FFY2017 were greatly exceeded, including the number of site visits, the number of agricultural BMPs, and the amount of outreach performed by TN‐NPS staff. 

Note: The table above will be populated each year as the program is evaluated.  Annual tracking will assist with adaptive management measures needed for keeping the TN‐NPS program moving in the right direction. 

APPENDIX B

MEASURES OF SUCCESS CHECKLISTS

Measures of Success Checklist Aggregate/Statewide Goals

Measures of Success Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of

Success Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 1: Restore impaired water bodies (i.e., those on the 303(d) list) by implementing best management practices (BMPs) that address nonpoint source pollution.

Restore 2 water bodies per year,on average.

Reduce N load by 5,000 lbs/year;P2O5 load by 5,000 lbs/year; andsediment load by 100 ton/year(minimum reductions)

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 2: Build citizen awareness of problems and solutions related to nonpoint source pollution through local and statewide education efforts targeting various audiences.

TN-NPS staff willattend/participate in at least 10educational events each year.

Fund at least 20 educationalevents each year, depending onthe number of active NPSpollution educational projectsfunded.

Document at least 2,000 citizenspresented with messagesaddressing NPS pollution sources,problems, and solutions eachyear.

Develop a general evaluation formto be completed by allparticipants and the conclusion ofeach educational event.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

■

■

One Success Story, forthe Sequatchie River,was accepted byUSEPA in FFY17.

Per estimates, inFFY17 N was reducedby 55,386 pounds, Pwas reduced by 12,786pounds, and sedimentwas reduced by 6,935tons.

■

■

■

■

Over 400 educationand outreach events,across all sectors,were attended byTN-NPS staff inFFY17.

Granteeshosted 72 events inFFY17.

Over 4,000 citizenshave been presentedwith NPS pollutioninformation throughfield days, brochures,websites, etc. bygrantees.

The evaluation formwas distributed toFFY16 grantees, andhas been posted to theTDA website.

Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of Success

Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 3: Build capacity for future TN-NPS projects in local watersheds by engaging stakeholders and potential partners through outreach and personal contact.

TN-NPS staff will attend at least 8stakeholder meetings each year topromote the TN-NPS programand recruit and cultivate newpartners for future projects.

TN-NPS program will conduct anannual survey of partners, seekingtheir input for ways our programcan improve and better meetexisting needs.

TN-NPS staff will provideassistance (as requested) inwriting Watershed Based Plans;particularly map-making and loadreduction estimates.

TN-NPS program will improveinformation and tools available onour website to aid in the writingof Watershed Based Plans.

TN-NPS staff will attend at least 3stakeholder meetings orworkshops to promote the 319program each year.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 4: Track interim progress towards restoration of impaired water bodies via adaptive management process.

Develop a sector-based trackingmechanism for BMPimplementation, educationalactivities, pollutant loadreductions, and capacity buildingefforts.

Implement a sector-basedtracking mechanism for BMPimplementation, educationalactivities, pollutant loadreductions, and capacity buildingefforts.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

■

■

■

■

■

Staff reportedattending over 50stakeholder meetings,across all sectors, forFFY17.

See Appendix C fordetails regarding the3rd annual survey ofpartners.

When requested bygrantees andapplicants, TDA hasassisted with providinginformation, maps, etc.

Staff presentedinformation on the 319program at more thanthree stakeholdermeetings, festivals, etc.

■

■

The sector-basedtracking, developed inFFY2015, wasimplemented internally(TN-NPS staff) inFFY16 for BMPs. Anonline tool for moreprecise tracking ofeducation andoutreach efforts wasdeveloped in FFY17;however, it has notbeen fullyimplemented.

Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of Success

Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 5: Protect unimpaired/ high quality waters (i.e., those not on the 303(d) list) by implementing appropriate BMPs where warranted.

Consider funding at least 1 projectproposal aimed at protection ofunimpaired water body each year,dependent upon nature ofproposals received.

Consider changes to TN-NPSproposal evaluation scoresheet toimpact the likelihood of waterbody protection projects receivingfunding.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 6:

Fulfill all obligations under grant award agreement with USEPA annually.

TN-NPS program will doeverything necessary to achieve"Satisfactory Progress"determination by USEPA eachyear.

TN-NPS program will submit anAnnual Report by December 31each year.

TN-NPS program will submit aGrant Application by September30 each year.

TN-NPS program will submit anAnnual Workplan by May 31 eachyear.

All grant data will be entered inthe Grants Reporting andTracking System (GRTS) by thevarious deadlines given each year.

All grant funds received will beobligated within one year of thedate the grant is received.

Each grant received from USEPAwill be matched my no less than40% by a combination of stateand local funds.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

■

■

The Conasauga RiverPathogen TMDLImplementation, Ph. II,which received fundingin FFY17, aims at bothrestoring impairedstreams and protectingan OutstandingWaterbody habitat(Coahulla River).

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

The Annual Workplanwas submitted June20, 2017 due to delaysin receiving finalbudget amounts.

GRTS data isadded/updatedcontinuously uponreceipt from grantees.In addition, TN-NPSstaff assisted with thebeta-testing of thenewest version ofGRTS.

All grant funds fromFFY16 were obligatedwithin one year ofreceiving the grant.The FFY17 grant fundsare currently beingplaced under contract.

Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of Success

Status Comments

Long Term Goal 6, cont.

TN-NPS staff will attend theannual GRTS users meeting eachyear

TN-NPS staff will attend theNational Nonpoint SourceManagers meeting as often as it isheld.

TN-NPS staff will attend theRegional Nonpoint SourceManagers meeting as often as it isheld.

TN-NPS program will revise theManagement Program Documentevery 5 years, or as required byUSEPA.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

If the short term has been met or exceeded, please provide an explanation of how this was determined (i.e. list of objectives completed, activities performed, etc.):

If the short term has not been met, please provide an explanation of the variance:

■

■

N/A; no GRTS meetingwas held in FFY2016.

The National NonpointSource Managersmeeting was attendedby Sam Marshall inBoston, MA in Octoberof 2016.

N/A; no RegionalNonpoint SourceManagers meeting washeld for Region 4during FFY17.

N/A; the ManagementProgram Document isin Year 3 ofimplementation.

The status of each goal was determined by reviewing Annual Reports/Closeout Reports from grantees,

site visit reports from Watershed Coordinators, and a review of attendance records and document

The Annual Workplan was not submitted by May 31st primarily due to delays in receiving the final budget

numbers, as well as funding uncertainty due to the recent administration changes.

submissions. Most Aggregate goals for FFY17 were met or exceeded.

Measures of Success Checklist Agricultural Sector Short Term Goals

Measures of Success Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of

Success Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 1: Restore impaired water bodies (i.e., those on the 303(d) list) by implementing best management practices (BMPs) that address nonpoint source pollution.

Fund no less than 3 projects eachyear that address agriculturalsources of NPS pollution,depending on the number andquality of proposals received.

Fund the implementation of noless than 65 agricultural BMPs peryear.

Staff Watershed Coordinators willperform no less than 200 sitevisits each year to inspect BMPspre-, during-, and post-construction.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 2: Build citizen awareness of problems and solutions related to nonpoint source pollution through local and statewide education efforts targeting various audiences.

TN-NPS staff willattend/participate in at least 4educational events each yeartargeting an agricultural audience.

Fund at least 5 educational eventstargeting an agricultural audience.

Document at least 600 citizenspresented with messagesaddressing NPS pollutionsources, problems, and solutions.

Respond to 100% of AnimalFeeding Operations complaints.

Direct AFO owner/operators toNRCS for mitigation, as necessary.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

■

■

■

In FFY17, TN-NPSfunded fourimplementationprojects, and twoeducation/outreachprojects that addressagricultural NPSpollution.

Over 130 agriculturalBMPs were installed bythe 319 program alone.

Due to increasedrequests for assistancestemming from theexceptional drought inTennessee, TDA-NPSstaff conducted arecord 4,379agricultural site visits!

■

■

■

■

■

TDA-NPS staffattended over 300educational andoutreach events suchas field days and SoilConservation Districtmeetings.

Grantees wereassisted with hosting50 educational events.

Over 3,000 citizenswere presented withinformation bygrantees throughpresentations, letters,and websites.

Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of Success

Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 3: Build capacity for future TN-NPS projects in local watersheds by engaging stakeholders and potential partners through outreach and personal contact.

TN-NPS staff will attend at least 3 stakeholder meetings each year to promote the TN-NPS program and recruit and cultivate new partners for future projects.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 4: Track interim progress towards restoration of impaired water bodies via adaptive management process.

Develop a sector-based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts.

Implement a sector-based tracking mechanism for BMP implementation, educational activities, pollutant load reductions, and capacity building efforts.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 5: Protect unimpaired/ high quality waters (i.e., those not on the 303(d) list) by implementing appropriate BMPs where warranted.

Not applicable - projects to protect unimpaired waters by definition will not be assigned to any pollutant source.

N/A

Long Term Goal No. 6:

Fulfill all obligations under grant award agreement with USEPA annually.

Not Applicable - grant award obligations are not defined by pollutant sector.

N/A

If the short term has been met or exceeded, please provide an explanation of how this was determined (i.e. list of objectives completed, activities performed, etc.):

■

In FFY17, TDA-NPSstaff documentedattending over 15agricultural sectorstakeholder meetings.

■

■

The sector-basedtracking mechanism forBMP implementationand education/outreach events hasbeen developed.

The on-linesector-based trackingsystem has not beenfully adoptedprogram-wide foreducation andoutreach activities.

The TDA-NPS program was exceptionally busy during FFY17. Efforts stemming from additional drought

relief funding led to increased interest in all non-point source programs offered by the State, and

consequently, many of the short term goals were greatly exceeded for FFY17.

If the short term has not been met, please provide an explanation of the variance:

Due to remote connectivity issues, the full implementation of the online, sector-specific education and

outreach tracking tool has been delayed. It is hoped that the remaining issues will be resolved in FFY18.

Measures of Success Checklist Forestry Sector Short Term Goals

Measures of Success Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of

Success Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 1: Restore impaired water bodies (i.e., those on the 303(d) list) by implementing best management practices (BMPs) that address nonpoint source pollution.

Fund no less than 1forestry-based projecteach year, depending onthe number and quality ofproposals received.

Fund the implementationof no less than 5 forestryBMPs each year,depending on the numberof active forestryrestoration projects.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 2: Build citizen awareness of problems and solutions related to nonpoint source pollution through local and statewide education efforts targeting various audiences.

TN-NPS staff willattend/participate in atleast 1 educational eventeach year targeting aforestry audience.

Fund at least 3 educationalevents each year targetinga forestry audience,depending on the numberof active projects aimed atforestry issues.

Document at least 200citizens presented withmessages addressing NPSpollution concernsstemming from forestry-related activities.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

■

■

N/A; no forestry-specificproposals were submitted inFFY2017.

In FFY17, five forestryBMPs were installed,including riparian forestedbuffer installation andstreambank protection inforested areas.

■

■

■

Over 30 education andoutreach events thataddressed forestry NPSissues were attended byTN-NPS staff.

Grantees reported over 20events (primarily trainingevents) in which forestryissues were addressed.

The Welcome Wagonproject mailed over 1,000letters to landownersinforming them of loggingbest practices.

2017

Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of Success

Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 3: Build capacity for future TN-NPSprojects in local watersheds by engaging stakeholders and potential partners through outreach and personal contact.

TN-NPS staff will attend atleast 1 stakeholder meeting(e.g., TN ForestryAssociation or the TNUrban Forestry Council)each year to promote theTN-NPS.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 4: Track interim progress towards restoration of impaired water bodies via adaptive management process.

Develop a sector-basedtracking mechanism forBMP implementation,educational activities,pollutant load reductions,and capacity buildingefforts.

Implement a sector-basedtracking mechanism forBMP implementation,educational activities,pollutant load reductions,and capacity buildingefforts.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 5: Protect unimpaired/ high quality waters (i.e., those not on the 303(d) list) by implementing appropriate BMPs where warranted.

Not applicable - projectsto protect unimpairedwaters by definition willnot be assigned to anypollutant source.

N/A

Long Term Goal No. 6:

Fulfill all obligations under grant award agreement with USEPA annually.

Not Applicable - grantaward obligations are notdefined by pollutantsector.

N/A

■

Five stakeholder meetingsthat addressed forestry NPSpollution issues wereattended by TN-NPS staff inFFY17.

■

■

Sector-based BMP trackinghas been fully implemented;however, additional workneeds to be done to moreaccurately track educationand outreach. The onlinetool launched in FFY17, butdue to connectivity issues, ithas not been fullyimplemented.

If the short term has been met or exceeded, please provide an explanation of how this was determined (i.e. list of objectives completed, activities performed, etc.):

If the short term has not been met, please provide an explanation of the variance:

Education and outreach for the forestry sector was strong in FFY17. The goal for forestry-related BMPs

was met for this year.

No forestry-related proposals were submitted for review again in FFY17. Additional outreach efforts with

the forestry community will be examined for FFY18.

Measures of Success Checklist Urban Sector Short Term Goals

Measures of Success Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of

Success Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 1: Restore impaired water bodies (i.e., those on the 303(d) list) by implementing best management practices (BMPs) that address nonpoint source pollution.

Fund no less than 2 projectsfocused on stormwater issues indeveloped areas each year,depending on the number andquality proposals received.

Fund no less than 12 stormwaterBMPs each year, depending on thenumber of active urban/suburbanrestoration projects.

Staff Watershed Coordinators willperform no less than 15 site visitseach year to inspect variousstormwater BMPs pre-, during-,and post-construction.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 2: Build citizen awareness of problems and solutions related to nonpoint source pollution through local and statewide education efforts targeting various audiences.

TN-NPS staff willattend/participate in at least 3educational events each yeartargeting an urban/surburbanaudience.

Fund at least 10 educationalevents each year targeting anurban/suburban audience,depending on the number ofactive projects aimed aturban/surburban.

Document at least 1,000 citizenspresented with messagesaddressing NPS pollutionconcerns stemming fromstormwater in urban/suburbanareas.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

■

■

■

Three educationprojects and fourimplementationprojects addressingurban stormwater werefunded in FFY17.

In FFY2017, 29 urbanBMPs were installed.

The TDA-NPS staffconducted over 80urban-related site visitsin FFY17.

■

■

■

TN-NPS staff recordedattending over 30urbaneducation/outreachevents.

Grantees hosted 32events that presentedinformation on urbanand suburbanstormwater issues.

Grantees reportedpresenting urban andsuburban stormwaterinformation to over1,900 citizens throughvarious events.

2017

Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of Success

Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 3: Build capacity for future TN-NPSprojects in local watersheds by engaging stakeholders and potential partners through outreach and personal contact.

TN-NPS staff will attend at least 2stakeholder meetings each year topromote the TN-NPS program.

TN-NPS staff will attend theannual meeting of the TennesseeStormwater Association (TNSA)each year.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 4: Track interim progress towards restoration of impaired water bodies via adaptive management process.

Develop a sector-based trackingmechanism for BMPimplementation, educationalactivities, pollutant loadreductions, and capacity buildingefforts.

Implement a sector-basedtracking mechanism for BMPimplementation, educationalactivities, pollutant loadreductions, and capacity buildingefforts.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 5: Protect unimpaired/ high quality waters (i.e., those not on the 303(d) list) by implementing appropriate BMPs where warranted.

Not applicable - projects toprotect unimpaired waters bydefinition will not be assigned toany pollutant source.

N/A

Long Term Goal No. 6:

Fulfill all obligations under grant award agreement with USEPA annually.

Not Applicable - grant awardobligations are not defined bypollutant sector.

N/A

■

■

The TN-NPS staffrecorded attending 8urban/suburban-basedstakeholder meetingsin FFY17.

Sarah Hovis attendedTNSA at Fall CreekFalls State Park onOctober 18 - 20, 2016.

■

■

Full implementation ofsector-based trackinghas been implementedfor TN-NPS staff forBMP implementation;however, tracking ofeducation andoutreach has not beenfully adopted.

If the short term has been met or exceeded, please provide an explanation of how this was determined (i.e. list of objectives completed, activities performed, etc.):

If the short term has not been met, please provide an explanation of the variance:

Interest in projects addressing urban and suburban nonpoint source pollution continues to grow in

Tennessee. In FFY17, all qualitative measurements of success were exceeded.

The tracking of education and outreach efforts needs to be fully implemented.

Measures of Success Checklist Failing Septic Sector Short Term Goals

Measures of Success Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of

Success Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 1: Restore impaired water bodies (i.e., those on the 303(d) list) by implementing best management practices (BMPs) that address nonpoint source pollution.

Fund the repair/replacement ofno less than 20 failing septicsystems each year, depending onthe number of active projects thataddress failing septic systems.

Staff Watershed Coordinators willperform no less than 20 site visitseach year to inspect work onrepair/replacement of failingseptic systems.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 2: Build citizen awareness of problems and solutions related to nonpoint source pollution through local and statewide education efforts targeting various audiences.

TN-NPS staff willattend/participate in at least 1educational event each yeartargeting an audience with failingseptic concerns.

Fund at least 1 educational eventeach year targeting an audienceconcerned with NPS pollutionfrom failing septic systems.

Document at least 100 citizenspresented with messagesaddressing NPS pollutionconcerns stemming from failingseptic systems.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

■

■

Only 13 septic systemrepairs were completedby grantees in FFY17.

The TN-NPS staffreported conductingover 70 septic systemsite visits.

■

■

■

Staff attended over 20outreach events thataddressed failingseptic systems inFFY17.

Grantees presentedinformation on failingseptic systems at 30documented events inFFY17.

Grantees reported thatover 2,000 citizenswere presented withinformation aboutfailing septic systems.

2017

Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of Success

Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 3: Build capacity for future TN-NPS projectsin local watersheds by engaging stakeholders and potential partners through outreach and personal contact.

TN-NPS staff will attend at least 1stakeholder meeting each year topromote the TN-NPS program.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 4: Track interim progress towards restoration of impaired water bodies via adaptive management process.

Develop a sector-based trackingmechanism for BMPimplementation, educationalactivities, pollutant loadreductions, and capacity buildingefforts.

Implement a sector-basedtracking mechanism for BMPimplementation, educationalactivities, pollutant loadreductions, and capacity buildingefforts.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 5: Protect unimpaired/ high quality waters (i.e., those not on the 303(d) list) by implementing appropriate BMPs where warranted.

Not applicable - projects toprotect unimpaired waters bydefinition will not be assigned toany pollutant source.

N/A

Long Term Goal No. 6:

Fulfill all obligations under grant award agreement with USEPA annually.

Not Applicable - grant awardobligations are not defined bypollutant sector.

N/A

■

TN-NPS staff attendedeight stakeholdermeetings thataddressed topicsrelated to failing septicsystems.

■

■

Full implementation ofsector-based trackingfor BMPs has beenimplemented; however,additional work isneeded to fullyimplement tracking ofeducation andoutreach.

If the short term has been met or exceeded, please provide an explanation of how this was determined (i.e. list of objectives completed, activities performed, etc.):

If the short term has not been met, please provide an explanation of the variance:

Education and outreach for failing septic systems/septic system repairs was strong in FFY17.

The number of septic system replacements and repairs made in FFY17 was very low. The variance may

be due to a number of factors, including the focus by many groups on drought and wildfire recovery.

Some grantees used funds originally earmarked for septic repairs for seeding and forage planting.

Measures of Success Checklist Legacy Mining Sector Short Term Goals

Measures of Success Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of

Success Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 1: Restore impaired water bodies (i.e., those on the 303(d) list) by implementing best management practices (BMPs) that address nonpoint source pollution.

Fund no less than 1 projectaddressing legacy miningconcerns each year, depending onthe number and quality ofproposals received.

Fund no less than 5 BMPsaddressing legacy miningconcerns each year, depending onthe number of active legacymining projects.

Staff Watershed Coordinators willperform no less than 5 site visitseach year to inspect legacy miningBMPs pre-, during-, and post-construction, depending on thenumber of active legacy miningprojects

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 2: Build citizen awareness of problems and solutions related to nonpoint source pollution through local and statewide education efforts targeting various audiences.

TN-NPS staff willattend/participate in at least 1educational event each yeartargeting an audience dealingwith legacy mining concerns.

Fund at least 1 educational eventeach year targeting an audienceconcerned with NPS pollutionfrom legacy mining activities.

Document at least 100 citizenspresented with messagesaddressing NPS pollutionconcerns stemming from legacymining activities.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

■

■

■

No implementationproject proposals forlegacy mining werereceived in FFY17.One multi-sectoreducation projectaddresses legacymining issues(TennesseeEnvirothon).

No legacy miningBMPs were installed inFFY17.

In total, 16 site visitsrelating to legacymining issues wereconducted in FFY17.

■

■

■

The TN-NPS staffreported attending over10 events in whichlegacy mining issueswere addressed.

Project WET hosted 28teacher educationsessions, whichaddressed all forms/sectors of nonpointsource pollution.

Approximately 1,600individuals werepresented withinformation aboutlegacy mining throughProject WET.

2017

Long Term Goal Short Term Measure(s) of Success

Status Comments

Long Term Goal No. 3: Build capacity for future TN-NPS projects

TN-NPS staff will attend at least 1stakeholder meeting each year topromote the TN-NPS.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 4: Track interim progress towards restoration of impaired water bodies via adaptive management process.

Develop a sector-based trackingmechanism for BMPimplementation, educationalactivities, pollutant loadreductions, and capacity buildingefforts.

Implement a sector-basedtracking mechanism for BMPimplementation, educationalactivities, pollutant loadreductions, and capacity buildingefforts.

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

□ Met□ Exceeded□ Needsimprovement

Long Term Goal No. 5: Protect unimpaired/ high quality waters (i.e., those not on the 303(d) list) by implementing appropriate BMPs where warranted.

Not applicable - projects toprotect unimpaired waters bydefinition will not be assigned toany pollutant source.

N/A

Long Term Goal No. 6:

Fulfill all obligations under grant award agreement with USEPA annually.

Not Applicable - grant awardobligations are not defined bypollutant sector.

N/A

■

Seven stakeholdermeetings addressinglegacy mining issueswere attended byTN-NPS staff.

■

■

As previously statedwith other sectors,BMP tracking by sectoris fully implemented.Education andoutreach still requiresfull implementation.

If the short term has been met or exceeded, please provide an explanation of how this was determined (i.e. list of objectives completed, activities performed, etc.):

If the short term has not been met, please provide an explanation of the variance:

The legacy mining sector has benefited from outreach and education efforts.

It is possible that BMPs were installed on legacy strip mining sites without the knowledge of the TN-NPS

program. Oftentimes, acidic conditions create difficulties in establishing pastures; the program may be

assisting in these areas, but the BMP is tracked as an agricultural practice.

APPENDIX C

SECTION 319(h) GRANT PARTICIPANT ANNUAL SURVEY

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

2017 Authored by: Land & Water Stewardship Section Staff 

Section 319(h) Grant  Participant Annual Survey 

2017 

31

9 G

ran

tee 

Surv

ey – F

Y20

17 

1 

Section 319 Applicant Survey 

[Soliciting feedback and managing needs] 

Introduction  to  the  Section  319  Applicant  

SurveyThe annual 319 Applicant Survey was initiated in the Summer of 2015 in order to assess what grant recipients perceived as the strengths and weaknesses of the current TN‐NPS Program. The intent of the survey was to determine if specific needs of the grantees were being met. The survey provides an opportunity for TDA to learn from grantees and applicants, and to gather input regarding grantee satisfaction. Based upon the results of the survey, TDA staff will evaluate potential changes to the project selection process, communication, and grant administration (adaptive management). The questions chosen for the 319 Grantee Survey will be reviewed and refined annually. 

Survey  MethodologyQuestions for the Section 319 Applicant Survey were developed in the Fall of 2017. A total of ten questions were chosen in order to get an adequate idea of the level of satisfaction of the grantees with the current process, while not making the survey overly long or onerous. An email list was developed by compiling the contact information for organizations and agencies that had applied for a 319 grant within the previous five years. The email list included both past recipients, and those parties that applied for a 319 grant, but were not chosen to receive funding. The survey questions were developed into a questionnaire using SurveyMonkey, Inc. (www.surveymonkey.com). A link to the survey was sent to the email list on October 17, 2017.  A follow‐up reminder was sent to the survey recipients on November 3, 2016.  The survey was ended on November 3, 2017. A total of 64 individuals received the survey, and 22 individuals completed all or part of the questionnaire.    

Results  The following is a list of the questions utilized for the survey, as well as the responses received from the survey participants.  Please note: none of the questions on the survey were mandatory; that is, participants were able to skip any questions they did not wish to answer.  Therefore, although there was a total of 22 participants, 22 responses were not received for each question.  Also, any comments such as “not applicable,” “n/a,” etc. were omitted from this document to maintain conciseness.  

The survey provides an opportunity for TDA to learn from 

grantees and applicants, and to gauge grantee satisfaction.

2 

31

9 G

ran

tee 

Surv

ey – F

Y20

17 

Question 1: Does the current Request for Proposals (RFP) do a good job of communicating the requirements and expectations for grant proposal applications?  Please rate the current RFP on the sliding scale of 1 to 10 below, with 1 representing "does not communicate the requirements at all," and 10 representing "the RFP fully communicates all requirements and expectations." Question Format: Sliding bar to indicateranking.

      FIGURE 1: RANKING OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Question 2: How could the RFP be improved?  What information do you feel should be added, or more fully explained? Question Format:Comment/short answer.  Comments are summarized below. 

Only six participants responded to Question 2. Comments for improvements varied widely, from a request for additional information about payment procedures to clarifications on how projects are evaluated. Two out of the six respondents were happy with the current RFP. 

31

9 G

ran

tee 

Surv

ey – F

Y20

17 

3 

Question 3: Are you satisfied with the current 319 Grant proposal submittal and review process? Question Format: Yes or no, with optionalcomment/short answer field. 

A majority (approximately 91 percent, or 20 out of 22) of the respondents are satisfied with the proposal review process.  Only one comment was provided, which recommended a two‐step review process, whereby the proposals were evaluated for completeness and then for content. 

      FIGURE 2: SATISFIED WITH CURRENT 319 GRANT  PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS 

Question 4: Is the current proposal submittal schedule convenient? (Typically, the RFP is posted in September, and the deadline to apply is December 1st.)  Question Format: Yes or no, withoptional comment/short answer field. 

All of the respondents (22) indicated that they were satisfied with the current submittal schedule. No optional comments were received for Question 4.

4 

31

9 G

ran

tee 

Surv

ey – F

Y20

17 

FIGURE 3: SATISFIED WITH CURRENT 319 GRANT PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL SCHEDULE 

Question 5: If you are a past or present grant recipient, are you satisfied with the quantity and quality of communication and contact you receive from the TDA‐Nonpoint Source Program? Please rate the current quality of communication.  Question Format: Multiple choice.

A majority of the respondents (20 out of 22) indicated that the level of communication currently provided by the TDA‐NPS program was appropriate. 

FIGURE 4: QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF COMMUNICATION

31

9 G

ran

tee 

Surv

ey – F

Y20

17 

5 

Question 6: Would a greater TDA‐Nonpoint Source Program social media presence, where information could be posted about upcoming events, successes, and/or funding opportunities be helpful to you or your organization? Question Format: Yes or no, with an optional follow‐up comment/shortanswer field to indicate which platform would be preferred. 

The response to Question 6 was evenly split (11 yes/11 no) with regards to the benefit to having a greater social media presence. Four participants provided their platform preference, with two indicating Facebook ©, one indicating Twitter ©, and one indicating both Twitter © and  Facebook ©. 

FIGURE 5: BENEFIT TO A GREATER SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE

 

    6 

31

9 G

ran

tee 

Surv

ey – F

Y20

17 

 

Question 7: Which of the following characterizations best describes your feelings regarding the amount of paperwork and reporting required for a 319 Grant in Tennessee? Question Format: Multiple choice, with an optional comment/short answer field.   Approximately 59 percent of the respondents indicated that they felt that the amount of paperwork required for the Section 319 Grant Program is typical of similar grant programs.  Three respondents provided comments: 

Streamlining the paperwork would be helpful for reimbursements.  Paperwork on the front end is comparable to other grant entities. Paperwork 

required upon completion is excessive.  The massive work plan. Also, planning is made onerous when you don’t receive a 

contract until roughly a year after application. 

 FIGURE 6: FEELINGS REGARDING AMOUNT OF PAPERWORK  

AND REPORTING REQUIRED  

  

 

31

9 G

ran

tee 

Surv

ey – F

Y20

17 

7 

Question 8: Which of the following technical services would be most useful to your organization, if offered by the TDA‐Nonpoint Source Program? (Choose all that apply.)  Question Format: Multiple choice – choose all thatapply. 

Mapping/GIS

Modeling/Load Reduction Estimates

Watershed‐based Plan Development

Best Management Practice (BMP) Design

Additional Funding for Organizations Outreach/Education Support

Assistance with Budget/Proposal Revisions (e.g. Indirect Cost Calculations,Determining Eligible Costs

Other (please specify):

The most requested service in this year’s survey was the development of watershed‐based plans, followed by additional funding for organizational outreach activities. One respondent indicated “other” and requested stream monitoring. 

FIGURE 7: MOST USEFUL TECHNICAL SERVICES

Number of Responses

 

    8 

31

9 G

ran

tee 

Surv

ey – F

Y20

17 

 

Question 9: What would be your recommendation(s) as to how the TDA‐Nonpoint Source Program could recruit new applicants for 319 Grants?  Question Format: Short answer/comment field.  Comments are summarized below.  An emphasis by many respondents was placed on the need for TDA‐NPS staff to be more physically present at Soil Conservation Districts, workshops, and conferences. Some respondents indicated that providing assistance with the proposal submittal process or having additional training on writing proposals would assist with recruiting new applicants to the program. 

 

Question 10: Would it be beneficial to you or your organization if annual regional or state‐wide nonpoint source meetings were held to assist with training, present new/innovative ideas, and allow grant participants to network with other partners across the region/state?  Question Format: Either/or, with optional comment/short answer field.  Comments are summarized below.  Almost 70 percent of the respondents felt that an annual regional or state‐wide nonpoint source meeting would benefit their organization. The comments provided included the importance of collaboration with other organizations (i.e. see what other groups are doing), as well as providing training opportunities. 

 

FIGURE 8: BENEFIT TO HOLDING ANNUAL MEETING 

 

31

9 G

ran

tee 

Surv

ey – F

Y20

17 

9 

ConclusionThe survey had a participation of approximately 34 percent of grantees and applicants.  The response rate was a slight decrease (3 percent) from the preceding year.  The results of the survey will inform decisions regarding additional services that may be offered by TDA in the future, as well as alert TDA staff to areas of concern within the program.  The survey results will also be used to identify new directions for TN‐NPS grant initiatives, or to decide if previous initiatives should be reinstated.   

Some areas of potential improvement for overall program were identified from the results of the survey. First, many of the respondents indicated that an increased presence of TDA‐NPS staff at events (such as conferences and workshops) would be beneficial. Coupled with participation, several applicants requested additional training that might assist in developing watershed‐based plans and/or proposals. During FFY17, TDA‐NPS staff attended several meetings; however, no formal training was offered to applicants. Moving forward, TDA‐NPS will examine the feasibility of providing training opportunities to potential applicants. Most of the respondents remain satisfied with the request for proposals and the proposal submission schedule. 

As participation in the annual survey begins to wane, TDA‐NPS may look for alternative methods of soliciting input from grantees and applicants. The feedback obtained by the annual survey has been invaluable for the continued improvement of the NPS program in Tennessee. 

APPENDIX D

SUCCESS STORY

NONPOINT SOURCE SUCCESS STORY

TennesseeAgricultural Best Management Practices and Septic System Repairs Help Reduce Escherichia coli in the Sequatchie RiverWaterbody Improved In 2008 the main stem of Tennessee’s Sequatchie River in Bledsoe

and Sequatchie counties was listed as impaired by Escherichia coli bacteria due to pasture grazing. From 2013 to 2015, the Southeast Tennessee Resource Conservation and Development Council (SETN RC&D), with support from a Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319 grant, implemented urban and agriculture best management practices (BMPs) to assist with the restoration of the Sequatchie River. The Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) also helped to install agricultural BMPs from 2004 through the present. In 2014, the joint effort between the SETN RC&D and its partners quickly paid dividends when a 23.1-mile segment of the Sequatchie River was determined by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) to be fully supporting of all designated uses; it was removed from the impaired waters list in 2014.

ProblemThe main stem of the Sequatchie River (TN06020004005–1000) flows through Bledsoe and Sequatchie counties in Tennessee and eventually empties into the Tennessee River in the southeastern part of the state (Figure 1). In 1982, 109 miles of the Sequatchie River in Marion, Sequatchie, Bledsoe, and Cumberland counties were included on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory for exceptional scenery, recreation, geology, fish, and wildlife outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). The Sequatchie River is popular for its recreational uses such as paddling.

Figure 1. Multiple BMPs were installed throughout the Sequatchie River (TN06020004005-1000) watershed.

Samples collected between 2001 and 2006 showed that the average E. coli concentration at river mile 41.5 along the Sequatchie River was 503 colony-forming units (CFU) per 100 milliliters (mL). The maximum con-centration observed was greater than 2,419 CFU/100 mL (i.e., greater than the analytical test’s upper limit). State water quality criteria require that the geometric mean for the E. coli group shall not exceed 126 CFU/100 mL, and that no sample may exceed a maximum of 941 CFU/100 mL. As a result of exceed-ances in 2006, in 2008 TDEC included portions of the Sequatchie River on the state of Tennessee’s CWA section 303(d) list for excessive E. coli levels due to pasture grazing. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) for E. coli in the Sequatchie River watershed was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region 4) on December 18, 2008.

Project HighlightsPasture grazing was identified as the primary pollut-ant source for the Sequatchie River. The SETN RC&D worked with landowners to implement BMPs to better manage livestock, including installing cross-fences for new rotational grazing management systems and

adding riparian-area fences to exclude livestock from streams (Figure 2). The SETN RC&D recognized that failing wastewater collection systems also contributed to the pathogen problem; therefore, the SETN RC&D assisted with the repair of two failing septic systems in this portion of the watershed.

Figure 2. New fences prevent livestock from accessing the Sequatchie River and its tributaries.

ResultsThe Sequatchie River (TN06020004005-1000) was included on the 2008 CWA section 303(d) list based on E. coli sampling performed by TDEC, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the city of Dunlap Water Treatment Plant from 2001 through 2006. At river mile 41.5, the geometric mean of five samples collected in April and May of 2006 (before project implementation) was 424.6 CFU/100 mL, which violated standards.

During TDEC’s 2010–2011 sampling cycle (after project implementation), the E. coli concentration had fallen to 121.1 CFU/100 mL, which met water quality standards and showed that the stream had improved (Figure 3). As a result, TDEC removed this segment of the Sequatchie River from the state’s 2014 impaired waters list; it was deemed fully supporting of all designated uses.

Figure 3. E. coli concentration at river mile 41.5 of the Sequatchie River.

Partners and FundingThe SETN RC&D was awarded a CWA section 319 grant totaling $190,000 in fiscal year 2011. From that grant, the SETN RC&D provided $5,058 in cost-share for the BMPs directly adjacent to segment TN06020004005-1000; the remaining grant funds were used to support

BMPs and education throughout other portions of the Sequatchie River Basin. In addition, SETN RC&D has assisted with dozens of additional agricultural BMPs installations and septic system repairs along other still-impaired portions of the Sequatchie River and its tribu-taries. Along the delisted stretch of the Sequatchie River, the total investment from the CWA section 319 grant is $5,058, while cooperators provided $3,583 in matching funds. To date, the state of Tennessee’s Agricultural Resources Conservation Fund (ARCF) has also contributed $43,983 in cost-share assistance for the implementation of 33 agricultural BMPs, including exclusion fencing, alternative watering facilities, and heavy use areas for livestock. Cooperators assisted by ARCF program provided an additional $33,460 in matching funds.

Key partners with SETN RC&D for the CWA sec-tion 319 grant include the University of the South; TDEC (Division of Water Resources and Division of Groundwater Protection); the soil conservation districts (SCDs) in Bledsoe, Grundy, Marion, and Sequatchie counties; U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Partners with TDA that installed BMPs through ARCF include NRCS and various SCDs.

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of WaterWashington, DC

EPA 841-F-17-001SSeptember 2017

For additional information contact:Sam MarshallTennessee Department of Agriculture615-837-5306 • sam.marshall@tn.gov

APPENDIX E

STREAMBANK RESTORATION SYMPOSIUM MEETING SUMMARY

Meeting Summary – Stream Restoration Symposium Stream Restoration Symposium 03.03.2017 08:00 – 16:00 Ellington Agricultural Center, Nashville, TN

Meeting called by Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA)

Type of meeting Informational/coordination

Facilitator TDA

Note taker Heidi McIntyre-Wilkinson

Timekeeper N/A

Facilitator John McClurkan

Registration/Networking 08:00 – 09:00 Presenter: N/A

Discussion

N/A; open period for informal networking and registering attendance.

Action Items Responsible Party Deadline

Provide an electronic copy of the List of Attendees upon request. TDA Upon request

Introductions: Goals of the Workshop 09:00 – 09:30 Presenter: TDA

Discussion

TDA provided a brief overview of the purpose of the symposium. The primary goal was to get interested parties (agencies, regulators, researchers, and consultants) to discuss current needs and challenges regarding “hard” versus “green” streambank stabilization techniques.

The symposium/workshop was intended to be an open, informal forum in which new ideas could be presented, as well as questions about the efficacy of various stabilization techniques discussed.

All attendees introduced themselves, and provided their affiliation.

Action Items Responsible Party Deadline

N/A - -

State of the Art Review on Bank Erosion 09:30 – 10:00 Presenter: Dr. Thanos Papanicolaou, University of Tennessee-Hydrology and Sediment Laboratory (UT-HSL)

Discussion

Dr. Papanicolaou presented information on the basic causes of bank erosion; and modeling systems to determine force and erodibility to identify effective mitigation/counter measures. Dr. Papanicolaou indicated that his research has shown that low-order streams can often be successfully stabilized using biostabilization techniques. He recommended that thresholds be set based on force or order to provide general guidance as to when biostabilization should be considered (versus when “hard” stabilization techniques would likely be needed).

Select Audience Questions

Question 1: What is sub-aerial?

Answer 1:

Sub-aerial processes are land based processes which alter the shape of a coastline. They’re a combination of both weathering and mass movement. Examples of weathering are freeze thaw, exfoliation, biological and chemical weathering. Mass movement examples are rockfalls, soil creep, landslides, rotational slumping and mudflow.

Question 2: The speaker said it is good to combine vegetative cover and rock weir. What are the limitations of vegetative cover and use rock weir?

Answer 2: Use stream power threshold/stream order to determine limitations. You can generally use biostabilization up to a 3rd order stream, depending on stream power. Other factors / benefits should be considered, such as creating shade/habitat for fish.

Question 3: Elaborate on the “fence” that you mentioned during the presentation?

Answer 3: Along the Missouri River, fence posts with sheet piling driven to 20-feet below ground are used. They are referred to in Iowa as “veins.” The posts are installed to redirect flow around failed levees. Designed to prevent erosion and created habitat for fish, the practice uses the estimated force to redirect flow.

Action Items Responsible Party Deadline

Determine potential sites for demonstration to test biostabilization techniques. UT-HSL w/group assistance On-going

Break (10:00 – 10:15)

Meeting Summary – Stream Restoration Symposium Critical Needs on Bank Erosion 10:15 – 11:30 Presenter: Dr. John Schwartz, University of Tennessee-Knoxville (UTK)

Discussion

Dr. Schwartz reviewed the current guidance on shoreline stabilization techniques available in the National Engineering Handbook, Part 654. He presented information that many models being used assume that equilibrium has been reached within the system, which is particularly problematic for urban streams (which are continuously disturbed).

Select Audience Questions

Question 1: What is a secondary current?

Answer 1: Flow downstream is direct current. Secondary currents are lateral and vertical, creating a cell, associated with turbulence; in a meander it creates mixing.

Action Items Responsible Party Deadline

Provide a copy of research on species composition based on location within pools and riffles.

Dr. John Schwartz Upon request

Summary of the Needs 11:30 – 12:00 Presenter: Dr. Thanos Papanicolaou

Discussion

Dr. Papanicolaou restated that many models currently in use do not do an adequate job as they assume equilibrium in the system (which is often not the case). Biostabilization methods have failed in the past due to a failure to establish a threshold based on stream order, force, or power beyond which green methods may not be effective. Based on the stream power range, a handbook has been developed to recommend appropriate structures for stabilization success. To make a decision between hard practices and green stabilization, the decision-maker needs:

A model not based on the equilibrium condition assumption, and Information about site-specific conditions.

Additional Comments: Mr. Britton Dotson of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation added that oftentimes the mitigation is limited by property lines. That is, whereas gentler, green methods may be preferred, because there is limited buy-in by adjacent property owners, aggressive treatment over a smaller area is required. Going forward, it is important to remember that bank erosion is handled by different entities, with different end goals. There is a need for “more tools in the toolbox.” We need to find where science runs into regulatory needs. Even if a model suggests the best solution, a landowner can decide it’s not what they want. We need to work on which factors may appeal to people to make a choice. Modeling may not give an us a definitive answer, but is a part of the decision making process. Additional LiDAR flights, to provide more information, would also be helpful. Models can come in handy; they tell you where the problem areas are so you have a better view of options. The classification scheme can be a blueprint for guidance. The NRCS process for landowners is a simplified approach to eliminate modeling. A better defined simple way for landowners to reduce vertical erosion is needed. We need to come up with practical approach. We need to help decision makers come up with specific goals.

Select Audience Questions

Question 1: What scientific paper is the threshold slide from?

Answer 1: Phil Ashmore, Canada, will provide information. The stream power / stabilization technique comparison is so mentioned in the Kilgore study from a consulting company in Washington DC.

Question 2: Please define “threshold channel.”

Answer 2: A channel that was on the “threshold” between stable and unstable.

Question 3: We are looking at the opportunity to use models for predicting erosion. One of the weaknesses of the model is sediment transport. How do we model for uncertainty of sediment transport?

Answer 3:

It is very tough; sometimes there are very large uncertainties and error. Sometimes there isn’t enough long term data or sometime the wrong model is used and is not compatible with all situations. You may need to pick/choose models to minimize errors (at equilibrium and non-equilibrium), verify site specific information, and pick a site with data to develop classification scheme to help with decision making.

Action Items Responsible Party Deadline

N/A - -

Working Lunch

12:00 – 13:30 Presenters: Mr. Adam Williams, Brushy Fork Environmental Consulting and Ms. Leah Gardner, Ecological Landscape Consultant

Discussion

Meeting Summary – Stream Restoration Symposium Mr. Williams provided several examples/case-studies of biostabilization in small order streams in Tennessee and North Carolina. Mr. Williams has had success utilizing root wads to stabilize headwater streams. His case-studies illustrated how stabilization does not have to be an “either / or” scenario, but can be a combination of hard practices and biostabilization.

Ms. Gardner presented examples of riparian restoration projects she has managed in East Tennessee, and fielded questions about the beautification of raingardens and wetlands with native vegetation.

Select Audience Questions

Question 1: What is “usual” stream power?

Answer 1: Generally speaking, “usual” stream power is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order streams.

Question 2: What is the project shown?

Answer 2: It is a 319 grant for the town of Mountain City with multiple landowners.

Question 3: What is the effective lifespan of the longest project with toe wood you’ve seen?

Answer 3: The longest so far is 16 years. You must be selective, choose a mix of soft and hard wood; but it can be easily covered (visually) with a buffer.

Question 4: Does digging out for toe wood installation cause downstream pollution, and do you need to mitigate for that?

Answer 4: “Make a quick mess and fix it.” You can usually find a work around. You can use a pump to move sediment or cause some flow diversions to act as a catchment.

Question 5: What is the cost per linear foot?

Answer 5: NRCS projects (580/395/612) in North Carolina that are 25 square miles or less are $100 to $120 per linear foot (build cost, not design). Projects on EQIP can receive supplemental funding from the state.

Quantifying Sediment Budgets 13:30 – 14:00 Presenter: Dr. Chris Wilson, UT-HSL

Discussion

Dr. Wilson presented a summary of the methods/techniques used to assess the effectiveness of stabilization practices. He illustrated with a case-study how the flashiness of a system should be taken into account when determining potential stabilization practices. Dr. Wilson used radionuclides beryllium-7 and lead-210, delivered by rain events, to determine the sources of in-stream sediment (i.e. landscape contributions or channel/bank contributions). The tracing technique indicated that the contributions to sediment within a stream varies based on event, over the course of an event, and seasonally. Topography also appears to play a significant role in the impact from landscape versus channel contributions.

Action Items Responsible Party Deadline

N/A - -

Countermeasures for Erosion 14:00 – 14:45 Presenter: Mohammad Ghaneeizad, UT-HSL

Discussion

Dr. Ghaneeizad presented information regarding techniques and their limitations for determining baseline soil erodibility including: Jet erosion test, and Conduit flume test.

Action Items Responsible Party Deadline

N/A - -

Next Steps: Roundtable Discussion 14:45 – 15:30 Presenter: TDA and UT-HSL

Discussion

Mr. McClurkan restated the goal of the symposium, and opened the floor for discussion and questions. The following points were discussed during the roundtable discussion:

The need for making models more accessible/useable to decision-makers was identified; A request for additional periodical symposiums/workshops on this topic was made; A reminder was provided for the Tennessee American Water Resources Association Symposium, April 5 – 7, 2017, to be held

at Montgomery Bell State Park; The need to contextualize the concepts and methods reviewed was stated; The need for reference conditions was reviewed; Issues with current models and monitoring (long-term) of practices was identified; Guidelines for identifying whether preference should be given to hard practices or biostabilization needs to be developed;

Meeting Summary – Stream Restoration Symposium Discussion, cont.

UT-HSL participants indicated that they would like to put some of the methods discussed into practice; Mr. Dotson indicated that many interested parties needed to assist in making decisions were not in attendance (e.g. non-

governmental organizations, Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers), and requested that they be included in any future symposiums;

Several participants indicated an interest in having a tool developed that would allow them to evaluate the “No Action” alternative where bank stabilization is concerned – is no action better than the habitat loss that may occur;

A request was made for a classification/development of categories based on stream order to identify practical bank stabilization practices, that allows for flexibility to take into account regulations, access, infrastructure, etc.

A request for the next symposium to focus on reservoir shoreline protection was made; and Participants from Tennessee Department of Transportation indicated an interest in additional information regarding the use

of mitigation credits, and how that program might be evolving.

Action Items Responsible Party Deadline

Development of a White Paper to summarize what is currently known about bank stabilization and practice efficacy.

Dr. Thanos Papanicolaou

TBD

Create a prioritized list of questions, scenarios, needs, etc. from agencies to address; initially, a survey will be sent to elicit responses from the participants. TDA ASAP

Provide contact information for non-governmental organizations to UT-HSL to begin identifying potential demonstration sites. All / Group On-going

Provide a summary of the meeting (Meeting Minutes). TDA 03.08.17

Closing Remarks – Meeting Adjourned

APPENDIX F

NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INITIATIVE (NWQI) STATUS UPDATE

NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INITIATIVE (NWQI) STATUS UPDATE 

Introduction 

Initiative Overview The National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI), launched in 2012, is a collaborative effort between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and state agencies to reduce nonpoint source pollution to high‐priority watersheds identified in each state. The high‐priority watersheds are chosen by NRCS with input from state water quality agencies. The program is designed to focus efforts and funding to provide maximum impacts on the chosen watersheds.  

The NWQI requires in‐stream water quality monitoring of at least one priority watershed per year. The monitoring assesses water quality and biological conditions related to nutrients, sediments, or livestock‐related pathogens. The objective is to determine if any of the parameters have changes throughout the monitoring period, and whether these changes (positive or negative) can be attributed to agriculture‐based best management practices (BMPs) that have been installed in the watershed.   

In the State of Tennessee, NRCS prioritizes watersheds for nomination that are located in counties included in the USDA StrikeForce Initiative. The USDA StrikeForce Initiative was established in 2010 with the objective of combatting the specific challenges associated with rural poverty, as well as growing rural communities and improving opportunities. In addition, NRCS utilizes EPA’s Recovery Potential Screening Tool to further pare down the number of watersheds nominated for NWQI inclusion.    

Tennessee Nonpoint Source (TN‐NPS) Program Roles Assisting NWQI The TN‐NPS has several minor roles with regards to the NWQI. When asked, TN‐NPS provides input on eligible watersheds through knowledge obtained by the Watershed Coordinators, who are in various watersheds every year. TN‐NPS also provides funding, in the form of 319 Grant monies, to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) for in‐stream water quality monitoring.   

Annual Updates 

FFY2017 Just as in FFY2016, NRCS chose to continue their focus on the same NWQI priority watersheds as the previous year. The demographic information summarized in Table 1 has been updated to include the latest 2017 data available. As of the development of this document (November, 2017), the proposed final 2016 Section 303(d) list for the State of Tennessee has not been approved by USEPA. Therefore, the final 2014 Section 303(d) list was used for the purposes of indicating impaired waterbodies within each watershed.  

In FFY2017, the 319 Grant program did not cost‐share on any BMPs in an NWQI priority watershed. The State of Tennessee’s Agricultural Resources Conservation Fund (ARCF) supported the installation of 69 practices in NWQI priority watersheds. During FFY2017, TN‐NPS staff 

performed site visits in all the NWQI priority watersheds with the exception of Hickory Creek. Water quality monitoring (chemical parameters) was conducted in one priority watershed, Fall Creek, along Fall Creek and Hurricane Creek, was performed in this fiscal year. 

FFY2016 In FFY2016, NRCS did not change the NWQI priority watersheds. Demographic information for each of the watersheds was updated based on the latest 2016 data available. The statuses of streams within the watersheds have also been updated to reflect the 2014 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) for the State of Tennessee, which was approved in May of 2016.    

No BMPs were supported in NWQI watersheds in FFY2016 using 319 Grant funds; however, 28 BMPs installed in the selected watersheds were supported by the State of Tennessee’s Agricultural Resources Conservation Fund (ARCF). While assisting with the implementation of ARCF BMPs, TN‐NPS visited Clover Creek, East Fork Mulberry Creek, Fall Creek, Little Hickory Creek, Sequatchie River – Hall Creek, Sequatchie River – Little Creek, West Fork Hickory Creek, and West Fork Mulberry Creek watersheds. Water quality monitoring was performed in three NWQI priority watersheds in FFY2016, which included Hickory Creek, Little Hickory Creek, and West Fork Hickory Creek.   

FFY2015 In FFY2015, NRCS chose 174 small watersheds nationwide to provide an estimated $25 million in financial assistance through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) for the implementation of the NWQI. In Tennessee, nine watersheds were chosen as high‐priority watersheds eligible for the NWQI. Figure 1 provides the location of the NWQI watersheds for the State of Tennessee for FFY2015.   

In FFY2015, a total of 13 BMPs were installed in NWQI watersheds through cost‐share with 319 Grant funds. The BMPs ranged from septic system repairs to exclusion fencing for livestock. Also in FFY2015, the State of Tennessee’s Agricultural Resources Conservation Fund (ARCF) assisted with funding an additional 16 BMPs in NWQI watersheds. Watershed Coordinators (TN‐NPS) visited two of the NWQI high‐priority watersheds (Sequatchie River – Hall Creek and Sequatchie River – Little Creek), and TDEC performed water quality monitoring in one of the watersheds (Fall Creek). 

Watershed Summaries Clover Creek (080102020306) The Clover Creek watershed is located in northwestern Tennessee in Obion County. The watershed covers approximately 10,616 acres, and ultimately drains into the Obion River. Obion County is a predominately rural county, and the principle land cover within the drainage area is cultivated crops, with some hay/pastureland and deciduous forest. Clover Creek (TN08010202028_1000) is listed as “Not Supporting” in the 2014 State of Tennessee’s 303(d) list due to physical substrate habitat alterations and sedimentation/siltation from nonirrigated crop production and channelization. An unnamed tributary to Clover Creek (TN08010202028_0100) is also listed as “Not Supporting” for habitat alteration, alterations to stream‐side vegetative cover, low dissolved oxygen, siltation, nitrogen, and phosphorus.   

0 50 10025 Miles

FIGURE 1: NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INITIATIVE WATERSHED FOR THE STATE

OF TENNESSEE IN FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2017

LEGEND Tennessee Counties High-priority Watersheds FFY2017 Waterbodies Monitored in FFY2017

Clover Creek080102020306

Hickory Creek051301070103

East Fork Mulberry Creek060300030502

West Fork Hickory Creek051301070102

Sequatchie River - Hall Creek060200040103

Little Hickory Creek051301070101

KENTUCKY

GEORGIAALABAMAMISSISSIPPI

SOUTH CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST VIRGINIA

INDIANA

ILLINOIS

MISSOURI

ARKANSAS

L:\NONPT_Shared\319 Program\GIS\NWQI_Watersheds

West Fork Mulberry Creek060300030501

Fall Creek060400020306

Sequatchie River - Little Creek060200040102

Fall Creek (060400020306)  The Fall Creek watershed is found in Middle Tennessee, primarily in Bedford County, with a small portion in Rutherford County. The Fall Creek watershed drains approximately 25,057 acres, and drains into the Duck River. Land cover within the watershed is mostly pasture and hayland, with some cultivated crops and deciduous forests present. Fall Creek (TN06040002038_1000) is listed as “Not Supporting” in the 2014 State of Tennessee’s CWA Section 303(d) list due to Escherichia coli (E. coli) due to pasture grazing. Hurricane Creek (TN06040002038_0300), which also drains a significant portion of the watershed, is not supporting due to E. coli, loss of biological integrity due to siltation, and physical substrate habitat alterations, primarily from pasture grazing.  West Fork Mulberry Creek (060300030501)  The West Fork Mulberry Creek watershed spans portions of Lincoln and Moore Counties in southern Middle Tennessee. It drains approximately 28,492 acres from West Fork Mulberry Creek to the Elk River. Land cover within the watershed is mixed, with pasture/hay production and deciduous forest being the primary classes. West Fork Mulberry Creek (TN06030003056_0100) is listed as “Not Supporting” in the 2014 State of Tennessee’s CWA Section 303(d) list due to E. coli from pasture grazing and animal feeding operations. The West Fork Mulberry Creek watershed abuts the East Fork Mulberry Creek watershed (described below).  East Fork Mulberry Creek (060300030502)  The East Fork Mulberry Creek watershed is located in Lincoln and Moore Counties, with a small portion of the drainage area in southern Bedford County. It encompasses approximately 35,267 acres, and eventually drains to the Elk River. Land cover in the watershed is a combination of pasture/hay production, deciduous forest, and evergreen forest. A portion of East Fork Mulberry Creek (TN06030003056_0250) was listed in as “Not Supporting” in the 2014 State of Tennessee’s CWA Section 303(d) list due to E. coli from pasture grazing.  West Fork Hickory Creek (051301070102)  The West Fork Hickory Creek watershed is located in Warren and Coffee Counties. The watershed is approximately 30,854 acres in size, and eventually drains to Hickory Creek.  Predominant land cover types include pasture/hay production and row crop farming. West Fork Hickory Creek (TN05130107012_0400) is listed as “Not Supporting” in the 2014 State of Tennessee’s CWA Section 303(d) list due to E. coli from pasture grazing. Meadow Branch (TN05130107012_0410) is also listed as “Not Supporting” due to E. coli from pasture grazing.  Meadow Branch is an Exceptional Tennessee Water due to the presence of the federally endangered barrens topminnow. The West Fork Hickory Creek watershed abuts the Hickory Creek and Little Hickory Creek watersheds (described below).  Hickory Creek (051301070103) The Hickory Creek watershed is located in rural Warren County. It covers approximately 22,437 acres. Land cover is mixed, with pasture/hayland the predominant type, followed by deciduous forest and row crops. A major tributary of Hickory Creek, Locke Branch (TN05130107012_0100) is listed as “Not Supporting” in the 2014 State of Tennessee’s CWA Section 303(d) list due to 

alteration in stream‐side or littoral vegetative cover, and loss of biological integrity due to siltation from pasture grazing.  

Little Hickory Creek (051301070101) 

The Little Hickory Creek watershed is found in Coffee, Warren, and Grundy Counties. It spans approximately 31,992 acres of deciduous forest, row crops, and pasture/hay. A major tributary of Little Hickory Creek, Fultz Creek (TN05130107012_0200) is listed as “Not Supporting” in the 2014 State of Tennessee’s 303(d) list due to alteration in stream‐side or littoral vegetative cover, and loss of biological integrity due to siltation from silviculture activities. 

Sequatchie River – Hall Creek (060200040103) 

The Sequatchie River – Hall Creek watershed covers approximately 32,253 acres in eastern Tennessee (Bledsoe County). Land cover in the watershed includes deciduous forest, pasture/hay, row crops, and developed land of varying intensities. The Sequatchie River (TN06020004007_1000) and Hall Creek (TN06020004007_0400) are both listed as “Not Supporting” in the 2014 State of Tennessee’s CWA Section 303(d) list due to E. coli from pasture grazing. Skillern Creek (TN06020004007_2200) is listed due to E. coli due to pasture grazing; however, it was removed from the 2014 list for unknown toxicity. This watershed abuts the Sequatchie River – Little Creek watershed described below. 

Sequatchie River – Little Creek (060200040102) 

The Sequatchie River – Little Creek watershed is located in Bledsoe and Cumberland Counties. It is approximately 34,104 acres in size. Land cover within the watershed is primarily deciduous forest and pasture grazing, with minor areas of row crops. The Sequatchie River (TN06020004007_1000), as mentioned above, is listed due to E. coli from pasture grazing.  Stephens Branch (TN06020004007_0900), Swafford Branch (TN06020004007_0800), Little Creek (TN06020004007_0600), Manning Spring (TN06020004007_1200), and an unnamed tributary to the Sequatchie River (TN06020004007_1400) are also listed as “Not Supporting” in the 2014 State of Tennessee’s CWA Section 303(d) list due to E. coli from pasture grazing.    

Environmental Justice Considerations 

Environmental justice is defined by EPA as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”   

Six demographic indicators are utilized by EPA to determine environmental justice areas. The indicators include: 

Percent low income (based on an income twice that of the national poverty level or less); Percent minority; Less than a high school education; Linguistic isolation; Less than 5 years of age; and Greater than 64 years of age.

Using the average of the percent low‐income and the percent minority, EPA arrives at a Demographic Index. The Demographic Index can be used as an indicator to the “overall potential susceptibility of the population in a block group;” i.e., the potential that the population in a specific area will be negatively affected by environmental impacts.       

A summary of the Demographic Index and the demographic indicators for the FFY2017 NWQI high‐priority watersheds can be found in Table 1. The U.S. Census Block Groups were identified using Geographic Information System (GIS) software, by isolating those block groups within (or partially within) each of the high‐priority watersheds. Using the EPA’s online EJ SCREEN mapping tool (available at: http://www.epa.gov/ejscreen), TN‐NPS generated Standard Reports for each block group identified. The data from the Standard Reports is summarized below, along with data for the State of Tennessee, EPA Region 4, and the U.S. (national level).   

TABLE 1: DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS IN NWQI HIGH‐PRIORITY WATERSHEDS 

Watershed  County 

Census Block Group 

Identification Number 

Demographic Indicators (Raw Data, Reported as Percent1) 

Demographic Index 

Minority Population 

Low Income Population 

Linguistically Isolated 

Population 

Population With Less Than High School 

Education 

Population Under 5 Years of 

Age 

Population Over 64 Years of 

Age 

Clover Creek Obion 

471319653002  25  7  43  0  24  6  27 471319653003  33  8  58  6  30  4  9 

471319654002  17  6  28  0  18  5  17 

Watershed Average  25  7  43  2  24  5  18 

Fall Creek* 

Bedford 

470039501002  24  17  31  0  16  3  15 470039502001  28  5  50  0  17  8  14 

470039502002  24  14  35  0  19  5  12 

470039504021  28  13  43  0  11  7  11 

470039505002  26  22  31  18  18  11  27 

470039505003  29  8  50  0  20  3  24 

470039507002  27  15  39  0  12  6  11 

Rutherford  471490407022  14  3  24  2  11  2  7 

Watershed Average  25  12  38  3  16  6  15 

West Fork Mulberry Creek 

Lincoln 471039750001  24  12  37  0  18  6  24 471039750002  27  4  50  0  9  2  14 

Moore 471279302001  12  7  17  0  8  4  23 

471279302002  32  22  43  0  26  4  30 

Watershed Average  24  11  37  0  15  4  23 

East Fork Mulberry Creek 

Bedford  470039508001  11  1  20  0  12  6  14 

Lincoln 471039750001  24  12  37  0  18  6  24 

471039750002  27  4  50  0  9  2  14 

Moore 

471279301001  16  2  30  0  14  4  8 

471279301002  20  4  37  0  11  5  29 

471279302001  12  7  17  0  8  4  23 

471279302002  32  22  43  0  26  4  30 

Watershed Average  20  7  33  0  14  4  20 

TABLE 1: DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS IN NWQI HIGH‐PRIORITY WATERSHEDS 

Watershed  County 

Census Block Group 

Identification Number 

Demographic Indicators (Raw Data, Reported as Percent1) 

Demographic Index 

Minority Population 

Low Income Population 

Linguistically Isolated 

Population 

Population With Less Than High School 

Education 

Population Under 5 Years of 

Age 

Population Over 64 Years of 

Age 

West Fork Hickory Creek* 

Coffee 470319701001  24  2  45  0  14  6  12 470319701002  25  1  49  0  12  3  18 

Warren 471779308001  24  12  37  1  23  7  6 

471779308002  26  8  43  2  14  10  15 

471779308003  20  2  39  0  11  5  26 

Watershed Average  24  5  43  1  15  6  15 

Hickory Creek* Warren 

471779306003  28  13  44  0  16  8  12 471779307001  50  21  78  0  26  18  15 

471779308001  24  12  37  1  23  7  6 

471779308002  26  8  43  2  14  10  15 

471779308003  20  2  39  0  11  5  26 

471779309001  37  19  56  8  34  8  21 

Watershed Average  31  13  50  2  21  9  15 

Little Hickory Creek* 

Coffee 470319701001  24  2  45  0  14  6  12 470319707001  22  5  39  0  22  5  21 

Grundy  470619550002  41  21  60  0  33  5  17 

Warren 471779308003  20  2  39  0  11  5  26 

471779309001  37  19  56  8  34  8  21 

Watershed Average  29  10  48  2  23  6  19 

Sequatchie River ‐ Hall Creek* 

Bledsoe 

470079530001  35  15  55  0  22  16  16 470079530002  23  0  46  0  17  5  20 

470079531001  25  1  49  0  24  5  12 

470079531002  50  34  67  1  28  6  20 

470079531003  29  3  55  0  21  7  18 

470079531004  23  3  44  0  27  2  22 

470079532001  37  19  55  0  25  4  11 

470079532002  28  0  55  0  34  1  19 

Watershed Average  31  9  53  0  25  6  17 

TABLE 1: DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS IN NWQI HIGH‐PRIORITY WATERSHEDS 

Watershed  County 

Census Block Group 

Identification Number 

Demographic Indicators (Raw Data, Reported as Percent1) 

Demographic Index 

Minority Population 

Low Income Population 

Linguistically Isolated 

Population 

Population With Less Than High School 

Education 

Population Under 5 Years of 

Age 

Population Over 64 Years of 

Age 

Sequatchie River – Little Creek* 

Bledsoe 470079530001  35  15  55  0  22  16  16 470079531002  50  34  67  1  28  6  20 

470079532001  37  19  55  0  25  4  11 

Cumberland  470359707021  20  1  39  0  27  4  33 

470359708002  22  3  42  0  23  2  19 

Watershed Average  33  14  52  0  25  6  20 

               FFY2016 NWQI Watersheds Average  27  9  44  1  19  6  17 

State of Tennessee Average  32  25  39  2  15  6  15 EPA Region 4 Average  38  37  39  3  14  6  15 

National Average  36  38  34  5  13  6  14 1 Values have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.  * Denotes a watershed located wholly or partly within a USDA StrikeForce Initiative county. 

 Overall, the average Demographic Index for the NWQI high‐priority watersheds (27) remains lower than the State of Tennessee (32), EPA Region 4 (38), and National (36) average. (These parameters have not changed since FFY2016.) As in FFY2015 and FFY2016, the NWQI priority watersheds appeared to be less representative in terms of minority populations than the State and National average; however, low income populations are well represented, with a higher percentage of low income individuals priority watersheds (44 percent) as compared with the State average (39 percent) and the National average (34 percent). 

  Moving Forward  Additional focus on providing cost‐share assistance through the 319 Grant program to BMPs within NWQI watersheds should be considered moving forward. Overall, the full TN‐NPS program does well in engaging cooperators in designated priority watersheds, but most often, the engagement is through the ARCF (not the 319 Grant program). Enhanced communication between TN‐NPS and our partners is also an area that can improved upon in FFY2018.